« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
RECONVICTION FOLLOWING DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAIN FINDINGS
- The reconviction rate and frequency of reconviction were lower among those who completed their orders than among those whose orders were revoked. Despite having extensive prior criminal histories, almost half of those who completed their orders (48%) had no further convictions within two years.
- The percentage of offenders convicted in the two-year period after being placed on a DTTO was lower than the percentage convicted in the two years before. The decrease in the conviction rate was particularly marked among those who completed their orders.
- The frequency of reconviction was lower in the two-year period after being placed on a DTTO than in the two years before. The decrease in the frequency of reconviction was particularly pronounced among those who completed their DTTOs.
- Forty-one per cent of offenders given DTTOs were reconvicted within 12 months and 66 per cent within 24 months of the order being made.
- The average amount of time to elapse until the first conviction after being made subject to a DTTO was approximately 43 weeks.
- The majority of new convictions were for relatively minor offences. They most commonly related to offences of dishonesty, public order offences and offences against justice (such as breaches of bail).
- Offenders in Fife were less likely to complete their DTTOs. They more likely to be reconvicted, were reconvicted sooner and were reconvicted of more offences than offenders in Glasgow. Given that offenders in both sites had similar criminal histories, it is likely that aspects of the DTTO regime were responsible for these differences.
INTRODUCTION
Drug Treatment and Testing Orders were introduced in the UK through provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They aim to provide courts with a community-based option to deal more effectively with drug users who commit crimes to fund their habits. Offenders who consent to an order being made are required by the court to undergo treatment for their drug misuse. DTTOs, which can be imposed alongside a probation order or as a 'stand-alone' option, differed from existing provisions in a number of important respects:
- the role of the supervising officer (probation officer or social worker) is limited
- mandatory drug testing is an integral part of the order
- the courts have the power to review orders on a regular (but not more than monthly) basis.
The first Scottish pilot scheme was established in Glasgow in October 1999 when DTTOs became available to the Glasgow Sheriff, Stipendiary Magistrate and (subsequently) High Courts. A second pilot scheme was introduced in July 2000 in Fife when DTTOs were made available to Cupar, Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy Sheriff Courts. DTTOs have subsequently been rolled out to other Scottish courts and are now available across the country.
An initial evaluation of the Scottish pilots focused upon their first 12 months of operation and was only able to examine the process and initial outcomes achieved by the schemes (Eley et. al, 2002). It suggested that the schemes had been successful in reducing drug use and associated offending in the short term. However, it was conducted within a relatively short timescale, which did not enable the longer-term impact of DTTOs on recidivism to be assessed.
The present study was commissioned to assess whether DTTOs in the Scottish pilots were successful in reducing recidivism. It focused upon those offenders made subject to DTTOs in Glasgow and Fife in the first two years' operation of these schemes.
METHODS
The reconviction analysis concentrated upon the rate, frequency and nature of convictions among those given DTTOs prior to and following their orders. The relevant data were provided by the Justice Statistics Unit of the Scottish Executive for a total of 214 offenders (102 in Glasgow and 112 in Fife). Twelve-month reconviction data were available for all cases and two-year follow-up data were available for 188 cases. By examining the charge dates it was possible to exclude from the analysis 'pseudo-reconviction' - 'new' convictions that actually related to charges that pre-dated the index sentence. While this approach is not perfect - the charge date will not necessarily equate with the date of the offence - it ensures that most pseudo-reconvictions are excluded.
FINDINGS
Criminal histories of those given a DTTO
Offenders given DTTOs had an average of 18 previous convictions and 4.5 previous custodial sentences, indicating that the order was being targeted upon high tariff offenders. The criminal histories of offenders from Fife and Glasgow were very similar. Offenders whose orders were revoked (for a breach of conditions or other reasons) had more previous convictions and had served, on average, more sentences of imprisonment than those who successfully completed their orders.
Rate of reconviction
With the data adjusted to exclude pseudo-reconvictions the reconviction rates after 12 and 24 months were 41 per cent and 66 per cent respectively and the imprisonment rates over the same periods were 21 and 39 per cent.
Reconviction rates were lower among those who completed their DTTOs than among those whose orders were revoked. For example, 52 per cent of completers had been reconvicted within two years compared with 79 per cent of non-completers. Similarly, 21 per cent of completers had been imprisoned for a new offence within two years compared with 57 per cent of non-completers.
Reconviction rates were slightly lower in Glasgow than in Fife, especially the rate of reconviction in the first 12 months following the making of a DTTO, where 34 per cent of offenders in Glasgow and 47 per cent of those in Fife were reconvicted. After two years, the reconviction rates for the two schemes were 62 and 71 per cent respectively.
The percentage of offenders convicted in the 24 months after being made subject to a DTTO was lower than the percentage convicted in the two year period immediately preceding the DTTO. Whilst this was also true for non-completers (and may reflect the fact that many would not have been at liberty for substantial parts of the follow-up period) it was particularly marked for those who completed their DTTOs. Whilst 88 per cent of this group had been convicted of an offence in the two years prior to their DTTO, only 52 per cent were reconvicted in the two years after.
Time to reconviction
Those who were convicted of further offences remained free of further convictions on average for just over 43 weeks. The mean number of days to first conviction (adjusted for pseudo-reconvictions) was 312 for those who completed their orders and 299 for those who did not.
Offenders in Fife were convicted more quickly than were those in Glasgow. Fife offenders were likely to remain free of convictions, on average, for just under 37 weeks while those in Glasgow were free of new convictions for, on average, just over 50 weeks. This suggests that the DTTO regime in Fife may have been less effective in engaging offenders in treatment and reducing their need to re-offend.
Offences and disposals
Whilst a very small proportion of offenders were convicted of relatively serious violent offences (including robbery and culpable homicide) the majority of new convictions were for relatively minor offences. By far the most common group of offences committed by the sample involved dishonesty (for example shoplifting and theft from vehicles). Public order offences were also relatively common (including breaches of the peace, petty assaults and possession of offensive weapons) as were offences against justice (such as breaches of bail and obstructing a police officer). While 60 per cent of those who were reconvicted were imprisoned within two years, the most severe sentence imposed in 28 per cent of cases was an admonition or a fine.
Frequency of reconviction
The mean number of reconvictions was higher among offenders whose orders were revoked than among those who completed their orders. The former had three times as many convictions per offender within 12 months of the DTTO (1.5 compared to 0.5) and more than 2.5 times as many convictions within 24 months (3.4 compared with 1.3). Offenders in Fife who were reconvicted had more new convictions per offender in the 12 months after being given a DTTO than did those in Glasgow who were reconvicted (2.0 compared with 0.7)
Offenders had fewer convictions in the period after being placed on a DTTO than in comparable time periods before. While this was true of both completers and non-completers, the decrease in the frequency of conviction was particularly pronounced among the former. For example, the mean number of convictions among non-completers was 4.9 in the 24 months before the order and 3.4 in the same period after, while among those who completed their DTTOs the mean frequency of conviction fell from 3.7 to 1.3.
CONCLUSIONS
Rates and frequencies of reconviction were lower following a DTTO than in the period prior to the imposition of an order. Furthermore, those who completed their orders had lower rates and frequencies of reconviction than those whose orders were revoked. There are reasons for supposing that these important reductions in recidivism are not entirely spurious. First, they accord with self-report and drug test data from offenders given DTTOs (Eley et al., 2002). Second, they mirror the findings of Hough et al. (2003) in England and Wales. Third, the magnitude of the apparent improvements is impressive given the criminal histories and long-standing drug problems of those made subject to DTTOs: when account was taken of pseudo-reconvictions, almost half of those who completed an order had not been reconvicted within two years.
These encouraging findings emphasise the importance of retaining offenders on orders to maximise the potential impact of the DTTO. They also highlight the potential for wide variations in retention and in subsequent recidivism to occur across DTTO schemes and the importance of identifying which elements of the DTTO may enhance or undermine offenders' willingness to comply with and complete their orders.
« Previous | Contents | Next »