RECONVICTION FOLLOWING DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS
CHAPTER THREE CONCLUSIONS
3.1 A significant challenge in determining the extent to which a particular intervention has produced an anticipated outcome lies in disentangling the effect of the intervention from that produced by other factors. In the present example, the intervention would be the DTTO and the anticipated outcome the reduction in drug-related offending that it is intended to bring about. However other factors - such as offender motivation to change - are also likely to play a role and their impact cannot easily be established.
3.2 This analysis has shown that adjusted 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 that those whose orders were revoked.
3.3 In the absence of an appropriate comparison group it is always possible that the results reflect other important differences between the completers and non-completers and improvements that would have occurred anyway, simply because recidivism is know to decrease with age. However there are reasons for supposing that the important reductions in recidivism observed here are not entirely spurious. First, they accord with self-report 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.
3.4 A matter which cannot be answered by the present study - and which therefore requires further examination - concerns which elements of the DTTO help to bring about improvements in drug use and recidivism. DTTOs involve a number of distinct but inter-related elements - for example, drug treatment, drug testing, supervision, case management, judicial review, sanctions and rewards - which singly, or more likely in combination, may contribute to the overall effectiveness of orders. Identifying and disentangling these effects will require large-scale research conducted over long periods of time, though progress is being made to this end in respect of Drug Courts in the USA (e.g. Goldkamp et al., 2001).
3.5 The importance of differences in DTTO regimes to the outcomes of orders has been highlighted by this study. Despite dealing with broadly similar groups of offenders (though Fife tended also to accept younger offenders who would not be considered suitable in Glasgow) the pattern of outcomes was markedly different across the two schemes. Offenders in Fife were more likely to be reconvicted, were reconvicted more often, were reconvicted sooner and were less likely to complete their DTTOs. Any conclusions about the overall effectiveness of DTTOs in reducing recidivism cannot therefore be absolute and need to take account of the context and operation of individual schemes. This will be particularly important given the diversity of practice that is likely to exist following the national roll-out of DTTO schemes.
3.6 In conclusion, the results presented in this brief report are generally encouraging. They suggest, at the very least, that offenders who complete their orders are less likely to be reconvicted and are reconvicted less often than in the period prior to their order being imposed. Apparent improvements were also evidenced among those who did not complete their DTTOs but this may be because these offenders were in custody and therefore not at liberty to re-offend for much of the follow-up period.
3.7 The implications of the findings are two-fold. First, they emphasise the importance of retaining offenders on orders to maximise the potential impact of the DTTO. Second, they 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. It is speculated that differences in prescribing practice in Glasgow and Fife may have contributed at least in part to the cross-scheme differences in the patterns of findings obtained, though existing data were insufficient to verify whether this was the case. However, the ongoing evaluations of the pilot Drug Courts in Glasgow and Fife should help shed further light on offenders' experiences and the importance that they attach to the different elements of their orders.