Drug treatment and testing orders: Final evaluation report--Home Office research study 212

Turnbull, Paul J.; McSweeney, Tim; Webster, Russell; Edmunds, Mark; Hough, Mike

doi:10.1037/e452722008-001

Cited by 34 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pilot DTTO schemes were introduced in England in 1998 in three pilot sites, with varying degrees of success (Turnbull et al, 2000). Revocation rates differed markedly from 28 per cent in one site to 60 per cent in another and a number of issues were identified that needed to be addressed prior to any national rollout of orders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, they emphasised the case management role of the supervising officer, who would be responsible for co-ordinating service provision rather than directly providing services. Third, and perhaps most significantly, they included provision for sentencers to take an active role in reviewing the progress of offenders on orders by bringing them back to court on a regular basis (or, alternatively, scrutinising progress through paper-based reviews).Pilot DTTO schemes were introduced in England in 1998 in three pilot sites, with varying degrees of success (Turnbull et al, 2000). Revocation rates differed markedly from 28 per cent in one site to 60 per cent in another and a number of issues were identified that needed to be addressed prior to any national rollout of orders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts

McIvor

2009

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Kingdom, in common with other western jurisdictions, has in recent years sought to develop more effective ways of responding to drug related crime. Although the link between drug use and crime is complex, it is recognised that much acquisitive crime in the UK occurs through the need for individuals with drug problems to obtain the financial resources necessary to maintain a regular supply of drugs. Previous legislative endeavours had focused primarily upon attempting to reduce the supply of illicit substances through increasingly severe sanctions for those convicted of drug dealing. However, by the late 1990s policy attention shifted towards demand reduction through the provision of drug treatment to individuals whose offending was related to the misuse of drugs. The rationale was that addressing drug misuse would, in turn, result in reduced levels of crime, since individuals would no longer need to commit offences to support their drug habits. The criminal justice system was perceived as a suitable route into treatment for individuals with drug problems in view of emerging research findings that indicated that mandated treatment could be as effective as treatment accessed voluntarily (Hough, 1996 and, more recently, McSweeney et al, 2006. Furthermore, evidence was emerging from the United States that Drug Courts, first introduced in 1989 and subsequently established across the country, were showing promise in reducing problematic drug use and drug-related crime (Belenko, 1998). 2Although courts in the UK already had the option of requiring offenders to seek treatment for their drug problems as a condition of probation, in practice there were often lengthy waiting lists. Unable to access treatment at the start of their orders, probationers were likely to continue offending, to breach their orders and to face a custodial sentence as a consequence. Through the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, provision was made for the introduction of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) across the UK. DTTOs, which drew upon the US Drug Court model, differed from existing community penalties in a number of important respects. First, they allowed for the regular drug testing of offenders as a requirement of the court. Second, they emphasised the case management role of the supervising officer, who would be responsible for co-ordinating service provision rather than directly providing services. Third, and perhaps most significantly, they included provision for sentencers to take an active role in reviewing the progress of offenders on orders by bringing them back to court on a regular basis (or, alternatively, scrutinising progress through paper-based reviews).Pilot DTTO schemes were introduced in England in 1998 in three pilot sites, with varying degrees of success (Turnbull et al., 2000). Revocation rates differed markedly from 28 per cent in one site to 60 per cent in another and a number of issues were identified that needed to be addressed prior to any national rollout of orders. A subsequent analysis of recidivis...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts

McIvor

2009

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The initial resistance to the drugs-crime agenda, found in the opinions of drug workers during the DTTOs evaluation (Turnbull, et al, 2000) was not widespread in the opinions of those interviewed for this study. While drug workers recognised the need to help clients "reduce their drug use, or with housing or employment issues" [Graham, Substance Misuse Practitioner] most of them also acknowledged the priority to reduce crime.…”

Section: Achieving Coherence Between Criminal Justice and Drug Treatmmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Similarly, Weston (2014) argues that the 'reframing' of drug policy has resulted in the articulation of inconsistent messages that may have reinforced the polarised treatment ideologies observed among professionals working with drug users. The implementation of DTTOs encountered many of these difficulties with cultural, ideological and philosophical differences found between treatment and criminal justice staff resulting in fundamental problems around interagency working between the two groups (Turnbull, et al 2000;Hough, et al, 2003). The entrenched institutional interests of the health-oriented agencies around care, health and harm reduction clashed with the coercive and punitive based ethos of the CJS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The everyday work of the drug treatment practitioner: The influence and constraints of a risk-based agenda

Weston

2016

Critical Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crime reduction is a key objective in drug treatment policy and practice, and the criminal justice system is a key player in the delivery of treatment, particularly its potential to provide a pathway into drug treatment. Despite cultural, ideological and philosophical differences, criminal justice and health sector workers are expected to work together alongside other agencies to address dependent drug use and associated harms. Through an analysis of indepth interviews with drug treatment practitioners this paper critically examines a number of assumptions underpinning this policy imperative. The author illustrates how the goals and everyday activities of drug workers have become aligned to the CJS helping to create closer working relationships between these two agencies. However, also argued is how such changes may have helped to constrain drug workers' relationships with other health and social care agencies making it difficult to address the complex needs presented by dependent drug users.

show abstract

“…This article however, focuses on just one aspect of the 2003 legislation, namely the community supervision of drug misusing offenders. Drug misusers present the probation service with a number of challenges; conventional wisdom suggests that the inevitable escalation in the level of their criminality, combined with their propensity toward a chaotic lifestyle and an inclination toward relapse make them especially vulnerable to falling foul of the terms and conditions of supervision (Turnbull et al 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%