RECONVICTION FOLLOWING DRUG TREATMENT AND TESTING ORDERS
Footnotes
1 These self-reported reductions in drug use were also supported by the analysis of test results.
2 t=5.94, p<.001.
3 For example, the offender received a lengthy custodial sentence for a different offence.
4 x 2 =18.6, 1d.f., p<.001.
5 t=3.63, p<.001.
6 x 2 = 10.8, 1 d.f., p<.01.
7 t=7.24, p<.001.
8 48% of missing cases were from Glasgow and 52% from Fife.
9 47% of missing cases were completed and 53% breached/revoked.
10 t=-2.57, p<.05
11 t=-2.21, p<.05
12 Pearson R = -.282, p<.01
13 x 2 = 3.25, 1 d.f., p<.05
14 Excludes three cases in which the order was ongoing, one deceased, one transfer to another area and two cases in which the final status of the order was not recorded.
15 This excludes seven cases which were ongoing, which ended for other reasons or in which information about the final outcome was not provided.
16 In the case of unadjusted 24 month reconviction rates, p<.05. In all other comparisons, p<.01.
17 The adjusted rate is used here for comparison since Hough et al.'s analysis similarly excluded pseudo-reconvictions.
18 For example, those who were reconvicted in the present study within two years had more previous convictions that those who were not (18.4 compared with 13.4, t=-2.36, p<.05).
19 74% of the DTTO sample had 10 or more previous convictions and 91% had five or more.
20 In both cases, p<.01 (unadjusted, t=4.30; adjusted, t=2.89).
21 Some offenders admitted that they had become complacent and 'dropped their guard' after having managed to provide a series of clean tests.
22 Because the scheme and research started later and there was a much shorter period available for fieldwork.
23 One conviction for prostitution has not been included in this table.
24 t=-2.73, p<.01
25 t=-2.65, p<.01