Scottish Government

THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT IN ACTION: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS

CHAPTER TWO: METHODS

INTRODUCTION

2.1 The evaluation of the Glasgow Drug Court's first six months of operation involved a variety of research methods aimed at the collection of both quantitative and (primarily) qualitative data. In addition to the more formal methods described in this chapter, the researchers spent time informally familiarising themselves with the Drug Court in action and becoming acquainted with the role of the various professionals involved in its operation.

INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRUG COURT

2.2 Between April and May 2002 interviews were conducted with a range of professionals associated with or potentially affected by the Drug Court. Each of these interviews was, with the respondents' agreement, tape recorded and fully transcribed for analysis.

Sheriffs

2.3 The two Drug Court Sheriffs were interviewed individually in Chambers. These interviews were aimed at exploring their perspectives on the operation and effectiveness of the Drug Court, including how it differed from the traditional Sheriff Court. Sheriffs' views about the effectiveness of the Drug Court procedures were also explored and their views sought as to how the operation and effectiveness of the Drug Court might be further improved.

2.4 Brief interviews were also conducted with three Sheriffs who sit in Glasgow Sheriff Court. These interviews were concerned principally with exploring their perspectives on the effectiveness of the screening and referral process, on the appropriateness of the Drug Court criteria and on the appropriateness of different routes of referral to the Drug Court (including the shrieval option of referring cases following a guilty plea or finding of guilt). These interviews took place individually within the Sheriff Chambers at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

2.5 When reporting the views expressed by sentencers in this report we will use the term 'Sheriff' to refer to Sheriffs who sat in Glasgow Sheriff Court and the 'Drug Court Sheriff' to refer to those who sat in the Drug Court.

Drug Court Co-ordinator and Procurators Fiscal

2.6 The Drug Court Co-ordinator and the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal were also interviewed. Issues covered in the interviews were similar to those explored with Sheriffs, though the interview with the Co-ordinator focused more on multi-disciplinary issues while the interview with the procurator fiscal placed greater emphasis upon the referral and screening process. The original intention had also been to interview a small sample of procurators fiscal involved in marking cases for Glasgow Sheriff Court. However, a delay in being granted the relevant research access meant there was insufficient time available for these interviews to take place. The Drug Court Depute was, however, able to comment on the involvement of marking deputes in relation to the Drug Court referral process.

Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team

2.7 Interviews were conducted with six addiction workers, including one supervisor; seven social workers, including two social work managers; four staff from the team seconded from Glasgow Drug Problem Service (GDPS), including two nurses, a medical officer and a senior medical officer; and a group of three social work assistants. These interviews were conducted in April - May 2002.

2.8 The interviews explored their views on the referral, screening and assessment process; the range and quality of treatment services provided; the impact of coercion, supervision and management upon the treatment process; the system of offender reviews; communication and action in a complex multi-disciplinary environment; and the perceptions of the effectiveness of the Drug Court system in reducing both drug use and drug-related offending.

Police officers

2.9 Interviews were conducted with seven police officers during May 2002. These officers were selected to reflect the variety of experience officers have of the Drug Court process. They comprised one Chief Inspector in the court service; two duty officers (one Inspector, one Sergeant), one Community Constable, two case management Constables, and one drugs awareness officer (Sergeant). Four divisions of Strathclyde police were represented, and respondents were based in a variety of locations: individual stations, divisional headquarters, the Sheriff Court, and force headquarters.

2.10 Prior to the start of the research, it was assumed that referring officers would be involved in the court's screening process, and that the main issues would be the quality of information at officer's disposal and the appropriateness of the criteria for referral. This assumed that the police referral system would be working smoothly. There have been relatively few referrals from police, however, so the research was broadened to investigate why this might be the case. Rather than concentrate on the views of referring police as originally intended, the interviewees were chosen to provide an overview of police involvement, or lack of, in referral. Therefore it included duty officers whose responsibility (under force guidelines) it is to refer but who were not making referrals⁸.

Defence agents

2.11 It had also been the intention to interview a small sample of defence agents with experience of representing offenders in the pilot Drug Court. A request for volunteers to be interviewed was made through a poster in the Bar Common Room and as a verbal request on behalf of the research team, at the Glasgow Bar Association April meeting. No defence agent volunteered to be interviewed. Constructively, we were swiftly informed by the Glasgow Bar Association that it was in the process of pursuing a number of concerns on behalf of its membership and that members were unwilling to be interviewed individually as they had expressed their views, on which there was a local consensus, at a closed meeting. We were, however, informed about the nature of these concerns and refer to them where appropriate in the report.

INTERVIEWS WITH DRUG COURT CLIENTS

2.12 Interviews with Drug Court clients were intended to provide general background information on the impact of Drug Court Orders on their drug use, access to treatment services, offending behaviour and everyday lives. The interviews were also intended to focus specifically on several aspects of the operation of the Drug Court in order to provide some assessment of its effectiveness. They also sought to identify service-users' reasons for agreeing to a Drug Court Order, their expectations of what the Order would involve, and to document their expenditure on drugs and their involvement in drug-related offending prior to and following the imposition of the Order.

2.13 The original intention was to interview 12 Drug Court clients approximately three months into their Drug Court Order. Since the Supervision and Treatment Team premises had very limited accommodation, permission was given to use the Drug Court Screening Group room at Glasgow Sheriff Court for the purpose of interviewing. This meant that the best opportunity to make contact with service-users was on the days that they attended court for review. While this afforded an opportunity to make contact with them, it was less than ideal given the stress and anxiety that the court appearance obviously aroused in many of the Drug Court clients. This was sometimes related to factors outwith the Drug Court, including the presence of the media and occasionally debt-collectors who were anxious to make contact. Frequently, Drug Court clients were very keen to get out of the court as soon as possible, particularly if their behaviour (drug use, attendance for appointments, offending) had been less than satisfactory. Three service-users, who had initially agreed to be interviewed, left the court immediately following their reviews, which had not gone as well as they had hoped. Given the above, those who agreed to participate tended to be the individuals who were making some progress with their Orders, although many respondents were addressing ongoing issues in relation to continued drug use and/or non-attendance for treatment services. One respondent had been warned that his Order was about to be breached.

2.14 In Order to contact as many service-users as possible, the researcher attended reviews on nine occasions and was able to interview Drug Court clients following the review, or to make arrangements to conduct an interview at the next review date. Additionally, letters were sent to all Drug Court clients who had completed or were nearing the three-month stage in their Order. This resulted in two interviews being achieved: the majority of clients did not respond to this letter, with two letters being returned as undeliverable. One client directly refused to be interviewed while one rescinded her agreement on the advice of her solicitor. However, others indicated that they would be willing to be interviewed but were unavailable at the times suggested.

2.15 Interviews were obtained with five service-users immediately following their court appearance and with three others who voluntarily returned to the court at an alternative time in order to be interviewed. On one occasion a service-user's partner participated in the interview and in another a young child was present during the interview. Six respondents were male and two were female. They were aged between 21 and 36, with an average age of 27 years. Six were on a Drug Treatment and Testing Order with the length of Orders ranging from 12 months to two years. Two were on a Probation Order (18 months and two years). At the time of interview, two of the respondents had been on their Order for three months, while four had completed between three and six months of their Order.

2.16 The original figure of 12 interviews with service-users was based on projected figures of 60 operational Orders and would have constituted 20 per cent of Drug Court clients at this stage in the Court's development. The eight interviews with service-users represents 26 per cent of all Drug Court clients and 57 per cent of Drug Court clients who had completed three months or more of their Drug Court Order.

2.17 All but one of the interviews (which took place in the Drug Court waiting room) were conducted in the Drug Screening Group. With the agreement of the respondents the interviews - which lasted on average 45 minutes - were tape-recorded and fully transcribed, and respondents were given assurances that their views would be anonymised.

COLLECTION OF INFORMATION FROM DRUG COURT RECORDS

2.18 A range of information was gathered by different people at various stages in the Drug Court Process to monitor the progress of offenders from the referral stage until completion of their Orders. There were three principal sources of data that the researchers were able to draw upon to obtain information about the characteristics of accused at various stages of the drug court process. First, details of cases 'flagged up' by the police or the marking deputes and cases referred to a Screening Group Meeting were recorded by the Drug Court Procurator Fiscal and forwarded to the Drug Court Co-ordinator on a regular basis. Second, the Drug Court Co-ordinator had developed an Excel database to record details of cases appearing before the Drug Court, including the disposals received by those not made subject to a Drug Court Order. The database was updated on an ongoing basis and revised versions sent to the researchers every fortnight, where possible.

2.19 The third source of information was the monitoring forms for use by the Drug Court Supervision Team to monitor the characteristics, experiences and responses of offenders referred to the Drug Court and offenders given Drug Court Orders. Since an electronic database had not been set up for the entry of this data by early May 2002 ⁹, one of the research team manually transferred the data provided onto data coding sheets, though only partial information was available in many cases. While it is possible there were errors during this laborious process, we are confident that inaccuracies in the dataset were minimal. At the University of Stirling, SPSS databases were established, the data entered and analysis conducted. The type of information available from the database included the socio-demographic characteristics of offenders referred to the drug court, the recommendations contained in the assessment report and the disposals made by the court. It was also possible to assess in which proportion of the cases the proposed timescales for the processing of referrals were met. Information was also gathered about the supervision and treatment of offenders made subject to Drug Court Orders. This included details of the treatment provided, the frequency and outcomes of drug testing, the frequency and outcomes of reviews and the enforcement of Orders. These data were available in respect of 52 offenders assessed for the Drug Court, 30 of whom received Drug Court Orders. Information was more likely to be missing from the monitoring forms (and hence the resulting database) in the case of those not given a Drug Court Order.

2.20 It should be noted that the different sets of data that were drawn upon by the researchers covered slightly different timeframes (as a result of inevitable delays in obtaining certain types of information and entering it into the relevant database). These are made clear in the reporting of results.

OBSERVATION OF THE DRUG COURT IN ACTION

2.21 Observation was undertaken of the operation of the Drug Court at different stages in the supervision of Orders. This included observation of screening group meetings; observation of the operation of the Drug Court at the point at which offenders appear for sentencing; and observation of pre-court review meetings and review hearings. An observation pro forma was used to record the court sessions observed: it included details of those present, the duration of the session, the nature and content of interactions between the various parties and the proportion of time in which the bench and the offender are engaged directly in dialogue. Sessions presided over by both Drug Court Sheriffs and involving both Clerks to the Court were observed during the first six months of operation. These data were compared with the observational data derived from the court observations undertaken as part of the evaluation of pilot Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (Eley et al., forthcoming).

Screening Group Meetings

2.22 Observation was made of three Screening Group meetings during April and May 2002. In each case, the offender was referred for assessment. Those present at the Screening Group meetings included the procurator fiscal (who chairs the meeting), a police Chief Inspector, a social worker and the defence agent.

First calling in the Drug Court

2.23 Thirty-three observations were made relating to the progress of Drug Court clients, from the Screening Group to Court for sentencing during February, March and April 2002. Informal observations of these first callings captured the full range of outcomes: either a Drug Court Order was made, a non Drug Court disposal was imposed, the offender did not attend Court and a warrant was issued for their arrest or the case was adjourned awaiting a full Drug Court assessment report. No formal analysis was conducted as the offenders did not given consent to research until after an Order was made.

Pre-court review meetings

2.24 Twenty-eight observations of pre-court review meetings were conducted during February, March and April 2002, involving 19 different offenders on Drug Court Orders. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide further details of the observed reviews.

Table 2.1: Pre-court review meeting conducted and observed from December 2001-April 2002

Table 1.5: Characteristics of Drug Court Clients at observed pre-court review meetings

Reviews

2.25 Thirty-two observations were made of review hearings during February, March and April 2002 involving 20 offenders on Drug Court Orders. Tables 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 provide details of the observed court sessions as proportions of the actual reviews conducted during the period from December 2001 until the end of April 2002.

Table 2.3: Reviews from December 2001-April 2002 and their observation

Table 2.4: Characteristics of Drug Court clients at observed reviews

Table 2.5: Characteristics of Drug Court Orders at observed reviews

*Note that 2 offenders had an 18 month Probation Order and an 18 month DTTO running concurrently.

2.26 The experience of the pilot DTTOs was that there were very few breaches, especially during the first few months of the pilots. During the initial six-month pilot period in the Glasgow Drug Court, there was one breach that occurred prior to the observation period and that was not, therefore, observed.

ANALYSIS OF MINUTES OF DRUG COURT TEAM MEETINGS

2.27 One key objective of the formative and process evaluation was to examine the process of multi-agency working among service providers and multi-agency collaboration within the Drug Court Team. One of the methods intended to underpin this process was the analysis of minutes of Drug Court Team Meetings. It was intended that the regular meetings of the Drug Court Team would provide an opportunity for discussion of operational issues related to the effectiveness of the Drug Court. The research team hoped to have access to these minutes and to have the opportunity to observe one or more team meetings.

2.28 At the initial stages of the research, researchers were informed that they would be given access to the team meetings, with the possibility that copies of the minutes would be made available for more detailed analysis. However, at the time when the members of the team were consulted over this issue in April 2002, they expressed concerns that the content of the minutes may be taken out of context and interpreted in a way that did not reflect the spirit of the discussion. A decision was taken by the Drug Court Team not to provide researchers with the minutes of these meetings, but to invite a researcher to attend the next team meeting. Unfortunately, this was to take place too late for any discussion to be incorporated into the present report.

ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

2.29 The quantitative data were analysed using SPSS. The interview and qualitative observation data were scrutinised for the emergence of relevant themes. Throughout this report we have drawn directly upon material from interviews to illustrate the issues being discussed. We have not, however, made use of direct quotations from the interviews with individuals in unique positions (such as the Drug Court Co-ordinator or Procurator Fiscal) since it would be possible for the reader to directly attribute comments made by these respondents to their source.