Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Final Evaluation Report

• NCJ Number: 190712
• Author(s): Paul J. Turnbull; Tim McSweeney; Russell Webster; Mark Edmunds; Mike Hough
• Date Published: October 2000
• Length: 115 pages
• Sale Source: Great Britain Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: Home Office Research Study 212

Annotation

This report presents the methodology and findings from an 18-month evaluation of the implementation and impact of drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) in three pilot jurisdictions of England.

Abstract

DTTOs were introduced in Great Britain as a new community sentence under the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998. The orders were established in response to increasing evidence of the link between problem drug use and persistent acquisitive offending. DTTOs target serious drug-abusing offenders aged 16 and older, with the dual aim of treating their drug use in order to reduce the amount of crime committed to fund a drug habit. The DTTO requires offenders to undergo regular urine tests and, unique to community sentences, court-reviews to monitor progress. The evaluation of the DTTO in three pilot jurisdictions focused on the type of offenders sentenced to a DTTO, how well they complied with treatment requirements, the testing and review components of the order, and how successful the projects were in reducing drug use and related offending. On the basis of self-report data, there were substantial reductions in drug use and offending at the start of the order; the 6-month interviews showed that these reductions were largely sustained over time; typically, people stopped using crack or amphetamines, but continued to use opiates, albeit at a much reduced level. There were commensurate reductions in acquisitive crime. Although appropriate caution should be used in relying on self-report data, they were consistent with the urine-testing results and other similar surveys. Recommendations for improvement pertained to interagency working, referral procedures, assessment, matching the individual to treatment, the clarity of intervention objectives, expectations for drug use under DTTOs, the consistency and effectiveness of urine testing, continuity of sentencers at court reviews, the streamlining of violation procedures, and monitoring procedures. Extensive tables and figures, 15 references, and appended details of research methodology and urine test data