« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT IN ACTION: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS
CHAPTER THREE: REFERRAL TO THE DRUG COURT
INTRODUCTION
3.1 The first stage in the Drug Court process involves the identification of accused who might be suitable for a Drug Court Order. The normal referral route involves a 'sifting' by the police of all custody cases against agreed criteria, followed by a review by the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal of cases identified by the police as potential candidates for the Drug Court. Cases considered by the procurator fiscal to be worthy of further consideration will be referred to the social work department 10 and the defence agent 11, and a screening group will be convened each day to discuss all the cases referred by the fiscal that day. Where cases are considered by the group to be suitable for the Drug Court, this will be brought to the attention of the custody court Sheriff by the procurator fiscal in the event of a guilty plea being tendered. If the custody court Sheriff agrees with the screening group's view, the case will be continued (normally on bail) for a period of four weeks, for social enquiry and drugs assessment reports and a drugs test. The Drug Court will then hear the case, consider the reports and sentence the offender. A key feature of the referral process is its emphasis upon 'fast-tracking' offenders to treatment. The initial screening and decision to refer to the Drug Court should be completed within 24 hours and the entire referral process within one month.
3.2 Whilst it was anticipated that the majority of referrals would follow the above process, it was also envisaged that some referrals may follow alternative routes. This might occur, for example, when guilty pleas are tendered at intermediate or trial diets, after a finding of guilt following a trial or through defence agents identifying custody cases that have not been picked up by the police sift. The evaluation therefore sought to establish the relative frequency of these different routes into the Drug Court.
POLICE INVOLVEMENT IN REFERRALS TO THE DRUG COURT
3.3 The police were expected to be the main source of referrals to the Drug Court. However, as will become evident, the number of cases 'flagged up' by the police was low relative to the capacity of the Court and only around one quarter of cases flagged by the police were referred to the Court. As one police respondent observed:
"I've never had a duty officer turn round and say to me, 'This guy is suitable for the drug court', never since I started, and neither has anyone in this department."
3.4 Members of the Supervision and Treatment Team suggested that initial referrals therefore appear to rely upon the knowledge and enthusiasm of individual police officers and that inevitably, therefore, take-up appeared to be relatively patchy across the city:
"There is a job of work to do with the community based police services… because I think they'd refer more often if they genuinely knew a client was desperate to get into drug treatment. I mean, a lot of police officers will know the ones that are genuine and the ones that aren't.".
3.5 There was a recognition within the social work team that these arrangements made it difficult to ascertain the extent to which some potential clients might be missed by the system. However, the Drug Court Co-ordinator was reasonably confident that if cases were being missed by the police, they were being picked up by the procurator fiscal.
Roles and Responsibilities
3.6 A key issue in the effectiveness of the Drug Court referral process is how information about an offender is passed among the many different officers involved, from the incident in question to the screening group. This reflects the complexity of forms of police involvement. On the street, a reporting officer (constable) has the first contact with the offender (usually to arrest them) and prepares a report on the incident for the procurator fiscal. The Duty Officer in the station (sergeant or inspector) has responsibility for that offender's stay in police custody and for determining their custody status (subject to confirmation in the case of sergeants). An officer in the case management section at divisional headquarters is responsible for quality control of all reports going to the procurator fiscal. At the Sheriff Court, a senior officer is assigned to the Drug Court and is the police representative at the vast majority of screening group meetings. An officer based in headquarters, responsible for drugs education and awareness across the force, was involved in the establishment of the Court, publicised it across the force and drew up operational guidelines, and monitors referrals overall.
3.7 A paper distributed from headquarters to duty officers explains the roles of duty and reporting officers and case management. According to this, the reporting officer is to include extra information in the standard report (previous convictions, pending cases, outstanding charges, defence agent, drug of choice, quantity and method). Having determined 'custody for court' status, the duty officer is to assist the reporting officer and ensure that the court return indicates 'consideration for Drug Court'. This assumes that reporting and duty officers are familiar with the Court's criteria. Case management are expected to provide quality control, and alert the procurator fiscal by phone of dispatch of a Drug Court referral.
Training and Information Provision
3.8 The Drug Court was highlighted on the front page of the force bulletin, which goes to all Strathclyde officers, in October 2001. Senior managers were given specific training, but responsibility for training of officers on the ground was passed to divisions and training sergeants. It is not clear the extent to which this happened, but none of the respondents on the ground 12 had received training. Duty officers felt that case examples would be helpful for them to make sense of the guidelines. In 2001, headquarters staff circulated to all duty officers a four-page paper explaining the pilot, criteria, and procedures for police reports to the procurator fiscal 13.
3.9 There was variable knowledge among duty and case management officers of the criteria; some appeared to have the information and others did not. Officers on the ground did not have 'easily digestible' information such as wall charts to remind them of Drug Court criteria. There was a general perception that officers on the ground knew very little about the Drug Court and did not understand its aims and procedures. This was confirmed by interviews with such officers. Some respondents also had experience of senior officers showing a lack of knowledge about the Drug Court - for example, when contacted about this research. On the other hand, the court officer felt that he had been well trained in relation to drugs and the Drug Court.
Recording and IT systems
3.10 Information passes through two information systems - the Drug Court system and the police system - both of which appeared to have difficulties. At no point in the police process are records kept of referrals made to the Drug Court (this being considered more appropriately a task for the Drug Court Co-ordinator) though there was a perception that some divisions made more referrals than others.
3.11 Headquarters officers identified the irregular flow of information from the court to the police as a problem, in that it may take months for a Drug Court Order to reach the criminal history system of the Scottish Criminal Record Office 14. The procurator fiscal gives feedback to case management sections about whether referrals are accepted and the Sheriff Clerk to the Drug Court provides details of all offenders on Drug Court Orders which are distributed on a monthly basis to divisional crime management officers and duty officers. Information of this kind was viewed as important both in enhancing job satisfaction and enabling officers to know which offenders in their 'patch' had received Drug Court Orders.
3.12 In terms of the police's own system, ISCJIS, a difficulty is that it has no free text field for Drug Court information, which makes it difficult for officers to record this information. Moreover, this new system was introduced at the same time as the Drug Court, which caused disruption and may have distracted officers from the Court. To date, it operates only in some divisions.
Decision making
3.13 There was a perception among all police respondents that 'the system' was not working as intended. Although it was not verified from Court records, there was agreement that most referrals had come from case management and not from duty officers. Case management saw it as duty officers' responsibility and resented having to do work that should already have been done. It appeared to be normal for the procurator fiscal's office to phone case management in each division each morning, ensuring that the highest awareness of the need to make referrals is found among case management officers.
3.14 According to duty officers, there was no shortage of drug-misusing offenders who might meet the criteria, and this was not the reason for low numbers of referrals. Among officers on the ground, however, there was a perception that reporting and duty officers were being asked to make decisions on suitability for which they are not equipped, because they were not in a position to have a dialogue with the offender. Nor did case management officers feel that they were in a position to decide on suitability, for example, to establish a link between drug use and offending. Another factor that was said to make it difficult for police officers to make referrals was the antipathy or hostility towards the police by people they arrest:
"Our role is to try and select the people who go into it, but I don't think that's the right place for us - to select who goes into a treatment like this because…we're arresting them, they're not very susceptible to any ideas that we have about their treatment."
"These people don't want anything to do with the police or anything to do with getting themselves sorted out. Maybe they should be approached by someone else rather than us."
3.15 Duty officers' reported main reason for not referring was their perceived inability to make the decision on suitability. They felt ill equipped to decide on suitability, therefore did not refer. This was partly because offenders were hostile to the police at the time of arrest and unlikely to discuss possible treatment with officers. There was a perception that the officer would have to discuss the possibility of referral with the offender. They felt they lacked clear guidelines. Other reasons given for not referring were related to:
a) their job: lack of time to deal with Drug Court referrals; being unable to know whether a case will go to summary procedure; having no final say in custody status (in satellite stations)
b) offenders: drug users do not want to stop taking drugs; many offenders are mentally ill, many offenders have an alcohol problem; some offenders live outside Glasgow
Only the final reason listed - that some offenders brought into Glasgow police stationed live outside Glasgow - appears to be a valid one; and it applies to some Divisions more than others. Nowhere in the police guidelines does it state that a reporting or duty officer has to pass on to the Fiscal any information as to the offender's willingness or suitability for treatment.
3.16 Duty officers showed lack of understanding of how the guidelines should work; for example, one was unsure whether he had to obtain the offender's consent for Drug Court referral. One duty officer explained that he was reluctant to refer in case the referral would be knocked back and he would be 'shown up'. Some duty officers expressly sought a system which sounded remarkably like the Drug Court system: that they could refer everyone who met the basic criteria as 'provisionally' suitable and let the court decide who was suitable for an Order.
3.17 Although headquarters staff and case managers believed that duty officers might be reluctant to refer because they saw the court as a 'soft option', this was not the view expressed by such officers. Duty officers supported the idea of the court as a way of reducing offending. All officers, however, could see how the Drug Court would be attractive to offenders as a way of gaining bail. Some duty officers expressed the wish to see a system in place that sounded remarkably similar to the Drug Court: a system to stop the custodial 'revolving door', in which the offender's pattern of offending and lifestyle could be taken into account rather than each offence in isolation.
THE ROLE OF PROCURATORS FISCAL IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS
3.18 The next stage in the Drug Court referral process involves the marking of custody cases referred by the police to the procurators fiscal. All cases which have been identified through the initial police sift are passed to the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal who scrutinises them to determine whether they appear to meet the criteria for the Drug Court. At this stage there is usually limited information in the police reports about the accused person's drug use. The accused person's previous convictions are therefore examined to determine whether there is a pattern of prior offending that might indicate an underlying drug problem.
3.19 Potential referrals to the Drug Court can also be identified by the team of Procurators Fiscal involved in marking custody cases. Marking deputes can refer across cases which appear to meet the criteria to the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal who will then either return the case for marking in the normal fashion or refer the accused to a screening group.
3.20 When cases are identified as suitable for referral to a screening group, the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal convenes a screening group on the same day and notifies the defence agent and the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team. The defence agent typically arranges to visit the accused to discuss the case and the possibility of referral to the Drug Court. A social worker from the Supervision and Treatment Team concurrently checks existing records for information about previous social work involvement with the accused and previous contact with drug treatment services.
THE ROLE OF THE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT TEAM IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS
3.21 The process by which potential clients are assessed and presented to the Screening Group is largely undertaken, within the Supervision and Treatment Team, by the social work staff. Although the timescale is extremely tight, background information in respect of previous presentations to social work services in the City is generally available through the Care First database. As one team member explained:
"Any client that comes into contact with an area team social work service is given a Care First number and is allocated a case file on the system. So we can access that and that's invaluable because that shows us whether the persons on probation, whether they've breached their probation order, whether they've had community service. That information in itself can be make or break for (the) screening group because obviously it can determine their suitability for referral."
3.22 However, the Care First database relates only to presentations to social work services. Information relating to other services - including health services - are sought separately:
"What we do is, we try - and we almost certainly always get - the last social enquiry report referring to the client… We'd be on the phone to health services prior to the screening group, we wouldn't necessarily be in a position to phone the GP… because we don't have the time."
3.23 Background information is supplemented by a face-to-face interview with the client, generally in the cells. Again, the time available is limited and it is rarely possible for staff to undertake a detailed assessment of need. Most staff, however, felt that the process, though restricted, was adequate:
"We normally… have to turn it around in an hour or two… between the point the referral is made and the actual screening group. But I think that's an invaluable two hours or so. I think you can get a lot out of a person, even in a ten, fifteen minute interview."
SCREENING GROUP MEETINGS
3.24 Screening group meetings - described by one respondent as " our secondary gate-keeping system after the fiscal's screen, to make sure that only appropriate cases get through" - included the procurator fiscal, who chaired the meeting, a police Chief Inspector (the deputy officer in charge of the courts branch), social worker and defence agent. Occasionally, an addiction worker was also present. Meetings generally lasted around 20 minutes, although they did occasionally extend to 40 minutes. They usually dealt with one case. Observation of three screening group meetings by one of the researchers suggested that the atmosphere is informal and constructive.
3.25 The normal format was for the social worker to report on the accused person's drug history and present use, and history of offending. The defence agent may or may not contribute depending on their level of knowledge of the accused, which could be very variable. The police officer stated concerns about the accused person's suitability. The procurator fiscal stated any concerns, facilitated a general discussion of the case, and then reached a conclusion. The meetings were also an opportunity for the defence agent and fiscal to negotiate over pleas and outstanding charges.
3.26 Each professional tended to highlight certain aspects of the case or issues relating to the accused. Typically, social workers and defence agents highlighted circumstances such as a stable home life, previous drug free periods, and underlying causes of drug abuse that could be tackled by intervention (e.g. childhood abuse). The procurator fiscal's and police officer's concerns generally related to previous convictions involving violence (which often suggested unsuitability), road traffic offences, or drug dealing. The police officer generally expressed concerns over the level of maturity or commitment to change on the part of the accused. There tended to be a debate between social work and the police over the accused person's suitability. The procurator fiscal appeared usually to support the social work view, provided there was a commitment to provide adequate support, due to the social worker's greater knowledge of the accused.
3.27 The court officer perceived the screening group meetings as a unique opportunity for the police to have their views heard by Procurators Fiscal and the court. However this was a new role and one that was taking time to negotiate; for example, the police officer could 'express concern' but could not 'disagree' with others on the group. In the screening group, the police officer received his information on the accused from the procurator fiscal. The police officer generally had little knowledge of the accused person's background and personal circumstances, nor of the incident. The police officer may be asked for more information by the procurator fiscal but may have difficulty obtaining this from Divisional Intelligence. S/he has no contact with the reporting officer. It was suggested by headquarters staff that lower ranking (reporting or duty) officers should attend the screening group, because they are more likely to communicate directly with (or to be) reporting officers and hence to have knowledge of the offender's background and circumstances. However, the shift system operated by the police appeared to make such an arrangement impractical. That said, more recent screening group meetings had been attended by a lower ranking police officer who was able to provide a greater input into the group.
3.28 Professionals involved with the Drug Court felt that the Screening Group was effective in filtering out inappropriate referrals, and there was a broad agreement that the Screening Group was a vital element in the assessment system:
" Actually, we can have quite detailed and in-depth discussions about the persons background, the persons personal circumstances. And the interesting thing is, this is from social work, the Crown, the PF, (the) police are present and so is the person's legal representative, so it's actually quite a balanced discussion."
"I feel that they are very effective. So far, if I can remember correctly, of all the referrals I have received personally, only in one case did I feel that he was not suitable for the treatment we provide".
3.29 One team manager noted that attendance was crucial to the successful operation of the system:
"Non attendance (or) delays are very unfortunate… the person has been arrested the day before, held over on custody overnight. The PF's got to invite the social work, the police and get the lawyer to attend. I think it's very important that everybody does attend because there could be information that's not disclosed".
PERSPECTIVES ON THE DRUG COURT REFERRAL CRITERIA
Police perspectives
3.30 Officers who had made referrals believed that the most common reason for a procurator fiscal to refuse a referral was because the offender had charges on indictment. One officer's sole referral had been refused because the main drug used was cocaine, a criterion the officer reported not having been aware of. One community officer felt that he was restricted in not being able to refer if the most recent offence was not acquisitive, even if the offender would otherwise be suitable and had a history of acquisitive crime. These observations by the police indicate their lack of familiarity with the Drug Court Criteria.
3.31 Case managers varied in the number of referrals they made, but those who referred more appeared to adopt an approach of 'if in doubt, refer' to fit the criteria. In relation to age, drug type and number of convictions, case managers were already being flexible with the guidelines. The main reason for not referring given by case managers was pressure of work.
3.32 All police officers said they viewed women no differently from men as regards suitability, but recognised that more women went through the district court route. Suggestions made by referring officers were that the following groups of offenders should be included as potential candidates: shoplifters dealt with in the district court (particularly as outside Glasgow they would find themselves in the Sheriff Court - this was the one suggestion supported by the court officer); offenders with problematic cannabis use; offenders under 21 years of age; and offenders with less than the 'recommended' 16 convictions. Generally speaking, officers on the ground did not appreciate the distinction between drug use towards which treatment programmes were geared and that which was not. They also believe that intervention should be aimed at offenders before they become 'hardened' criminals (i.e. as a pre-prosecution rather than post-prosecution intervention).
3.33 At the screening group stage, the court officer operated with a second informal set of criteria, which include the offender's employment situation, likely level of commitment to treatment, home situation and family support. S/he would be concerned if an offender had an unstable lifestyle, and/or a history of non-acquisitive crime. These criteria were applied to 'filter out' offenders who are more likely to fail, in order to maximise the court's success rate. Contrary to the view of other police respondents, the court officer believed older offenders (over 30) were more suitable, because they had a better chance of success.
Supervision and Treatment Team
3.34 Staff in both the health and social work sections of the Supervision and Treatment Team voiced their concerns that women offenders - whose offences would predominantly be dealt with through the District Courts - might not be picked up as appropriate referrals:
"Well I think again at the moment, we're missing a lot of women through the district court… I suppose that's something that hopefully they would resolve in the pilot. A number are prostituting to support their habit … and women tend to go to prison for non-payment of fines so it's not identified as to what the fine is imposed for in the first place."
"The pilot for the drug court is only (for) people coming through the Sheriff's court and any women offenders who come through the district court (because of things like prostitution and you know, different things like that), are not being able to access and have the treatment, which is very unfortunate. A lot of women out there (are) at risk, whether that's something that will change after the pilot, I don't know."
Shrieval perspectives
3.35 Sheriffs who sat in the Sheriff Court had mixed views about the whether or not it was appropriate for offenders under 21 years of age to be dealt with by the Drug Court. On one hand, there was the view that age brought maturity that in turn would contribute to motivation to complete an Order successfully:
"Quite frankly the experience seems to have shown that at the age of twenty-one these can be the Orders which don't have a high success rate. It tends to be that when people are rather maturer they tend to possibly realise do I really want to do this with my life and do I really want to break the cycle of offending realising A they're got a problem and B this isn't a big joke spending time in prison and they're not in fact doing what they want to do, they spend their lives doing and so they've got to take a grip. But often they don't have that realisation until they're a bit older so I think as I understand it experience has shown that that's the case."
3.36 On the other hand, there was the view that, to pragmatically increase the number of Orders made, a wider pool of offenders needed to be drawn upon eventually. Such a widening of the net for the Drug Court could involve lowering the age of clients:
"Well I think it's very appropriate, at least for the pilot project but hopefully it would be extended .. I'm not convinced that we should have restricted it to twenty-one and above, I rather think eighteen or above, arguably even sixteen, but certainly eighteen or above would have been appropriate."
3.37 There was also the view among the Sheriffs that widening access of the Drug Court, after the pilot stage, could also include the consideration of lower tariff offenders:
"Offenders who haven't quite got to the stage of the ones who are actually being referred to the Drug Court because any that I've seen being referred when I've been in custody duty have been sort of five and six pages of previous convictions, it would be helpful to get them - if it's successful I think it would be preferable to get them before they reach that stage."
3.38 Drug Court Sheriffs described the Drug Court criteria as realistic and appropriate, and believed that the referral process had been effective in identifying suitable offenders for a Drug Court Order. They believed that the target group of offenders for the Drug Court was appropriate for both logistical and therapeutic reasons. On the logistical side it was essential that a mechanism was in place to limit the number of cases referred to the Drug Court. On the therapeutic side, the Sheriffs observed that offenders under 21 years of age were unlikely to have reached the stage where they would be sufficiently motivated to come off drugs, nor were they likely to have the maturity to cope with the Drug Court regime. As one Sheriff explained:
"…Sadly, the experience of not just this jurisdiction but other jurisdictions is that people will not be motivated until they have hit rock bottom, absolutely rock bottom… The kind of people who are coming off drugs are over 21, sometimes a little bit older than that, who have simply reached the stage where they just can't face it any more."
3.39 Sheriffs recognised that the proportion of women on Orders was relatively low. They attributed this to the fact that women who used drugs were often involved in offences such as prostitution, which were dealt with by the district court.
3.40 The Drug Court Sheriffs were agreed that the referral process had proved effective in screening out offenders with a dual diagnosis of mental health problems and drug misuse since no-one with mental health problems had appeared before the Drug Court. They acknowledged, however, that mental health problems that had been hidden might emerge among some Drug Court clients as treatment progressed.
PATTERN OF REFERRALS TO THE DRUG COURT
3.41 Information was obtained from the monitoring data gathered by the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal about the number of cases referred to the Drug Court since its introduction (in the week beginning 15 October 2001) until the week beginning 6 May 2002, their referral routes and their outcomes. During this period a total of 3,272 offenders were detained in police custody. One hundred and one accused were 'flagged up' in the police report to the procurator fiscal as being potentially suitable for the Drug Court, 28 of whom (28%) were referred to a screening group. Twenty-four accused were identified as possibly suitable for the Drug Court by their defence agent and eleven of this group (46%) were referred to a screening group. Twenty-six other accused were referred to a screening group by the procurator fiscal, having been identified during the marking of custody cases, ten had been referred by a Sheriff and two had been referred by another (unrecorded) source. In total, therefore, 77 cases were referred to a screening group during the relevant period. Of these, 36 per cent were identified by the police, 34 per cent by the marking depute, 14 per cent by a defence agent, 13 per cent by a Sheriff and three per cent by another source.
3.42 Sixteen cases referred to the screening group (21%) were considered unsuitable for the Drug Court: the majority of cases, therefore (61 accused or 79%), were considered suitable and were brought to the attention of the custody court as potentially suitable for the Drug Court. The reasons for accused being considered unsuitable for the Drug Court are summarised in Table 3.1. These data suggest that the criteria for inclusion in the Drug Court - i.e. accused with an established pattern of drug-related offending and without mental health problems appearing before the custody court - were being applied. It is also worth noting that accused were not always considered unsuitable for 'negative reasons'. For example, in two cases the link between the person's offending and drug was not established while in three cases accused who were considered potentially suitable for the Drug Court were found already to be receiving appropriate support.
Table 3.1: Reasons for accused being considered unsuitable for the Drug Court
Reason for unsuitability | Number of cases (n=16)15 |
Not suitable after assessment | 3 |
Already receiving support | 3 |
Insufficient link between drugs and offending | 2 |
History of mental illness | 2 |
No new offence (detained on warrant) | 1 |
Didn't start as a custody court case | 1 |
Alcohol addiction | 1 |
Continued to the Drug Court by another Sheriff | 1 |
No address | 1 |
Not pleading guilty | 1 |
Received a custodial sentence at the District Court | 1 |
REFERRALS FOR A DRUG COURT ASSESSMENT
3,43 Monitoring data collected by the Drug Court Co-ordinator showed that by the middle of May 2002, 68 cases had been referred for a Drug Court assessment, 61 via a screening group and seven by an alternative (unspecified) route. Seven of those referred were women and 61 were men. The route of cases to the Drug Court is shown in Figure 3.1:
Figure 3.1: The route of cases to the Drug Court
3.44 In the event of a case being referred for an assessment, sentence is deferred (normally for four weeks) and the offender is bailed. It is considered important that the individual is released on bail during this period to assess their ability and motivation to comply with the relevant agencies. During the period of deferment a Social Enquiry Report and Drugs Assessment Report are prepared and a drug test is administered.
3.45 A key feature of the referral process is its emphasis upon 'fast-tracking' offenders to treatment. The initial screening and decision to refer to the Drug Court should be completed within 24 hours and the entire referral process within one month. The monitoring data collected by the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team provided a limited indication of the extent to which deadlines for the processing of referrals were being met.
3.46 Between 11 October 2001 and 22 March 2002, 36 completed assessment reports were submitted to the Drug Court (i.e. where a report was available in full). Of these reports, 30 (83%) resulted in a Drug Court Order being made. Of the 36 reports 16 were completed in time for the first calling (generally four weeks after the referral date), nine were submitted late and data was not logged for eleven reports. For those nine reports that were submitted late, the length of reported delay ranged from one week to 12 weeks, with an average of six weeks' delay. Furthermore, review dates were revised in nine cases (25%) and while the assessment reports were available on the revised dates, no information is available as to the reasons for these revisions.
3.47 The Drug Court Sheriffs indicated that all of the required reports were usually made available for a person's first calling to the Drug Court. Staff shortages in the Supervision and Treatment Team through illness had resulted in reports sometimes not being available and the case being continued, though this problem had been addressed through the appointment of additional social workers to the team. The Sheriffs also noted that reports were sometimes not available because offenders had failed to attend appointments or had been remanded in custody for other charges. Where reports were not available, therefore, the Sheriffs were content that this was for reasons that were outwith anyone's control.
3.48 Of the 52 referrals in respect of whom information was available from the Supervision and Treatment Team, 16 assessments had not reached a satisfactory completion at the date of first calling. One offender had started a custodial sentence for a historical offence, five were in custody, warrants for arrest had been issued for eight offenders and two had failed to attend any appointments with the Supervision and Treatment Team.
3.49 Some members of the Supervision and Treatment Team members were concerned by a reported failure of many clients to present as instructed for their first assessment appointment:
"A major issue is the number of referrals who don't attend the first appointment. This is a major waste of resources. There are doctors and nurses waiting here to see them and their time is wasted when people don't turn up. My figures show that from the 16 th March we had 14 new referrals from the Drug Court, out of which only 7 attended for their first appointment. Over the same period we had 23 referrals from other courts, from which only 12 attended. That is an approximate 50 per cent rate of non-attendance… That is a considerable waste of time and needs to be tackled."
3.49 In part, this difficulty may arise out of the client's capacity to take in and understand the instructions s/he is given at the initial court appearance where s/he may often be either in an intoxicated state or in the early stages of physical withdrawal:
"A lot of clients will turn up in court either under the influence or you know they're carrying a package and presuming that they may be sent down rather than be released."
3.50 One social work assistant had adopted a very pragmatic way of resolving this difficulty. When possible, he simply attended the initial hearing and then escorted the new client to the Team offices immediately afterwards. It was not clear to what extent this informal arrangement could be generalised across the Team:
" If they're bailed for assessment to make direct contact with them and if possible get them straight up here to initiate their first interviews. But that's only if I'm in court."
3.51 Members of the Supervision and Treatment Team members expressed quite mixed views and opinions regarding the capacity of the Team to respond to urgent need by turning assessments around more quickly. Some felt that a period of reflection provided a useful test of motivation whilst others argued that treatment should begin as quickly as possible:
"There is not enough team work, there is not enough immediate access to treatment. There is no immediate access to the type of treatment that the clients need to stabilise their drug use."
3,52 One Team manager indicated a willingness to reduce the time spent by clients on assessment:
"I do think that there is scope to close down the four week assessment seriously. You actually limit the amount of time that someone's waiting for treatment. If there is scope to do that then I would, during the course of the pilot, obviously want to try and effect that"
3.53 The Drug Court Sheriffs expressed concern at the length of the assessment period since the experience of other jurisdictions had shown that it was important for offenders to be assessed and given access to treatment as quickly as possible. While offenders were being assessed for the Drug Court they were not receiving treatment and it was therefore highly likely that they would continue to offend. As one Sheriff explained, with reference to someone upon whom sentence had been deferred for assessment:
"… two weeks later he was up in front of me in the Drug Court having been arrested for stealing a pair of trousers. I explained to him that he was not making it easy for me because I was letting him out on bail and he was offending again… And he asked me if he could say something and I obviously said yes, and he said "What do you think I do? I'm an addict - of course I go out and steal! You say I need help. I think I need help! You say we'll assess you, we'll take four weeks to assess you and then we'll give you help. What do you think I'm going to do in the meantime? If I could stop it I would. If I could stop it I wouldn't be here. If I could stop it I wouldn't need any help. In the meantime I've got an 80 a day habit. What do you think I do?"
3.54 Whilst the Sheriffs would welcome as short an assessment period as possible they were also aware that a thorough assessment would take some time to complete and that it would be unrealistic to expect that one could be undertaken in less than two weeks. They also suggested that extra resources would need to be made available to the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team if the assessment period was to be reduced since the Team was already perceived as working to full capacity.
SUMMARY
3.55 When the Drug Court was established it was envisaged that the main referral route would be through the 'flagging up' of custody cases by the police. In practice, however, just over one-third of the cases referred to a screening group were identified in this way. Initial referrals appeared to rely upon the knowledge and enthusiasm of individual police officers and were, therefore, variable across the city. It also appeared that police officers were not fully conversant with the Drug Court referral criteria.
3.56 Cases considered potentially suitable for the Drug Court by the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal were referred to a screening group attended by the Fiscal, the defence agent, a social worker, a police officer and, on occasion, an addiction worker. The screening group was viewed as an effective mechanism for filtering out inappropriate referrals.
3.57 The Drug Court referral criteria were thought by most of those associated with the Drug Court as realistic and appropriate, especially since offenders under 21 years of age were unlikely to be sufficiently motivated or mature to cope with the Drug Court regime. Some concern was expressed that women were not being referred in sufficient numbers because their offences were often deal with by the district court.
3.58 By early May 2002, 77 cases had been referred to a screening group, 61 of whom were considered potentially suitable for the Drug Court. It appeared that the criteria were being appropriately applied in the filtering out of inappropriate cases at this stage. Sixty-eight cases in total had been referred for a Drug Court assessment: 61 via a screening group and seven through an alternative route.
3.59 Whilst assessment reports were usually available at the first calling of the case in the Drug Court, this sometimes did not happen as a result of staff shortages, or the failure of the individual to attend the assessment appointments. There was a general desire among those involved in the Drug Court to reduce the four-week assessment period, though this was not considered to be feasible within existing resources.
« Previous | Contents | Next »