« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT IN ACTION: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
7.1 The pilot Drug Court in Glasgow aims to reduce the level of drug related offending, and reduce or eliminate offenders' dependence on or propensity to use drugs. The impetus for the establishment of a pilot Drug Court in Glasgow arose from an increasing recognition of the link between drugs misuse and crime, coupled with a growing knowledge base of the efficacy of drug treatment, including coerced treatment rather than services accessed on a voluntary basis. The introduction of the new Drug Court as a pilot in Glasgow followed the report of a Working Group which concluded in May 2001 that the establishment and operation of a Drug Court in Glasgow was feasible within existing legislation.
7.2 The detailed nature of both the Report of the Working Group and the Reference Manual that describes the procedures to be adopted by the Drug Court in Glasgow, were felt by the Drug Court Team and Sheriffs elsewhere in the Glasgow Sheriff Court to offer a transparent and clear view of the aims and objectives of the newly established court and the procedures relating to the criteria for screening suitable clients for Drug Court Orders. Public confidence was perceived by the Drug Court professionals to be important and it was noted that the largely positive media reporting about the Drug Court in Glasgow during this initial period had contributed to a public confidence in the Drug Court and its Orders being a legitimate alternative to custody, that it was not a 'soft option', and that drug misusing offenders did not present a 'danger' to the public.
7.3 In this final chapter we summarise the key conclusions that can be reached on the basis of the evaluation to date and identify a number of issues that will require consideration over the remaining duration of the pilot Drug Court in Glasgow.
THE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DRUG COURT
Referrals
7.4 Of all cases referred to a screening group during the research period, 36 per cent were identified by the police, 34 per cent by the marking Fiscal Depute, 14 per cent by a defence agent, 13 per cent by a Sheriff and three per cent by other sources. The research highlighted a general perception among police officers that the Drug Court has potential, but that the referral system, as operated by the police, is not working effectively. Fewer referrals are being made by the police than might be anticipated, and referrals are coming, not from duty officers who are in direct contact with the offender and reporting officer, but from divisional case management officers. Duty officers are not referring for reasons that are difficult to understand in the context of police guidelines; the main reason appears to be based on a misunderstanding of their role. There is a low level of awareness among officers on the street or in the station of the aims and procedures of the Drug Court. Difficulties have arisen, not due to a lack of clear criteria, but as a result of the need for clear explanation of roles and responsibilities at different stages of the process. Additionally, police input to the screening group is by an officer who receives reports via the Fiscal and has little contact with reporting officers or offenders. However, officers at all levels noted their support for the establishment of the Drug Court and its aims. Police respondents noted that they would support the extension of the Drug Court to offenders with less well-established patterns of offending.
7.5 From an analysis of the views of police officers, it is possible to suggest that the referral system could be improved by a combination of the following:
- a substantial programme of training at local level
- clarification of the precise role of duty officers in relation to the criteria
- improved mechanisms for feedback to reporting officers
- improved systems for updating SCRO records
- involvement of reporting and duty officers in the screening group
- a clear display of senior officer commitment to the court.
Referral Process
7.6 Referrals to the Drug Court are considered at the Screening Group, convened by the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal with a range of relevant professionals in attendance. There was evidence that the pilot Drug Court during its first six months was working well with the highest level of commitment and motivation across all the professional disciplines of the Drug Court Team (and, indeed, the offenders themselves on Orders). By the second month of operation a steady and sustained flow of referrals was being processed through the Screening Group. Sentencers and other professionals believed that the Screening process was of a high quality and that concerns about dual diagnosis, maturity of candidates and motivation to access and complete drug treatment programmes were being satisfactorily assessed. While the Screening Group operates to strict criteria for eligibility, there was some support for widening that criteria to include eighteen to twenty-one year olds and lower-tariff offenders, particularly women who are often dealt with by the district court. However, those most closely associated with the operation of the court believed the existing referral criteria to be appropriate and realistic.
7.7 Overall, there appeared to be a general satisfaction that the Screening Group was effective in identifying suitable cases for referral on to the Drug Court, with 79 per cent of cases which were considered by the Screening Group going before the custody court as potentially suitable for the Drug Court. However, offenders often failed to attend appointments during the assessment period, suggesting that in some cases their primary motivation in agreeing to be assessed was avoiding custody. It would be beneficial if refinements could be made in the referral process in order that offenders who are thus motivated were 'sifted out' before being bailed for four weeks for a full Drug Court assessment to be made. A significant amount of resources were being spent on the referral process and partial assessments that were not going to result in a Drug Court Order being made.
7.8 Whilst Orders appeared to be made on 'appropriate' offenders, the limited available information about offenders who did not get Drug Court Orders made it impossible to assess how they compared, even on basic variables such as criminal history and history of drug use. It is recommended that monitoring systems are improved over the forthcoming months for the purposes of the final evaluation.
Assessment period
7.9 While 'fast-tracking' is a key element of the referral process, only 39 per cent of full assessment reports appeared to have been made available to the court within the four-week assessment period. There are many reasons for reports being delayed, not least the failure of offenders to attend for assessments. Similarly, review dates may be revised for various reasons, thus delaying sentencing itself. However, Drug Court Sheriffs were satisfied that reports were usually make available when required, a situation enhanced by the appointment of additional social workers to the team.
7.10 Sheriffs and Drug Court clients both noted that the four-week period was useful in enabling the full and thorough assessment of clients in order to establish their suitability for Drug Court Orders, and to ensure that clients were fully informed about the requirements they would be expected to meet. However, it was recognised that this was a difficult time for offenders, who were generally released on bail with a requirement that they did not re-offend yet who were unable to access treatment during this four-week period. Drug Court Sheriffs and clients were keen to see the assessment period kept to a necessary minimum, though a reduction in the assessment period would be difficult within the existing staffing resources of the Supervision and Treatment Team.
Workload and capacity
7.11 The Glasgow Drug Court was staffed by a dedicated team of two Sheriffs, a procurator fiscal, a Co-ordinator and a Supervision and Treatment Team consisting of a team leader, supervising social workers, addiction workers, treatment providers and medical staff. A multi-agency Drug Court Team had been established to review the working, development and operation of the Drug Court. The target of 200 Orders during the pilot was contested within the multi-agency setting: whether this referred to an absolute number of Orders (for example, the first client of the Drug Court received 6 Drug Court DTTOs, a practice which subsequently was not repeated during the initial period), or whether it referred to 200 offenders on Orders as an expected capacity.
7.12 There were notable differences in experiences and views within the professionals about the workload, and what capacity was achievable (and desirable) for the Drug Court. Sheriffs working in the Drug Court wanted as many 'customers' as possible and were flexible about the working hours of afternoon court to accommodate increased numbers. Sheriffs from elsewhere in the Court felt that to significantly impact on the Glasgow drugs and crime problem, there would need to be either greater throughput of offenders or more Drug Courts in the area.
7.13 Social workers and addiction workers reported being already hard-pressed. The Drug Court Treatment and Supervision Team was built upon the existing DTTO team in the Glasgow City Council Social Work Department. The existing demands placed by Drug Court Orders and by a perceived increase in DTTOs made by the Sheriff Court were contributing to low morale and a feeling of being overloaded by the frequency of client appointments required. This resulted in staff taking 'shortcuts', such as using information directly from reports prepared by other professionals rather than providing an integrated summary of the relevant material. The increase in the staffing level of the Supervision and Treatment Team over the period of the pilot was intended to relieve the 'high' workloads of some staff in meeting the demands of the current moderate capacity level.
7.14 Offenders perceived the Orders as weak in the development of the social and educational aspects of their lifestyle change. Boredom was frequently cited by the offenders within reviews (often at a time when drug use had been stabilised or significantly reduced). The experience and impact of the Drug Court Orders was felt by offenders to be limited by professionals 'not listening' to their aspirations and being focused rigidly on their drug treatment. It is suggested that greater emphasis should be placed on activities aimed at promoting social inclusion and occupying clients' time more effectively, and that there should be a greater degree of consultation with clients in order that the services provided might more fully meet their needs.
Reviews and enforcement
7.15 Pre-court review meetings were perceived to be a beneficial component to the process of supervising and treating clients on Drug Court Orders. The thorough private exchanges of information around the multi-agency table, chaired by the Drug Court Sheriff, informed and shaped the nature of the dialogue presented at the review with the client. While some offenders wished they were able to attend pre-court review meetings, all were confident that their progress was discussed in a fair and appropriate manner.
7.16 Review meetings were held in open court, a transparency that was perceived by the Drug Court Sheriffs as valuable to maintaining public confidence in the Glasgow Drug Court in its pilot stage. Sheriff-Client dialogues were at the heart of reviews, ranging from 20 per cent to all of the review time. The sentencers on their side generally offered words of encouragement, regardless of progress, and the clients on their side were honest, responsive and usually co-operative. The concept of drug use as a relapsing condition was recognised by Drug Court Sheriffs and emphasised particularly in shrieval dialogue.
7.17 Supervision and Treatment Team workers took active steps to respond to instances of non-compliance. The Drug Court Sheriffs had a number of sanctions without recourse to formal breach proceedings, although sentencers believed that the range of actions currently available to the Drug Court was insufficient and would welcome the option of a 'short, sharp sentence' to punish non-compliance while allowing an Order to continue. During the first six months of the pilot Drug Court in action, only one Order had been breached and Drug Court Sheriffs had made very few amendments to Orders to encourage compliance.
Professional roles
7.18 The process whereby an offender is assessed, screened, placed upon a treatment Order, monitored, supervised, regularly reviewed and, eventually, either discharged or breached, is a relatively complex one. A range of different professionals are involved at different stages of the process and there was, generally speaking, only limited understanding of other parts of the whole amongst those whose responsibilities were restricted to a specific element (or elements) of that process.
7.19 Staff within the Treatment and Supervision Team, whether addiction workers, social workers or health workers, were generally clear and sanguine about their own role within the process, although some social workers were uncomfortable about assuming a case-manager role and expressed regret that their role left little opportunity for actual case-work. However, staff were less clear about the roles played by the other disciplines.
7.20 There was some evidence that the role of addiction workers in particular was not clearly understood or appreciated by other team members. During the course of this evaluation, addiction workers were variously referred to as 'counsellors', 'drug workers' and 'drug counsellors'. Clearly, where even the job title is the subject of confusion, perception of job content is likely to even less appreciated. Some respondents suggested that the addiction workers were pivotal to the success of Orders but that they tended to be under-valued.
7.21 There was a feeling, throughout most of the interviews, of what one respondent described as, "that bit of, my bit being more important than your bit." Whilst a certain amount of professional jealousy provides a useful stimulus to multi-agency working, the views recorded during this evaluation suggested a more unhealthy inter-disciplinary rivalry.
7.22 Some resentment was also expressed by staff in the social work and addiction work sections of the team about the fact that salary levels, whilst commensurate with that of other relevant professionals, failed to adequately reflect the increased workload and responsibility. Within the health service section of the team, this issue was not raised. Indeed, the level of nursing cover appeared generous in comparison to other grade arrangements elsewhere within the NHS.
Enhancing multi-agency working
7.23 Multi-agency working was a serious concern for virtually every team member interviewed. There was a general recognition that the various disciplines involved were not working together as well as might have been hoped. In general, senior members of the team appeared to feel that divisions were manageable and would be "ironed out" in time.
7.24 Maingrade workers however, were far less sanguine about the prospects for improved joint-working. Staff within the addiction and social work section of the team in particular, felt that there were fundamental differences in approach to treatment philosophy that could not be breached.
7.25 It was not entirely clear to what extent these difficulties and divisions were intrinsic and to what extent they were exacerbated by high workload and acknowledged understaffing. What was clear, was that these problems were having a serious impact upon staff morale (and possibly upon quality of service) and will require a concerted input from the project management team to ensure that a clear structure is provided within which philosophical and practical disagreements can be considered and resolved.
7.26 During the review, many of these tensions were attributed to inadequate premises, understaffing, and even, on one occasion, "growing pains". However, as these problems are addressed through the re-siting of the team and recruitment of additional staff, conflict issues will inevitable become more critical.
7.27 Even so, given likely activity levels over the remainder of the pilot period, the pursuit of an all-encompassing staff meeting as a vehicle for the resolution of inter-professional divisions is almost certainly a chimera, and more organic and pragmatic methods of encouraging and enhancing joint-working will need to be employed.
7.28 Action is, therefore, required to resolve divisions and discontent within the Treatment and Supervision Team and should include as a minimum:
- the establishment of clear management arrangements for the whole team
- development of multi-disciplinary working practice
- management prioritisation of multi-disciplinary case-management for all clients
- centralised diarising and recording arrangements
- improved technology and technology training to facilitate co-authored report writing
7.29 All of these issues will require clear leadership and prioritisation at management level and there is an urgent need to examine staffing and workload levels, grading and division of responsibilities in the light of experience thus far.
Operational objectives of the Drug Court
7.30 Operational objectives for the Drug Court Sheriffs were to keep offenders out of prison in order that they might receive help with their drug problem, and to establish a constructive environment to enable offenders to respond positively to the help that was made available to them through a Drug Court Order.
7.31 It appeared from the limited information thus far available that Drug Court Orders were being imposed upon offenders who would otherwise be at risk of a custodial sentence. Drug Court Sheriffs believed that sentencing decisions were better informed than in the Sheriff Court because assessment reports for the Drug Court were more comprehensive and focused. They also expressed satisfaction with the range of disposals available to them at the sentencing stage. While deferred sentences were seen as affording Drug Court Sheriffs some flexibility in sentencing, they expressed reservations about the appropriateness of Restriction of Liberty Orders (RLOs) in dealing with drug court clients.
7.32 Drug testing was seen as a positive element of Drug Court Orders by Sheriffs and service users. Indeed all drug court client respondents noted that they considered drug testing to be an important part of their Order and one which was necessary to help them reduce or end their use of illicit drugs.
7.33 Drug Court clients were very positive about the impact of the Drug Court on their drug use and offending. All respondents noted that they were no longer offending to support their drug use and had considerably reduced (or ended) their use of illicit drugs. Drug court clients also commented on the significant impact that a Drug Court Order had had on their lives, enhancing relationships with their families and resulting in considerable improvements in their health and appearance. It was noted that increased support with employment and training opportunities may be useful as drug use is reduced, in order to alleviate boredom.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
7.34 The commissioning of an independent evaluation of the pilot Drug Court in Glasgow was essential to determine whether the operation of the Drug Court is viable within the Scottish context. The formative and process evaluation of the first six months of the pilot Drug Court in action suggests that the initiative has largely been a success, with the role of the Drug Court Sheriffs having been critical in this respect. Overall, the Glasgow Drug Court was perceived to be very effective in providing a resource for drug-using offenders. The dedicated team and resources were viewed as a positive contribution to the reduction of drug-related offences in Glasgow.
« Previous | Contents | Next »