Scottish Government

CHAPTER THREE ARRESTEES, THROUGHPUT AND AR ASSESSMENT

Introduction

3.1 The overall aim of this chapter is to document the work undertaken by the pilot schemes. We start by giving an overview of the extent to which the pilots had met their original target figures for arrestees in the AR schemes. This is followed by a schematic view of the AR process and potential exit points from the schemes. We note the variation in arrestee populations potentially available to the AR schemes at the police or court setting and how this might be reflected in arrestees accessed by AR. The total number of arrestees offered AR, accepting AR and being seen by the AR teams is described and this is followed by the characteristics of arrestees contacted by schemes with reference to drug and alcohol misuse, current arrest and offences. A brief description is given of the format of schemes initial interview, assessment and follow-up support.

Did the schemes hit their targets in terms of throughput?

3.2 Although the most logical place to start in discussions of throughput might be the total number of arrestees offered AR, this information is only available for one of the six pilot sites. Moreover, the original bid documents appear to have based their targets on numbers of arrestees actually seen by ARWs. Consequently, we take this as our starting point, though return to the issue of the total number of offers below. Table 3.1 shows the projected and actual numbers of arrestees seen in each area and subsequent paragraphs provide some further contextual information on how the development and practice of each pilot may have affected throughput.

EMARS

3.3 The Edinburgh and Midlothian pilot moved from a police-mediated to a direct access, court-based model in January 2005 and, as a result, the number of arrestees contacted has doubled compared with the number of referrals in the first year at police cells (410). The original target was 500 initial AR interviews per year (an average of 42 per month), leading to 180 action plans and 120 referrals on to other services. Arrestees identified in the court setting (over a 9 month period) accounted for 88% (801) of the annual total - an average of around 90 per month of court operation. This would lead to a future projected annual rate of around 1,100 from the court setting.

Table 3.1 Projected and actual initial AR interviews by scheme

Notes to table
Source: Monitoring data/Service Profiles
*Estimates are based on projected throughput figures included in Service Profiles, proposals for Scottish Executive funding etc., and, as such, may be based on the year 2003/4.
**Actual figures are based upon monitoring data submitted for the period 01/10/04 to 30/09/05 (the latest complete year possible to fit the national evaluation timescales), except in Glasgow where the period is 05/10/04 to 04/10/05 (the Glasgow project was not launched until 04/10/05). (Dumfries & Galloway relates to police referrals (not all interviewed immediately)
***Projected figures exclude the peripatetic work estimated in the proposal. Although this did come on stream during the 'actual' period examined, it could not be considered in full operation at any time during that period.
****The SE funding covered the expansion of the CACTUS service into E.Renfrewshire and Inverclyde only therefore monitoring data relates to those sites only. Actual figures for these areas are estimates based on nine months of operation. At the time of writing, 70 individuals had been assessed since the scheme went operational in 01/01/05 to the end of the monitoring period on 30/09/05; 10 of these were from East Renfrewshire and 60 from Inverclyde.

Glasgow

3.4 Following the launch of the scheme in October 2004, the level of referrals was affected by variation in custody staff practice in offering AR and by the fourth worker post being vacant at both the beginning and end of the project. However, the first year's throughput was still greater than expected.

3.5 The original bid estimated that over half of arrestees coming into London Road (in excess of 3,000 per year) would fall within the broad category of 'alcohol/drug related offender'. On that basis, the projected throughput was 970 offers and 485 arrestees to be seen by ARWs per year. In addition it was estimated that ARWs would hold short-term caseloads of around 35 individuals at any one time.

3.6 In fact the custody team offered the service to 2,353 arrestees (70% of the estimated eligible arrestee population), of whom 845 (36%) accepted a referral; an average of 70 people per month (however it must be noted that as the pilot progressed the police moved to 'blanket' offering of AR to almost all arrestees). The numbers actually having an initial interview with ARWs at London Road was 513, a figure slightly greater than the projected annual throughput of 485. In addition, a small number of initial interviews would have taken place with the AR or CAT teams outside London Road.

Tayside

3.7 Referrals in Tayside were affected by 2 main factors in the year. Because of its location, the G8 Summit in July 2005 caused some disruption, and the relocation of Angus custody facilities (July 2005) took longer than expected and entailed the closure of the Forfar cell suite and refurbishment of the Arbroath police office.

3.8 Overall, the level of referrals in Tayside was slightly lower than expected. The original projected annual throughput (for 2003-2004) was 1,050, a monthly average of 88. It had been anticipated that the referrals would be divided across the region as follows: 23% (240) from Angus; 44% (460) from Dundee; and 33% (350) from Perth. In fact, during the year covered by the monitoring, a total of 893 arrestees were interviewed. The number from Angus was slightly lower than projected (182, accounting for 20% of the total); the number from Perth was significantly lower, at less than half the anticipated level (166 or 19%); while the number from Dundee was much higher (545 or 61%) and, as a result, a further part-time ARW was employed from September 2005. This workers remit was to undertake more follow-up work, to try and contact those discharged from Dundee police office with an 'undertaking to appear' at court who had shown an interest in AR and to improve the scheme's response among hard-to-reach groups.

Dumfries & Galloway

3.9 AR was initially piloted in Dumfries & Galloway during 2003, when AR was offered by police custody staff to a sub-set of custodies (those arrested on drug or alcohol related offences) at Dumfries and Stranraer police offices until October 2003. The subsequent feasibility study suggested that 43 arrestees overall (Dumfries 58%, 25; Stranraer 42%, 18) would be willing to be referred to the scheme per month, yielding a projected annual total of 516 (Dumfries 300; Stranraer 216) per year. The full scheme began in October 2003, with all custodies being offered the service, but the actual throughput has proven to be much lower than anticipated, 272 in total (Dumfries 68%, 186; Stranraer 32%, 86). AR staff offered two potential explanations for the scheme operating at only half the projected levels. Firstly, the initial feasibility study may have provided overly optimistic throughput projections. Secondly, local issues at the police offices meant that not all custodies had been consistently offered AR since the scheme commenced. However AR staff felt that the lower than anticipated throughput had proven beneficial in that it had been possible for the AR team to provide an enhanced service for individuals who did engage with the AR service.

Lanarkshire

3.10 The actual number of arrestees seen by the ARW in Lanarkshire (133, or around 11 per month) was significantly lower than expected, at around one tenth of projected throughput of 100 per month or 1200 per year. Of these interviews, around half were conducted with arrestees from Bellshill police office, while the remainder were distributed equally across the other two sites (roughly 3 at each). It is thought that the timing of ARW shifts at police offices effectively held down the level of referrals to the team during most of the pilot period. Access to custodies via Hamilton Sheriff Court was a promising development but at a very early stage at the end of the evaluation period.

RERI

3.11 The original proposals to the Scottish Executive sought funding for extension of the scheme into East Renfrewshire and Inverclyde, a projected total of 200 initial referrals, followed by 145 assessments (approximately 12 per month) in these two areas. (The AR scheme indicated that all new monies were used for the new areas, rather than in extending the existing Renfrewshire element and therefore activity at Renfrewshire itself is not covered in this report). It was further estimated that some 90 arrestees would engage with CACTUS per year, following assessment for continuing support. Projections based on 9 months of the scheme's actual operation, in the 2 new areas, suggested that the scheme would fall short of its original estimates as, over that period, assessments with 93 arrestees were carried out, an average of 8 per month. Interestingly, the Inverclyde element of the scheme was projected to be on target over that period (processing 100% of its annual throughout) while the East Renfrewshire element was projected to have processed only 20% of its intended annual throughput (or 14% of all interviews).

Figure 3.11 Schematic view of the Arrest Referral process and exit points

Stages of the AR process and potential attrition in arrestee numbers

3.12 Figure 3.1 provides a schematic view of the initial stages of the AR process, indicating the potential for attrition at each of these steps. Each scheme operated differently, with variation in the steps and timing of the initial stages. The stages were: initial identification and offer by police in a police mediated scheme or initial contact at cells by ARWs in direct-access court schemes; first interview/initial assessment with ARW - this could take place immediately in the custody setting, be arranged for a later date outside the custody setting or take place even weeks later in response to contact by the arrestee; and subsequent appointments to complete fuller assessment. Tayside's one-stage, direct access scheme completed the initial assessment at the point of first contact and therefore interested arrestees were seen straight away. Only arrestees selecting themselves out would be lost at this stage. Edinburgh operated direct access and same day initial interview but also offered follow-up appointments to complete assessment. They found that a number of arrestees did not keep the subsequent full assessment appointments offered and therefore, although initial referrals to services might have been made they might have missed out on the extra support available to get them there. As well as these structural factors which influenced rates of attrition, the demographic characteristics of individuals and stage they were at (in terms of their offending behaviour and consequent charges or court appearances) may have affected their likelihood to accept AR referral and to subsequently attend appointments. These elements are discussed below in relation to the phases identified in Figure 3.1.

Impact of setting on profile of arrestees offered AR

3.13 One of the most important differences between the police and court settings is, of course, in terms of the profile of arrestees actually offered AR. At the police office, typical offences for which individuals are brought into custody include shoplifting, breach of the peace, being drunk and disorderly, theft of a motor vehicle, soliciting, etc. Arrestees may be brought in at any time of day and may be detained and released without charge or stay in overnight or over the weekend until transported to court. A difficulty faced by police based schemes is how to capture those arrestees who were released early: in particular young people aged 16-25; vulnerable women; those too intoxicated to be interviewed at that time; those arrested for minor offences or released post a caution.

3.14 Glasgow felt they missed initial face-to-face contact with women involved in prostitution who were released before the weekday AR shift arrived. ARWs were keen to see whether they could get access to the courts to try and catch this group. However the data indicates that they were still seeing significant numbers of women involved in prostitution.

We're maybe getting girls on a Sunday that have been held in over the weekend, but a lot of the girls who are prostituting we're not getting to see.GLA 8 ARW

3.15 At the longest established scheme, Dundee, ARWs felt that they often missed young people (aged under 18) and women, because they were less likely to be held overnight. The Dundee scheme developed an additional process to try to capture those released and undertaking to appear in court later ( UTA). The police custody staff handed out leaflets to this group and a new worker was appointed relatively late on in the project to address this issue specifically. The original Edinburgh police-based pilot had also explicitly realised that, by focussing on overnight custodies, the ARW would miss young people arrested on minor offences and released early. This does raise the question of the appropriateness of AR in its current format, as a mechanism for making contact with young arrestees at an early stage of substance misuse related offending. As total police site throughput figures were not available to the research team it was not possible to estimate the proportion of young people being missed.

Prisoners on remand or sentenced to imprisonment

3.16 An important factor affecting attrition rates at the pilot schemes was the relative proportions of arrestees who were remanded or sentenced to imprisonment

3.17 In the case study Glasgow police office setting all arrestees fitting the target group criteria were offered AR by the police irrespective of the likelihood of them going on to be remanded or to receive a prison sentence. All those agreeing to AR and still in police custody were then interviewed by ARWs at the police office. Arrestees who had already been discharged from the police office to the community were sent a letter giving contact details and drop-in times for the AR scheme. One group of arrestees might be missed by both police-based and court-based AR projects. This group comprised arrestees released early from the police office with an undertaking to appear in court at a future date. They were missed by ARWs at the police setting. They would also be missed by ARWs at a court-setting because they would not be in custody at the point of coming to court. Some arrestees would go from police custody to court from where they could be freed, bailed, placed on remand or receive a custodial sentence or non-custodial sentence. At court-based schemes ARWs could potentially see all police custodies transferred to court.

3.18 At the court based schemes, there was potential to encounter three different groups passing through the court custody areas:

1. Those arrestees transported from police offices to court
2. Those remand prisoners brought to appear before the court who may be taken back to prison or released after appearance before the court
3. Those who have been remanded or sentenced by the court and were waiting in the court cells for transport to prison

3.19 Those from police custody constituted the target group of all the AR schemes. In Edinburgh, female remand prisoners were not held separately from police custodies - a handful only were seen by ARWs. At the Tayside court-based sites (Dundee and Perth), there was also contact with groups b) and c). In Tayside, remand prisoners were physically separated from police custodies in Dundee but not in Perth. At both sites, remand prisoners and those awaiting transport could ask to see the ARW, who was well known among court users. Though offering assistance to these groups was not a core task, limited ad hoc contact did occur, consisting mainly of liaison with treatment agencies on their behalf - these contacts were not recorded in the database. Therefore, the numbers interviewed by ARWs at court-based schemes were not artificially inflated by those on remand or awaiting transport to prison.

3.20 In terms of total throughput, information on the numbers of arrestees offered AR in police settings, or interviewed by ARWs at police or court settings, who subsequently went into custody was not available from any scheme. Some arrestees anticipating going into custody would refuse an AR-related offer from the police or ARWs, but we have no means of quantifying the numbers involved. Data from Glasgow on arrestees refusing AR may include some who selected themselves out in this manner, but further analysis of this is not possible. In both police and court based schemes there was no active screening out, by the police or by the AR team, of those who were likely to be imprisoned.

3.21 Those arrestees who were interviewed by ARWs but were placed in custody following their court appearance (remand or sentenced) were essentially lost from the AR process at this time as unless arrestees spent a very short time in prison, contact with arrestees generally ceased. In general it was difficult for AR teams to obtain full, timeous information as to the outcome of the court process which could be used to inform onward referral decisions, although Tayside (the scheme established for the longest period) had arranged to receive daily feedback on outcomes at its court-based sites. At Tayside and Edinburgh court-based schemes, information about arrestees was logged on the database following first ARW interview, regardless of subsequent court outcome.

3.22 All schemes had good links with prison based service providers (Cranstoun at the beginning of the pilot period, Phoenix House towards the end) and ARWs highlighted key information about individual arrestees to these prison services when appropriate. If more than 31 days was spent in custody, in-house drug services were automatically provided by the relevant prison-based service providers. The Edinburgh AR team provided a useful signposting/referral service for arrestees who were interviewed by ARWs but anticipated being imprisoned; the ARW would refer to drug agencies with link workers who carried out prison visits ( e.g.NEDAC, WEST, MELD, Simpson House, HYPE)

Offers, acceptances and refusals

3.23 Although overall throughput data was available for all schemes, it was not possible (excepting Glasgow), to fully identify the number and characteristics of arrestees involved at each stage of the process (those being offered, those accepting or refusing AR and those attending subsequent appointments).

3.24 At the Glasgow pilot, relevant data was available for 1,935 of the initial offers of AR made by police. In 791 (or 40%) of these cases, the arrestee agreed to the referral and in at least 513 cases (or 27% of the original offers made) the arrestee was actually seen by an ARW at the custody suite. In assessing the significance of these findings, it needs to be remembered that, unlike other areas, Glasgow moved towards a policy of offering AR to almost all arrestees. This is likely to have skewed the data in some ways - for example, by increasing the proportion of refusals and drawing in larger numbers of some types of offenders (particularly those arrested in relation to public order offences) into the base data. This makes the data on total offers unsuitable for comparison with other schemes which maintained a more closely targeted focus.

3.25 Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that two-thirds of offers were to males, while roughly half were to people aged 30 or over, with a large proportion (around 30%) of age 31-40 years. The demographic profile of all arrestees was not available and therefore it was not possible to say whether particular groups were disproportionately likely to have been offered the service. From Table 3.3, however, it can be concluded that female arrestees were more likely than males to accept the offer. Age data was not available for some 30% of those offered AR (mainly those refusing AR) so the pattern for age is less clear. It does appear, however, that the age group least likely to accept the offer of AR are those aged between 16 and 20.

Table 3.2 Gender, age group and mean age of arrestees offered AR, agreeing to the referral and seeing an ARW in Glasgow

Notes to table
Source: AR monitoring data (Glasgow)
Variations in base size reflect different levels of completeness by data item (Gender 1882; Age at AR offer 1339) 30% of individuals offered AR had no date of birth recorded. The majority of missing data related to those refusing AR.
Figures may sum to more than 100% because of rounding.

Table 3.3 Refusal or acceptance of offer of AR by gender and age group in Glasgow

Notes to table
Source: AR monitoring data (Glasgow)
*Variations in base size reflect different levels of completeness by data item (Gender 1882; Age at AR offer 1339). 30% of individuals offered AR had no date of birth recorded. The majority of missing date of birth data related to those refusing AR.

3.26 Those arrested for breach of the peace (38%) were less likely than those arrested in relation to warrants (58%) or prostitution (77%) to accept the offer of AR. Overall, then, the youngest arrestees (particularly males) and those arrested in relation to drunken and violent behaviour were relatively less likely to accept the offer of AR in Glasgow. In contrast, older individuals, particularly females (a target group for the scheme) and those arrested in relation to court-related offences (often indicating prior involvement with the criminal justice system e.g. Breach of Probation) are among the groups more likely to accept help from an ARW in Glasgow ¹. The Glasgow pilot also targeted homeless people and at least 3% (55) of arrestees offered AR were identified as of No Fixed Abode. This group was more likely to accept AR (58%) than refuse (42%).

3.27 Glasgow was also the only pilot to record any information about reasons for refusal. Again, these data need to be seen in the context of a practice of 'blanket referral' in which large numbers of 'unsuitable' arrestees may have been offered the service. The monitoring form facilitated recording of up to six overlapping reasons for refusal. However in the vast majority of cases only one reason was recorded which suggests that police custody staff recorded the first or primary reason only and therefore the following figures should be viewed cautiously. Of those who refused AR and gave a reason for doing so (n=870), 53% said they simply did not want help; 30% that they did not consider that they had a problem with alcohol; 8% that they were already in contact with another service; and 1% that they did not consider that they had a problem with drugs. The numbers refusing because they did not want help with alcohol problems or did not want help at all steadily increased over the year, reflecting the move towards offering the service to a wider range of arrestees.

3.28 A key point about the Glasgow pilot is that, for all arrestees eligible for AR, the police custody staff would place an AR information leaflet in the prisoner's property bag. Information about the scheme was therefore being very widely distributed and may well be consulted by some arrestees at a later date, even if they did not see an ARW at that time in the custody suite.

Data on those accepting the offer but not actually seeing an ARW

3.29 Some limited data is also available from Dumfries & Galloway, Glasgow and RERI on those who accepted the offer of AR but did not actually see an ARW. In Dumfries & Galloway, only half of the arrestees (50%, 137) referred to the scheme in the period examined were actually seen by an ARW. The main reason given for not being seen was failure to attend 3 scheduled appointments and at least 12 cases were closed because the arrestee had been imprisoned. In both Glasgow and RERI a higher percentage (65%) of arrestees accepting referral were seen.

3.30 When looking across schemes there was no consistent pattern of age or gender related attrition in the proportion of those accepting AR but not being seen by an ARW (Figure 3.1). In Glasgow those age 16-20 were most likely to attend an interview with an ARW (72% of those agreeing to be referred to AR) whereas in RERI this group were least likely to attend an interview (60%). In RERI the group most likely to attend were 21-25 year olds (77%) however this age-group was least likely to attend in Dumfries & Galloway (39%). In Dumfries and Galloway those aged 30+ were most likely to attend (60%). In terms of gender, in Glasgow it appeared that, of those accepting referral to an ARW, a slightly lower proportion of women (61%) than men (67%) would see an ARW. However we also know that the Glasgow AR team would make particular efforts to follow-up vulnerable women missed at the police office and would interview them later if possible. In Dumfries and Galloway the proportions of men and women seen by ARWs were roughly the same but in RERI a higher proportion of women (85%) than men (63%) were interviewed by an ARW.

Were the pilot schemes reaching their target groups?

Key demographic characteristics

3.31 Table 3.4 indicates the variation across sites in terms of key demographic characteristics of AR clients. The majority of those accepting the offer of AR were male. RERI had the highest proportion of males (at 84%) while Lanarkshire and Glasgow had the lowest (60% and 63%, respectively). This probably reflects the latter schemes' efforts to reach more female arrestees, through the inclusion of Bellshill (which has a female-only custody suite) and the focus upon prostitution in the East End of Glasgow.

3.32 In terms of age, the pilots in Glasgow, Lanarkshire and RERI appear to be involving a slightly older set of offenders than the remaining sites. While around 1 in 5 clients at the other sites are under 21 years, the comparable figure at these schemes is around 1 in 10. A high proportion of clients involved with these schemes were aged between 26 and 40. When mean age is examined, clients in Glasgow and Dumfries & Galloway were, on average, older than those at any of the remaining sites.

3.33 In terms of ethnicity, Arrest Referral clients were overwhelmingly homogenous: at all sites, 97% or more were white and only in EMARS were more than 1% of clients from an another ethnic group, representing 3% of the total there.

3.34 Where provided, information about employment status clearly shows that most individuals who accepted AR were unemployed or not seeking work ². In Glasgow and Lanarkshire, around 1 in 5 stated that they were employed, although the low base sizes for responses from these sites reduce the reliability of these figures. Glasgow was reaching one of its target groups in that 7% (all female) arrestees said prostitution provided their main income.

Table 3.4 Arrestees accepting AR - key demographic characteristics by scheme

Notes to table
Source: AR monitoring data
*All data for period 01/10/04 to 30/09/05 (except Glasgow 05/10/04 to 04/10/05)
** Percentages may sum to more than 100% because of rounding.

Use of drugs or alcohol

3.35 Some monitoring data on the nature of arrestees' substance misuse behaviour was available from all pilot sites, though RERI and Tayside did not clearly distinguish between problems associated with drug and alcohol use.

Table 3.5 Arrestees seen by ARWs - substance use across four schemes

Notes to table
Source: Monitoring data
Figures may sum to more than 100% because of rounding.
Drug focus only - Lanarkshire, EMARS; Drug and alcohol focus - D&G, Glasgow,

3.36 Significant differences emerged across the sites for which information on drug or alcohol issues was available - not unexpectedly, since some of the schemes explicitly focused on drug and alcohol problems, while others were concerned only with the former. The majority of arrestees reported drug issues at all sites, though the proportion (including those using drug and alcohol) doing so ranged from 82% in Glasgow to 93% in EMARS. Around three-quarters of clients in Dumfries & Galloway reported alcohol (including alcohol plus drug) issues - significantly more than in the other three areas. Clients in Dumfries & Galloway were also more likely to report both drug and alcohol issues than at the other sites examined.

3.37 Table 3.6 shows that heroin, methadone, alcohol and benzodiazepines were the main substances used by those who saw an ARW. Where recent substance use was reported, heroin was the most frequently cited drug at all sites. In Glasgow alcohol use (defined on monitoring forms as 'to intoxication') was reported as frequently as heroin use. Alcohol, benzodiazepines and methadone were the other main substances used by clients, although several schemes reported apparently anomalous levels of use in respect of these ( e.g. 4% were Methadone users in Tayside and no alcohol users in RERI). Although such anomalies could conceivably be due to differing levels of drug use, it is likely that differential recording of licit and illicit substance use between sites and the exclusion of those with alcohol issues from certain schemes are more relevant as explanatory factors in these cases. In general, it is worth noting the obviously high level of poly-drug use and, in particular, the combination of alcohol and drug use.

Table 3.6 Arrestees seen by ARWs - specific substances used by scheme

Notes to table
Source: Monitoring data
Figures may sum to more than 100 because of the possibility of multiple responses
*Ecstasy, Amphetamines, Other drugs, Psychedelics and Solvents are excluded from the above figures on substance use due to the small numbers involved.
**Much of the data on substance use was missing from the data collated at some sites. In order to counteract the effect of this and variations in reporting across sites, all cases where no affirmative indication of substance use was apparent were excluded from the analysis. The differences between the total numbers of clients and the base numbers reveal the extent of such exclusions.
***Aggregate figures for benzodiazepines and methadone were provided by most schemes and are reported above. Glasgow also provided separate figures for prescribed and illicit methadone (33% prescribed & 1% illicit) and benzodiazepines (8% prescribed, 16% illicit).

Link between substance misuse and offending

3.38 As part of the arrestees' survey in the 3 case study areas, respondents were asked whether they had used drugs or alcohol in the 24 hours prior to their arrest. Overall, around a fifth of survey participants said they had used alcohol in the 24 hours prior to their arrest and over half said they had used drugs during the same period. (Participants in Glasgow were slightly more likely than those in EMARS and Tayside to mention alcohol use and slightly less likely to mention drug use.) Looked at another way, only 8% of all those interviewed indicated that they had used neither drugs nor alcohol during the previous 24 hours.

Table 3.7 Use of drugs/alcohol in 24 hours prior to arrest

Notes to table
Source: Survey of arrestees
Figures may not sum to exactly 100 as a result of rounding

3.39 Over half, 52% (69, base 132) of all survey participants felt that drugs and/or alcohol had contributed to their arrest, though this proportion was slightly larger in EMARS, 73% (29, base 40) and smaller in Glasgow 40% (21, base 52), perhaps because almost three-quarters of arrests in the latter scheme were warrant related (see below).

3.40 There was evidence of a particularly strong link between drug use and offending. Participants in the arrestee survey who used drugs were asked about how they had financed their dug use. Paying with cash and using stolen goods were the most frequently used methods and, overall, 39% (51, base 132) of arrestees admitted to committing a crime in the previous four weeks to finance their habit.

Table 3.8 Method of payment for drugs

Notes to table
Source: Survey of arrestees
* Source of cash (legitimate or non-legitimate sources) not stated
**'Other ways' include dealing drugs; fraud, burglary, odd jobs, stealing drugs
Figures may not sum to 100 as a result of multiple responses

3.41 The following excerpts from the qualitative data illustrate the ways in which survey participants felt that drugs or alcohol had contributed to their arrest:

'I committed the offence when under the influence; if I was sober I wouldn't be in this position.'

'Definitely - [it was] shoplifting to feed my habit.'

'I get worse when I drink. I shout at people and pick fights.'

'Without a doubt. If I wasn't taking drugs I wouldn't be out stealing - simple as that.'

'Because I was off my head and would not have done it otherwise.'

Broader impact of substance misuse on arrestees

3.42 The interviews with arrestees also provided evidence of the extent to which the pilots were reaching individuals whose lives were being disrupted in other ways by issues relating to substance misuse. Overall, the vast majority of all survey participants, 86% (114, base 132) felt that their alcohol and/or drug use affected their relationships with family and friends. Three-quarters, 77%, (102, base 132) said they wanted help with their alcohol use and nearly 90%, (119, base 132) wanted help with their drug habit.

3.43 The following examples from the qualitative data are illustrative of how survey participants' relationships had been affected by substance misuse.

'Mum is threatening to disown me. She feels like packing up and moving away. My girlfriend is threatening to leave if I do not get help and also take my son away.'

'It upsets people. They all worry about you and think the worst of you and look down on you - 'disgrace'. But I spoke to my mum and dad and they realise that I wasn't just a junkie - I had a problem.'

'I've fallen out with my family because of it. My mum doesn't like it - nobody in the family likes it. My relationship broke up because of drugs and prison.'

'My family and friends are angry when I get out of control with alcohol and drugs.

'My girlfriend doesn't like it. It causes rows between us.'

3.44 Over half of all participants in the arrestee survey, 56% (66, base 117) who said they used drugs felt that their drug use was often or always out of control, again suggesting a reasonable basis for intervention and that the schemes (at least in the 3 case study areas covered by the survey) were reaching appropriate clients.

Type of offence and previous involvement with the criminal justice system

3.45 There was wide variation in the types of offences committed by clients seen by the AR teams (Table 3.9). In Glasgow 50% (365, base 730) and Lanarkshire 40% (53, base 133) of individuals were charged in relation to warrants (further details of the originating offence was not available either because it was unknown or not recorded fully). In contrast, at the Edinburgh court setting, the AR team noted more detail about the originating offence and therefore a much smaller proportion of individuals were recorded as having been arrested in relation to a warrant 11% (100, base 907). Warrants are shown separately in the following table and are not included in the detailed offence breakdown.

3.46 Among the cases where more detailed offence data were available it was apparent that many were arrested in relation to 'other' offences of which a sizeable proportion were accounted for by breach of the peace (1 in 5 of all arrestees in Tayside). Violence and shoplifting were also widely reported reasons for arrest, as were, to a lesser extent, drug offences and prostitution. However, there were particularities at certain sites: drug offences and shoplifting were extremely common and theft and housebreaking very rare in Lanarkshire (although base sizes here are problematic); motor vehicle theft and prostitution were high in Glasgow (sex workers were specifically targeted here) while a much lower level of shoplifting and drug offences were recorded.

Table 3.9 Arrestees seen by ARWs - offending behaviour

Notes to table
Source: Monitoring data. (Glasgow figures relate to arrestees accepting an AR referral)
*Tayside data total more than 100 per cent as the scheme recorded multiple charging offences.
**Substantial sections of offending data were missing from the information collated at some sites. In order to counteract the effect of these large sections of missing data, variations in reporting across sites and the substitution of details about the type of offence with the simple assertion that arrest was in relation to a warrant at some sites, all cases where no affirmative indication of offending of a specific type was apparent were excluded from the analysis.
***Where reported, italicised categories are the constituent elements of categories highlighted in bold.
****Aside from Breach of the Peace, the 'Other' category contains offences such as fire raising/malicious/reckless damage, road traffic offences, Breaches of curfew, Probation Order or Bail (all reported separately in Tayside) along with other offences not represented in the remaining categories presented above.
*****These numbers are the base for the offence categories (total - no offending data - warrants).
******Information from Glasgow often reported merely that arrest occurred in relation to a warrant. In order to account for this variation, warrant-related cases are excluded from the main analysis across all sites. For clarity, the figure reported here relates to warrant arrests as a proportion of the total after the exclusion of cases where no offending was reported.
******* A large number of cases in Lanarkshire provided no offending data, probably because of monitoring/recording issues. In order to account for this anomaly, only cases where there was a positive indication of recent offending were included in the analysis. The figure reported here relates to the number and proportion of total cases excluded as a result of this criterion.

3.47 Information about previous involvement with the criminal justice system was available in various forms from the schemes. While data completeness and comparability are major issues in relation to these figures, they do appear to indicate that clients seen by the schemes are generally unlikely to be first-time offenders. For example, in Tayside, 32% (284, base 893) of clients stated that they had previously been imprisoned. Ninety-three per cent of Glasgow clients seen by an ARW (199, base 214) stated that they had previous convictions while 56% (112, base 201) indicated that they had charges pending. A high proportion of clients seen in Lanarkshire (96%, n= 72) and EMARS (97%, n=798) also had previous convictions; indeed more than half (56%, n=42) in Lanarkshire and two-thirds in EMARS (68%, n=559) had more than ten previous convictions.

3.48 In Glasgow, Lanarkshire and EMARS the majority of arrestees appear to be prolific offenders or, at least, to exhibit well-established offending patterns. Information from the other sites is more tenuous but the criteria of current involvement or past incarceration used inevitably underestimate the extent of previous involvement with the criminal justice system as a whole.

3.49 The arrestee survey suggested that the majority of arrestees seen by ARWs are mainly repeat offenders. Virtually all survey interviewees 99% (129, base 130) said they had been arrested previously, and 81% that they had been arrested at least once in the previous 12 months. A significant minority of those who took part in the survey 21% (27, base 130) said they had been arrested more than 6 times during that period.

Table 3.10 Arrests in previous 12 months

Notes to table
Source: Survey of arrestees
Percentages do not all add up to 100 due to rounding.

3.50 It must be borne in mind that the above monitoring and arrestee survey data do not provide details of the specific forms of previous criminal involvement; in particular, it is not possible to determine whether previous offences were drug-related ( e.g. acquisitive crimes, prostitution) or not. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether, in agreeing to see an ARW, arrestees were seeking help for an emerging substance use problem or were at a later 'stage' in the cycle of change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) where a point of crisis triggered a desire to end an established pattern of drug use. Neither can the data offer insights into the degree to which 'new' and 'experienced' drug users were 'targeted' by individual custody staff or ARWs, or the extent of reactivity/proactivity among these actors.

Extent to which the pilot schemes are reaching 'new' service users

3.51 We have seen that the vast majority of interviewees had been arrested before and that most had been using drugs or alcohol within 24 hours of their arrest. To what extent, then, does Arrest Referral seem to be reaching individuals who are not already in contact with support and treatment services? It is not possible to answer this precisely because of gaps in the chain of monitoring data. However some information on 'referring on' and proportions of new service users examined in the next chapter allows us to make some broad estimates. We do not know how many of Glasgow offers of AR by police were to existing service users but around two-thirds of arrestees interviewed by ARWs in the custody area were new to services. For Edinburgh and Tayside the estimated proportion of new service users interviewed by ARWs is lower, around 38-53% (based upon onward referral data).

3.52 The arrestee survey interviews of arrestees in the 3 case study areas, asked participants whether they had previously been offered help, support or treatment. Not surprisingly, there was a difference here between drugs and alcohol. Around half (44%) of those interviewed who drank alcohol indicated that they had not previously been offered help, support or treatment in relation to alcohol problems and a smaller number - around a quarter (27%) of those who were using drugs - that they had not previously been offered help for drug problems. We are unable to say how many of those who had previously been offered support were in contact with service agencies at the point that they were offered AR.

3.53 Qualitative interviews with stakeholders in Glasgow suggested that many of that scheme's new referrals related to alcohol, and this was seen as one of the successes of the project.

I think it's been very beneficial for the older guys who drink, who don't know how to access services. […] They've never had any help in their life before because they're not people who go and access services. They're maybe men that have worked for years, worked all their lives, drank all that time, and then it's now become a problem. So I think it's been really good for the drinkers in the East End. GLA 8 ARW

Level of support or input from ARWs

3.54 So far, we have considered the work of the schemes in terms of the number and characteristics of arrestees who accepted the offer of AR. We now turn to a consideration of the nature and extent of the work that was carried out with this group.

The length and format of the initial interview

3.55 Although there were differences across the 3 case study sites in terms of the format and content, style and delivery of the initial interview, essentially each site conducted a brief interview and mini assessment. In Glasgow and EMARS, the interviews generally lasted around 15-20 minutes and were conducted in a conversational rather than highly-structured style. When it was not too busy and the arrestee was interested, the ARWs might spend longer with an individual but this was more likely within the privacy afforded by the Glasgow interview space than in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court defence agent area. Each site had its own initial referral/monitoring form as a prompt to gather basic details and core information for monitoring. For example, EMARS has a short semi-structured topic guide and Glasgow has a one page pro-forma asking more structured information. Glasgow AR staff noted that there was a conflict between the need for obtaining monitoring information and the need to approach the arrestee in an empathetic manner.

If somebody's really upset, I probably wouldn't expect them to take much more than a basic name and address and a wee bit about them. I would expect them to sit and spend that time trying to reassure somebody. GLA 2 ARW

3.56 In Tayside, the interview was generally longer, lasting 20 to 30 minutes. The local assessment form also enables the completion of the SMR 24 (Scottish Drug Misuse Database Form returned to NHS Information and Statistics Division). Tayside was also unique in that the ARWs had undergone training from the Tayside Drug Problem Service to conduct a TDPS assessment in order to speed access to treatment. This was a very specific structured assessment to be used for individuals with problem drug misuse who wished to be referred on and took longer to complete (around 40 minutes).

Type of support offered

3.57 All AR schemes provided basic harm reduction information, initial support and signposting to other services. The ARWs generally only had very brief intervention with arrestees who were outwith the target group. For example, in EMARS, individuals presenting with an alcohol problem only were signposted to services and given relevant leaflets. Arrestees resident outwith the AR funding area received similar minimal assistance.

3.58 EMARS had a very clear statement of the various pathways the AR service facilitated for the target group of arrestees:

• Providing information, advice and brief intervention support - one off basis
• Providing information, advice and brief intervention support - multiple times until the time the individual is ready to accept a follow-up interview
• AR interview is the first ever contact towards a treatment service - small number
• Re-start a lapse of contact with a treatment agency - larger number
• New referrals to a new or different agency but with previous experience of treatment
• Safeguarding contacts e.g. place on waiting list for a prescription - quite a large part of the AR team work
• Enhancing contacts with existing services

3.59 An important aspect of all the AR teams work was taking on an advocacy role with other agencies. Glasgow found that around a third of their referrals - especially in relation to drug use - were, people already known to the Community Addiction Teams and the ARWs liaised with existing workers and services to maintain or enhance existing contact.

3.60 We have already noted the variation in the written materials provided by the ARWs in the different schemes at the initial interview. A particularly useful format was the business card provided in EMARS which had contact details on one side and on the other the ARW wrote the next appointment time, if agreed, and also any key action points.

Follow-up

3.61 The pilot sites varied in terms of the amount of follow-up offered. In Tayside, the main focus of the ARWs' work was the initial interview, though some follow-up work was undertaken. In Glasgow, there was a commitment to follow up clients for up to 6 weeks to enable the completion of the baseline assessment (the first part of the Single Shared Assessment used by the CAT teams). In EMARS, the resourcing of follow-up work was affected by the increase in numbers of initial referrals following the move to the Sheriff Court. In Glasgow, too, resource issues affected the number of home visits that were possible.

3.62 One of the greatest difficulties faced by the ARWs in EMARS and Glasgow was ensuring arrestee attendance at follow-up interviews. While offering set appointments after initial contact at the police office or at sheriff court worked for a very small number of highly motivated arrestees, in general, it was not a very successful approach. One of the reasons for this - apart from the often chaotic nature of arrestees' lives - was that it was often unclear at the initial interview whether the person would be available for a specific follow-up interview time. In Glasgow, this was exacerbated by communication problems between the ARWs and the court in relation to information about disposals for particular individuals.

3.63 As a result, Glasgow began to offer a drop-in service at the Newlands Centre, the East CAT team base. Glasgow has the particular advantage of being part of the wider CAT team and the duty staff will ensure arrestees who drop in outside the AR team hours are seen.

3.64 EMARS offers follow-up appointments at the SACRO office and has more recently developed afternoon drop-in sessions at two separate support agencies. The idea is that they can inform the arrestee they will be at the service on a particular afternoon. If the arrestee attends, the ARW can smooth the transition to the service worker.

3.65 In Lanarkshire, Edinburgh and Dumfries and Galloway the ARWs would sometimes also accompany arrestees to a first appointment at another agency - e.g. the housing office, community drug problem service, etc. In Lanarkshire, ARWs found that because of the low number of referrals they were able to put quite a bit of time into this; in EMARS, by contrast, the volume of referrals meant that this element of their work had to be dropped. In Dumfries and Galloway the ARWs had on occasion helped arrestees in outlying districts get to and keep a first appointment with a service. It was specifically the remit of the new Dundee ARW to keep arrestees contacted motivated and to attend agency appointments with them if required initially.

On-going casework by ARWs

3.66 The AR teams did not plan for, or carry, much of a caseload - 10 per ARW was the maximum mentioned. Glasgow ARWs spoke of having up to 26 at a time to try and contact or chase up but would not actually meet with that many. The Angus ARW previously carried cases and now had none. ARW contact might be continued until, in Glasgow, a CAT worker picked up the allocation, or in Perth and Dundee until first service assessment. Dumfries & Galloway aimed for three follow-up appointments but a number of arrestees remained in contact for longer - some being seen once a week e.g. in relation to support to abstain from alcohol.

Some are more demanding than others. We do try and move them on, but they have to be ready to move on rather than go back and that is ultimately relapse prevention - it's keeping that person motivated and keeping them going and providing that support. D&G 1 ARW

3.67 Reasons given for not holding cases included the fear of creating a bottleneck or dependency by arrestees on ARWs. However despite anxieties about workload, managers and ARWs noted the importance of carrying some on-going caseload because one-off and short-term contact can be frustrating for workers and lead to burnout.

I think we would have a high turnover of staff because it would be a matter of just sitting in the custody area, interviewing people, referring them on. And it would burn people out. They have to have that other aspect to the work as well. TAY 1 ARW

Intensity of ARW contacts

3.68 In terms of overall throughput, 24% EMARS arrestees were referred to the AR team on more than one occasion, compared with 18% in Tayside, 9% in Glasgow and only 7% in Lanarkshire. The monitoring data (Table 3.11) indicated that there was a high proportion of repeat offenders in arrestees seen by ARWs. As might be expected the EMARS and Tayside repeat referral figures reflected this but as yet Glasgow was seeing a lower rate of repeat referrals. Given that 28% (14, base 51) of the Glasgow survey arrestees indicated repeat offences it was expected that the repeat referral throughput percentage would rise as the scheme became more established.

3.69 EMARs also had the most intensive relationship with some of its clients, 7% (45) were referred on 3 or more occasions compared to 4% (26) of Tayside clients, 2% (10) of Glasgow clients and 1% (1) of Lanarkshire clients. In both Edinburgh and Tayside, clients referred on more than one occasion were significantly more likely to have previous convictions or have previously spent time in prison than those referred just once, indicating a direct relationship between offending behaviour and likelihood of contact with an ARW. No such relationship was evident in Lanarkshire. Despite the scheme there seeing the lowest proportion of multiple referrals, clients in Lanarkshire received the most intensive support (in terms of the total number of contacts and the time spent on clients) among the sites where data was available. Perhaps because of the low number of clients seen, more time was available to conduct follow-up work, which in turn reduced the need for multiple referrals to the team.

3.70 In EMARS, 2,036 separate tasks or contacts were recorded in connection with the 905 arrestees seen. Of these, 44% (898) were categorised as initial contacts, mostly taking place at the police or court cells, and 56% (1131) as subsequent contacts (70% telephone contact, 12% contacting an agency on behalf of client, 11% letters sent). The average referral involved 3 of these contacts with the maximum recorded as 51 contacts.

3.71 In Lanarkshire, 643 contacts were recorded in respect of the 133 referrals made to the scheme (an average of 5 per arrestee), 20% (130) of which were initial contacts and the remainder (80%, 512) were subsequent contacts. Of the initial contacts (50%, 65) took place in an 'other' location, while 47% (61) took place in the police or court cells. Forty-five per cent of initial contacts (59) were as a result of faxed referrals. Of subsequent contacts 36% (185) were made via letter; 30% (153) involved a phone call, 16% (84) involved an agency contact and 10% (49) a home visit. The high proportion of letters among subsequent contacts may be indicative of the relatively high intensity of case work in Lanarkshire, thought to be due to the low volume of referrals.

Table 3.11 Arrestees seen at four sites - multiple contacts

Notes to table
Source: Monitoring data
* SACRO schemes in EMARS and Lanarkshire recorded data for the tasks undertaken and contacts made in association with individual referrals. The type of task or contact was recorded ( e.g. meeting, phone call, letter), along with which worker conducted the activity, the object of the activity and whether it was an initial or subsequent activity.
** Alongside other information, SACRO schemes in EMARS and Lanarkshire recorded how long each on task or contact took to complete.

Summary

• In terms of throughput, there was great variation across the schemes in terms of absolute numbers, ranging from around 800-900 initial contacts per year with arrestees in Edinburgh and Tayside, to around 100 in Lanarkshire and RERI.
• There was also great variation in terms of the relationship between projected and actual numbers. Edinburgh, for example, recorded almost twice as many initial contacts as originally projected (largely as a result of the move to the Sheriff Court), while Lanarkshire recorded only around a tenth of the number expected.
• Overall, those arrestees in contact with the schemes were predominantly male, white and aged between 21 and 40. The vast majority were unemployed or not seeking work and had previous convictions and/or charges pending.
• There was some evidence that police-based AR schemes were likely to miss a proportion of young people and women who were released early from the police office.
• Information on the characteristics of those who declined the offer of AR was only available from Glasgow and suggested that refusers were more likely to be young (aged 16-20), to be male and to be arrested in relation to drunken and violent behaviour. Conversely, older arrestees, females and those arrested in relation to court-related offences were relatively more likely to accept the offer.
• The schemes certainly appear to be successfully targeting arrestees with substance misuse problems - though it is noticeable that alcohol issues are present among arrestees even in those schemes which focus primarily on drug use. Among survey participants in the three case study areas, only 8% had not used either drugs or alcohol in the 24 hours prior to their arrest and around 1 in 6 had used both.
• The survey interviews also suggested that AR is reaching individuals whose lives are being disrupted by substance misuse in broader ways - e.g. through dislocation of relationships with family and friends, reported by the vast majority of survey participants.
• Data from both the survey of arrestees and monitoring sources also confirm that the vast majority of those seen by ARWs are repeat offenders, often with experience of incarceration.
• Around two-thirds of AR interviews in Glasgow and 40-50% in Edinburgh and Tayside were not existing users of support and treatment services. Not surprisingly, arrestees offered help in relation to alcohol were less likely to have been offered help or support previously.
• The length and format of the initial AR interview varied significantly across the various schemes. In all areas, ARWs provided a range of different kinds of help and support, including basic harm reduction information, new referrals on to other agencies or liaison with services which the arrestee was already in contact with. There is some evidence that the intensity of contact was greater in areas with lower overall throughput.
• The training of Tayside ARWs in the use of the Tayside Drug Problem Service assessment was seen as particularly good practice.