Home Office Research Study 286
Evaluation of drug testing in the
criminal justice system
Matrix Research and Consultancy and NACRO
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily
those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy).
Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
July 2004
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Home Office Research Studies
The Home Office Research Studies are reports on research undertaken by or on behalf of
the Home Office. They cover the range of subjects for which the Home Secretary has
responsibility. Other publications produced by the Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate include Findings, Statistical Bulletins and Statistical Papers.
The Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
RDS is part of the Home Office. The Home Office's purpose is to build a safe, just and tolerant
society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are
properly balanced and the protection and security of the public are maintained.
RDS is also part of National Statistics (NS). One of the aims of NS is to inform Parliament and
the citizen about the state of the nation and provide a window on the work and performance
of government, allowing the impact of government policies and actions to be assessed.
Therefore –
Research Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making, decision
taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to provide the public and
Parliament with information necessary for informed debate and to publish information for
future use.
First published 2004
Application for reproduction should be made to the Communications and Development Unit,
Room 264, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT.
© Crown copyright 2004
ISBN 1 84473 322.X
ISSN 0072 6435
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the Home Office for funding this research and facilitating the use of the
findings to inform government policy. The Home Office research and policy team included
Teresa Williams, Jennifer Airs, Stuart Deaton, Anita Krishnamurthy and Jo Grinter. The
research was guided by a team of experts from a number of universities, including Professor
Kevin Lee and Dr Karl Taylor from the University of Leicester, Professor Mike Hough and Paul
Turnbull from Kings College London, Dr Alex Hirschfield from the University of Liverpool, Dr
Kate Bowers and Dr Shane Johnson from University College London, Dr Alan France from
the University of Sheffield, Professor Christine Godfrey from the University of York and
Andrew Zelin from Mori.
We are enormously grateful to staff at each of the nine drug testing pilot sites for
p a rticipating in the evaluation. All sites have co-operated fully with the study team
throughout the evaluation. Staff working in the pilot sites have also provided a wealth of
information via the supply of ongoing monitoring data, as well as participating in the
research interviews, case-tracking, focus groups and workshops. Our thanks are also
extended to all of those individuals who participated in the detainee and offender interview
programme. The information they provided has been used to inform all aspects of our
evaluation.
Finally, thank you to the research teams from Nacro and Matrix who worked tirelessly on
the project during the last three years and who ensured that we delivered and learnt from
the evaluation in a complex national and local policy environment.
i
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
ii
Contents
Acknowledgements
i
Executive summary
v
1
Introduction
Structure of report
1
1
2
Policy context
3
3
Drug-testing provisions
The provisions
The test process
Consequences of a positive test
The testing equipment
7
7
9
11
12
4
Methodology
The pilot programme
Research brief
Research design and analysis
Data sources
Ethical issues and consent
Commentary
15
15
16
17
23
28
28
5
Testing on charge
Introduction
Implementation of the drug-testing provisions
Effectiveness of testing on charge
Economic analysis
31
31
31
43
54
6
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Introduction
Implementation of DAO/DARs
Effectiveness of DAO/DARs
Economic analysis
59
59
59
68
80
iii
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
iv
7
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Introduction
Implementation of licence testing
Effectiveness of licence testing
Economic analysis
85
85
85
91
98
8
Changes in trigger offence rates in pilot and comparison areas
101
9
Conclusion
103
Appendix 1: Key terms and glossary
105
Appendix 2: The research team and roles
109
References
111
Executive summary
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 20001 sets out provisions for the use of drug
testing for specified Class A drugs2 for individuals aged 18 and over who have been
charged or convicted of “trigger offences”3 (these include property crime, robbery and
specified Class A drug offences). The objectives of the drug-testing provisions are described
as ‘to deter drug misuse whilst under criminal justice supervision and to identify offenders
who should be receiving treatment and monitoring their progress’.4 The testing provision
comprises five elements:
●
●
●
●
●
on-charge: within police stations;
p r e - s e n t e n c e: when the court is considering the imposition of a community
sentence;
Drug Abstinence Order (DAO): for those in a specified target group 5 for whom an
alternative community sentence is not appropriate;
Drug Abstinence Requirement (DAR) 6 as a condition of a community sentence;
and
a drug testing requirement as part of a condition of release from prison on licence
or under Notice of Supervision (NoS) (for 18- to 22-year olds).
Mr Bob Ainsworth MP announced the drug testing pilot programme for the Home Office on
27th July 2001. In parallel, an evaluation of the pilot programme was commissioned and
the findings are the subject of this report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
The Act is on the Home Office website at: www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000043.htm
The Act states that the powers are to test for specified Class A drugs. At this stage only heroin and
crack/cocaine have been specified for drug testing purposes (SI 2001/1816). However it should be recognised
that the drug test used screens for opiates, and if a positive test for opiates is disputed, a subsequent laboratory
test confirms heroin usage.
Trigger offences specified under the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968: section 1 (theft); section 8
(robbery); section 9 (burglary); section 10 (aggravated burglary); section 12 (taking motor vehicle or other
conveyance without authority); section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking); section 15 (obtaining property by
deception); section 25 (going equipped for stealing, etc.). In addition, offences under the following provisions of
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are trigger offences if committed in respect of a specified Class A drug: section 4
(restriction on the production and supply of controlled drugs); section 5(2) (possession of controlled drug) and
section 5(3) (possession of controlled drug with intent to supply).
Testing on charge guidance (Home Office, 2001).
Individuals aged 18 and over who are identified as being dependent on or having a propensity to misuse
specified Class A drugs, where the offence in question is a trigger offence, or misuse by the offender of any
of the specified drugs caused or contributed to the offence.
For inclusion in a community sentence for those who in the opinion of the court are dependent on or have a
propensity to misuse specified Class A drugs and who have been convicted of a trigger offence or where the
court is of the opinion that misuse of a specified Class A drug caused or contributed to the offence.
v
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Implementation
By the end of October 2003, 17,586 on-charge tests had been undertaken on 11,276
individuals.
Testing on charge has been implemented successfully in all areas, with the vast majority of
tests being undertaken successfully and with few refusals. The pattern of drug usage that the
test results reveal shows a similar pattern in all areas, apart from Hackney, which has a
substantially greater use of crack/cocaine. The proportion of positive tests varied from 36
per cent to 65 per cent. The vast majority of detainees were male and unemployed and
almost all (95%) thought they had been treated fairly or very fairly during the testing process
(see Table 5.7 in Chapter 5). However, views were mixed about whether it was right that
the police could drug-test people that they arrest and charge.
Data on numbers of individuals charged with a trigger offence are not routinely available
for each pilot site; however a compliance review undertaken in all sites in May 2003
showed that there was variation across sites in the proportion of eligible drug tests missed at
the on-charge stage, varying from 0 to 36 per cent.
Pre-sentence testing was infrequently used across most of the sites; a total of 64 pre-sentence
tests were requested across the nine sites during the period of the evaluation. Reasons for
the low use of pre-sentence tests included:
●
●
●
limited stakeholder understanding of the use and purpose of the tests;
limited promotion of the availability of pre-sentence tests by pilot managers; and
lack of facilities within courts to undertake tests.
The use of Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements (DAO/DARs) has
been implemented on all sites. Within the period of the evaluation, 1,462 DARs have been
ordered across all areas. All sites have developed the capacity in terms of staffing, skills
and equipment to deliver DAO/DARs. Nearly all (98%) of the DAO/DAR respondents felt
that they were treated fairly or very fairly during the whole testing process. Over threequarters of respondents (81%) also thought that it was right that people sentenced by the
court can have a drug-testing condition attached as part of their sentence.
vi
Executive summary
7
8
9
An unsuccessful test is defined as one where either the offender refused to take the test (0.5% of all tests
attempted), the test was aborted due to equipment failure (0.3%) or because the offender was unable to provide
a sample (0.3%).
Forensic Science Service. It should be noted that 10% of all samples were required to be sent to FSS for quality
control monitoring purposes.
Note that the averages are distorted by the throughput of the larger sites.
vii
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Not everyone who was eligible was sentenced to a DAR. Reasons included:
●
●
●
variation in awareness of the provisions amongst probation staff and courts;
difficulties in positioning of the different sentencing options including Drug Testing
and Treatment Orders; and
views amongst stakeholders that testing without treatment would ‘set offenders up
to fail’.
Eighty-two DAOs have been ordered, far fewer than the number of DARs. This is due to a
number of factors including the perceived benefit of the Order and size of the population for
whom this may have an impact.
Breach rates and sentence outcome varied across areas; some courts were more ready to
sentence offenders to custody after first breach than others.
Testing on licence and under notice of supervision has also been introduced in all sites. In
total 572 on-licence testing requirements were issued. From the monitoring data, 35 per
cent of the licence population were breached; of these 83 per cent 10 were recalled to
prison.
Not all those who might be considered eligible for the condition were subject to drug
testing. For this group of offenders there are some additional complexities surrounding the
addition of testing conditions to licences as compared with other aspects of probation drugtesting provisions. These included:
●
●
●
communication between prisons and probation;
a lack of awareness of the pilot and its purpose by prison and probation staff; and
a lack of awareness of drug use of offenders.
10 Of those where an outcome of the breach was known.
viii
Executive summary
Probation data: cumulative to 31st October 2003
Pilot site
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
Start Date
DARs (no.)
DAOs (no.)
Licence testing
and NoS (no.)
November 2001
November 2001
November 2001
August 2002
June 2002
July 2002
July 2002
August 2002
July 2002
160
94
456
71
96
317
89
95
84
1,462
14
13
18
13
9
6
5
3
1
82
56
112
158
21
13
61
23
109
19
572
Findings: On-charge testing11
The evaluation identified a number of theories about how testing on charge could potentially
have an impact on either levels of drug consumption or offending. As well as having the
potential to have a direct effect on drug consumption and offending, it could work as an
adjunct to other rehabilitative and punitive interventions. Drug consumption could be reduced
via increased access to treatment services, which itself could be enhanced via increased
access to arrest referral services. Equally, the use of more appropriate sentencing to balance
punishment, protection and offender rehabilitation could impact on behaviour. At a strategic
level, drug testing could provide more accurate information about the population’s use of
Class A drugs resulting in more appropriate policing and drug treatment strategies.
The evaluation identified a number of operational challenges which, if not addressed,
mitigate the potential effectiveness of the provisions. These include ensuring that:
●
those tested are offered arrest referral services as per the drug testing guidance.
Compliance audit findings identified that the proportion of those testing positive
on charge being informed of the availability of arrest referral varied by site from
around 50 per cent to 93 per cent;
●
the tester has the skills and knowledge to motivate individuals to access either
arrest referral services or treatment. Some sites have invested in training Civilian
11 Source: Offender interviews from Nottingham and Doncaster.
ix
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Detention Officers (CDOs) (the police testers) in drug awareness issues and in the
role of the local arrest referral worker;
●
test information is communicated to the court and that it is taken into account in
bail/sentencing decisions. Offender interview data suggest that this is an
important consideration from the defendant’s perspective. However, compliance
audits suggest that communication difficulties meant that sentencers were alerted
to test results in only 26 per cent of cases;
●
aggregated test information is reported to stakeholders and these data are used
to inform strategy development. There is some evidence that stakeholders are
using drug testing information to inform local operational and strategic policy
making and planning; and
●
individuals who need it have access to treatment. Waiting lists for appropriate
and effective treatment limited the potential effectiveness of the drug-testing
provisions on some sites. However, the National Treatment Agency has been
implementing a strategy designed to improve the accessibility and quality of drug
treatment services nationally during the course of the evaluation.
An analysis of changes in behaviour of detainees being tested over time identified:
x
●
an increase in offers and acceptance of offers to see arrest referral workers after
the test compared with before the test. The analysis found that 16 per cent of
respondents in Doncaster and 12 per cent of respondents in Nottingham were
offered ar rest referral after the test where they had not already been offered (or
not realised that they had been offered) before the test. Eleven per cent of
respondents in Doncaster and four per cent of respondents in Nottingham
accepted the offer of arrest referral after the test where they had rejected it before
the test. If the appointment is kept and arrest referral services result in increased
access to treatment services, this could impact on treatment uptake; and
●
increased access to treatment services for those testing positive. By the time of the
second follow-up interview (8 months post charge), those detainees who received a
positive drug test were approximately 24 per cent more likely to enter treatment than
those who received a negative drug test (after having allowed for differences in levels
of drug consumption). Depending on the effectiveness of local treatment services, this
could result in a reduction in drug consumption and, consequently, offending.
Executive summary
For both findings, any implied causal links between drug testing and changes in either arrest
referral acceptance or participation in treatment warrant careful interpretation. Evaluation of
a rrest re f e rral services and treatment services and their respective impact on dru g
consumption and offending was outside the scope of this research. Moreover, no significant
direct effects have been detected in relation to drug testing on changes in drug consumption
or offending behaviour. This may be due to either the evaluation timescale, in the context of
the complex routes through which testing is expected to impact on these outcomes (arrest
referral and treatment), or to problems with the study design which limited the team’s ability
to isolate the impact of testing from other causal factors.
The unit costs of drug testing range between sites from £168 to £44 per police test. In
general high throughput sites experienced lower unit costs. Combining the impact analysis
with the cost analysis, the estimated cost per additional person accepting arrest referral was
£1,993 in Nottingham and £1,464 in Doncaster.
Funding levels for drug testing by police in the pilot sites have been relatively high
compared to actual implementation costs. Analysis suggests that the site costs were on
average less than half that reflected in the funding levels. The main reason for this was the
appointment of CDOs to undertake the tests, who also took on board other duties (for
example, gaoler) within the police station as well as testing, thus freeing up police time
within the sites (but which could not be costed).
Findings: Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
The DAO/DAR is a complex intervention as it combines the requirement to be abstinent, the
experience of being tested for Class A drugs, the outcomes following a positive test result,
the time spent with the PSO discussing drug- and off e n d i n g - related issues and other
probation supervision (for DAR), with an enforcement component brought about by the
threat (and implementation) of breach. DARs also potentially operate as an adjunct to
t reatment for those offenders who need treatment to address their substance misuse
problems. In this regard, the effectiveness of the intervention is mitigated by the effectiveness
of drug treatment services.
In this context, the main operational issues identified were that:
●
testers played an important extended role, beyond just testing, in motivating
offenders;
xi
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
the relationship between Probation Service Officers (PSOs) and Probation Officers
(POs) is important. The POs have responsibility for overall case management, and
meet the offender once a week. This compares to the twice a week meeting
between the PSO and the offender at the test. Effective communication between
the two probation staff promotes a consistent approach to the overall case
management of the offender’s sentence; and
●
timely access to treatment is important for those offenders who do not have
control over their drug use but where a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO)
was not deemed suitable, including those who would not give consent or had
already failed an Order.
The outcomes analysis involved a comparison of individuals tested in the pilot sites
c o m p a red with a matched group of individuals in comparison sites. Difficulties with
gaining a large sample size in the comparison areas meant that the results were not
statistically significant at the 95 per cent confidence level.2 Nevertheless, the results are
consistent with other findings from the qualitative re s e a rch indicating there was a
population for whom there was a positive impact on drug consumption, treatment contact,
abstinence and offending across both first and second follow-up interviews (at four and
eight months):
●
reduced levels of drug consumption: By the first follow-up interview, 44 per cent
of the pilot group had not used any of the Class A drugs detected by the drug test
during the month before the first follow-up interview compared with 26 per cent of
the comparison group. There were differences in terms of drug type, with opiate
use lower amongst the pilot group relative to the comparison group but little
difference seen in respect of crack/cocaine;
●
higher levels of treatment contact: 74 per cent contacted treatment agencies in the
pilot areas compared with 62 per cent in the comparison areas at around four
months after DAO/DAR commencement;
●
higher levels of abstinence from heroin and crack/cocaine: 33 per cent of
respondents compared with 14 per cent at around four months after DAO/DAR
commencement; and
12 Comparison area sampling difficulties, combined with high levels of attrition, has meant that the analysis has not
been sufficiently powerful to identify results which are statistically significant. See Chapter 4 for further details.
xii
Executive summary
●
lower levels of offending: Arrests, convictions and imprisonment were all lower
for the pilot group compared with the comparison group. However, the scale of
the differences was smaller than for drug consumption and treatment. Around
half of respondents said they had been arrested since initial interview: 46 per
cent of the pilot group and 54 per cent of the comparison group. The pilot
g roup was less likely to have been convicted for an offence since initial
interview (38% compared with 49% of the comparison group) and less likely to
ha ve r eceiv ed a cus tod ial sent enc e (1 7% co mpared wi th 36 % o f th e
comparison group).
The unit costs of drug testing range between sites from £355 to £88 per test. In general,
high throughput sites experienced lower unit costs. Using estimates of the cost of drug
misuse and offending to society, it is estimated that testing would have needed to reduce the
number of individuals ordered onto a DAO/DAR using Class A drugs by 31.9 per cent and
offending levels by 1.15 trigger offences per person over the first year of the pilot. It is
important to note that the intervention costs used for this analysis include treatment and
criminal justice interventions associated with breach.
Funding levels for DAO/DAR drug testing in the pilot sites have been similar to the actual
implementation costs.
Findings: testing on licence or under notice of supervision
Testing individuals on licence or under notice of super vision is al so a complex
intervention. It has the potential to operate in a similar way to the DAR but with a stronger
enforcement component brought about by the threat (and implementation) of breach and
recall to prison.
Not all those who might be considered eligible for the requirement were subject to drug
testing. Some offenders were not given a testing order because either probation or Early
Release and Recall Section (ERRS)13 in the Prison Service actively rejected the option for
clearly documented reasons.
For those included in the pilot as compared with matched individuals from the comparison
areas, the analysis suggested that on-licence testing produced:
13 Formerly called the Sentence Enforcement Unit.
xiii
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
lower levels of opiate consumption: Around three-quarters of the comparison
group (76 per cent) reported that they had used heroin in the month before first
follow-up interview compared with 34 per cent of the pilot group. The proportion
injecting drugs was also lower for the pilot group at only two per cent
(compared to 74% of the comparison group). It is believed that whilst this finding
was not statistically significant, it could be attributable to testing. Recent use of
crack/cocaine was similar: 20 per cent of the pilot group and 29 per cent of the
comparison group;
●
increased numbers of new contacts with treatment: After around four months of
testing, the pilot group was more likely to have made new contacts with
treatment since initial interview (36% compared with 5% of the comparison
group). Respondents in the pilot areas were also more likely to have stopped
taking drugs as a result of treatment since initial interview (14% compared
with 1%); and
●
reduced levels of offending. At around four months after testing commencement,
pilot group respondents were less likely to have been arrested (38%) or convicted
of an offence (20%) since initial interview than those in the comparison group
(65% and 39% respectively).
As for the DAO/DAR analysis, whilst not significant at the 95 per cent confidence level, the
changes are consistent across a number of different outcome measures and with the findings
from the other elements of the evaluation.
The unit costs of on-licence drug testing range between the sites from £355 to £88 per test.
In general, high throughput sites experienced lower unit costs. Using estimates of the cost of
drug misuse and offending to society, it is estimated that testing would have needed to
reduce the number of individuals given licence conditions using Class A drugs by 67.3 per
cent and offending levels by 2.42 trigger offences per person over the first year of the pilot .
It is important to note that the intervention costs used for this analysis include treatment and
criminal justice interventions associated with breach and recall to prison.
Funding levels for on-licence drug testing in the pilot sites have been similar to the actual
implementation costs.
xiv
Executive summary
Pan-pilot findings
The evaluation has identified a number of implementation issues14 which affect all pilot sites
and are not specific to particular elements of the drug-testing provisions:
●
issues concerned with the perceptions of the accuracy of testing equipment: there
is a perception that drug tests generally can under-report Class A drug use and
this can impact on the perceived validity of the test by detainees, offenders,
testers and other stakeholders;
●
the need for strong partnership working at both management and operational
level: there was evidence of variable engagement by stakeholders across the sites
which affected implementation, particularly in relation to communications in court;
and
●
a requirement for local processes for monitoring and improving performance:
sites did not develop self-initiated evaluation and performance systems to monitor
implementation and compliance.
Commentary
As an intervention, drug testing in police stations is demonstrated to be capable of being
imple mente d. The re are some compliance issu es but these should be re l a t i v e l y
straightforward to address via more systematic monitoring, audit and analysis of action
taken locally. The test result does appear to provide the criminal justice system with a
relatively firm evidence base for Class A drug use amongst detainees (compared with
relying upon self-reported information alone).
On-charge testing is not in itself an intervention that can directly reduce Class A drug
consumption and offending behaviour. Although some detainees report that it could affect
their behaviour, it is most likely to have an impact if it has a consequence in relation to other
interventions both rehabilitative and punitive. The authors found that drug testing on charge
has the potential to work as an adjunct to arrest referral and treatment services; however,
the use of these services as vehicles for reducing drug consumption is dependent on the
effectiveness of these interventions (as opposed to testing on its own). Implementation
14 These findings are published in http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r176.pdf,
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r180.pdf, and
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/dpr16.pdf, rather than this report.
xv
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
difficulties have meant that it has not been possible to explore the impact on behaviour
where test results are used to inform court decisions, but judging from offender views this too
could play a role.15
Issues of cost effectiveness will also need to be seen in this context, namely whether the
additional costs of drug testing on top of these other interventions either deliver additional
benefits or whether there is a more cost effective alternative of increasing participation in
either arrest referral or treatment services.
For probation testing, the impact analysis suggests that the provisions increase treatment
take-up, reduce drug consumption and reduce offending. Whilst not significant within a 95
per cent confidence interval, the results are consistent across a number of outcomes and
over time. Moreover, the economic analysis suggests that if the reported impacts are
reliable, the intervention may be relatively cost beneficial if the combined impact on drug
consumption and offending is achieved, especially if it is sustained over the long term.
Section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act (2003) changes the nature of community sentences.
Within the terms of the Act, DAOs and DARs as they are currently ordered will not be
available. In this context, careful thought will need to be given when considering whether
there are features of DARs that could fit within the new generic community sentence.
The Criminal Justice Act (2003) also sets out provision to extend the number and type of
offenders eligible for licence testing. Licence testing can now be ordered for those aged 14
years and for offenders who have been convicted of any type of offence where it is deemed
that they have a substance misuse problem. Based on this evaluation, this pro p o s e d
extension will need to be supported by much stronger communication across correctional
services to ensure that eligible offenders are identified and engaged in the process, and that
testing is integrated into the generic process of applying for other licence conditions.
Finally, from a pilot management perspective, the areas have implemented most of the
interventions relatively well. Each has been supported with project managers and steering
groups comprising representatives of partner agencies and stakeholders. Nevertheless, for
successful implementation of future pilot programmes, sufficient re s o u rces should be
allocated to planning early to ensure that:
15
xvi
Section 19 of the new Criminal Justice Act (2003) creates a presumption that bail will not be granted to
someone charged with an offence who tests positive for a specified Class A drug and refuses “relevant
assessment” or “relevant follow-up”. It will be important to assess the possible punitive/deterrence effect of drug
testing in this context.
Executive summary
●
all participants have a clear view of the objectives of the intervention and the
mechanisms through which it might be expected to affect target outcomes;
●
all stakeholders are identified and motivated to participate; and
●
systems and processes are developed to support local performance monitoring
and improvement and to alert project managers of risks of implementation failure.
xvii
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
xviii
1
Introduction
The evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system in nine pilot sites located across
England and Wales began in September 2001. The research was undertaken by Matrix
Research and Consultancy Ltd in partnership with Nacro and was supported by an Expert
Panel.16 The findings of the evaluation are presented in this report. The Home Office has
published 2 papers outlining interim research findings and a Development and Practice
Report.17 These interim findings have already been used by the Home Office to support the
continuing development and implementation of the National Drugs Strategy.
Structure of report
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the policy context for the introduction of drug testing and
how this has subsequently evolved. Chapter 3 gives a description of the drug-testing
provisions that have been the subject of the pilot study. Chapter 4 contains a summary of the
research brief and the methodology adopted. Chapters 5 to 7 present summary evaluation
findings relating to the following initiatives: on-charge testing; Drug Abstinence Requirements
(DARs) and Drug Abstinence Orders (DAOs); and testing on licence or under notice of
supervision (NoS). Within each section, findings are provided in relation to implementation,
outcome and economic analysis. Findings which cut across the provisions as a whole are
summarised in Chapter 8. A concluding discussion is presented in Chapter 9.
In addition a list of key terms, glossary and bibliography is included in the report. The
findings presented in this report are drawn principally from a set of technical appendices,
which have not been published but have been made available to the Home Office. The
appendices are:
●
Technical appendix 1: Process and structure: This provides information relating to
the implementation aspects of the evaluation and draws from materials previously
provided to the Home Office in the form of unpublished interim reports and
thematic papers;
16 See Appendix 2, which specifies the role and contribution of Matrix and Nacro and each member of the expert
panel.
17 See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r176.pdf, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r180.pdf,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/dpr16.pdf
1
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
2
●
Technical appendix 2: Detainee and offender interviews: This provides a
description of the inter view based cohort study of offenders and includes a
description of the sampling framework and associated statistical analysis as well
as detailed findings. Details are also provided of the outcome analysis on
probation testing;
●
Technical appendix 3: On charge impact analysis: This appendix contains details
of the outcome analysis on-charge testing including the research approach,
statistical analysis and key findings;
●
Technical appendix 4: Crime rate analysis: This provides an analysis of crime
rates in the pilot areas;
●
Technical appendix 5: Cost-benefit analysis: The cost-benefit analysis is presented
in this appendix. Detailed information is provided on the costs of the relevant
drug-testing provisions and how these relate to outputs, outcomes and associated
benefits to society; and
●
Monitoring data: Site monitoring data covering the entire period of the evaluation
have been provided on a CD-ROM to the Home Office.
2
Policy context
Both research and police intelligence suggests that a large minority of recorded crimes are
drug-related, and there is evidence to suggest that some individuals, particularly those
dependent on opiates, become involved with crime to support their dependence.18 The NEWADAM project showed that 65 per cent of arrestees consenting to urine tests tested positive
for one or more illegal drugs and 30 per cent tested positive for two or more substances.19
This and other research20 has prompted the government to tackle drug-related crime through
legislation and interventions in the criminal justice system, as described below.
The first 10 year National Drug Strategy, ‘Tackling drugs to build a better Britain; The
Government’s Ten Year Strategy for Tackling Drug Misuse’ was launched in 1998.21 At a
local level, the strategy was to be delivered by Drug Action Teams working collaboratively
with local agencies. New partnerships were set up between the private, voluntary and
public sectors in order to co-ordinate the efforts to reduce drug misuse and drug-related
offending. The strategy was revised in December 2002 with a number of new initiatives
building on the first four years of implementation, including the development of stronger
links between the criminal justice system and treatment agencies. Of particular relevance to
the drug-testing pilot is the ongoing development of arrest referral schemes. These are
designed to exploit more fully opportunities for detainees to access treatment services as
they pass through the criminal justice system.
18 Hammersley et al. (1989). The relationship between crime and opioid use, British Journal of Addiction, 84,
p1029-43; Maden et al. (1992). A survey of pre-arrest drug use in sentenced prisoners, British Journal of
Addiction, 87, p27-33; Department of Health. (2002). Models of Care for substance misuse treatment:
promoting quality, efficiency and effectiveness in drug misuse treatment services.
19 Bennett et al. (2001). Drugs and Crime: the results of the second developmental stage of the NEW ADAM
programme. Home Office Research Findings No.205. London: Home Office.
20 For example Hough, M., Clancy, A., Turnbull, P.J. and McSweeney, T. (2003). The Impact of Drug Treatment
and Testing Orders on Offending: two-year reconviction results. Home Office Research Findings No. 184.
London: Home Office; Edmunds, M., May, T., Hough, M., and Hearnden, I. (1998) Arrest Referral: Emerging
Lessons from Research. Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper No. 23. London: Home Office; Edmunds, M., Hough,
M., Turnbull, P.J., and May, T. (1999) Doing Justice to Treatment: referring offenders to drug services. DPAS
Paper No. 2. London: Home Office; Harocopos, A., Dennis, D., Turnbull, P. J., Parsons, J. and Hough, M.
(2003) On the Rocks: A Follow-up Study of Crack Users in London. London South Bank University; Hearnden, I.
and Harocopos, A. (2000) Problem Drug Use and Probation in London. Home Office Research Findings No.
112. London: Home Office; Hough, M. (1996) Problem Drug Use and Criminal Justice: a review of the
literature. Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper No. 15. London: Home Office; and Turnbull, P.J., McSweeney, T.,
Hough, M., Webster, R. and Edmunds, M. (2000) Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Final evaluation report.
Home Office Research Study No. 212. London: Home Office.
21 The strategy can be found on the web at http://www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy
3
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 set out provisions to allow individuals
aged 18 and over who have been charged or convicted of “trigger offences” (these include
property crime, robbery and specified Class A drug offences) to be tested for specified
Class A drugs. It is the provisions set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act
2000 which the team have evaluated (see Chapter 3 for a description of the provisions).
The Government has since launched a number of other related initiatives which have not
formed part of the evaluation but are an important aspect of the policy context. The
following is not an exhaustive list but highlights the changing infrastructure within the drugs
and crime arena in England:
●
the introduction of the Street Crime Initiative (which included police drug testing
and increased opportunities for detainees to be referred into treatment) in high
street crime areas;
●
the launch of a further drug strategy in December 2002, ‘Tackling Crack: A
National Plan’22 sets out how issues related to crack use can be addressed, the
challenges crack raises for agencies and where delivery needs to be improved to
address crack use. A number of High Crack Areas were also identified;
●
the development of the Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (Drugs) (CJIP). CJIP
became operational in April 2003 and is due to run for three years. The Programme
intends to make the most of opportunities provided by the criminal justice system to
get drug-misusing offenders into treatment and thereby reduce the likelihood of
criminal activity. In the first year, 2003/4, the programme was rolled out to 25 Drug
Action Teams (DATs) that cover 30 Basic Command Units (BCUs) with high levels of
acquisitive crime.23 In 2004 this has been extended to a further 36 BCUs; and
●
the Criminal Justice Act (2003)24 which aims to implement the policies set out in
the Government’s White Paper, Justice For All (July 2002)25. Box 3.1 below sets
out the key features of the Act as they rel ate to drug testing and d ru g
rehabilitation orders.
22 Drugs Strategy Directorate. (2002). Tackling Crack: A National Plan.
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/NationalStrategy/1040390696
23 Further information concerning CJIP can be found on the web at
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy/CriminalJusticeInterventionsProgramme
24 See http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm
25 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Lord Chancellor and the
Attorney General by Command of Her Majesty. (July 2002). Justice For All
(http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/library/pdf/CJS_whitepaper.pdf).
4
Policy context
Box 2.1:
Key features of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Key features of the Criminal Justice Act which relate to drug testing:
●
●
●
●
Section 19 creates a presumption that bail will not be granted to someone charged
with an imprisonable offence who tests positive for a specified Class A drug and
refuses “relevant assessment” or “relevant follow-up”. At present the drug test result
is one of a number of pieces of information that the court has available upon which
bail decisions are made;
Section 5 extends the age of drug testing on charge from 18 to 14;
Section 177 changes the nature of community sentences. The Act will replace the
wide variety of community orders with a generic community sentence, available to
all offenders over 16, upon which he/she can be ord e red to perf o rm any
combination of re q u i rements currently available. This will provide a gre a t e r
flexibility of sentence options including drug testing and treatment. DARs and DAOs
in their current format will not be available; and
Section 209 makes provisions for the drug treatment and testing requirement (within
this section is the expectation that there are treatment places available). The court
can only order a drug rehabilitation requirement if:
-
the court is satisfied that the offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to
misuse drugs;
the court is satisfied that this propensity is susceptible to treatment;
there is a treatment place available for the offender;
the order has been recommended by a probation officer or a Youth Offending
Team; and
the offender consents to treatment.
The Criminal Justice Act (2003) also contains provision for the extension of licence testing
to those aged 14 and over and to those individuals that have committed non-trigger
offences where it is deemed that they have a substance misuse problem. There are
indications that licence testing may be rolled out as part of the Criminal Justice
Interventions Programme. Two of the current CJIP areas are drug-testing pilot areas and
are therefore already able to provide drug-testing licence conditions.
5
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
6
3
Drug-testing provisions
This chapter describes the provisions set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services
Act 2000 which introduced drug testing and describes how the tests are undertaken and
the consequences of testing positive. It is these provisions which have been the subject of
this evaluation.
The provisions
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 200026 set out provisions for the use of drug
testing for specified Class A drugs27 for individuals aged 18 and over.
The objectives of the drug-testing provisions are described as follows: ‘to deter drug misuse
whilst under criminal justice supervision and to identify offenders who should be receiving
treatment and monitoring their progress’.28
Under the new provisions, the police can test detainees who have been charged with
“trigger offences” (these include property crime, robbery and specified Class A drug
offences).29 Detainees charged with a non-trigger offence can also be tested if authorised by
an Inspector (“Inspector’s discretion”) if drug misuse is suspected as a contributing factor in
the crime committed. The legislation allows for the drug test result to be used ‘in assisting the
court in deciding whether to grant bail in criminal proceedings’ and ‘helping a court to
decide on the appropriate sentence following conviction’. However, ‘the test results from this
process may not be used as justification to deny bail by the police when it would otherwise
have been granted.’30
26 The Act is on the Home Office website at: www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000043.htm
27 The Act states that the powers are to test for specified Class A drugs. At this stage only heroin and
crack/cocaine have been specified for drug testing purposes (SI 2001/1816). However, it should be noted that
the drug test used screens for opiates and a subsequent laboratory test confirms heroin usage.
28 Home Office. (2001). Guidance Document On Testing For Specified Class A Drugs In Police Stations.
29 Trigger offences specified under the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968: section 1 (theft); section 8
(robbery); section 9 (burglary); section 10 (aggravated burglary); section 12 (taking motor vehicle or other
conveyance without authority); section 12A (aggravated vehicle-taking); section 15 (obtaining property by
deception); section 25 (going equipped for stealing, etc.). In addition, offences under the following provisions of
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are trigger offences if committed in respect of a specified Class A drug: section 4
(restriction on the production and supply of controlled drugs); section 5(2) (possession of controlled drug) and
section 5(3) (possession of controlled drug with intent to supply).
30 Home Office. (2001). Guidance Document On Testing For Specified Class A Drugs In Police Stations.
7
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
In addition, courts can order the probation service to test individuals aged 18 or over who
have received the following:
●
●
●
●
an order from the court to conduct a pre-sentence test for any specified Class A
drug, when considering the imposition of a community sentence;
a new standalone community sentence – a Drug Abstinence Order (DAO) for
those in a specified target group31 for whom an alternative community sentence is
not appropriate, involving twice a week testing for a period of 13 weeks, with
discretion for this to be reduced to once a week if the offender is responding well;
a Drug Abstinence Requirement (DAR)32 as a condition of a community sentence,
which involves twice a week testing for 13 weeks, with discretion for this to be
reduced to once a week if the offender is responding well; or
a drug-testing requirement as part of a condition of release from prison on licence
or under Notice of Supervision (NoS) (for 18- to 22-year olds). Offenders are
tested twice a week for 13 weeks following release, with discretion for this to be
reduced to once a week if the offender responds well.
Figure 3.1 describes the route through the criminal justice system for a detainee/offender
who has been charged with a trigger offence. The shaded boxes show the relative position
of the testing provisions in relation to charging, arrest referral (see Box 3.1 below for further
information on arrest referral), sentencing and imprisonment.
31 Individuals aged 18 and over who are identified as being dependent on or having a propensity to misuse
specified Class A drugs, where the offence in question is a trigger offence, or misuse by the offender of any of
the specified drugs caused or contributed to the offence.
32 For inclusion in a community sentence for those who in the opinion of the court are dependent on or have a
propensity to misuse specified Class A drugs and who have been convicted of a trigger offence or where the
court is of the opinion that misuse of a specified Class A drug caused or contributed to the offence.
8
Drug-testing provisions
Figure 3.1:
Testing interventions and the route through the criminal justice system
Not
charged
Sentenced
to custody
Arrested
for offence
Charged
in police
station
Arrest
refferal
Box 3.1:
Tested
on
charge
Appear in
court and
sentenced
Community
sentence with
DAR or DAO
Pre-sentence
test
Not guilty/
other
Released
from custody
and tested
on licence
or notice of
supervision
Arrest referral
Arrest Referral Schemes were first established in 1999. The initiative forms part of a series
of interventions that seek to identify drug-misusing offenders in the criminal justice system
and refer them to appropriate treatment services to address their drug use and offending.
Since its inception, arrest referral has evolved into Enhanced Arrest Referral, which
involves providing a Tier 2 level of treatment to bridge the gap between referral and
entry into treatment by independent and dedicated drugs workers based in custody suites
and on an on-call basis. Arrest referral workers undertake case management duties, as
well as care planning for clients until they enter treatment.
The test process
Drug testing involves a saliva test undertaken after charge (in a police station), or at the
agreed appointment time (in probation). Civilian Detention Officers (CDOs) or police
o fficers in police stations or Probation Service Officers (PSOs) in probation off i c e s
usually take the saliva sample. A paddle is placed in the mouth of the detainee/offender
until the indicator has turned blue. This takes approximately five minutes, depending on
how dry the person’s mouth is. A saliva sample taken from the paddle is then placed in
9
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
the machine for analysis (see Box 3.2 for a description of the test analysis). After
a p p roximately three minutes, up to four printouts containing the drug test result are
p roduced by the machine. The police attach a copy to the DT1 form (kept in the
detainee’s custody record) and DT2 form (communicated to the court) or, in the case of
p robation testing, it is kept on the off e n d e r ’s file. The other copy is given to the
detainee/offender. A variety of drug testing and monitoring forms are filled in by the
CDO or PSO during this time. The whole process for testing takes between 15 and 45
minutes, depending upon whether:
●
●
●
the detainee or offender is able to produce a sample;
the process associated with undertaking the test was implemented correctly; and
the length of any subsequent discussion that the tester has with the individual
concerning the result of the test (for example, a CDO may take the opportunity to
promote the benefits of the arrest referral scheme with a detainee).
The legislation requires that the request for a drug test on charge be made by a police
officer. Detainees may refuse to be tested but, if they exercise this right, they are liable on
summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not
exceeding level four on the standard scale, or to both if they refuse to provide a sample.
Police guidance identifies one of the aims of on-charge drug testing as being to
‘…encourage them (drug misusing offenders) to address their problem…’.33 The guidance
also states that, ‘all persons whose sample tests positive should be reminded of the
availability of the arrest referral worker’.
Box 3.2:
Test analysis
The testing kit used for this pilot has been developed by Cozart Bioscience Ltd. The kit
provides on-site screening of the saliva sample for cocaine and opiates and is set at an
agreed level across all sites to gain a positive result, to optimise the least number of false
positive and negative results. The level for the original neat concentration for opiates and
cocaine is 30 nanogrammes per ml. The machine is not used to detect the amount of a
drug, rather to register a positive or negative test. It is important to note that whilst the test
screens for the presence of cocaine, a positive test for opiates does not confirm that heroin
has been used, as the test also identifies the presence of opiates (apart from methadone
which the Home Office asked to be excluded) which may have been prescribed (for
example, by a police surgeon) or bought over-the-counter (for example, codeine). If the
33 Home Office. (2001). Guidance Document On Testing For Specified Class A Drugs In Police Stations. (page 1).
10
Drug-testing provisions
detainee/offender tests positive and does not sign a consent form to say that they have
taken heroin not an opiate, the result is disputed and the sample is sent to the Forensic
Science Service (FSS) for confirmatory testing for heroin. A 72-hour standard response
time for the confirmatory test result has been agreed between the Home Office and FSS.
This confirmatory test is subsequently attached to the original test result.
Consequences of a positive test
Information relating to a positive test result for individuals tested by the police should be
made available to the detainee, the tester (e.g. CDO), the police, the courts, Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) and probation. The information can be used by the police to
encourage access to treatment, potentially via arrest referral or by the CPS, the probation
service and the courts to inform bail and sentencing decisions. A positive test result allows
probation officers and the courts to refine the assessments undertaken as part of specific
sentence report and pre-sentence report assessments. Without the positive test result, these
organisations would otherwise rely on admission of usage by defendants to assess drug use.
At the time of writing, the results of on-charge drug tests cannot be taken into account in the
decision whether or not to grant police bail and indeed testing takes place only after a
decision about police bail has been made. However, the courts are informed of the test
outcome, so should be able to take the information into account when making decisions
about court bail and when passing sentence.
For an offender subject to a DAO or DAR, the positive test result is also a source of
information for the offender and the probation service, which can be used to encourage
access to treatment. Offenders who repeatedly test positive are deemed to have breached
the Order. The original guidance prescribed that offenders were in breach of the Order if
they tested positive under the following circumstances:
●
●
●
three consecutive tests, two non-consecutive positive tests within a six week
period; or
a positive test in conjunction with another type of unacceptable failure e.g. failure
to attend appointments within a six week period; or
any two unacceptable failures, other than positive tests, within any 12 month
period.
Once breached, the court would then make a decision concerning the sentence of the offender.
11
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Probation service practitioners argued that these breach procedures were too inflexible34
and in November 2002 the enforcement guidance35 was revised. This guidance allows for
some flexibility: if an offender is waiting for treatment and tests positive, probation officers
are not required to instigate breach action. The disapplication of the duty to breach lasts for
three months, after which time a further period of disapplication would need to be sought
from the court if required.
For offenders released on licence or under NoS, a breach is deemed to have occurred if the
offender has failed to attend an appointment or fails to co-operate with two appointments
for drug testing and fails to provide a satisfactory explanation or if the offender fails three
consecutive drug tests or two non consecutive drug tests over a six week period. The
decision whether to breach the licence will be made in the light of the overall progress
made by the offender. The Early Release and Recall Section (ERRS)36 is required to consider
whether recall to prison is appropriate, as responsibility for recall falls to the ERRS, under
section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.37
The testing equipment
Use of the equipment
The evaluation revealed a number of issues regarding the use and perceived accuracy of
the testing equipment. The Home Office has issued detailed guidance on the drug test
p ro c e d u re . 38 This guidance is intended to ensure that the aims of drug testing are
understood and that the process is performed correctly. Whilst observations by researchers
of the testing process revealed that both police and probation adhere to most of the
guidance regarding how drug testing should be implemented, there were occasions where
the guidance was not being adhered to. These included the following examples which could
all lead to difficulties with the accuracy of the result:
●
●
detainees/offenders were not observed for ten minutes prior to the test beginning;
gloves were not worn by the tester;
34 See Research Findings 176. Mallender, J., Roberts, E. and Seddon,T. Crown Copyright (2002). Evaluation of
Drug Testing In The Criminal Justice System In Three Pilot Areas.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r176.pdf
35 Probation Circular PC73/2002. (2002). Enforcement of Drug Abstinence Orders (DAO) and Drug Abstinence
Requirements (DAR).
36 P a rt of the Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit of the Home Office, formally known as the Sentence
Enforcement Unit.
37 Probation Circular PC00/2001. (2001). Home Office Testing On Licence Guidance.
38 Home Office. (2001). Guidance Document On Testing For Specified Class A Drugs In Police Stations.
12
Drug-testing provisions
●
●
●
●
●
●
testers stood with their backs to detainees/offenders while waiting for the sample
to be taken;
testers left the drug-testing room and hence the detainee/offender was left alone;
detainees/offenders put the testing paddle into and out of their own mouths;
paddles broke in detainees/offenders’ mouths and were subsequently used for
analysis;
procedures were rushed; and
the key elements of the DT1 form (such as asking whether the detainee wishes to
see the arrest referral worker) is communicated with varying levels of formality to
the detainee (applies to on-charge testing only).
Accuracy of the test
Throughout the pilot, detainees, offenders and practitioners have, on occasion, challenged
the test results, particularly in relation to the number of unexpected negative re s u l t s
produced. The screening test uses a cut-off level above which the test will provide a
“positive” result and below which it will provide a “negative” result. Some offenders with
relatively low levels of drugs in their system will therefore expect to test positive, but the test
will produce a negative result. Other possible reasons for the variation in the results include:
●
●
●
●
the implementation of procedures as above;
the purity of the drug;
the rate at which the drug is metabolised by the individual; and
the length of time since the drug was taken.39
It has not been within the remit of the evaluation to explore this issue further, but the
potential implication of this issue for the use of drug tests in the criminal justice system would
suggest that further analysis is warranted.
39 The testing equipment was designed to detect “recent drug use”, i.e. drugs taken within the previous 2-3 days.
13
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
14
4
Methodology
This chapter provides an overview of the pilot programme, the research brief, study design,
data sources and analytical tools. It concludes with a brief commentary of the main caveats
associated with the methodology and interpretation of the findings. Further details of the
methodology are to be found in the supporting technical appendices.
The pilot programme
Mr Bob Ainsworth MP announced the drug testing pilot programme on 27th July 2001. The
evaluation of the testing provisions covered nine pilot areas. Initially, drug testing
commenced in police stations and probation areas covering three pilot sites: Stafford and
Cannock, Nottingham and Hackney. The provisions were extended in April 2002 and an
additional six sites began testing in summer 2002. These sites were Bedford, Blackpool,
Doncaster, Torquay, Wirral and Wrexham and Mold. This is summarised in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1:
Start month for testing in pilot sites
Start month for testing
Site
Stafford and Cannock
Nottingham
Hackney
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Testing on charge
Probation testing
July 2001
September 2001
September 2001
August 2002
June 2002
July 2002
July 2002
August 2002
July 2002
November 2001
November 2001
November 2001
August 2002
June 2002
July 2002
July 2002
August 2002
July 2002
Since the introduction of the pilot programme, drug testing by police on charge was initially
extended to cover 30 high crime Borough Command Units (BCUs) in April 2003, and has
been further expanded to a further 36 BCUs in April 2004 as part of the Criminal Justice
Interventions Programme.
15
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Research brief
The Home Office research brief had three main components:40
●
a process and structure audit, the purpose of which was to:
-
●
examine the operational procedures used at the pilot sites to establish how
guidance is adhered to and how procedures impact upon implementation;
identify good practice in operational procedures;
examine the formal management arrangements of different agencies involved
in drug testing work, how they vary across the pilot sites and how they impact
on implementation;
identify good practice in formal management arrangements;
examine how partnership arrangements between different agencies involved
in drug testing impact on the implementation of drug testing; and
identify good practice in partnership arrangements;
an effectiveness or outcome analysis, the purpose of which was to find out
whether drug testing results in:
- a reduction in offending behaviour;
- a reduction in drug consumption and hence offending behaviour; and
- an increase in treatment take-up and hence a reduction in drug consumption and
hence offending behaviour; and
●
a cost benefit analysis, the purpose of which was to quantify the cost-effectiveness
of the projects in terms of reducing re-offending, drug consumption and increasing
treatment take up.
To meet this brief, the evaluation was structured around the following questions: 41
40 Taken from Home Office. (April 2002). Evaluation Of Additional Drug Testing Pilot Programmes: Revised
Research Specification - Schedule 1.
41 Adapted from Haynes, B. (1999). ‘Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it?’, BMJ 1999;319:652-653 (11
September).
16
Methodology
1. Should it work? What are the underlying theories which support the use of drug testing
as a means of reducing crime and substance misuse for detainees and offenders? This
provides the logic model for the intervention within which process, impact and cost benefit
analysis can be undertaken.
2. Can it work? How is the intervention implemented in the light of these theories and do the
operational processes employed and the management and partnership structures facilitate
or mitigate the potential effectiveness of the intervention? This provides information about
w het he r t he inte r ve n ti on c an b e e x pec te d t o w or k i n te rm s o f pro c ess es a nd
management/partnership structures.
3. Does it work? Have there been changes in detainee and offender behaviour and to what
extent are these attributable to drug testing? This provides information about effectiveness in
terms of the impact of the intervention on targeted outcomes.
4. Is it worth it? What are the costs of testing, how do these compare with funding levels
and what is the value to the public purse and to wider society of the benefits delivered in
terms of reduced offending and substance misuse? This addresses the cost benefit element of
the project brief.
Research design and analysis
The Home Office selected nine pilot sites for the establishment and evaluation of drug
testing. The sites were not chosen at random, rather they were selected to cover a variety of
different situations reflecting differences in policing and criminal justice practices, local
p a rtnership working arrangements, availability of treatment services, thro u g h p u t s ,
geographical location and socio-economic contexts. This type of “case study” evaluation
design provides an opportunity for rich, deep and detailed data collection and analysis and
is particularly useful if the research aims to understand the processes and complexities of
causal relationships, organisational and operational processes and structures and where
models of practice are being developed.42
As described above, three broad analysis elements were applied to the research design. A
process and structure audit, an effectiveness analysis and a cost benefit analysis. For the
process and structure audit the same approach to design and analysis was undertaken for
42 Yin, R. (1989), Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage. De Vaus, D. (2001). Research design
in social research. London: Sage. See chapters 13, 14, and 15.
17
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
both the police testing element (testing on charge) and the probation testing elements (presentence testing, DAO/DAR and testing on licence or under notice of supervision). This is
described in the next section. For the effectiveness analysis, two different analyses were
planned and undertaken for police and probation testing. These are described separately in
a later section. For the cost benefit analysis a similar analysis was undertaken for both
police and probation testing and is described below.
Process and structure audit
The evaluation team adopted a theory-led approach to the evaluation. 43 Qualitative research
was undertaken to evaluate the operational processes and management structures and the
extent to which these were being developed in line with evolving theories of effectiveness.
During the first two years, the evaluation focussed on how sites had set up and implemented
d rug testi ng. Re search topics included p ar tnership ar rangements, manageme nt
arrangements, operational procedures, staffing, training, monitoring and communications. A
compliance audit was also undertaken during May 2003. This sought to assess how well
the sites had implemented drug testing by looking specifically at rates of compliance with
the legislation and guidance.44 During the last year of the evaluation, thematic reviews
explored cross-site issues affecting:
●
●
●
the implementation of the testing initiatives in courts;
licence testing, throughcare and aftercare;45 and
drug testing, arrest referral and drug treatment.
An action research approach was adopted, whereby evaluation findings were fed back to
the sites for validation via workshops. These findings were then presented to the Home
Office in the form of detailed interim reports and workshops to provide input into pilot
guidance and on-going policy development. Findings were summarised in two reports of
key findings and a Development and Practice Report, which have already been published
by the Home Office 46. This approach was adopted in favour of a more summative approach
43 See, for example, Connell, J. P. and Kubisch, A. C. (1998) Applying a theory of change approach to the
evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems and Rogers, P. J.,
Petrosino, A. J., Huebner, T. A. and Hacsi, T. (2000) Program Theory Evaluation: Practice, Promise And
Problems.
44 Where possible the audit used data from seven months after the pilot launch in each area in order to maximise
comparability.
45 Throughcare refers to arrangements for continuous support of a drug misuser from the point of arrest to sentence
and beyond. Aftercare is the support that needs to be in place after a drug-misusing offender is released from
prison, completes a community sentence or leaves treatment.
46 See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r176.pdf, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r180.pdf,
and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/dpr16.pdf
18
Methodology
so as to minimise the risk of implementation failure in the pilots and subsequent roll-out of
the provisions to other sites.
Effectiveness hypotheses were developed postulating potential levers by which drug testing
might effect levels of drugs misuse/offending to provide a starting point for the evaluation.
These are described in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1:
Evaluation effectiveness hypotheses
1. Deterrence
The consequences of testing positive will deter the individual tested
and/or the population at risk of offending from drugs
misuse/offending (Cusson and Pinsonneault, 198647).
2. Incapacitation
Drug testing increases the chances of remands in custody which will
in turn have an impact on crime and drug misuse by keeping
offenders out of circulation (Maguire et al., 2002 48).
3. Rehabilitation
The testing process enables access to motivational support from the
tester or facilitates access to more specialist support or help (e.g. drug
treatment or housing). As a result of this, extra support the individual
becomes motivated to change his/her drug use/offending behaviour
(Anglin et al., 199949; Prochaska and Di Clemente, 199450).
4. Self help
The process of being tested prompts detainees or offenders to
recognise that they have drug problems and that they need to
address this with or without informal support, for example from
family/friends (Hirschi, 196951).
5. Intelligence
Information gathered as a result of drug testing supports the efficient
and effective deployment of limited resources in the police, probation, courts and treatment services thus increasing the opportunity
to reduce crime and drug misuse.
47 Cusson, M. and Pinsonneault, P. (1986) ‘The Decision to Give Up Crime’ in Cornish, D. B. and Clarke, R.V.
(eds) The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer – Verlag.
48 Maguire, M. et al. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
49 Anglin, D.M., Longshore, D. and Turner, S. (1999), ‘Treatment alternatives to street crime: An evaluation of five
programs’ in Criminal Justice and Behavior 26:168-195 (US).
50 Prochaska, J.O. and Di Clemente, C.C. (1994). The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing Traditional Boundaries
of Therapy. Maladar, F1: Krieger Publishing Company.
51 Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
19
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
These hypotheses are simplified models of complex, dynamic interactions between the
individual, their drug misuse, their offending behaviour, other social and economic factors
and the criminal justice system. In terms of understanding the individual offender’s response
to drug testing, the hypotheses should not be taken to be mutually exclusive.
In order to assist the development of theories on the expected effects of the drug-testing
provisions, analysis of the qualitative interviews was supported by NUD*ST N6 software.
Coding structures within the software were developed based on:
●
●
themes and topics identified by an initial literature review and consultation with
the expert panel supporting the evaluation; and
the questions covered by the research brief as well as other associated and
subsidiary research questions.
The coding structure was developed as an iterative process that allowed for emerging themes
to be explored and refined. Throughout, the research team undertook internal discussion to
ensure consistency in data collection, coding and interpretation. The resulting database was
then analysed according to different research questions and topic areas and the findings
reviewed via research team workshops and validated with pilot sites, again via workshops.52
Effectiveness analysis
For the effectiveness (impact) analysis, the evaluation team sought to build on the principles
outlined in the work of Sherman et al., specifically the ‘Maryland scale of scientific rigour’.53
This is a scale which was developed from a research synthesis of studies of criminal justice
interventions which seek to measure and quantify impact of interventions on offending. The
scale essentially classifies different impact study designs according to the method used to
identify the “counterfactual”, namely the comparison between what has happened as a result
of a treatment or intervention as compared with what would have happened in its absence.
The highest point on the scale (level 5) is the use of randomised control trials where
participants are randomly assigned to a target group or a control group such that the only
difference between the two groups is the presence of the intervention. Comparisons of changes
in outcome measures between the two groups can then be made whilst at the same time
controlling for other explanatory factors (such as gender and socio-economic circumstances).
52 An example of the method is illustrated in Sin, C. H. (2003). Using NUD.ist N6 in a large-scale national
evaluation project: a multi-site team experience, paper presented at the ‘Strategies for Qualitative Research’
c o n f e rence, 8th/9th May 2003, Institute of Education, London. Paper available from Matrix’s website
(http://www.matrixrcl.co.uk)
53 Sherman, L. W. et al. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Office of
Justice Programs Research Report: U.S. Department of Justice.
20
Methodology
The team sought to identify an evaluation design which would attract the highest score on
the Maryland scale. Given the constraints (in particular, the fact that the pilot sites were preselected by the Home Office) a ‘quasi-experimental’ approach was adopted, with different
designs adopted for police and probation testing.
Police testing effectiveness analysis
In the case of police testing, it was not possible to undertake interviews in comparison areas
due to practical constraints, such as the variation and unpredictability of throughput across
the sites. For example the number of tests per day in the pilot sites varied from 1.5 to over
10. Also, the police stations in many of the comparison sites selected for the probation
testing analysis did not have large throughputs. As it was difficult to predict when detainees
would be tested during the day, interviewers could potentially spend a considerable amount
of time waiting for trigger offence detainees to be charged, meaning that the cost per
interview would increase dramatically.
Instead comparisons were made between behaviour pre- and post-drug testing and between
drug-misusing individuals who had tested positive at the point of charge with those who did
not. This meant that the study design was the equivalent of a level 2 on the Maryland scale.
Information about the socio-economic characteristics, offending and drug misuse behaviour
was taken into account using multivariate analysis to isolate the impact of testing on
changes in behaviour from other causal factors.
Probation testing effectiveness analysis
In the case of drug testing by the probation service, this involved a comparison of changes
in measures of outcomes (drug consumption and offending) over time for individuals located
in the pilot areas and hence subject to testing, with similar individuals located in comparison
areas and who were not subject to testing provisions.
The original design was a matched area comparison design with the nine pilot areas
matched to nine comparison areas, equivalent to level 4 on the Maryland scale.
Comparison areas were selected based on characteristics that demonstrated their broad
similarities to pilot areas, particularly in relation to characteristics that are hard to measure
(for example, policing policy). The aim was to identify and interview similar people in these
matched comparison areas over the same time period, measuring the same outcomes
relating to drug use, treatment and offending. However, there were two significant problems
that crucially affected this approach:
21
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
it was not possible to secure the co-operation of some matched comparison sites
and so interviews for comparison site respondents did not take place in all areas.
This violates the matched area design and results in a risk of residual differences
between the areas that could bias the estimate of programme impact; and
●
there was no sampling frame to draw from in the comparison areas. As the
DAO and DAR provisions were not available in the comparison areas, it was
n e c e s s a r y to tr y to identify off enders who would have rece ived these
conditions attached to their community sentence if they were available. This
was far from straightforward as this required information concerning whether
potential respondents had the type of drug use history that would have made
courts likely to apply a DAO or DAR to the community sentence if they had
been able to. Getting this type of information was difficult in many areas and
resulted in substantial diff e rences in the overall profiles of the pilot and
comparison groups that, if ignored, would lead to severe bias in the estimate
of programme impact.
As a result the study team opted to use propensity score matching (PSM) to make the best of
the available data, rather than a more conventional matched pairs approach. The use of
propensity score matching to construct a matched dataset of individuals participating in
probation testing and those from similar sites where probation testing did not take place,
enabled statistical comparisons of changes in behaviour of individuals in the pilot and
matched areas to provide estimates of the impact of drug testing (the effect size). However,
due to the difficulties finding individuals with similar characteristics to those ordered
DAOs/DARs, a relatively small number of comparison areas interviews were used, which
led to a reduction in the level of confidence in the results.
Cost benefit analysis
The economic evaluation was developed in accordance with the guidance available from
the Home Office regarding the identification and valuation of costs for the purpose of
economic appraisal in the criminal justice system (see for example: Dhiri and Brand [1999]
and Legg and Powell [2000]54 and the revised H.M. Treasury’s Green Book55). In the case of
the cost-benefit analysis, the analysis comprised five different elements:
54 Dhiri S. and Brand S. (1999). Analysis of Costs and Benefits: guidance for evaluators. London: Research,
Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office. Legg D. and Powell, J. (2000). Measuring Inputs –
Guidance to Evaluators. London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.
55 H.M. Treasury (2002). The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government.
22
Methodology
●
●
●
●
●
total direct set-up and running costs of on-charge, DAO/DAR and on-licence drug
testing;
comparative unit cost analysis across sites, comprising costs per on-charge test,
cost per probation test and cost per probation case per month;
funding analysis, comparing the intervention costs by agency with funding
received from the Home Office;
cost-effectiveness analysis, comprising cost per unit of outcome for those outcomes
where a significant impact was identified from the effectiveness evaluation; and
break-even analysis, which involved estimating the outcome necessary for drug
testing to have been cost beneficial.
In order to maintain comparability across the pilots, all costs and benefits were estimated
over the first 10 months of testing and valued at March 2001 prices. For the coste ffectiveness and break-even analysis, no account has been taken of the long-term
sustainability of outcomes which might be delivered if, as a result of drug testing, a
d e t a i n e e / o ffender changes his/her be haviour over the longer term. This could
underestimate the benefits. However, it is assumed that where significant outcomes have
been observed, these take place immediately after testing and are maintained for the whole
ten months, this could overstate the estimated benefits to the extent that there is a time delay
between the intervention and behavioural change.
Data sources
A variety of data sources were used to inform the evaluation. These are described below.
Site monitoring data
These were data collected by testers at all sites in police stations and in probation offices to
identify demographic information related to the individual (such as sex, age, ethnicity),
information related to the test (such as positive/negative test results), as well as other
contextual information (such as employment status and housing). The data were collated at
the sites and sent to Matrix for quality assurance, processing and reporting.
These data had a number of uses:
●
to provide basic information to the Home Office on a monthly basis. Site
monitoring data were analysed to provide monthly descriptive analysis for the
23
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Home Office, charting the progress of the pilots and providing information on
numbers of tests, test results and the characteristics of individuals being tested;
●
in some pilot sites, the monitoring data were used for a number of different
purposes, including developing local knowledge of drug markets and sharing
information with the pilot steering group56 and/or Drug Action Team;
●
to support the process and structure audit (see above) and to help to identify the
extent to which the testing provisions were being implemented across different
pilot sites;
●
to provide a research dataset to support the outcomes analysis (by allowing
comparison with the detainee and offender interview data to ensure that the
offenders interviewed were representative of the whole offender and detainee
population);57 and
●
to provide information for the cost benefit analysis (see above) on the frequency
and volume of testing.
Site-based information
Field research included an extensive qualitative component across all nine sites. The data
were required to:
●
●
●
enable development of the theories supporting drug testing and the related
implementation issues;
to inform the process and structure elements of the research brief (see above); and
for collection of intervention cost data to inform the cost benefit analysis (see
above).
Detailed research questions were mapped for each element of the process and structure
audit and a variety of data collection tools were designed to capture information relating to
these questions. The field research methods and associated data collection tools were
revised at key stages of the project as insight was gained into the context and issues raised
on each of the sites.
56 Steering groups managed the implementation of testing in all sites.
57 A CD-ROM containing the monitoring data for the life of the evaluation has been made available separately to
the Home Office.
24
Methodology
The starting point for the analysis of intervention costs was the production of a set of process
maps to show how drug testing impacts on the operational procedures of the relevant
agencies and whose role is affected. These maps were developed from the evidence
obtained from the process and structure audit and associated data collection tools were
developed to capture information about all of the relevant agencies and individuals affected
for each of the key ingredients58 (personnel, training, equipment, premises and other
overheads). Separate data collection methods were used to assess the volume of inputs (e.g.
staff time) associated with set up as compared with ongoing delivery of testing.
Field researchers collected data via semi-structured interviews with practitioners (telephone
and face-to-face), observations, case tracking of offenders, practitioner workshops and
reviews of local documents and files. For the cost-benefit analysis, local practitioners were
also asked to complete timelines to show how their input had changed over the lifetime of
the project and to keep a log/diary of time spent over a sample period.
Within sites, a purposive sampling approach was adopted for the process and structure audit
to ensure that all relevant agencies were covered by the evaluation and that the “pathway” of
the detainee and offender through the system could be fully understood. For the intervention
cost analysis, activities were sampled over a period of time or in relation to tests and these
were combined with estimates of frequency of activities to derive overall volumes. For
example, estimates of the average time spent by a CDO taking a test were combined with the
frequency and volume of tests to obtain overall estimates of time incurred.
The case tracking research involved:
●
●
●
●
informal interviews with key stakeholders with whom the offender (case) had
interacted;
observations of drug testing and court proceedings;
collection and review of relevant documentation on the offender (case); and
checks of the Police National Computer (PNC) on a quarterly basis.
Detainee and offender interviews
An important component of the evaluation was the major interview-based cohort study of
detainees and offenders. Face-to-face interviews were conducted when individuals were
first tested and follow-up interviews were conducted approximately four months later. For
58 Levin, H. and McEwan, P. (2001). Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications (2nd Ed). Sage
Publications.
25
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
some individuals, time allowed for a second follow-up interview at around eight months
after the initial test. The interview programme comprised two parts: the first and more
extensive asked a series of pre-defined questions with responses coded for quantitative
analysis, the second involved a more qualitative interview and was only undertaken on a
sub-sample of individuals.
For detainees tested as par t of on-charge testing, interviews were confined to the
Nottingham and Doncaster pilot sites, as these were the only sites with sufficient throughput
per day to enable interviewing to be practical and relatively cost effective.59 This means that
there are difficulties in terms of transferability of the findings to the whole on-charge
population as data were derived from two high throughput sites which are located relatively
close to one another.
For those offenders tested by the probation service, interviews took place in all areas apart
from Torquay (where only offenders tested on licence or under Notice of Supervision were
i n t e rviewed). Interviews were also conducted with a sample of offenders at selected
comparison sites where offenders were not exposed to drug testing.
The interview process ended at the end of September 2003 with a final total of 3,377
interviews conducted. A breakdown of these interviews is presented in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2:
Breakdown of completed initial and follow-up interviews in pilot and
comparison sites
Sample
Initial
On charge
DAO/DAR
Licence/NoS
Total
831
448
177
1456
Pilot areas
Follow-up
4 months
8 months
425
281
123
829
240
132
37
409
Initial
306
107
413
Comparison areas
Follow-up
4 months
8 months
150
48
198
57
15
72
The highest attrition occurred with the on-charge sample. The attrition rate between the
initial interview and first follow-up was 58 per cent. Reasons included:
59 At these sites, more than five tests per day were conducted.
26
Methodology
●
●
●
interviewers only having a relatively fleeting contact with respondents in what
tends to be felt as a hostile and/or unpleasant environment;
there was no obvious venue for follow-ups and researchers had to be fairly
ingenious and flexible about offering interview locations; and
researchers were asking people questions relating to an intervention in which few
(if any) respondents felt much stake.
The attrition between first and second follow-up interviews on charge was 44 per cent. For
DAO/DAR and on-licence testing, the attrition rate between initial and first follow-up
interviews was 37 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.
There are several practical issues that could mean that those interviewed differ substantially
from the population being tested:
●
●
●
interviews for on-charge respondents were not selected randomly from the whole
population of those tested. For cost efficiency reasons, interviewers were present
at times that would maximise the number of interviews obtained so interviews did
not take place over a 24-hour, 7-day period. A risk of sample bias occurs if the
type of person arrested at night was substantially different from the type arrested
in the day, but analysis of the timing of testing suggested no clear pattern to what
type of person was tested when. Also the interview data was compared with the
police monitoring data to ensure that the interview sample was representative of
the whole population tested;
all people being drug tested can refuse to take part in the research; and
at the follow-up stage, some respondents could not be traced, some had died and
some no longer wished to take part in the research. This leads to a risk of attrition,
or non-response, bias at the follow-up stage where those interviewed for the
second time may not be representative of those interviewed at the initial stage.
A variety of methods have been used to correct for these potential sources of bias. These
include the construction of sample weights using the site monitoring data as a source of
information about the characteristics of the tested population and the use of the Heckman
Selection model as weights within the multivariate analysis of the on-charge interviews.
Other data
Other data were collected to provide descriptive contextual information to support the
process and structure audit and impact analysis. These included secondary data such as
recorded crime, PNC data, census population data and treatment waiting list data.
27
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Financial information was also collected to inform input cost estimation and included:
●
●
●
financial quarterly returns from the sites to the Home Office;
invoices from Cozart (supplier of the drug testing equipment) and the Home
Office on training and equipment; and
information from FSS on the number of tests analysed and funding received.
Other cost data which were used to estimate the value to society of the benefits arising from
drug testing included costs to prison and probation service of breach proceedings, costs of
treatment and drug consumption60 and costs of offending.61
Ethical issues and consent
Throughout the study the research team have sought to adhere to the principles outlined in
the ethical guidelines by the Social Research Association62. These set out the obligations of
researchers to society, to funders and employers and to subjects. Consequently the research
team has sought to ensure that the re s e a rch is independent and impartial, that
confidentiality was preserved throughout, that the research was undertaken without undue
i n t rusion, that safety pro c e d u res were in place for re s e a rchers and that appro p r i a t e
informed consents were obtained from participants in the research.
Commentary
Overall, the case study design has provided a useful insight into the way in which drug
testing can add to the armoury of interventions available within the criminal justice system to
target drug misusing offenders. The evaluation team has been able to conduct an in-depth
study of the process and structure aspects of the drug-testing provisions. Whilst the research
team and the Home Office have aimed to obtain representative results, practical constraints
have meant that this has not been possible. It has, however, produced individual observations
and findings that have wider resonance for the broader programme of research and policy
development. In that context, information from the evaluation has been used to guide and
inform policy and practice, especially in relation to the expansion of drug testing on charge.
60 Godfrey, C. et al. (2002). The economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2000.
Home Office Research Study No. 249. London: Home Office.
61 Brand, S. and Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime. The costs of crime data are not
available for all the crime categories included in the outcomes analysis.
62 http://www.the-sra.org.uk/
28
Methodology
However, there are important limitations of using this type of case study or pilot site approach
for impact evaluation. Whilst the research team has sought to identify and measure impact
using quasi-experimental techniques and statistical analysis, there are a number of caveats:
●
the impact analysis is largely based on self-reported data from detainees and
offenders;
●
there is a risk of bias in terms of the size and direction of results if either important
explanatory factors have not been accounted for properly or if sample bias
arising from sampling or attrition is not adequately addressed. This is especially
chal lenging for the on-charge analysis w here there is no independent
counterfactual and reliance is placed on measuring changes over time for tested
detainees. There may be systematic differences between the population testing
positive and those testing negative, which will affect impact estimates but have
not been allowed for in the multivariate analysis;
●
if the impact is relatively small (albeit across a relatively large population), the
approach adopted here might not be sufficiently powerful to identify results which
are statistically significant. For this reason it is important to appreciate that a lack
of evidence of impact does not necessarily mean that there is no impact; simply
that it has not been possible to measure it;
●
there has been a large amount of discretion exercised in the ordering of DARs or
drug testing conditions on licence. The result of this is that the pilot samples are
actually only a sub-set of those eligible for probation testing according to the
criteria. The comparison samples, on the other hand, were selected using the full
eligibility criteria. This introduces a large, systematic sample selection bias. While
PSM is the most sophisticated matching technique available, controlling for the
differences between pilot and comparison samples, its power is limited by the
available data, the small sample size, and the extent of this sample selection bias;
●
the timeframe for the evaluation did not permit an analysis of either the impact of
testing for an individual from charge through to sentencing or to testing as part of
either a DAO or DAR or via prison and subsequently on licence or under NoS.
For these reasons, the evaluation and findings focus on a study of the three
separate testing provisions rather than their combined impact. The study does not
therefore capture the effects of the interventions between these stages of the
criminal justice pathway; and
29
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
the drug-testing provisions might be expected to have long-term effects, which are
not possible to capture within the lifetime of this evaluation. Unlike situational
crime-prevention measures, these provisions are based on the premise that they
alter behaviour. This can be expected to impact on offenders’ life choices
potentially allowing them to live permanently, socially and economically within the
law. Ideally, a long-term cohort study over a period of some years would be
required to capture these effects (although it should be recognised that high
attrition rates would make this an expensive option as the initial sample would
need to be relatively large).
Finally, in terms of the analysis of costs and benefits, the study has been constrained by the
limited identification of significant impacts in both the short and the long term. Moreover,
even where impact can be measured and attributed to drug testing, many of the benefits of
testing are intangible (e.g. the benefit to the victim of a reduction in crime). Studies seeking
to value these intangible benefits are ongoing but robust, and widely accepted estimates are
not yet established. This makes it difficult to derive a full assessment of the potential value of
the provisions to society.
30
5
Testing on charge
Introduction
This chapter presents the key findings of the evaluation of testing on charge. It describes
how testing has been implemented in terms of numbers of tests, characteristics of the
population being tested and detainee views on testing. The routes through which testing
might affect behaviour are explored and key related operational issues are identified. Also
in this chapter, detainee views on the impact of testing are summarised, alongside the
findings of a quantitative analysis of impact. Costs of the intervention are presented and
compared with outcomes and funding levels.
Implementation of the drug-testing provisions
Testing on charge was implemented at the same time or before probation testing in all
areas, with a steering group taking responsibility for the implementation. All sites appointed
CDOs to undertake tests where possible and were trained to use the Cozart testing
equipment.63 The Home Office provided guidance and resources to each area for set-up and
running costs, as well as opportunities to review progress at national workshops. The six
sites in the second wave of pilots communicated with the original three sites in order to learn
lessons relating to the implementation of testing.
Numbers of tests
By the end of October 2003, 17,586 tests had been undertaken on 11,276 individuals. Of
the 11,276 individuals who were tested, 76 per cent were tested after charge only once.
Table 5.1 below shows the numbers of individuals that were tested more than once. Table
5.2 presents the results of successful tests, the number of tests per day and the proportion
sent to the FSS.
The data show that:
●
stakeholders initially expressed concern that detainees would refuse to undertake
the test and/or that the equipment would not withstand the level of testing
63 One site initially used police constables to undertake testing due to recruitment problems.
31
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
●
●
●
●
32
required. Despite these initial reservations, the vast majority of tests attempted
have been undertaken successfully;
Inspector’s discretion was used in less than one per cent of all tests. This low use
was attributed by police staff to the availability of Inspectors, and the need to
process a high volume of cases by officers;
fewer than one per cent of tests were refused. Interestingly this compares with
Table 5.8 which shows that between 27 per cent and 31 per cent of detainees
did not think that it was right that the police could charge and test. This difference
may be attributable partly to the threat of being charged and fined if detainees
did not co-operate;
there is a substantial variation in positive tests from 36 per cent in Torquay, to 65
per cent in Hackney;
most sites seem to have a similar profile of drug usage, apart from Hackney,
which has a higher proportion of cocaine usage; and
the proportion of tests sent to the FSS is very different across the sites. This reflects
studies undertaken in some sites to review the accuracy of the tests, the volume of
prescribing that police surgeons undertake within custody suites (and as a result
the number of tests sent to FSS for medication purposes) and how often detainees
challenged the test results.
Testing on charge
Table 5.1:
No. of times
tested
1
2
3
4
5 or more
Total individuals
Total tests
No. of times
tested
Frequency of individuals tested on charge: to 31st October 2003
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
(no.)
(%)
(no.)
(%)
(no.)
(%)
(no.)
(%)
841
141
59
29
37
1,107
1,674
76
13
5
3
3
1,064
217
105
63
94
1,543
2,687
69
14
7
4
6
607
100
34
17
24
782
1,120
78
13
4
2
3
631
75
24
7
4
741
902
85
11
3
1
1
100
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
(no.)
(%)
(no.)
1
1,025
2
127
3
61
4
27
5 or more
50
Total individuals 1,290
Total tests
1,918
79
10
5
2
4
1,103
132
25
5
5
1,270
1,490
100
100
(%)
100
Nottingham
Bedford
(no.)
(%)
(no.)
87 2,265
10
453
2
155
0
109
0
208
3,190
100 5,606
71
14
5
3
7
420
72
31
15
23
561
871
100
100
(%)
Wrexham
and Mold
(no.) (%)
584
86
59
19
44
792
1,318
74
11
7
2
6
100
Total
all sites
(no.) (%)
75 8,540
13 1,403
6
553
3
291
4
489
11,276
100 17,586
76
12
5
3
4
100
33
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
34
64 An unsuccessful test is defined as one where either the offender refused to take the test (0.5% of all tests
attempted), the test was aborted due to equipment failure (0.3%) or because the offender was unable to provide
a sample (0.3%).
65 Forensic Science Service. It should be noted that 10% of all samples were required to be sent to FSS for quality
control monitoring purposes.
66 Note that the averages are distorted by the throughput of the larger sites.
Testing on charge
There is a substantial difference in the average number of tests per day (from 1.9 in
Hackney and Bedford to 7.2 in Nottingham). Reasons for the variation include differences
in the trigger offence throughputs in the stations and in the proportions of eligible detainees
being tested. Data on trigger offence throughputs are not routinely available in summary
form and it was not possible to monitor variations in the proportions of eligible detainees
being tested on an ongoing basis. However, a compliance review undertaken in all sites
seven months after testing showed that there was variation across sites in the proportion of
eligible drug tests missed at the on-charge stage (Table 5.3 below). Wirral and Nottingham
missed the greatest pro p o rtion of tests (20% and 36% re s p e c t i v e l y )67. Hackney and
Doncaster (0% and 4% respectively) had the highest levels of compliance.
Table 5.3:
Testing compliance audit
Total cases
Sample month
Total charged
with a trigger
offence
Total drug
tests attempted
Total number
of tests missed
% of tests missed
Apr- 02 Apr-02
Feb-02
Feb-03 Dec-02 Jan-03
Jan-03 Mar-03 Mar-03
76
224
70
57
107
202
104
60
95
79
143
59
46
92
193
94
48
88
0
0
81
36
11
16
11
19
15
15
9
4
10
10
12
20
7
7
Pre sentence testing
Courts in the pilot areas have the power to request pre-sentence tests. Pre-sentence testing is
an intervention that comes in between on-charge and probation testing, conducted by the
probation service. Similarly with on-charge testing, pre-sentence testing can be used to
inform court bail and sentencing decisions.
Pre-sentence testing was infrequently used across most of the sites. During the period 1st July
2001 to 31st October 2003, a total of 64 pre-sentence tests were ordered across the nine
sites68. Reasons for the low use of pre-sentence tests include:
67 It is understood that during this month in Nottingham there had been a consolidation in the charg i n g
arrangements in the city, and that new officers who were not familiar with drug testing had been introduced into
the Bridewell custody suite (Nottingham).
35
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
●
●
●
limited stakeholder understanding of the use and purpose of the tests;
limited promotion of the availability of pre-sentence tests by pilot managers;
lack of facilities within courts to undertake tests; and
differing views among stakeholders as to the benefits pre-sentence testing can
provide.
The population being tested
Table 5.4 provides a summary of the characteristics of all those being tested, by site.
Table 5.4:
Summary of characteristics of those tested on charge by site
Pilot Site
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
Number of
individuals (no.)
Male
(%)
1,290
1,270
3,190
561
1,107
1,543
782
741
792
11,276
83
84
79
78
83
79
82
79
76
80
White
Unemployed
European (%)
(%)
94
39
82
76
97
96
98
98
93
84
69
73
61
82
73
87
64
75
86
72
Living in unstable
housing (%)
11
13
9
19
15
17
14
7
9
12
The data indicate that in all pilot sites the vast majority of detainees tested were male and
unemployed. In all sites, with the exception of Hackney, the majority of those tested were
White European. The proportion of those tested living in unstable housing varied across
sites from seven per cent (Wirral) to 19 per cent (Bedford).
Analysis of the detainee interview data from Nottingham and Doncaster has enabled
d i ff e rent sub-groups of detainees to be characterised using a two-step cluster analysis
method. This is a statistical technique that aims to reveal natural groupings (or clusters)
within a data set that would otherwise not be apparent. It is a type of multivariate analysis
that takes into account many different factors and automatically determines the optimal
68 The majority of pre-sentence tests were ordered during the initial stages of the pilot in the Wirral. This was due to
the low number of on-charge drug tests being undertaken at the time. Since then, the number of on-charge tests
has increased, therefore the number of pre-sentence drug tests has reduced.
36
Testing on charge
number of clusters or groupings in the data set by establishing whether the differences (or
distances) between the groups are statistically significant. The factors used in the cluster
analysis were those highlighted by the research literature as related to offending, drug use
and uptake of treatment services.
In Nottingham three groups were identified. About half (51% of respondents) were
described as Group One: individuals with recent multiple drug use (mainly both heroin and
crack), high levels of recent offending and substantial offending histories, high incidence of
previous links with treatment and high levels of health problems and drug-related problems.
The vast majority believed their offending was related to their drug use. Group Two (27%
of respondents) were mainly taking one Class A drug but with high levels of re c e n t
offending and substantial offending histories. Drug-related problems and experience of
previous treatment were lower than in Group One. Group Three (22% of respondents)
comprised individuals with no (or very little) recent Class A drug use and shorter, less
serious offending histories.
In Doncaster two groups were identified. Group One (47% of respondents) were using
multiple Class A drugs and had substantial histories of recent offending. Most of them
reported drug-related problems, links between their drug use and offending and strong
social networks with other drug users. Group Two (53% of respondents) described a mix of
drug-using behaviour. Half had not taken any Class A drugs in the previous month with the
other half taking just one type of Class A drug. Levels of previous offending were
considerably lower than for Group One and far fewer respondents linked their offending
with their drug use.
Socio-demographic profile – Nottingham
Table 5.5 presents the socio-demographic profile for Nottingham on-charge respondents
and compares the three sub-groups. There were some important distinctions between the
groups:
●
●
women made up 29 per cent of Group 3 compared with 18 per cent of Group
One and 12 per cent of Group Two;
Group Three had higher than average proportions of both the youngest and
oldest respondents: 58 per cent were aged under 25 and eight per cent were
aged 45 or over;
37
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
●
●
●
●
●
people from non-white ethnic groups were over-represented in Group Three: 62
per cent of Group Three respondents were white compared with 91 per cent of
Group One and 88 per cent of Group Two;
around one-third of respondents in both Groups One and Two reported living in
unstable housing, compared to just five per cent in Group Three. The majority of
those in Groups One and Two had been living in their current housing situation
for less than a year (79% of Group One and 72% of Group Two) whereas almost
half of those in Group Three had been living at their current address for three
years or more;
those in Group Three were more likely on average to have a partner and
children;
educational levels were typically poor among all groups: around 40 per cent had no
qualifications and only around 12 per cent had qualifications at A level or above;
almost one third of respondents in Group Three was in paid work compared with
just three per cent of Group One and 13 per cent of Group Two; and
around 20 per cent in Groups One and Two considered themselves to be unable
to work because they were sick and/or disabled.
Table 5.5:
Socio-demographic characteristics by sub-group – Nottingham on-charge
Socio-demographic characteristics
38
Group One
(%)
Group Two Group Three
(%)
(%)
All
(%)
Gender
Female
Male
18
82
12
88
29
71
18
82
Age group
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-70
33
54
11
2
45
34
17
3
58
23
10
8
42
42
13
4
Ethnic group
White
Black
Asian
Other/mixed
91
7
1
1
88
6
1
5
62
22
13
3
84
10
4
3
Housing
Rented
Unstable housing
Lives with family
Other housing
35
33
28
3
42
32
25
1
50
5
34
10
40
27
29
4
Testing on charge
Length of time at
current address
Less than 1 month
More than 1 month
and less than 1 year
More than 1 year
and less than 3 years
3 years or more
26
14
7
18
53
58
31
49
9
12
12
16
16
47
11
21
Single
Separated/divorced/
widowed
Has partner but not
living with them
Married or living with
partner
65
62
51
61
6
9
3
6
13
21
28
19
16
8
18
14
Number of children None
in respondent's care 1 or 2
3 or more
87
11
1
83
13
4
73
19
8
83
13
4
Educational level
No qualifications
Other qualifications
GCSEs/O levels/CSEs
A levels or higher
46
20
22
12
34
32
23
12
41
22
27
11
42
24
23
12
Economic status
Unemployed
Sick/disabled
In work
Other
72
23
3
1
64
19
13
3
55
7
31
7
66
19
12
3
285
142
102
529
Marital status
Unweighted base
Socio-demographic profile – Doncaster
Table 5.6 illustrates the socio-demographic profile of Doncaster on-charge respondents and
compares the profiles of the two sub-groups. Overall, Doncaster on-charge respondents
were predominantly male (81%) and aged under 35 (88%). One quarter lived in unstable
housing and more than half had no educational qualifications. Nine per cent were engaged
in paid work. The most apparent diff e rence between the groups is that Group Tw o
respondents were more likely to be engaged in paid work (16% compared with 1% of
Group One respondents). They were also more likely to be responsible for the care of
children (22% compared to 15% of Group One respondents) and less likely to be living in
unstable housing (21% compared with 28% in Group One).
39
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 5.6:
Socio-demographic characteristics by sub-group – Doncaster on-charge
Socio-demographic characteristics
Group Two
(%)
All
(%)
Gender
Female
Male
22
78
17
83
19
81
Age group
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-70
47
44
9
0
48
38
8
6
47
41
9
3
Ethnic group
White
Black
Asian
Other/mixed
99
0
0
1
94
3
0
4
96
1
0
3
Housing
Rented
Unstable housing
Lives with family
Other housing
35
28
34
3
38
21
30
10
37
25
32
6
Length of time at
current address
Less than 1 month
More than 1 month and less than 1 year
More than 1 year and less than 3 years
3 years or more
30
41
14
15
21
33
29
18
25
37
22
17
Marital status
Single
Separated/divorced/ widowed
Has partner but not living with them
Married or living with partner
67
8
6
19
62
10
9
19
64
9
8
19
Number of children None
in respondent's care 1 or 2
3 or more
85
12
3
78
20
2
82
16
2
Educational
level
No qualifications
Other qualifications
GCSEs/O levels/CSEs
A levels or higher
57
20
22
1
48
21
24
7
52
20
24
4
Economic status
Unemployed
Sick/disabled
In work
Other
87
10
1
0
72
9
16
2
79
10
9
1
117
116
233
Unweighted base
40
Group One
(%)
Testing on charge
Detainee views of testing
Detainees were asked about their awareness of testing and views on the testing process.
The results are presented in relation to the groups identified in the previous section.
Table 5.7 shows that, in Nottingham, over half had some previous awareness of testing. The
results for Nottingham can be summarised as follows:
●
●
●
●
●
Group One respondents were most likely to have heard about drug testing on charge
(70%) primarily because 55 per cent of this group had previously been drug tested
compared with 32 per cent of Group Two and just 10 per cent of Group Three;
around three-quarters of respondents thought that the police had clearly explained
the reason for testing and around 80 per cent felt that the police had clearly
explained and followed the testing procedure;
almost all respondents (99%) had agreed to be tested and a similar proportion
had been able to give a test sample;
forty-three per cent of respondents said they had received some legal advice in
the custody suite, this proportion was lower among Group One (36%) than
among Groups Two and Three (47% and 52% respectively); and
six per cent of respondents said they had seen a doctor (police surgeon) while in
custody.
Table 5.7:
Experiences of being tested by sub-group
Testing experiences (%)
Previous awareness of testing
Previous experience of testing
Police clearly explained reason for testing
Agreed to testing
Police clearly explained testing procedure
Thinks police followed correct procedure
Able to give test
Received legal advice at police station
Saw a doctor whilst in custody
Unweighted base (number of respondents)
Nottingham
Group
One Two Three
70 48
55 32
71 74
99 99
79 78
80 77
99 97
36 47
6
7
285 142
19
10
78
99
84
77
98
52
4
102
All
53
39
74
99
80
79
98
43
6
529
Doncaster
Group
One
Two
All
56
46
83
96
86
87
96
37
50
117
40
48
27
36
80
82
98
97
94
90
97
92
98
97
34
36
41
45
116 233
41
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
The findings from Doncaster are broadly similar to Nottingham, with little variation between
Group One and Group Two. The main difference is in the number of respondents seeing a
police surgeon whilst in custody, with 45 per cent in Doncaster, compared with six per cent
in Nottingham. It is believed that this was due to different operational procedures in the two
sites concerning when a police surgeon is called into the custody suite. In Doncaster, the
majority of respondents felt that the police had followed the correct procedure for the drug
test (92%) and had clearly explained the testing procedure (90%).
Table 5.8 shows that the vast majority of respondents tested on charge in both Nottingham
and Doncaster thought they had been treated fairly or very fairly (95% and 93%
respectively). Respondents were also asked whether they thought it was right that the police
could drug test people that they arrest and charge. Overall, more than half of respondents
answered yes to this question (55% in Nottingham and 56% in Doncaster) but agreement
varied across the groups, with those in Group One in both sites less likely to agree.
Table 5.8:
Views about testing by sub-group
Views on testing (%)
How fairly do you think you were
treated during the whole testing process?
Very fairly
Fairly
Unfairly
Very unfairly
Not answered
42
Nottingham
Group
One Two Three
All
30
62
3
1
3
Doncaster
Group
One
Two
All
35
63
2
0
1
36
59
5
0
0
33
62
3
1
2
41
53
2
4
1
Do you think it is right that the police
can drug test people they arrest and charge?
Don’t know
15 15
No
35 28
Yes
50 57
Unweighted base (number of respondents) 285 142
12
24
64
162
14
31
55
589
20
33
47
117
35
56
5
2
2
38
55
3
3
1
15
17
21
27
65
56
116 233
Testing on charge
Effectiveness of testing on charge
Conceptual model
In order to ascertain if drug testing on charge has had the desired effect it is important to
understand the theories which underpin the intervention in response to the question: should
it work? This section there f o re provides a summary of those theories. Linked to the
underlying effectiveness hypotheses (see Chapter 4), theories as to how drug testing on
charge could impact on drug consumption and offending behaviour (effects) and the
mechanisms (the drug test itself, arrest referral, treatment, sentencing and surveillance)
through which these operate were developed at the start of the evaluation and refined
during the course of the evaluation. These theories are discussed in turn below.
Drug test (self–help): The detainee may be motivated to reduce or abstain from use of class
A drugs or reduce offending directly as a result of a positive drug test. Those who have
c o n t rol over their drug use could be motivated to change their behaviour without
additional support.
Arrest Referral: Drug testing is thought to have the potential to impact a decision by a
detainee to accept an offer to see an arrest referral worker (ARW). This is thought to work
through two processes, namely that testing provides an opportunity:
●
●
for the individual supervising the test to offer arrest re f e rral services to the
detainee. This represents a second opportunity to engage the detainee in arrest
referral, in addition to the arrest and charge process which provides the first
opportunity; and/or
for the individual being tested to change their minds if they have previously
rejected an offer of arrest referral.
The combined effect of experiencing a drug test, the opportunity for the individual
supervising the test to engage with the detainee and a positive test result could impact on
both the propensity of a tester to offer arrest referral and the detainee to accept the offer. It
is important to note that acceptance of an offer to see an arrest referral worker does not
equate to attendance at an arrest referral assessment. Nor can it be automatically given that
treatment requirements will be identified and/or appropriate referrals to treatment made.
Treatment: Potentially, the detainee may be motivated to seek treatment himself or herself,
directly as a result of the drug test. Detainees could be motivated to seek help as a result of
discussions with the tester, or as a result of fear of repercussions arising from a positive test
43
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
(e.g. either court bail withheld or harsher sentencing). In addition to this direct effect,
increased take-up of arrest referral services resulting from drug testing might also result,
indirectly, in the increased use of treatment services. This indirect impact would depend on
the quality of arrest referral services. It should be noted, however, that evaluation of these
services was outside the scope of this study.
Sentencing: The test result may provide information about the drug misuse of the defendant
and thereby highlight the need to consider drug related issues in relation to bail,
assessment and sentencing decisions. This impact could materialise as a result of testing on
charge or via pre-sentence tests. This could result in more appropriate bail and sentencing
decisions, balancing punishment, protection and re f o rm to meet the needs of the
d e t a i n e e / o ffender and the communities within which they live. From the off e n d e r ’s
perspective this could give rise to fear of more severe sentencing disposal arising from a
positive test result or anticipation of leniency. Offending behaviour could thus be affected
as a result of either self-help, rehabilitation, deterrence or incapacitation resulting from a
more appropriate sentence.
Surveillance: The use of information from drug testing could be used to improve decisions
about policing and drug treatment services within an area. Here, therefore, the theory is
that the availability of information itself provides a benefit.
Figure 5.1 below provides a diagrammatic representation of the on-charge conceptual
model.
44
Testing on charge
Figure 5.1:
On charge conceptual model69
Drug Test
Bail, conviction
and sentence
threat
rehabilitation
deterrence
Arrest referral
consequence
Prison
incapacitation
Treatment
Self-help
Other punitive
Reduction in drug consumption and/or offending
Operational issues
In the context of the effectiveness theories described above, seven key operational issues have
been identified to be of particular importance to the successful implementation of testing:
1. Ensuring that all eligible detainees are tested
As discussed above, the evaluation has found that whilst some sites have relatively high
levels of compliance, some eligible detainees are not being tested. This typically occurs
in sites where drug testing is not seen as a high priority, either during busy times or
during times of re o rganisation. In these circumstances other duties, such as gaoler
duties, take priority. Failure to establish local monitoring systems to audit compliance on
an ongoing basis appears to exacerbate this problem. Those sites which do monitor
compliance, for example Hackney, appear to have the lowest pro p o rtion of missed
eligible detainees.
69 An evaluation of the effectiveness of correctional services, arrest referral and treatment services was outside the
scope of the study.
45
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
2. Ensuring all of those tested are being offered arrest referral services
Different data sources70 indicate that the proportion of those testing positive on charge being
informed of the availability of arrest referral varies by site from around 50 per cent to 93
per cent. Evidence from field researcher observations suggests that this also varies by tester.
As a result, the ability of the drug test to have an indirect impact on entry into treatment and
subsequent impact on drug consumption and offending may be limited by inconsistency in
the offer (and repeated offer) of arrest referral.
3. Ensuring that the tester has the skills and knowledge to motivate individuals to access
arrest referral workers and/or treatment
Practitioners and detainees have reported that the tester has an important role to play in
encouraging detainees to use arrest referral services. In response to this, some sites have
invested in training CDOs in drug awareness issues and in the role of the local ARW. The
ongoing relationship between the tester and ARW is an important role in promoting continuity.
4. Ensuring that test information is communicated to the court
Guidance from the Home Office to the sites states that once the test result has been
obtained, the DT2 form used in the test process should be attached to the prosecution case
papers that are forwarded to the CPS to be presented in court during the first hearing.
The evaluation 71 suggests that sentencers were alerted to test results in only 26 per cent of
cases. Whilst there were methodological shortcomings, this finding was corroborated by
interviews and observations and was thought to be the net result of:
●
●
●
●
lack of involvement of the CPS at the strategic level at the beginning of the pilot;
missed tests on charge;
test results not being placed within files by the CPS. An analysis of CPS files in
May 2003 revealed wide variations in the proportion containing the DT2 form,
from 43 per cent in Torquay to 91 per cent in Doncaster72;
some court stakeholders not fully understanding the implications of the drug test
result73;
70 Monitoring data, the May 2003 compliance audit, and detainee interviews.
71 May 2003 compliance audit.
72 As this is a retrospective examination, the authors cannot say whether the DT2 form was included before or after
the first hearing.
73 In Hackney for example CPS staff can come from a variety of boroughs not necessarily involved in testing. The
CPS also use agency staff who may not be aware of the testing powers.
46
Testing on charge
●
●
test results (DT2 form) being difficult to find within the file; and
variable involvment of the courts in the implementation of drug testing.
Following feedback from the evaluation team to the Home Office and sites, this is now
being addressed centrally by the CPS by audits and an increased emphasis by the CPS at
court stakeholder training events on the communication and implication of test results.
5. Ensuring that the test result is used to inform bail/sentencing decisions
Initially some stakeholders expected positive test results to influence court bail decisions,
however stakeholder views are that court bail decisions are rarely influenced by testing.
When the findings from the compliance audit are considered, this is to be expected as there
is limited evidence of the test results being communicated to the court, therefore on a
practical level the result cannot be used to inform bail decisions.
There is evidence of difficulties across sites in knowing how the drug test result helps to
inform the choice between several different sentences:
●
●
●
●
Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs), which have their own assessment
process and where target commencements have been introduced to ensure usage;
Community Sentences with Drug Abstinence Requirements;
Drug Abstinence Orders; and
fines.
Where pre-sentence report writers, sentencers, Crown court clerks, legal advisors and
the CPS had not been engaged in the implementation of drug testing, the role and
benefit of the drug test information was not always self evident as compared to the status
q u o . 74 In areas where the local consequences of on-charge testing had not been
identified there was an initial reluctance to use and promote the drug test evidence in
the court situation.
6. Ensuring that aggregated test information is reported on to stakeholders
There is some evidence of monitoring data reports being presented at DAT and steering
group meetings and some stakeholders (especially the police) reported that they valued the
additional information about local drug markets.
74 Before the evidence of drug taking was available, via the test, stakeholders said that they used their professional
judgement, or admission of drug usage directly from the detainee, defence solicitor or legal advisor.
47
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
7. Ensuring access to appropriate treatment services
Statistics from the Arrest Referral monitoring programme75 reports 41,312 individuals were
screened and 22,329 individuals were subsequently referred to drug treatment services
between October 2001 and September 2002 via arrest referral. However, this attrition rate is
not routinely monitored at the local level by either the drug testing or arrest re f e rr a l
partnerships, which means there is little opportunity to improve performance at present.
Throughcare (which can “bridge the gap” while a detainee is waiting for a first appointment
with a treatment agency) and detainee perceptions of the service (essentially the “friendliness”
of the service)76 emerged as the key issues affecting take-up of treatment services.
Although arrest referral and treatment services are an important route through which drug
testing might affect drug consumption, evaluation of these services was not within the scope
of this study.
Detainee views on the impact of testing
As part of the interview programme, detainees in Nottingham and Doncaster were asked in
initial interviews to consider how drug testing might affect their drug use and offending
behaviour, if they knew they were to be drug tested every time they were arrested and
charged77. At first follow-up interview, respondents were asked to reflect on how drug testing
had affected their drug use and offending behaviour.
Table 5.9 shows the detainee views on the impact of drug testing at initial interview. When
asked whether drug testing on charge would make a difference to whether they took drugs or
not, eight and six per cent in Nottingham and Doncaster respectively thought it would reduce
their drug use, with small differences across the groups. Overall, 11 per cent of detainees in
both sites thought testing would make them less likely to offend. In Nottingham, detainees in
Group Two were more likely to report expectations of a reduction in drug use and offending
than either Group One or Three. In Doncaster the picture was less clear with similar
proportions in both Groups reporting that drug testing would reduce drug use and a slightly
higher proportion of those in Group Two reporting that drug testing would reduce offending.
75 http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/ResearchDevelopmentStatisticsRDS/1057744395/
Arrest_data_report.pdf
76 User perceptions of the credibility of local treatment agencies has been highlighted as a key factor in agencies’
ability to engage users. Staff with which service users come into contact are key to the accessibility of treatment
services. They are the “face” of the service for drug users. Attitude of staff at first contact is likely to have a
significant impact on whether the user decides to continue to attend. See for further detail: Rome, A., Morrison,
A., Duff, L., Martin, J. and Russell, P. (2002) Integrated Care for Drug Users: Principles and Practice. Edinburgh:
Scottish Executive: Effective Interventions Unit.
77 These are hypothetical questions and so the answers should be treated with some caution.
48
Testing on charge
Table 5.9:
Self-reported views of the impact of the court using the drug test result
Views on testing (%)
Nottingham
Group
One Two Three
All
Less likely to use
No difference
More likely to use/
don’t know
6
88
11
84
8
92
8
88
7
87
5
85
6
86
6
5
0
4
5
11
8
Less likely to offend
No difference
More likely to offend/
don’t know
9
85
15
81
10
83
11
83
9
81
13
76
11
78
7
4
7
6
10
12
10
Impact of court
considering test
result on future
drug use
Less likely to use
No difference
More likely to use/
don’t know
27
64
34
55
11
84
25
66
35
55
25
63
30
60
9
11
5
9
10
11
10
Impact of court
considering test
result on future
offending
Less likely to offend
No difference
More likely to use/
don’t know
28
61
30
58
11
83
25
65
34
54
25
63
29
59
10
12
6
10
12
12
12
285 142
102
529
117
Impact of drug
testing on drug use
Impact of drug
testing on offending
Unweighted base
(for all analyses unless stated)
Doncaster
Group
One
Two
All
116 233
Detainees were asked whether they thought drug testing would have an impact if they knew
that courts would consider the test result. Overall, between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of
Nottingham and Doncaster detainees thought that testing would reduce their drugs use and
offending levels if this were to be the case. In Nottingham 27 per cent of Group One and
34 per cent of Group Two thought that it would make them less likely to use drugs. In
Doncaster the reverse picture was seen, with 35 per cent of Group One and 25 per cent of
Group Two reporting that it would make a difference to drug use. In some instances this was
reported to be due to detainees believing that the courts would use the test result to get them
into treatment. In terms of the impact on offending, 28 per cent of Group One and 30 per
cent of Group Two in Nottingham thought that they would be less likely to offend if the court
considered the test. In Doncaster 34 per cent of Group One and 25 per cent of Group Two
thought that it would have the same impact. This was reported to be linked with views on
harsher sentencing as a result of drug testing.78
78 ‘Harsher’ sentencing is likely to have a different meaning for different detainees.
49
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
At the first follow-up interview, 86 per cent of respondents said drug testing on charge had
made no difference to whether they took drugs or not, while 10 per cent thought it had
reduced their drug use. Nearly all (88%) of those who had initially felt that drug testing
would make no difference to their drug taking felt at the first follow-up interview that drug
testing had indeed made no difference.
In terms of offending, at the first follow-up the majority of respondents (89% Nottingham and
78% in Doncaster) said drug testing on charge had made no difference to whether they
would offend (Table 5.10).
Table 5.10: Perceived impact of drug testing on offending at 1st follow-up interview
(Nottingham and Doncaster)
Views on testing (%)
Has being drug tested made you…?
Less likely to offend
No difference
More likely to offend
Don’t know
Unweighted base (all respondents)
Nottingham
Group
One
Two
All
10
88
0
0
158
9
91
0
0
81
9
89
0
0
267
Doncaster
Group
One
Two
9
81
0
10
117
13
76
1
11
116
All
11
78
*
10
233
* = less than 0.5%. Due to the small unweighted base of Group Three at the 1st follow-up interview, changes
over time for this Group have not been discussed. However, the ‘All’ column contains Group Three.
Of those who had initially felt that drug testing would make no difference to their offending, 93
per cent felt at the first follow-up interview that drug testing had indeed made no difference.
Impact
The evaluation design has placed certain constraints on the ability of the research team to
isolate the impact of testing on behaviour from other causal factors. For detainees
i n t e r viewed at Nottingham and Doncaster, comparisons have been made between
behaviour pre- and post-drug testing and between drug-misusing individuals who had tested
positive at the point of charge with those who did not. Where appropriate, the team has
used multivariate analysis to take into account explanatory factors such as socio-economic
characteristics, past offending and drug misuse to try to isolate the impact of testing. As far
as possible, analysis has been undertaken to explore each of the ‘theories’ outlined above.
50
Testing on charge
Arrest referral: As mentioned abive a key theory is that drug testing impacts on arrest referral
acceptance through two processes: an additional opportunity to be offered an appointment
and the chance for the arrestee to change their mind and accept the offer. The on-charge
interview data has been used to examine the impact of testing on:
●
●
whether or not respondents were offered arrest referral appointments after the
drug test where they were not before the test; and
whether or not respondents changed their mind and accepted the post-drug test
arrest referral appointment where they refused an offer before the test.
A simple analysis of responses to questions about the timing of the offer of arrest referral
and the likely response to such an offer shows that drug testing on charge may have the
potential to have a positive effect on arrest referral acceptance.
●
Offers: 16 per cent of respondents testing positive in Doncaster (n=247) and 12
per cent of respondents testing positive in Nottingham (n=383) were offered
arrest referral after the test had occurred where they had not already been offered
this option (or not realised that they had been offered this option) before the test.
●
Acceptances: 11 per cent of respondents who tested positive in Doncaster (n=170)
and four per cent of respondents in Nottingham (n=128) accepted the offer of
arrest referral after the test where they had rejected it before the test.
Detainees who did not recall having been offered arrest referral were asked whether
they would have accepted such an offer. Two per cent of respondents in Doncaster and
eight per cent in Nottingham who did not recall having been offered arrest referral said
they would accept arrest referral after the test if they had been offered (where they
would not have accepted before the test). Therefore, any effort to increase the number of
offers at the point of drug testing should cause testing to have a greater impact on the
number of arrestees acce pting an offer to see an arrest re f e rral worker in both
Nottingham and Doncaster.
These findings are subject to the following caveats:
●
the possibility that the use of drug testing results in fewer initial arrest referral
offers by the police at the booking-in stage (in the custody suite) could tend to
exaggerate the impact of the drug test on offers of arrest referral recorded above;
51
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
●
●
●
●
●
changes in acceptance of arrest referral could result from the length of time in
custody, the number of offers made and the way the first offer is made rather than
the drug test itself;
the possibility that awareness of the drug test might increase acceptance of arrest
referral at the booking-in stage would cause the impact of the drug test on
acceptances to be understated in the above analysis;
it should be noted that individuals may be “under the influence” of Class A drugs
(or other substances) when asked about arrest referral and this may have a
bearing on their decisions;
no account is taken here of whether the offender who accepts the offer of arrest
referral is seeking help with drugs other than opiates and cocaine;
the quality of the self-reported data from detainees should be considered; and
inferring a rehabilitative effect attributable to drug testing due to increased levels
of arrest re f e rral re q u i res a further assumption that those stating that they
accepted arrest referral are offered and attend the appointment and that this
results in effective treatment for individuals. This, however, was not investigated as
part of this study.
Treatment: No evidence of impact (i.e. that detainees would be motivated to seek treatment
because they were tested) was found at the first follow-up interview. However, by the time of
the second follow-up interview (eight months post charge), the analysis identified very strong
(***p<.01) evidence to suggest that in Nottingham those who receive a positive drug test
are 26 per cent more likely to enter treatment than those who receive a negative drug test
and strong (** p<.05) evidence to suggest that in Doncaster those who receive a positive
drug test are 24 per cent more likely to enter treatment than those who receive a negative
drug test. It is important to note that the models control for the impact of drug use on
entrance into treatment.79 Thus, the impact reported is separate to the impact of reported
levels of drug consumption.
The conclusion that drug testing is related to an increase in treatment entry needs to be
caveated by the use of those receiving negative drug test results, rather than those not
receiving drug tests, as the counterfactual (i.e. treatment take-up rates for those testing
positive at charge were compared to treatment take-up rates for those testing negative at
charge). Therefore, it is only the impact of the drug test result, rather than testing procedure
as a whole that is isolated.
79 The analysis controls for (a) whether use Class A drugs and (b) expenditure on Class A drugs.
52
Testing on charge
There are a number of possible reasons why an impact has been detected at second followup rather than first follow-up interview. These include:
●
●
●
●
detainees having been convicted and sentenced to a prison or community
sentence and having accessed treatment via that route as a result of having tested
positive80;
detainees who tested positive having been subsequently sentenced to a DTTO;
individuals having been tested on more than one occasion; and/or
the study design mitigating the ability to fully isolate the impact of testing from
other causal factors.
The analysis does not identify an indirect rehabilitation effect of drug testing on treatment
through its impact on acceptance of arrest referral, which was included in the analysis as a
possible explanatory variable. This may be accounted for by either the relatively weak
impact study design and/or by the potential attrition rate between accepting an offer to see
an ARW, attending the appointment and entering treatment as a result.
Sentencing: The team was unable to model the impact of drug testing on sentencing decisions.
Interview data were not sufficiently reliable to enable the attribution of sentences to offences
and hence to drug test results. However, given the findings presented above, problems
associated with communicating drug test results in courts may be expected to have limited
the likely impact of testing on sentencer, and hence detainee, behaviour via this route.
Drug consumption/offending: The team was unable to detect a significant relationship between a
positive drug test on charge and changes in drug consumption or offending in either
Nottingham or Doncaster.
One of the hypotheses stated that drug testing on charge could improve the information
base which can lead to more evidence-based commissioning of drug treatment services.
Sharing such information can potentially promote better relationships and team working
across partnerships. Although sites reported monitoring data to have been useful in this
context, the study design did not lend itself to an evaluation of the impact on dru g
consumption and offending via this mechanism.
80 The analysis has endeavoured to control for this by including a variable in the model measuring whether
detainees have received a custodial or community sentence.
53
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Economic analysis
The final task was to establish the direct, indirect and levered-in costs of the intervention, how
this compared with funding levels and, where possible, the value to the public purse and to
wider society of the benefits delivered in terms of reduced offending and substance misuse.
Intervention costs
Tables 5.11 and 5.12 provide a summary of the set-up costs and running costs of on-charge
testing for the police over the first ten months of the pilot on each site.
The main set-up costs have been incurred in relation to personnel time, training, adaptations
to premises and recruitment. Once established, the main running costs of the intervention
are personnel time, testing kits and the use of the FSS to validate test results.
Set-up costs varied from £63,000 in Wrexham and Mold (largely on account of substantial
adaptations to premises) to £13,000 in the Wirral. Variations in running costs across sites
are largely accounted for by differences between sites in throughputs (i.e. the number of
people tested) and in the amount of time taken to conduct each test.
Table 5.11: Running and set-up costs (first ten months) for on-charge testing (all sites)
54
Costs (£000s)
Running costs
Personnel
Training
Premises
Equipment
Testing kits
FSS analysis
Recruitment
Other
Total
294
5
9
0
176
238
8
11
741
Set-up costs
132
51
55
32
0
0
36
0
306
Testing on charge
Table 5.12: Set-up and running costs (first ten months) for on-charge testing
Costs (£000s)
Set-up costs
Running costs
Total costs
39
76
115
31
83
114
47
46
93
20
56
76
22
82
104
13
94
107
23
119
142
46
100
146
63
80
143
304
736
1,040
Courts and the Criminal Justice Unit (CJU) also have a role in the testing process. Estimates
of the impact on court resources differ by site, with some sites reporting no impact and
others reporting a relatively large impact (£24,000 in Torquay). CJU costs amount to
£8,500 across all nine sites.
Funding
The Home Office provided the pilot sites with funding for testing based upon an initial bid
and quarterly returns submitted by the sites. In order to compare the funding to sites from the
Home Office with the amount spent according to an assessment of the direct costs of testing
(shown in Table 5.13), certain elements of the costings have been removed to match the
criteria covered by the funding (i.e. in order to compare like with like).81
Table 5.13: Home Office funding and calculated costs
Costs (£000s)
Cost
HO funding
67
120
53
111
71
262
32
81
50
67
123 171
72
172
79
176
84
575
165 1,381
There is a large difference between the funding to the sites and the actual cost calculated.
This is due to the small proportion of time the CDOs spend on drug testing activities, despite
the fact that their full salary is funded as part of the pilot. The analysis undertaken by the
research team and supported by timelines, diaries, interviews and observations with the
CDOs, confirms that on average across the nine sites, CDOs spend about five per cent of
81 The quarterly returns report the actual spend per quarter. These returns exclude all Cozart equipment, Cozart
training, testing kits, ERRS, CJU and court costs and FSS costs.
55
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
their time working on testing (varying from 2% in Wrexham and Mold to 9% in Blackpool).
The two split sites, Wrexham and Mold and Stafford and Cannock, show the greatest
difference in Home Office funding compared with the actual cost of delivering testing due to
the number of CDOs funded by the Home Office.
This is not to say that in the remainder of their time CDOs have not contributed to the
policing in the area. Their presence often frees up the time of other, more senior police staff,
therefore creating separate benefits (but which may be difficult to distinguish from the effects
of the testing itself). These findings were reported to the Home Office and have informed the
funding decisions relating to the expansion of the on-charge testing provisions.
Unit cost analysis
The unit cost analysis has been undertaken in relation to modelled cost, excluding set-up
and FSS costs, as well as court and CJU process costs. These figures include costs to other
agencies and include the running costs of the steering group and the court. All costs have
been discounted and deflated to March 2001.
Table 5.14 shows the cost per test in real terms expressed at a common price base of
March 2001. The table shows that based on the first ten months of costs and tests, Wirral
has the highest cost per test at £168, while Nottingham and Doncaster have the lowest at
£44 and £49 respectively (these are the sites with the highest throughputs).
Table 5.14: Modelled cost per on-charge test
Costs
Unit cost (£s)
Tests per day
102
1.9
44
7.2
61
2.3
68
1.9
97
2.3
168
2.1
49
5.5
58
3.2
67
2.8
79
3.2
Cost effectiveness
It was not possible to detect a significant impact of drug testing on drug consumption and
offending, and as a result the evaluation team has not undertaken a cost benefit analysis.
However, the impact analysis has provided estimates of the percentage of additional
detainees accepting arrest referral as a result of drug testing. By applying these estimates to
56
Testing on charge
the population tested in Nottingham and Doncaster, it is possible to crudely estimate the
numbers of additional people accepting arrest referral as a result of testing in each site and
to compare these with the costs of testing.
In Nottingham, it is estimated that there may be 65 additional individuals accepting arrest
referral over the first 12 months of testing. The cost per additional person accepting arrest
referral in Nottingham would therefore be £1,993. If all detainees who had been offered
arrest referral accepted, the additional acceptances would have risen to 172 bringing the cost
per additional person accepting arrest referral down to £745. The large difference is due to
the number of potential arrest referral offers which were believed to have been missed in
Nottingham. In Doncaster the estimated numbers accepting were 85 and 100 respectively;
with costs per additional person accepting arrest referral as £1,464 and £1,256 respectively.
The above results are conditional upon the assumption that the result obtained for the
sample of arrestee interviews can be extrapolated to apply to the population being tested.
This is a reasonable assumption considering the adjustments made for sample selection bias
as part of the outcomes analysis. It is not possible to say whether on-charge drug testing is
the most cost effective way of getting people to accept arrest referral, as no comparison
against the cost of alternative policies has been undertaken.
A break-even calculation was also performed, seeking to show how many people would have
to stop taking problem Class A drugs, or the number of trigger-offence days that would have to
be saved in order for the intervention to be cost beneficial: the minimum break-even impact.
Estimates of the value of drug misuse82 and trigger offences83 suggest a cost per annum per
problem Class A drug consumer of £6,320 (March 2001 prices), and a cost per trigger
offence of £1,750 (March 2001 prices). Comparing these values with the intervention costs
(including the costs of treatment for those who accessed it, but excluding the costs of arrest
referral), it is estimated that in order to break even over the first year, at a minimum the pilot
needs to deliver either 17 people stopping taking Class A drugs in both Doncaster and
Nottingham or a reduction in offending of 60 trigger offences in Doncaster or 62 trigger
offences in Nottingham. This is the equivalent of either 1.28 per cent of those drug tested
stopping taking problem Class A drugs in Nottingham and 2.56 per cent in Doncaster, or
0.05 trigger offences saved per drug test in Nottingham and 0.09 trigger offences saved
per drug test in Doncaster.
82 Godfrey, C. et al. (2002). The economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2000.
Home Office Research Study No. 249. London: Home Office
83 Brand, S. and Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime. Home Office Research Study No. 217.
London: Home Office.
57
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
It is important to note that these estimates are based on the assumption that the impact of
drug testing on drug consumption and offending occurs immediately after drug testing and
that any reduction in drug misuse is maintained for one year. If there is a delay between
drug testing and its impact on drug misuse or offending, or if any reduction in drugs misuse
occurs for a period less than a year, then a greater impact than those estimated above
would be required for the pilot to be cost beneficial.
58
6
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence
Requirements
Introduction
This chapter presents the key findings of the evaluation of DAO/DARs. It describes how the
provisions have been implemented in terms of numbers of orders, characteristics of the
population with DAO/DARs and their views of testing. The routes through which testing
might affect behaviour are explored and key related operational issues are identified.
Offender views on the impact of testing are summarised, alongside the findings of a
quantitative analysis of impact. Costs of the intervention are presented alongside an outline
cost benefit.
Implementation of DAO/DARs
Under the auspices of a steering group taking responsibility for implementation, probation
testing was implemented on all sites. All pilot areas were funded by the Home Office to
have the equipment, staff and space to undertake testing. All sites appointed Probation
Service Officers (PSOs) to undertake the majority of tests who were trained to use the
Cozart equipment.
As with on-charge testing, the Home Office provided guidance and resources to each area
for set-up and running costs, as well as opportunities to review pro g ress at national
workshops. Lessons from the first three pilot sites were communicated to the second wave of
testing sites.
Numbers of orders
In the period between 1st July 2001 and 31st October 2003 across all sites, 82 DAOs and
1,462 DARs were ordered.84
84 Source: probation site monitoring data.
59
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 6.1:
Number of DARs and DAOs by site
Pilot site
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
Start Date
November 2001
November 2001
November 2001
August 2002
June 2002
July 2002
July 2002
August 2002
July 2002
DARs (no.)
160
94
456
71
96
317
89
95
84
1,462
DAOs (no.)
14
13
18
13
9
6
5
3
1
82
As can be seen in Table 6.1, there were significantly more DARs than DAOs across the sites
with differing ratios of DARs to DAOs. Data are not available to identify the eligible
population on an ongoing basis so it is not possible to monitor the take-up of DAO/DARs.
However, the evaluation has explored issues of take-up and these are discussed below.
The DAO/DAR population
Table 6.2 shows a breakdown of the characteristics of those sentenced to a DAR, by site.
This shows that whilst the majority of offenders subject to DARs were male, a greater
proportion of these offenders were female compared with the proportion that were tested on
charge. Again the majority of offenders were unemployed. However, there is variation
amongst sites, ranging from 58 per cent unemployed in Stafford and Cannock to 98 per
cent in Wrexham and Mold. Most offenders were White European, with the exception of
Hackney (21%). Nottingham had the highest proportion of offenders reported to be living in
unstable housing (24%).
60
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Table 6.2:
Summary characteristics of those given a DAR by site
Pilot Site
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
Number of
individuals (no.)
Male
(%)
160
94
456
71
96
317
89
95
84
1,462
84%
90%
79%
69%
73%
73%
67%
59%
73%
76%
White
Unemployed
European (%)
(%)
99%
21%
83%
68%
97%
84%
92%
94%
94%
83%
58%
80%
75%
82%
82%
61%
60%
67%
98%
71%
Living in Unstable
housing85 (%)
4%
10%
24%
13%
11%
11%
11%
3%
11%
14%
Cluster analysis of offender interview data identified two distinct sub-groups among the
DAO/DAR sample.86 Group One (49% of respondents) comprised individuals with recent
multiple drug use (mainly both heroin and crack), high levels of recent and previous
offending, high incidence of previous links with treatment and high levels of drug related
problems. Most had strong social networks with other drug users and the vast majority
believed that their offending was linked to their drug use. Group Two (51% of respondents)
comprised individuals with lower levels of recent drug use and considerably lower rates of
previous offending than Group One. Though they also commonly reported drug-related
problems, they were far less likely than Group One to link their offending with their drug use.
85 Unstable housing defined as Bed and Breakfast, Hostel or Shelter, Squat, probation/Bail hostel, no fixed abode,
residential rehabilitation and/or Prison/Youth Offender Institution.
86 Whilst there are differences in the input provided from probation to an offender on a DAR or on a DAO, the
i n t e rview data sets have been pooled to provide a larger sample size. Also the diff e rences in the two
populations were found to be small.
61
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 6.3
Socio-demographic characteristics by sub-group of the DAO/DAR
population
Socio-demographic characteristics
Group 1 (%) Group 2 (%) All (%)
Gender
Female
Male
20
80
24
76
22
78
Age group
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-70
32
59
9
0
42
41
12
3
37
50
11
2
Ethnic group
White
Black
Asian
Other/mixed
92
3
1
4
82
6
6
6
87
5
3
5
Housing
Rented
Unstable housing
Lives with family
Other housing
41
22
34
3
42
10
42
6
42
16
38
4
Length of time
Less than 1 month
at current address More than 1 month but less than 1 year
More than 1 year but less than 3 years
3 years or more
18
46
17
17
12
34
22
31
15
40
19
24
Marital status
57
3
18
22
62
6
13
19
59
4
16
21
No. of children in None
respondent's care 1 or more
80
20
76
24
78
22
Educational level
No qualifications
Other qualifications
GCSEs/O levels/CSEs
A levels or higher
Not answered
47
17
25
8
2
38
19
30
8
6
42
18
28
8
4
Economic status
Unemployed
Sick/disabled
In work
Other
57
34
5
4
63
18
11
6
60
26
8
5
222
226
448
Unweighted base
Single
Separated/divorced/ widowed
Has partner but not living with them
Married or living with partner
Note: In a number of cases, subtotals do not sum to 100%, due to respondents not being asked or not answering
certain questions in the interview.
62
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Breach and the DAR population
Table 6.4 shows the frequency of breach, demonstrating that 71 per cent of DAR87 offenders
have breached the order once. This figure however is distorted by the high volume
Nottingham and Doncaster sites. Furthermore there is variation across the sites in the
frequency of all breaches. This is partly due to the length of time that the orders have been
in place for in the sites, but also reflects how breach arrangements have been implemented
in each of the sites.
Table 6.4:
Frequency of DAR breach
Site
Total
individuals
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
160
94
456
71
96
317
89
95
84
1,462
Note:
Breach 1
(no.)
(%)
122
59
397
34
48
234
63
57
19
1,033
76
63
87
48
50
74
71
60
23
71
Breach 2
(no.)
(%)
Breach 3
(no.) (%)
59
5
50
7
8
87
37
13
1
267
22
10
1
12
11
56
37
5
11
10
8
27
42
14
1
18
14
2
1
4
12
4
Breach 4
(no.) (%)
9
1
2
5
17
6
*
*
6
1
*= less than 0.5%
Table 6.5 below describes the reasons for first breach for the DAR population. It shows that
of those who breached, some 37 per cent were breached for unacceptable absences, 36
per cent for failed tests and 23 per cent for both. It is important to note that an offender who
feared testing positive might decide not to attend the appointment, therefore unacceptable
absences may include offenders who might have tested positive.
87 Similar patterns were found for the DAO population.
63
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 6.6 below describes the outcome of breach for the DAR population.88
88 Breach has been defined as information laid for breach by probation.
64
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
65
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
This shows that the implications of a first breach of a DAR vary depending upon the location.
There appear to be three groups of sites: those who predominantly allow offenders to
continue with the order with or without a fine (Stafford and Cannock, Doncaster, Wrexham
and Mold and To rquay); those who either re-sentence to custody, have their bre a c h
withdrawn, or are assigned another community sentence (Hackney and Nottingham); and
those for whom there is a mixed response (Bedford, Blackpool and Wirral).
From the offender interview data, further differences can be seen between the different
groups identified by the cluster analysis:
●
●
●
a higher percentage of those in Group One breached than those in Group Two
(66% compared with 61%);
almost two thirds of all respondents that were in breach had used two or more
Class A drugs in the previous four months, with this percentage being higher for
G roup One (73%) respondents than those in breach in Group Two (55%);
however
half of all those that were not in breach had still used at least one Class A drug in
the four months prior to the first follow-up interview.
Just under half of all respondents that were in breach had committed at least one offence
other than possessing drugs in the previous four months. This percentage was higher for
Group One (55%) respondents than Group Two (35%) respondents. However, over a
quarter of all those that were not in breach had still committed at least one offence, other
than possessing drugs in the four months prior to the first follow-up interview.
Offender experience of testing
Table 6.7 describes the initial views of the DAO/DAR population on drug testing. At initial
interview, 63 per cent of respondents were aware of drug testing prior to receiving their
DAO/DAR. A higher percentage of those in Group Two (72%) were aware of drug testing
prior to sentence compared with those in Group One (55%). Around three-quarters of all the
DAO/DAR respondents (76%) felt that the court had clearly explained the reason why drug
testing was being attached to their sentence. The vast majority of the DAO/DAR
respondents (91%) attended their first drug test, and 96 per cent felt that probation had
clearly explained the testing procedure to them. There were no significant differences
between the sub-groups.
66
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Table 6.7:
Experiences of being tested by sub-group (at initial interview)
Group One (%)
Previous awareness of testing before sentence
Court clearly explained reason for testing
Turned up for first test
Probation clearly explained testing procedure
Thinks probation followed correct procedure
Unweighted base (number of respondents)
Group Two (%)
72
72
91
96
95
222
55
79
92
96
99
226
All (%)
63
76
91
96
97
448
Table 6.8 describes further views on drug testing. Nearly all (98 per cent) of the DAO/DAR
respondents felt that they were treated fairly or very fairly during the whole testing process.
Over three quarters of respondents (81 per cent) also agreed that people sentenced by the
court could have a drug testing condition attached as part of their sentence. Group One
respondents were slightly less likely (77 per cent) than Group Two respondents (85 per cent)
to regard drug-testing conditions in this way.
Table 6.8:
Views about testing by sub-group (at initial interview)
Group One (%)
Group Two (%)
All (%)
57
41
1
0
55
43
0
1
56
42
0
1
9
14
77
216
6
8
85
208
8
11
81
424
How fairly do you think you were
treated during the whole testing process?
Very fairly
Fairly
Unfairly
Very unfairly
Do you think it is right that people sentenced
by the court can have a drug-testing condition
as part of their court order?
Don’t know
No
Yes
Unweighted base (respondents who had been tested)
Almost two-thirds (62%) of all DAO/DAR respondents tested positive at their first test as
shown in Table 6.9 below. Forty per cent tested positive for opiates, 17 per cent tested
67
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
positive for opiates and cocaine, and five per cent tested positive for cocaine only. Eleven
per cent of all those who tested positive said they had contested or challenged the positive
test result.
A higher percentage of respondents in Group One tested positive (73%) than did those in
Group Two (52%). Respondents in Group One were more likely to test positive for both
opiates and cocaine (25% compared with 10% of Group Two).
Table 6.9:
First test result
Don’t know
Negative
Positive – cocaine
Positive – opiates
Positive – opiates and cocaine
Unweighted base (those who turned up for
first test and could provide a sample)
Group One (%)
Group Two (%)
All (%)
9
27
4
44
25
6
48
6
36
10
8
38
5
40
17
201
211
412
At the first follow-up interview, almost two-thirds (65%) of all respondents had missed
drug-testing appointments with probation in the previous four months. Of this 65 per cent,
9 per cent missed appointments due to concerns about drug testing (10% for Group Two
and 9% for Group One). Many of these concerns were related to the perceived risk of
being breached.
Effectiveness of DAO/DARs
Conceptual model
This section describes the theory underpinning the DAO/DAR intervention. As with oncharge testing, the threat of punishment (breach) and increased recognition by the offender
that he/she has a drug problem resulting from testing will have a direct deterrence and selfhelp effect on both drug misuse and crime. Again, there will be an indirect rehabilitative
effect of drug use through its impact on entry into treatment as a result of support from the
tester/case manager facilitating access into treatment.
68
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Breach: DAOs and DARs are thought to have an incapacitation and deterrence effect on
offending through their impact on sentencing as a result of breach. As shown above in
section 7.2.3, the sentencing or other consequences of breach vary between different areas.
For those who are sent to prison as a result of breach, an incapacitation effect on drug
consumption and offending might be expected. For others, the threat of breach might be
expected to serve as a deterrence which itself will impact on the propensity of an offender
to reduce drug consumption and offending with or without the support of treatment.
Treatment: One route through which DAOs/DARs might impact on drug consumption and
offending is its impact on treatment take-up. Those individuals who need support to address
their drug consumption may take up treatment as a result of:
●
●
●
the threat of breach, or breach itself;
motivational support from either the tester or supervising probation officer (case
manager); and
increased self-motivation and awareness of the impact of drug taking on their
lives as a result of testing.
This would depend on the effectiveness of treatment services and is outside the scope of this
evaluation.
Self help: The offender may be motivated to reduce or abstain from the use of Class A drugs
directly as a result of being tested regularly. The process of twice weekly testing might
motivate the individual to reduce drug consumption with or without the additional
motivational support from the tester. It is also possible that testing could have a direct effect
on offending, again with or without the motivational support provided by the tester as a
result of testing.
Figure 6.1 below illustrates this conceptual model.
69
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Figure 6.1:
Probation testing conceptual model89
Twice weekly testing
threat
Breach
rehabilitation
deterrence
consequence
Treatment
Prison
Self-help
incapacitation
Other punitive
Reduction in drug consumption and/or offending
Operational issues
In the context of the effectiveness theories described above, the evaluation has found four
operational issues which are likely to impact on the successful implementation of
DAO/DARs.
1. Ensuring that eligible offenders receive DAOs and DARs
In terms of DARs it is the courts’ responsibility to impose a DAR as part of a Community
Rehabilitation Ord e r, Community Punishment Order or Community Punishment and
Rehabilitation Order if:
●
●
●
●
the offence is a trigger offence;
the offender is a resident of the pilot petty sessional area;
the offender is aged 18 or over; and
in the opinion of the court the offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to
misuse, specified Class A drugs.90
89 An evaluation of the effectiveness of correctional services and treatment services was outside the scope of this
study.
90 Opiates and/or crack/cocaine.
70
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
The team examined the pre-sentence reports (PSR) of offenders tested on charge and
reviewed eligibility, sentence recommendation and sentence outcome in May 2003 across
all sites (as shown in Table 6.10 below). Only 54 per cent of offenders who had tested
positive on charge were ordered a community sentence. Some offences were regarded by
either probation or the court as being ‘so serious’ that a custodial sentence was considered
the only option.
Table 6.10: Sentence outcome
Site
Total
sentenced
Custody/
suspended
sentence
DTTO
Sentence outcome
Other
Other
community
community
sentence
sentence
without DAR
with DAR
DAO
Other
Hackney
32
15
2
4
9
2
0
Nottingham
18
11
2
4
1
0
0
Stafford and
Cannock
Bedford
13
16
8
7
1
1
2
5
1
2
1
0
0
1
Blackpool
32
15
3
3
8
2
1
Doncaster
Torquay
47
9
18
1
5
1
4
2
17
3
1
0
2
2
Wirral
15
4
3
3
4
0
1
Wrexham
and Mold
Total
13
195
3
82
3
21
2
29
4
49
0
6
1
8
Subsequently ‘missed DAR cases’ were defined as those where the court had ordered a
community sentence, a positive test result was within the file and a DAR had not been
added. Using these criteria overall 49/78 (63%) of those eligible had been given DARs. It
should be noted that this finding is not generalisable, but does give an indication of
compliance issues – for example, despite Nottingham missing four out of five cases, it
ended the study with by far the highest number of DARs.
The relatively high number of individuals ‘awaiting outcome’ in Hackney was the result of
delays at that time in sentencing compared to the other sites. Unfortunately resource
constraints meant that we were not able to determine the eventual outcomes.
71
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
A variety of reasons were given by sites concerning why some eligible offenders were not
receiving orders. These included:
●
●
●
●
●
practitioners reported a tension between meeting DTTO targets, promoting the use
of DAO/DARs and addressing the needs of drug using offenders, as DTTOs have
funding-related targets and DAOs and DARs do not. This has caused confusion
for some practitioners as different incentive structures are in place for the different
sentencing options;
a common view held by probation officers and PSR writers that testing without
treatment ‘set up offenders to fail’;
PSR writers and magistrates were not monitor ed to ensure that, where
appropriate, DARs were given. Therefore most sites were not aware that DARs
were being missed, and could not take rectifying action;
there was a lack of awareness and understanding of the new provisions in some
of the courts and probation areas. Interestingly there were examples of
magistrates who were not aware of the provision two years into the pilot; and
very few DAOs were ordered. This is due to the courts’ perception that relatively
few offenders would benefit from such an Order.
2. The tester has an important role to play in motivating the offender to change behaviour
with or without treatment
Probation testing presents initial twice-weekly opportunities for offenders to consider their
drug use, as well as to identify whether they have recently used cocaine or opiates. These
tests are normally undertaken by PSOs. Some sites have seen this as a good opportunity to
influence the behaviour of offenders and have thus provided training to PSOs not only in
drug issues, but also in motivational techniques and in knowledge of other support services
that are available in the locality beyond treatment.
Offender interviews show that in 72 per cent of cases, while respondents were waiting
for their test results, the probation officer and/or PSO talked to them about issues
relating to their offending and drug use. Of those respondents that talked with the
probation officer, 83 per cent found this discussion helpful. Only 11 per cent found the
discussion to be unhelpful.
72
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
3. Relationship between the Probation Officer (PO) and PSO is important to the
management of the case
Sites developed different solutions to managing DARs and community sentences. In the high
throughput Nottingham site for example, after the initial appointment with the PO, the PSO
effectively case managed the offender within the two testing appointments a week, and
consulted the PO at regular meetings. This reduced the onus on the offender to come to the
p robation office three times a week. In other sites the planned three sessions were
undertaken by the PSO and PO, and the testing and supervision appointments were
sometimes arranged together. In all cases it was necessary to ensure that there was effective
communication between PSOs and POs to manage the cases appropriately.
4. Ensuring access to appropriate treatment services
As is the case on charge, drug testing within the probation service is now regarded within
most pilot sites as an integral element of service delivery. In recent years the probation
s e rvice has developed partnerships with community agencies and ser vice pro v i d e r s ,
including drug treatment services. Drug testing as part of a community sentence provides an
o p p o rtunity for offenders to access tre atment ser vices through existing and new
partnerships. However, waiting times, offender perceptions of local services and probation’s
knowledge and understanding of local treatment provision and referral systems will affect
the accessibility of treatment services.
Offender views
As part of the interview programme, offenders were asked about whether they expected
drug testing to impact on their behaviour, and subsequently whether they thought that it had
affected behaviour.
73
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 6.11: Perceived likely impact of drug testing at initial interview – DAO/DAR
Group One (%)
Group Two (%)
All (%)
Do you think that being regularly drug-tested is
going to help you reduce or stop your drug-taking?
Yes
No - won't make any difference
No - more likely to take drugs
Don't know
66
28
1
5
69
26
0
5
67
27
1
5
…help you reduce or stop your offending?
Yes
No - won't make any difference
No - more likely to offend
Don't know
62
30
1
7
68
24
0
8
65
27
0
7
…make you more likely to seek help for
drug problems if you need help?
Yes
No - won't make any difference
No - less likely to seek help
Don't know
74
21
0
5
65
33
0
3
69
27
0
4
208
216
424
Unweighted base (respondents who had been tested)
Note: *= less than 0.5%
At first follow-up interview, respondents were asked to reflect on whether drug testing had
influenced their drug-using, offending and treatment-seeking behaviour.
74
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Table 6.12: Perceived impact of drug testing at 1st follow-up interview – DAO/DAR
Group One (%)
Group Two (%)
All (%)
Do you think that being regularly drug-tested
has made you less likely to take drugs?
Yes
No difference
More likely to take drugs
Don't know
49
45
0
5
66
31
0
3
58
38
0
4
…made you less likely to offend?
Yes
No difference
More likely to offend
Don't know
53
41
1
5
54
39
3
4
53
40
2
5
…helped you or motivated you to get help
or support concerning your drug use?
Yes
No
Not applicable - Don’t want or need help
52
40
8
48
37
15
50
39
11
146
135
281
Unweighted base
Note: *= less than 0.5%
Drug consumption: At the initial interview, around two-thirds of DAO/DAR respondents thought
that drug testing would help them reduce their drug use. At the first follow-up interview, twothirds of Group Two respondents felt that being regularly drug tested had made them less
likely to take drugs. Just under half of Group One respondents considered that it had made
them less likely to take drugs, with 45 per cent of Group One stating that drug testing had
made no difference to their drug taking.
Offending: At the initial interview, around two-thirds of DAO/DAR respondents thought that
drug testing would help them reduce their offending. By the time of the first follow-up
interview, just over half of respondents thought that regular drug testing had made them less
likely to offend (54% for Group Two and 53% for Group One). Around two-fifths felt that
drug testing had made no difference to their offending.
75
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Self-reported offending in the four months before the first follow-up interview was much
lower than in the six months before initial interview. Seventy per cent of Group Two and 53
per cent of Group One claimed they had not committed any offences other than the
possession of drugs in the four months prior to interview (compared with 34% of Group
One and 10% of Group One before initial interview).91
Treatment/support: A slightly higher percentage of those in Group One (52%) felt that drug
testing had helped or motivated them to seek help or support concerning their drug use,
compared with Group Two (48%).
Impact analysis
The aim of the outcome analysis is to establish whether the drug-testing programme had any
effect in reducing drug use and offending among those tested. In order to do this, it is
important to isolate the impact of drug testing from other factors that could influence the
outcomes of interest. This involves the identification, or creation, of a suitable comparison
group who are, on average, identical to those in the pilot areas except for being drug
tested. As detailed in Chapter 4, the method chosen for this study is propensity score
matching which uses a multivariate statistical technique to identify and control for
d i ff e rences between the pilot and comparison samples in order to create a matched
comparison group. As far as possible, differences in the profiles of these groups92 and any
area differences have been controlled for so that the remaining distinction is that the pilot
group has been drug-tested and the comparison group not. Impact is therefore estimated by
the size of any difference in outcomes between these two groups.
Technical note
The results from the propensity score matching discussed here are not statistically significant at the 95 per
cent confidence level. Significant differences between the pilot and comparison samples
resulted in difficulty in matching the samples effectively. This has resulted in a greater
degree of uncertainty with these findings than would have been the case if the team had
succeeded in interviewing more comparison site respondents who were similar to their
pilot site counterparts. While this is disappointing, the results are interesting and more
91 This should not be interpreted simply as a drop in offending levels. We cannot be sure that offending levels in
the six months before initial interview are typical of any six-month period, especially for anyone whose offending
is infrequent. Additionally, there is a ‘sample selection’ effect, in that, had respondents not been convicted of an
offence, they would not have been in the sample.
92 Variables used for the matching related to socio-demographic characteristics, previous drug use, contact with
treatment and previous offending as well as variables relating to area crime levels and the number of days
between interviews.
76
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
generally fit with other findings in this report relating to the impact of drug testing. There
is also a consistency in the findings across a number of different outcome measures and
across both first and second follow-up interviews which is reassuring. However, from the
statistical point of view of being able to generalise these findings outside this evaluation,
the results should be interpreted as being indicative only.
Second follow-up interviews took place around eight months after the initial interview.
This enables us to examine some of the longer-term outcomes for these respondents.
However, the sample size of the matched comparison group is very small and differences
between the pilot and comparison groups should be treated more cautiously than those at
first follow-up interview.
Results at first follow-up interview
Drug testing was not associated with more regular attendance at probation. Around twot h i rds of respondents in both the pilot and comparison areas said they had missed
appointments at probation at some point between initial and first follow-up interview.93
However, drug testing was found to be associated with a higher proportion of respondents
being breached overall and therefore a higher proportion ending up in prison. The pilot
group was far more likely to have been breached than were the comparison group. Overall,
67 per cent of the pilot group said they were breached compared with 31 per cent of the
comparison group. Most of this difference appears to be related to the pilot group being
breached for testing positive (17% for testing positive and 33% for testing positive and
missing appointments). This is not an unexpected finding, as it is likely that the DAO/DAR
population has more conditions to comply with.
Drug consumption: initial interview levels of drug consumption were found to be similar for the pilot
and comparison groups (due to the criteria for matching), but by the first follow-up interview, 44
per cent of the pilot group had reported that they had not used any of the Class A drugs
detected by the drug test during the month before the first follow-up interview compared with 26
per cent of the comparison group. Opiate drug use was lower for the pilot group:
●
almost three-quarters of the comparison group (73%) had used heroin in the
month before first follow-up interview compared with 45 per cent of the pilot
group;
93 First follow-up interviews took place approximately four months after the initial interview for the pilot group and
the matched comparison group.
77
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
●
●
twenty-seven per cent of the comparison group reported use of other opiates
compared to 11 per cent in the pilot group; and
fifty-five per cent of the comparison group reported injecting drugs compared to
22 per cent of the pilot group.
Recent use of crack/cocaine was, however, similar across the two groups (32% of the pilot
group and 31% of the comparison group).
Drug use over a slightly longer time period (the four months before first follow-up interview)
followed a similar pattern, although the differences between the comparison and pilot
groups were smaller in size, suggesting that those who had reduced their drug consumption
had done so in stages.
In terms of individual change, 50 per cent of the pilot group were using fewer drug types
and 39 per cent were using fewer types of Class A drugs at first follow-up interview
compared with 44 per cent and 30 per cent of the comparison group respectively. There
was a close relationship between changes in the number of drug types used and the weekly
level of drug expenditure with similar percentages showing a reduction in the number of
drugs taken and a drop in drug expenditure. Just over a quarter of the pilot group (27%)
saw their drug expenditure increase compared with 42 per cent of the comparison group.
Treatment: Higher proportions of the pilot group reported contact with treatment services and
a period of abstinence from drugs as a result of treatment than did the comparison group
(74% compared with 62% and 33% compared with 14% respectively). The pilot group
were also more likely to report having made new contacts with treatment services since
initial interview (37%) than were the comparison group (16%) and were believed to have
achieved greater access to more types of treatment.
Offending: Around half of respondents said they had been arrested since initial interview: 46
per cent of the pilot group and 54 per cent of the comparison group. These arrests were
most commonly for shoplifting or burglary. The pilot group were less likely to have been
convicted for an offence since initial interview (38% compared with 49% of the comparison
group) and less commonly had received a custodial sentence (17% compared with 36% of
the comparison group). Around a third (31%) of the pilot group had been in prison at some
stage since initial interview (compared with 43% of the comparison group) but, as
discussed, around half of this was due to breaching the DAO/DAR rather than as a result of
an additional conviction.
78
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
The pilot group reported lower numbers of offence types in the month and four months
before first follow-up interview than did the comparison group. However, neither group
reported particularly high levels of offending in the relatively short time periods the team
asked about. It would be preferable to examine changes in self-reported offending over a
longer period of time to get a more accurate picture of changes in offending. And it must be
noted that a third of the pilot group and over 40 per cent of the comparison group had
been incarcerated during some of this period, thereby preventing them from reoffending.
Results at second follow-up interview
As discussed in the methods section, the number of second follow-up interviews was small,
and there were difficulties in selecting the comparison group. Despite this, useful insights
were obtained.
Half of the pilot group and 63 per cent of the comparison group had missed appointments
at probation at some stage between the first and second follow-up interviews. Around half
of each group said they had been breached during this time: 45 per cent of the pilot group
and 54 per cent of the comparison group. Most of the pilot group who were breached had
been breached for testing positive (75% of those breached).
Drug consumption: Drug use in the month before second follow-up interview followed a similar
pattern to that observed at first follow-up interview. Drug use at initial interview was again
similar for the pilot and comparison groups (due to matching) but by the second follow-up
interview, recent use of heroin was much lower for the pilot group. Around three-quarters of
the comparison group (78%) had used heroin in the month before second follow-up interview
compared with 39 per cent of the pilot group. Use of other opiates was again lower for the
pilot group (13% of the comparison group and 4% of the pilot group) as was the proportion
injecting drugs (58% of the comparison group and 12% of the pilot group). Recent use of
crack cocaine was similar (21% of the pilot group and 14% of the comparison group).
Overall, 55 per cent of the pilot group had not used any of the Class A drugs detected by
the drug test during the month before the second follow-up interview compared with 18 per
cent of the comparison group. As before, drug use over the previous four months followed a
similar pattern to that in the previous month but the differences between the pilot and
comparison areas were smaller.
C o m p a red with the position at initial interv i e w, 51 per cent of the pilot group had
decreased the number of drug types used and 43 per cent had reduced the number of Class
79
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
A drugs taken. Almost half (48%) were spending less on drugs at second follow-up than at
initial interview. In contrast, 35 per cent of the comparison group had decreased the
number of drug types used and only 13 per cent had decreased their drug expenditure.
Treatment: As seen at first follow-up interview, those in the pilot group were more likely to
have had contact with treatment services since the previous interview and were more likely
to have stopped taking a drug as a result of treatment than were the comparison group. A
further 60 per cent of the pilot group had made new links with treatment services since the
previous interview and 23 per cent reported a period of abstinence compared with 26 per
cent and five per cent respectively of the comparison group.
Offending: At second follow-up interview, only 24 per cent of the pilot group said they had been
arrested since the previous interview compared with 57 per cent of the comparison group.
Arrests for the pilot group were also lower than at the first follow-up interview when 46 per
cent had been arrested since the previous interview. Convictions were lower at second followup for both groups although the pilot group was slightly higher than the comparison group
(24% compared with 15%). Those in the pilot group were more likely to have spent time in
prison between the first and second follow-up interviews and were more likely to have been
interviewed in prison, but this was in part due to having breached their DAO/DAR rather than
as a result of a new conviction. The pilot group reported lower numbers of offence types in the
month and four months before second follow-up interview than did the comparison group but
neither group reported particularly high levels of offending in the relatively short time period.
Economic analysis
The final task was to establish the direct, indirect and levered-in costs of the intervention and
to compare these costs with funding levels and, where possible, to estimate the value to the
public purse and to wider society of the benefits delivered in terms of reduced offending
and substance misuse.
Intervention costs
Table 6.13 provides a summary of the set-up costs and running costs of DAO/DAR testing
over the first 10 months of the pilot. The costs of DAO/DAR drug testing are calculated
based on the assumption that probation costs can be allocated to either DAO/DAR or onlicence drug testing in proportion to the number of tests performed after allowing costs
associated with ERRS (Early Release and Recall Section, Home Office) activities.
80
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Table 6.13: Split of running and set-up costs for DAOs and DARs for all sites
Costs (£000s)
Running costs
Set-up costs
Personnel
Training
Premises
Equipment
Testing kits
Travel
FSS analysis
Recruitment
Other
Total
696
3
79
5
142
19
135
11
6
1,096
118
16
54
29
0
3
0
23
0
243
The main set-up costs have been incurred in relation to personnel time, training, adaptations
to premises and recruitment. Once established, the main running costs of the intervention
are personnel time, testing kits and the use of the FSS to validate test results.
Set-up costs varied from £44,000 in Bedford to £17,000 in Wrexham and Mold (and were
mainly due to managerial and premises alteration costs). Variations in running costs across
sites are largely accounted for by differences between sites in throughputs and in the
amount of time taken to conduct each test (Table 6.14).
Table 6.14: Running and set-up costs for DAOs and DARs for each site
Costs (£000s)
Set-up costs
Running costs
Total costs
20
51
71
34
134
168
31
157
188
44
96
140
33
20
178 109
211 129
21
201
222
36
103
139
17
256
111 1,140
128 1,396
Courts also have a role in the testing process. Estimates of the impact on court resources
differ by site, ranging from £413 in Hackney to £9,205 in Doncaster. This is related to the
level of training and time that was dedicated by the courts to implementing testing.
Doncaster invested considerably more time than Hackney.
81
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Funding
The Home Office provided the pilot sites with funding for testing based upon an initial bid
and quarterly returns submitted by the sites. In order to compare the funding to sites from the
Home Office with the amount spent according to our assessment of the direct costs of
testing, certain elements of our costings have been removed to match the criteria covered by
the funding.94
The calculated cost and Home Office funding 95 for DAO/DAR testing are much more closely
matched than for on charge. The fact that PSOs being funded full time do not always work
full time on the testing is offset by the additional input from case managers and some senior
staff who are not funded. Table 6.15 shows the comparison between the cost of delivering
DAO/DARs as well as licence testing and Home Office funding.
Table 6.15: Cost of delivering probation testing compared with HO funding
Costs (£000s)
Cost
HO funding
112
96
154
122
183
185
141
140
198 213
226 202
194
246
125
139
128 1,448
176 1,532
Unit cost analysis
The unit cost analysis is performed on costs, excluding set-up and FSS costs, but including
the running costs of the steering group and costs incurred at the court. All costs have been
discounted and deflated to March 2001.
Table 6.16 shows the cost per test expressed at a common price base of March 2001. The
table shows that taking the first ten months, Blackpool has the highest cost per test at £355,
while Nottingham has the lowest at £88 (this is the site with the highest throughput).
94 The quarterly returns report the actual spend per quarter. These returns exclude all Cozart equipment, Cozart
training, testing kits, ERRS, CJU and court costs and FSS costs.
95 Home Office funding is estimated as £1,078,770 apportioned to DAO/DAR testing.
82
Drug Abstinence Orders and Drug Abstinence Requirements
Table 6.16: Cost per probation test
Unit cost
£188
£88 £147 £150 £158 £133
£113 £355
£250
£176
Break-even analysis
As no significant impacts on drug consumption or offending are observed in the timeframe
of the evaluation of DAO/DAR drug testing, no attempt has been made to calculate cost
effectiveness or the cost-benefit of the DAO/DAR interventions. Instead, the analysis has
been limited to a simple break-even calculation, seeking to show how many people would
have to stop taking problem Class A drugs, or the number of trigger offences that would
have to be saved, in order for the intervention to be cost beneficial. This is the minimum
break-even impact.
Estimates of the value of drug misuse96 and trigger offences97 suggest a cost per annum per
problem Class A drug consumer of £6,320 (March 2001 prices), and a cost per trigger
offence of £1,750 (March 2001 prices). Comparing these values with the intervention costs
(including the costs of breach and treatment for those who accessed it), it is estimated that in
order to break even over the first year, at a minimum the pilot needs to deliver either 236
people stopping taking Class A drugs or a reduction in offending of 852 trigger offences.
This is the equivalent of either 31.9 per cent of those given DAO/DAR orders stopping
taking problem Class A drugs, or 1.15 trigger offences saved per order.
It is important to note that these estimates are based on the assumption that the impact of
drug testing on drug consumption and offending occurs immediately after drug testing and
that any reduction in drug misuse is maintained for one year. If there is a delay between
drug testing and its impact on drug misuse or offending, or if any reduction in drugs misuse
occurs for a period less than a year, then a greater impact than those estimated above
would be required for the pilot to be cost beneficial.
96 Godfrey, C. et al. (2002), The economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2000.
HORS 249.
97 Brand, S. and Price, R. (2000), The economic and social costs of crime. Home Office Research Study 217.
83
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
84
7
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Introduction
This chapter presents the key findings of the evaluation of testing on licence or under notice
of supervision. It describes how the provisions have been implemented in terms of numbers
of testing conditions, characteristics of the population being tested, and their views of
testing. The routes through which testing might affect behaviour are explored and key
related operational issues are identified. Offender views on the impact of testing are
summarised, alongside the findings of a quantitative analysis of impact. Finally, costs of the
intervention are presented alongside a discussion of the economic impact.
Implementation of licence testing
Testing on licence and under notice of supervision was introduced at the same time and in
the same areas as DAOs and DARs. The Home Office provided funds for equipment, staff
and space to undertake testing. As with DAO/DAR testing, Cozart-trained PSOs undertake
the majority of testing.
As with on-charge and DAO/DAR testing, the Home Office provided guidance and
resources to each area for set-up and running costs, as well as opportunities to review
progress at national workshops. Lessons from the first three pilot sites were communicated to
the six sites in the second wave of testing.
Testing on licence differs from DAO/DAR testing in a number of ways, namely:
●
●
the ERRS (Home Office) performs the decision-making role in relation to this licence
condition, largely involving a determination of whether drug testing will be added
to an individual’s licence and when recall action is to be instigated; and
probation testing teams are required to work with probation resettlement teams
and staff within prisons.
85
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Numbers of testing conditions
Table 7.1 shows the cumulative number of licence testing conditions and notices of
supervision given between 1st October 2001 and 31st October 2003. In total, 572 onlicence testing requirements were issued.98 The number varied across sites, with Nottingham
issuing the most (158) and Blackpool the least (13).
Table 7.1:
Number of licences issued by site: cumulative to 31st October 2003
Pilot Site
Start Date
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
November 01
November 01
November 01
August 02
June 02
July 02
July 02
August 02
July 02
Licence testing and supervision notices (no.)
56
112
158
21
13
61
23
109
19
572
An audit of the take-up of licence testing provisions was undertaken in May 2003. This
demonstrated that there was a gap between the numbers who might be considered eligible
for the requirement, and the numbers applied. This showed that out of a total sample of 73
eligible cases, 29 (40%) were given testing conditions. Some offenders were not given a
testing order because either probation or ERRS actively rejected the option for clearly
documented reasons. However, in other cases no reason has been given.
The licence population
Table 7.2 describes the characteristics of those being tested on licence. This shows a
predominantly male population, the fact that the vast majority were unemployed and that, in
many sites, the offenders released on licence were living in unstable housing.
98 Source: Probation site monitoring data. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of data sources.
86
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Table 7.2:
Summary characteristics of those tested on-licence by site: cumulative to
31st October 2003
Pilot Site
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
Number of
individuals (no.)
Male
(%)
56
112
158
21
13
61
23
109
19
572
93
95
91
86
92
92
91
94
89
92
White
Unemployed
European (%)
(%)
100
28
72
76
100
90
87
94
89
74
88
94
90
90
100
84
91
85
89
89
Living in unstable
housing99 (%)
9
28
35
29
0
18
43
15
16
24
Analysis from the interview data shows that almost all (98%) of the licence offenders
admitted using illicit drugs at some point in their lives with 87 per cent having tried two or
more Class A drugs. However, drug use in the month before prison and after their most
recent sentence was at much lower levels. At the initial interview, within a month of release,
around a third (35%) of licence offenders had used heroin since their release and just over
a quarter (26%) crack/cocaine. Although in the month before prison almost half (48%) were
using two or more class A drugs, only around a quarter (27%) had used two or more Class
A drugs since their release.
Licence offenders reported having committed a wide range of offences in their offending
history, with the most common being possession of drugs (82%), burglary (75%) and
shoplifting (64%). Almost four-fifths (79%) had committed two or more offences, not counting
possession of drugs. In terms of treatment, 71 per cent of the respondents reported having
contact with a health or other helping service in relation to their drug use. Only five per cent
were working at the time of the initial interview, although this is to be expected as it was
only a short time after their release from prison.
Despite the relatively high levels of previous offending, very few had done so since their
release and prior to their initial interview. Excluding possession of drugs, five per cent of
respondents admitted committing one offence and six per cent admitted committing two or
more offences in the relatively short period after release.
99 Unstable housing defined as Bed and Breakfast, Hostel or Shelter, Squat, probation/Bail hostel, No fixed
abode, residential rehabilitation and/or Prison/Youth offender institution.
87
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
The ability to successfully stop taking drugs, even if motivated to do so, may be influenced by
contact with other drug users. At the initial interview, only a fifth of respondents said that none
of their friends used drugs, with 36 per cent saying that all or most of their friends took drugs.
Recall to prison and the licence population
The monitoring data indicated that 35 per cent of the licence population were breached, of
these 83 per cent were recalled to prison. Seventy per cent of those that were breached had
used two or more Class A drugs, as compared to 27 per cent of those that were not
breached. Just over half of those that were breached had committed one or more offences
(other than possession of drugs), compared to 24 per cent of those that were not breached.
Table 7.3 shows the frequency of breach for those tested on licence. Predictably, the
numbers breaching twice or more is very low across all sites, as most first breaches resulted
in recall to prison.
Table 7.3:
Frequency of breach, on licence
Site
Stafford and Cannock
Hackney
Nottingham
Bedford
Blackpool
Doncaster
Torquay
Wirral
Wrexham and Mold
Total
Total
Breach 1
individuals (no.)
(%)
56
112
158
21
13
61
23
109
19
572
21
43
86
6
1
8
2
31
3
201
37
39
54
29
8
13
8
28
16
35
Breach 2
(no.)
(%)
7
5
8
1
2
23
12
4
5
0
0
0
4
2
0
4
Breach 3
(no.)
(%)
2
1
1
4
4
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Table 7.4 describes the outcome of first breach for the on licence population.
88
Breach 4
(no.) (%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Table 7.4:
Outcome of first breach for the on licence population
Total
First
Order
licences breaches continued*
Stafford and
Cannock
Fine and order Returned
Breach Other/outcome
to continue* to prison* withdrawn*
unknown
56
21
0 (5%)
3 (23%) 10 (77%)
0 (0%)
8
Hackney
112
43
1 (5%)
1
(5%) 20 (91%)
0 (0%)
21100
Nottingham
(0%) 63 (83%)
158
86
9 (11%)
0
4 (5%)
8
Bedford
Blackpool
21
13
6
1
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (17%)
0 (0%)
5 (83%)
1 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0
0
Doncaster
61
8
0 (0%)
0
4 (100%)
0 (0%)
3
Torquay
23
2
0 (0%)
1 (100%)
0
(0%)
0 (0%)
1
109
31
1 (4%)
0
(0%) 22 (92%)
1 (4%)
7
19
572
3
201
0 (0%)
11 (7%)
0
6
(0%)
0 (0%)
(1%) 125 (83%)
0 (0%)
5 (3%)
3
51
Wirral
Wrexham
and Mold
Total
(0%)
* Percentages calculated from the population breached where outcome is known (n=150)
This shows that the breach of an on licence testing condition predominantly leads to the
offender returning to prison.
Table 7.5 describes the reasons for first breach for the on licence population. It shows
that of those who breached, some 29 per cent were breached for unacceptable
absences, 31 per cent for failed tests and 28 per cent for a combination of both. It is
important to note that an offender who feared testing positive might decide not to attend
the appointment, therefore unacceptable absences may include offenders who probably
would have tested positive.
100 Difficulties with data collection in Hackney meant that it was difficult to identify the sentence outcome for a
proportion of the offending population.
89
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
90
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Effectiveness of licence testing
Conceptual model
This section presents the theory underpinning the on licence testing intervention. As with police
testing, the threat of punishment (breach and recall to prison) and increased recognition by the
offender that he/she has a drug problem resulting from testing may have a direct deterrence
and self help effect on both drug misuse and crime. Again, there may be an indirect
rehabilitative effect of drug use through its impact on entry into treatment as a result of support
from the tester/supervising officer (case manager) facilitating access into treatment.
Breach/recall to prison: One route through which testing might be expected to have an impact
on levels of drug misuse and offending is via the breach arrangements. Breach of the testing
condition may result in the offender returning to prison with the associated loss of freedom.
This would the n impact on treatment, drug consumption and offending via the
“incapacitation” effect. The threat of breach and recall also serves as a deterrence which
itself will impact on the propensity of an offender to reduce drug consumption and offending
with or without the support of treatment.
Treatment: As with on-charge testing and testing of offenders via DAO/DAR testing, the
licence offender may also be motivated to seek treatment, directly as a result of the drug
test. Offenders could also be motivated to seek help as a result of motivational discussions
with the tester, or as a result of fear of breach/recall.
Self help: Potentially offenders who have some degree of control over their drug use may be
motivated to reduce or abstain from use of Class A drugs or offend directly as a result of
being tested regularly. Again, twice weekly motivational discussions with the tester may
have a rehabilitative effect.
The same conceptual model can be adopted as for DAO/DARs.
Operational Issues
All pilot areas were funded by the Home Office to have the equipment, staff and space to
u n d e r take on licence testing and testing under NoS. All areas overcame practical
implementation challenges in the early days of set-up and as with DAO/DAR testing, the
role of the tester and the relationship between the PSO and the PO were import a n t
operational issues affecting the success of the intervention.
91
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
The main operational issues specific to drug testing on licence or under NoS were the
identification of eligible offenders and associated communications between agencies and
operational staff. For this group of offenders, there were some additional complexities
surrounding decisions to apply testing orders compared to other aspects of probation drugtesting provisions:
communication101: there have been communication difficulties between prisons and probation
concerning the early identification of prisoners prior to release that are eligible for testing
(this issue goes beyond drug testing, into general release planning issues). Of those cases
where the timeframe was recorded to show when the prisoner was identified as eligible for
testing on licence, in 13 out of 23 cases the conditions were added within four weeks of
release or post release. This does not comply with the guidance which states prisoners
should be identified at least four weeks prior to release. This problem is exacerbated where
prisoners are released into areas that they had not formerly resided in prior to the start of
their sentence;
awareness of the pilot: some prison staff were not aware of the pilot or the drug-testing
provisions. The eligible population within the nine pilot sites were geographically dispersed
across the country and the relevant prisons (which may not be located in the pilot areas)
may not be aware of the pilot and the provisions. This will limit the extent to which prison
staff can assist the probation service in identifying potentially eligible individuals;
awareness of drug use: positive on-charge drug test results are not yet routinely communicated
on reception at prison establishments. Moreover, prison staff rely on drug testing in prison,
or self-reported drug use, to identify whether the individual has drug use related needs; and
a w a reness of the purpose of drug testing: some staff who were aware of the dru g - t e s t i n g
provisions have reported concerns that individuals were being ‘set up to fail’. They therefore
make use of the discretionary nature of the decision to apply the testing condition and
identify individuals as ‘ineligible’. Moreover, it has been suggested that in some probation
areas, practitioners may be encouraged not to apply for a drug testing licence condition in
favour of other community-based drug interventions, such as the Addressing Substance
Related Offending programme, which have budget linked incentives.
101Information systems were generally found to be very poor, and resulted in sites having difficulty in providing
accurate figures of prisoner releases (in relation to past, present and future cases). Hackney was found to be the
exception, as the probation testing team had introduced their own system, outside the standard system for
logging cases that were due for release and then considering their eligibility.
92
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Offender views and experience of testing
As part of the interview programme, offenders being tested who were released on licence or
under notice of supervision were asked about whether they expected drug testing to impact
on their behaviour and subsequently whether they thought that it had affected behaviour.
Table 7.6 below shows the views of offenders about the expected impact of testing at the
initial interview.
Table 7.6:
Impact of drug testing at initial interview – on licence
Percentage
Do you think being regularly drug-tested is going to…
…help you reduce or stop your drug-taking?
Yes
No – won’t make a difference
No – more likely to take drugs
Don’t know
Not answered
60
31
2
3
4
…help you reduce or stop your offending?
Yes
No – won’t make a difference
No – more likely to offend
Don’t know
Not answered
48
45
0
3
4
…make you more likely to seek help for drug problems if you need help?
Yes
No – won’t make a difference
No – less likely to seek help
Don’t know
Not answered
Unweighted base
45
45
1
5
4
177
At the first follow-up interview, respondents were asked whether they thought being regularly
drug-tested had made an impact on their drug-taking, offending and likelihood of seeking
help for drug problems
93
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 7.7:
Impact of drug testing at 1st follow-up interview – on licence
Percentage
Do you think being regularly drug-tested is going to…
…help you reduce or stop your drug-taking?
Yes
No – won’t make a difference
No – more likely to take drugs
Don’t know
Not answered
60
31
2
3
4
…help you reduce or stop your offending?
Yes
No – won’t make a difference
No – more likely to offend
Don’t know
Not answered
48
45
0
3
4
…make you more likely to seek help for drug problems if you need help?
Yes
No – won’t make a difference
No – less likely to seek help
Don’t know
Not answered
Unweighted base
45
45
1
5
4
177
Drug consumption: At the first follow-up interview, over half of respondents had used heroin and 35
per cent had used crack/cocaine in the four months since leaving custody. However, whereas in
the month before going to prison almost half of respondents were taking two or more Class A
drugs, only a fifth were taking two or more in the month prior to the follow-up interview.
Across the nine pilot sites, around half of respondents at first follow-up felt that being
regularly drug tested had made them less likely to take drugs. For the majority, it was the
consequences of testing positive (breach/recall) that deterred them from drug taking. Just
over a third of respondents at the first follow-up interview felt that drug testing had made no
difference to their drug taking. For some, this was because they had ‘learnt’ how to take
drugs and avoid being tested positive. Others felt that drug testing had made no difference
due to the fact they were addicted to drugs.
94
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Offending: At the first follow-up interview two-thirds of respondents reported that they had not
committed offences (excluding possession of drugs) in the four months prior to the first
follow-up interview. Over three quarters of those that had committed offences in the four
months prior to the follow-up interview felt that their offending had been connected with
their drug use.
Just over a third of those interviewed at first follow-up had been arrested for an alleged
offence in the previous 4 months, whilst 22 per cent had been convicted for an offence in
the 4 months prior to the interview.102 At first follow-up interview, 35 per cent felt that being
regularly drug tested had made them less likely to offend. The main reason for this was that
many respondents were offending to get money to fund a drug habit and the reduction in
drug use resulting from the testing reduced the need to offend.
Treatment/support: At the first follow-up interview, two-fifths of respondents had made contact
with a health or other supporting agency in the previous four months, with 56 per cent of
these contacts being new contacts. Just under a third of respondents at first follow-up felt that
being regularly drug tested had made them more likely to get support or help concerning
their drug use. For some the drug testing led to referrals to other agencies for substitute
prescribing or counselling and support. Others found that the support from probation was
enough to help and motivate them to address their drug use.
A third of respondents stated that drug testing had made no difference to their seeking help or
support and a quarter did not want, or felt that they did not need help; reasons for this include:
●
●
●
they were not testing positive;
testing had not helped or motivated them to seek help because they were simply
not ready to stop taking drugs; and/or
they were motivated to seek help but found that there was no support available
for them to access.
Breach: Just over a third of all those interviewed at first follow-up had breached the testing
condition. Of these, almost three quarters were recalled to prison. Seventy per cent of those
that were breached had used 2 or more Class A drugs, as compared to 27 per cent of
those that were not breached. Just over half of those that were breached had committed one
or more offences (other than possession of drugs), as compared to 24 per cent of those that
were not breached.
102 A proportion of these interviews will have happened in prison.
95
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
In addition to the above, analysis of interview data suggests that by the time of the first
follow-up interview:
●
●
●
respondents appeared to have kept the same type of social networks with friends
that they had at the initial interview with 42 per cent saying that all or most of
their friends took drugs. However, for those who had found a new partner
between the initial and follow-up interviews, the new partners were mainly nondrug users;
the percentage of those living with friends or family had decreased whilst the
percentage of those renting or in unstable accommodation had increased from 18
per cent to 36 per cent; and
the percentage in some form of employment had risen from five per cent to 23
per cent with 11 per cent of respondents having completed a training or
education course in the four months since the initial interview.
Impact analysis
Impact analysis for testing on licence or under notice of supervision followed the same
methodology as that adopted for the DAO/DAR analysis. However, for this group, there
were too few second follow-up interviews achieved to undertake analysis of longer-term
outcomes. Findings reported below are reported for the first follow-up interview.
It is important to reiterate that these findings are not statistically significant at the 95 per cent
confidence level due to the constraints of the study design and the resultant uncertainty with
the estimates. However, the results are consistent across a number of different outcome
measures and with the findings from the other elements of the evaluation.
Drug testing in the pilot areas was associated with a much larger proportion of people
being breached and recalled to prison than in the comparison areas. A third of the pilot
group (34%) said they were breached in the period between initial and first follow-up
interview compared with just four per cent of the comparison group. The majority of those
breached in the pilot areas had tested positive (86%) and most were recalled to prison
(25% of the whole pilot group, 69% of those breached). Half of the pilot group (51%) had
missed appointments with probation since initial interview, compared with 41 per cent of
the comparison group.
96
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Drug consumption: Drug use at initial interview was similar for the pilot and comparison groups
(due to matching) but by the first follow-up interview, recent use of heroin was much lower
for the pilot group. Around three-quarters of the comparison group (76%) had used heroin
in the month before second interview compared with 34 per cent of the pilot group. The
p ro p o rtion injecting drugs was also lower for the pilot group at only two per cent
(compared to 74% of the comparison group). Recent use of crack cocaine was similar: 20
per cent of the pilot group and 29 per cent of the comparison group.
Drug use over a slightly longer time period (the 4 months before first follow-up interview)
followed a similar pattern, although the differences between the comparison and pilot
groups were smaller in size, suggesting that, as for DAO/DAR, those who had reduced
their drug consumption had done so in stages.
Overall, 59 per cent of the pilot group had not used any of the Class A drugs detected by
the drug test during the month before the first follow-up interview compared with 21 per cent
of the comparison group. Fifty-three per cent of the pilot group reported using fewer types of
Class A drugs at second interview compared with 35 per cent of the comparison group.
Treatment: Those in the comparison group were slightly more likely to have had contact with
treatment services in the period between initial and first follow-up interview (58% compared
with 44%) but this was largely because of treatment contacts that were already in place at
initial interview. Those in the pilot group were more likely to have made new contacts with
t reatment (36% compared with 5% of the comparison group) since initial interv i e w.
Respondents in the pilot areas were also more likely to have stopped taking drugs as a
result of treatment since initial interview (14% compared with 1%).
Offending: Pilot group respondents were less likely to have been arrested (38%) or convicted
of an offence (20%) since initial interview than were those in the comparison group (65%
and 39% respectively). The pilot group also reported lower numbers of offence types in the
month and four months before second interview than did the comparison group. However,
neither group reported particularly high levels of offending in the relatively short time
periods the team asked about. Again this may reflect the fact that a significant proportion of
both groups could have spent a large proportion of this period in prison, as a result of
breach. It would be preferable to examine changes in self-reported offending over a longer
period of time to get a more accurate picture of changes in offending.
97
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Economic analysis
Intervention costs
Table 7.8 provides a summary of the set-up costs and running costs of on licence testing
over the first ten months of the pilot. The costs of on-licence drug testing are calculated
based on the assumption that probation costs can be allocated to either DAO/DAR or onlicence drug testing in proportion to the number of tests performed.
Table 7.8:
Costs (£000s)
Personnel
Training
Premises
Equipment
Testing kits
Travel
FSS analysis
Recruitment
Other
Total
Set-up and running costs for on-licence testing
Running costs
293
1
33
2
60
8
57
4
2
460
Set-up costs
49
6
22
12
0
1
0
92
0
182
The main set-up costs have been incurred in relation to personnel time, training, adaptations
to premises and recruitment. Once established, the main running costs of the intervention
are personnel time, testing kits and the use of the FSS to validate test results.
Table 7.9 shows the set-up and running costs by site. Set-up costs varied from £21,000 in
Hackney to £4,000 in Blackpool, Doncaster, and Wrexham and Mold (mainly due to
managerial and premises alteration costs). Variations in running costs across sites are
largely accounted for by differences between sites in throughputs and in the amount of time
taken to conduct each test.
98
Licence testing or under notice of supervision
Table 7.9:
Set-up and running costs by site
Costs (£000s)
Set-up costs
Running costs
Total costs
21
53
74
11
45
56
10
50
60
11
24
35
8
14
45 122
53 136
4
38
42
4
13
17
4
24
28
87
414
501
Courts and the ERRS also have a role in the testing process. Estimates of the impact on court
costs resources differ by site, ranging from £429 in Hackney to £4,251 in Wirral. The total
court cost was estimated to be £63,713. ERRS costs ranged from £732 in Blackpool to
£13,993 in Wirral, reflecting the difference in licence activity of the sites.
Funding
The Home Office provided the pilot sites with funding for testing based upon an initial bid and
quarterly returns submitted by the sites. In order to compare the funding to sites from the Home
Office with the amount spent according to an assessment of the direct costs of testing, certain
elements of the costings have been removed to match the criteria covered by the funding.103
The calculated cost and Home Office funding 104 for on licence are much more closely
matched than for on charge. The fact that PSOs being funded full time do not always work
full time on the testing is offset by the additional input from case managers and some senior
staff who are not funded. The comparison for probation costs is shown in Chapter 6.
Unit cost analysis
The unit cost analysis is performed on modelled cost, excluding set-up and FSS costs, as well
as court and ERRS process costs. These figures include costs to other agencies and include
the running costs of the steering group and the court. All costs have been discounted and
deflated to March 2001. The comparison for probation costs is shown in Chapter 6.
103 The quarterly returns report the actual spend per quarter. These returns exclude all Cozart equipment, Cozart
training, testing kits, ERRS, CJU, court costs and FSS costs.
104 Home Office Funding is estimated as £452,168 for the period in question.
99
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Break-even analysis
As no significant impacts on drug consumption or offending are observed in the timeframe of
the evaluation of on-licence drug testing, no attempt has been made to calculate cost
effectiveness or the cost benefit of the on licence interventions. Instead, the analysis has been
limited to a simple break-even calculation, seeking to show how many people would have to
stop taking problem Class A drugs, or the number of trigger offence-days that would have to
be saved in order for the intervention to be cost beneficial: the minimum break-even impact.
Estimates of the value of drug misuse 105 and trigger offences106 suggest a cost per annum per
problem Class A drug consumer of £6,320 (March 2001 prices) and a cost per trigger
offence of £1,750 (March 2001 prices). Comparing these values with the intervention costs
(including the costs of breach and treatment for those who accessed it), it is estimated that in
order to break even over the first year, at a minimum the pilot needs to deliver either 185
people stopping taking Class A drugs or a reduction in offending of 666 trigger offences.
This is the equivalent of either 67.3 per cent of those given orders on licence stopping
taking problem Class A drugs, or 2.42 trigger offences saved per order.
It is important to note that these estimates are based on the assumption that the impact of
drug testing on drug consumption and offending occurs immediately after drug testing and
that any reduction in drug misuse is maintained for one year. If there is a delay between
drug testing and its impact on drug misuse or offending, or if any reduction in drugs misuse
occurs for a period less than a year, then a greater impact than those estimated above
would be required for the pilot to be cost beneficial.
105 Godfrey, C. et al. (2002). The economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England and Wales, 2000.
Home Office Research Study No. 249. London: Home Office.
106 Brand, S. and Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime. Home Office Research Study No. 217.
London: Home Office.
100
8
Changes in trigger offence rates in pilot and
comparison areas
A descriptive analysis was undertaken to compare crime rates before and after the
introduction of testing. Recorded crime per head of population was calculated for BCUs
covered by the pilot area and for selected reference areas. Crime rates were calculated as
follows: recorded crime rates for the pilot area were expressed as a percentage of recorded
crime rates in the reference areas. These ratios were then compared for an equal period
pre-and post-testing.107
Table 8.1 shows that, at an area level, whilst in eight of the nine sites trigger offences had
reduced by a greater degree in the pilot area than the comparison areas, non-trigger
offences had also reduced in seven of the nine pilot areas more than the comparison areas.
It is not possible from this crude comparison to attribute the relative reduction in trigger
offence rates in the pilot areas (compared with comparison areas) to the introduction of
drug testing. Other explanatory factors may have affected these ratios pre-and post-testing
(such as targeted policing operations, and differential changes between the control and
comparison areas in terms of criminogenic characteristics).
At an area level a simple time-series regression analysis was undertaken which could not
find any statistically significant links between the introduction of testing and changes in
crime rate ratios. The exception to this was the Staff o rd and Cannock site where a
significant negative relationship was found between the introduction of drug testing and
crime rate ratios i.e. crime increased during this period.
107 Dates vary due to different implementation dates and different lengths of available data.
101
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Table 8.1:
Pilot area108
Percentage change in recorded crime rate post testing in pilot area relative
to comparison area
Comparison area
Change in crime rate in pilot area relative to comparison area
Trigger Offences
Non-Trigger Offences
Bedford
Bedfordshire BCU
-6.2%
-7.7%
Blackpool
Lancashire BCU
-7.4%
0.9%
Doncaster
South Yorkshire
-0.8%
5.9%
Hackney
Lambeth and Southwark
-4.4%
-5.3%
Nottingham
Nottinghamshire BCU:
A and B division excluding
D division
-1.8%
-5.5%
Stafford and
Cannock
Staffordshire BCU: B and S
division excluding X division
1.6%
-1.0%
Torquay
Devon and Cornwall BCU
1.7%
-2.3%
Wrexham
and Mold
North Wales BCU
-3.4%
-10.9%
108 It was not possible to obtain the equivalent monthly data for Wirral.
102
9
Conclusion
By the end of October 2003, 17,586 drug tests had been undertaken on 11,276 detainees
in police stations, 1,462 Drug Abstinence Requirements and 82 Drug Abstinence Orders
have been ordered across all areas, and 572 testing requirements were issued for offenders
released on licence or under notice of supervision.
There is some evidence to suggest that for a variety of reasons, such as how the body
metabolises drugs, the gender and weight of the detainee/offender, the purity of the
substances taken and the use of a cut-off level in the screening test, there will be a
population who have recently taken drugs for whom the test results will be negative. Further
guidance was issued and operator training was amended during the course of the
evaluation to support those involved in the pilot to better understand the testing process.
However, the Home Office should take further steps to ensure that this is understood by all
those involved in testing, so that they can deal appropriately with any challenges to the
validity of using drug-testing equipment in a criminal justice context.
T h e re is strong evidence to suggest that on-charge testing increases the number of
acceptances by detainees to see arrest referral workers and that positive tests increase
treatment entry rates. No significant effects have been detected in relation to the effect of
drug testing on changes in drug consumption or offending behaviour, although this may be
due to study design constraints. Implementation difficulties may also have mitigated the
potential effectiveness of on-charge drug testing via its impact on bail and sentencing
decisions. The Home Office should investigate opportunities to reduce the unit costs of
testing, promote the link between arrest referral and testing and/or maximise the use of test
results by the courts.
For both DAO/DAR and on-licence testing (including NOS), there is some evidence to
suggest that the interventions result in increased participation in treatment, reduced drug
consumption and reduced offending. Implementation has generally been a success; key
mitigating factors include the role of the tester, the relationship between Probation Service
Officers and Probation Officers and access to treatment for those who need it. Whilst it is
recognised that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not have provision for the use of testing
without treatment for those being tested as part of a community sentence, the Act does
provide for the wider use of on-licence testing. This acknowledges the suggestion that there
may be individuals for whom testing alone may be sufficient to prompt behaviour change.
103
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Further work should be undertaken to identify this population. Given the outcomes of
p robation testing identified in this re p o rt, these interventions may be relatively cost
beneficial, especially when taking into account long term impacts.
104
Appendix 1:
Key terms and glossary
Key term
Description
Arrest referral scheme
Aims to impact drug-related offending and involves a mix of
on-site and on-call drug workers managed and supported by
drug agencies
ARW
Arrest Referral Worker
ASRO
Addressing Substance Related Offending (accredited
programme)
BCU
Basic Command Unit
Breach
A term used by probation to describe an order of the court or
licence condition being broken by an offender. In the context of
the drug-testing orders, an offender will be breached if they test
positive for three consecutive tests, or two non-consecutive tests
within a six week period, tests positive and has another type of
unacceptable failure e.g. failure to attend within a six week
period or any two unacceptable failures, other than positive
tests, within any 12 month period, the only exception being
that if an offender is waiting for treatment, probation officers
are not required to instigate breach action
CARAT
Counselling Assessment Referral and Treatment
CDO
Civilian Detention Officers
CDRP
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership
CJIP
Criminal Justice Interventions Programme
CJU
Criminal Justice Unit
CPS
Crown Prosecution Service
CRAMS
An electronic Case Record and Management System used by
the probation service
Criminal Justice and
Aims to protect the public, reduce reoffending, correctly punish
Court Services Act 2000 offenders, make offenders aware of the effects of crime on the
victims of crime and the public and rehabilitate offenders
105
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Criminal Justice and
Court Services Act 2002
Extended drug-testing pilot to Bedfordshire, Devon and
Cornwall, Lancashire, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and North
Wales
Criminal Justice Act 2003 Aims to implement the policies set out in the Government’s
White Paper, Justice For All
106
DAAT
Drug and Alcohol Action Team
DAO
Drug Abstinence Order - a standalone community sentence
involving twice a week testing for a period of 13 weeks, with
discretion for this to be reduced to once a week if the offender
is responding well
DAR
Drug Abstinence Requirement - attached as a condition of a
community sentence which involves twice a week testing for 13
weeks, with discretion for this to be reduced to once a week if
the offender is responding well
DAT
Drug Action Team
DT1 form
On-charge drug test results are placed in this form and kept in
the detainee’s custody record
DT2 form
On-charge drug test results are placed in this form and
communicated to the court by the CPS
DTTO
Drug treatment and testing order
FSS
Forensic Science Service confirms drug test results
Justice For All (2002)
Government strategy to modernise the criminal justice system,
giving a fairer deal to victims and witnesses and effectively
addressing punishment and rehabilitation
National Crack Plan
Targets initiatives in a variety of areas which had been
identified as being high crack areas
National Drug Strategy
First launched in 1998, then revised in 2002, it aims to reduce
the harm that drugs cause to society
NDTMS
National Drug Treatment Monitoring System
NEW-ADAM
New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
project
Appendix 1
Non-Trigger Offences
All other offences not covered by trigger offences. Individuals
charged with a non trigger offence can only be drug tested
with authorisation by an Inspector (Inspector’s Discretion) if
drug misuse is suspected as a factor in the crime committed
NoS
Notice of supervision - a drug-testing requirement as part of a
condition of release from prison for 18- to 22-year olds
OASys
Offender Assessment System used by the probation service
On-charge testing
Drug testing at police stations
On licence
Prisoners sentenced to 12 months or more are supervised by
the probation service upon release, known as being ‘on
licence’. A licence sets certain rules that an offender must do
and live by when released from prison. A drug-testing
requirement can be added as part of a condition of release
from prison
Pre-sentence test
A request from the court to conduct a drugs test which can be
used by the court to inform the sentencing
Problem drugs
Cocaine, Crack, Heroin, other Opiates
PSO
Probation Service Officers
PSR
Pre Sentence Report written by the probation service for the
courts to assess the type of sentence which is most suitable for
an offender
ERRS
Early Release and Recall Section (formally Sentence
Enforcement Unit (SEU) (Home Office)
SSR
Specific Sentence Reports written by the probation service for
the courts to determine an offender's suitability for a specific
sentence
Trigger Offences
As collected by the monitoring data: theft, robbery, burglary,
aggravated burglary, taking without consent, vehicle taking,
property by deception, going equipped, producing/supplying
(drugs), supply (drugs), possession with intent to supply (drugs)
YOT
Youth Offending Team
107
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
108
Appendix 2:
The research team and roles
There were two main partner agencies and a number of academic departments involved in
the delivery of the evaluation; this appendix specifies the team roles and responsibilities.
Matrix Research and Consultancy Limited
Matrix, under the direction of Jacque Mallender, was the lead contractor for the project. The
company:
●
●
●
●
●
●
led the liaison with the Home Office;
managed the project;
designed, co-ordinated and undertook the theory development work, process and
structure audit and cost-benefit analysis across the nine case study sites;
co-ordinated and analysed the site-based monitoring data and the monthly reports
to the Home Office;
undertook the impact analysis both for police testing, using the detainee interview
data collected by Nacro and the pan-pilot crime rates analysis; and
prepared the interim and final reports and related technical appendices.
Nacro
Nacro, under the direction of Mark Liddle, designed, co-ordinated, undertook and analysed
the detainee and offender interview programme across the sites, and undertook the impact
analysis for the probation drug-testing interventions. This has been described in the detainee
and offender interview appendix which includes both descriptive analysis and the probation
impact analysis. The Nacro team supported the interpretation of the analysis in the context
of the other evaluation findings and contributed to the interim and final reports accordingly.
Dr Alex Hirschfield from the University of Liverpool, Dr Kate Bowers and Dr Shane Johnson from University
College London ide ntified the comparison areas supporting the quasi-ex perimental
methodology. The team also quality assured the area level analysis and the impact analysis
for police testing.
109
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Professor Kevin Lee from Leicester University quality assured the methodology development for the
impact analysis for police testing, as well as the subsequent analysis and interpretation.
Dr Karl Taylor from the University of Leicester provided technical advice to the team on the
multivariate analysis used for the impact analysis for police testing.
Dr Alan France from the University of Sheffield provided advice on the design of the process and
structure audit and quality assured the final report.
Professor Christine Godfrey from the University of York provided advise on the interpretation of
benefits valuations relating to drug consumption for the economic analysis.
Andrew Zelin from Mori provided support to Nacro on sampling and methodological quality
assurance.
Paul Turnbull and Professor Mike Hough from Kings College London provided expertise in the field of
drugs and crime, as well as quality assuring the final report.
110
References
Anglin, D.M., Longshore, D. and Turner, S. (1999). Treatment alternatives to street crime:
An evaluation of five programs in Criminal Justice and Behavior 26:168-195 (US).
Bennett et al. C rown Copyright (2001). Drugs and Crime: the results of the second
developmental stage of the NEW ADAM programme. Home Office Research, Development
and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.205. London. Home Office.
Brand, S. and Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime. Home Office
Research Series Paper 217, London, Home Office.
Bryson, A., Dorsett, R. and Purdon, S. (2002). The Use of Propensity Score Matching in the
Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies. Department Work and Pensions, Working
Paper Number 4.
Connell, J.P. and Kubisch, A.C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the
evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. In K.
Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating
community initiatives, Volume 2: T h e o r y, measurement, and analysis (pp. 15–44).
Washington DC: The Aspen Institute.
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/Programt3.asp?bid=1264
Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP).
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy/CriminalJusticeInterventionsProgramme
Crown Copyright (1991). Criminal Justice Act 1991.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910053_en_1.htm
Crown Copyright (1998). Crime and Disorder Act 1998. HMSO
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980037.htm
Crown Copyright (1998). Introductory Guide to The Crime and Disorder Act. HMSO
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/cdaint1.html
111
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Crown Copyright (2000). Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. HMSO
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000043.htm
C ro wn C o py rig ht (2 00 2) . The C ri mi na l J ust ic e an d Co u rt S er v ic es A ct 2000
(Commencement No. 9) Order 2002. HMSO
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000043.htm
Crown Copyright (2003). Criminal Justice Act (2003). HMSO
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm
Cusson, M. and Pinsonneault, P. (1986). ‘The Decision to Give Up Crime’ in Cornish, D. B.
and Clarke, R.V. (eds) The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer – Verlag.
Deaton, S. Crown Copyright (2004). On Charge Drug Testing: Evaluation Of Drug Testing
In The Criminal Justice System. Home Office Development and Practice Report No. 16.
London. Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/dpr16.pdf
Department of Health. Crown Copyright (2002). Models of Care for substance misuse
treatment: promoting quality, efficiency and effectiveness in drug misuse treatment services.
De Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design In Social Research. London. Sage.
Dhiri S. and Brand S. (1999). Analysis of Costs and Benefits: guidance for evaluators.
London: Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.
Drugs Strategy Directorate. Crown Copyright (1998). Tackling Drugs To Build A Better
Britain; The Government’s Ten Year Strategy For Tackling Drug Misuse.
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm39/3945/3945.htm
Drugs Strategy Directorate. Crown Copyright (2002). Updated Drug Strategy 2002.
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/NationalStrategy/1038840683/Update
d_Drug_Strategy_2002.pdf
Drugs Strategy Directorate. Crown Copyright (2002). Tackling Crack: A National Plan.
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/NationalStrategy/1040390696
112
References
Edmunds, M., May, T., Hough, M. and Hearnden, I. (1998). Arrest Referral: Emerging
Lessons from Research. Home Office: Drugs Prevention Initiative Paper No. 23.
Edmunds, M., Hough, M., Turnbull, P.J., and May, T. (1999). Doing Justice to Treatment:
referring offenders to drug services. DPAS Paper 2. London: Home Office.
Godfrey, C., Eaton, G., McDougall, C. and Culyer, A. Crown Copyright (2002). The
Economic And Social Costs Of Class A Drug Use In England And Wales, 2000. Home
O ffice Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.249.
London. Home Office.
Hammersley, R.H., Forsyth, A.J., Morrison, V. and Davies, J.B. (1989). The Relationship
Between Crime And Opioid Use. British Journal of Addiction, 84, p1029-43.
Harocopos, A., Dennis, D., Turnbull, P.J., Parsons, J. and Hough, M. (2003). On the Rocks:
A Follow-up Study of Crack Users in London. London South Bank University.
Haynes, B. (September 1999). Can It Work? Does It Work? Is It Worth It? BMJ ;319:652653.
Hearnden, I. and Harocopos, A. (2000). Problem Drug Use and Probation in London.
Home Office Research Findings No. 112. London: Home Office.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
H.M. Treasury. (2002). The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government.
Home Office. (2001). Guidance Document On Testing For Specified Class A Drugs In Police
Stations.
Home Office. (April 2002). Evaluation Of Additional Drug Testing Pilot Programmes:
Revised Research Specification - Schedule 1.
Hough, M. (1996). ‘Problem Drug Use and Criminal Justice: a review of the literature’, Drug
Prevention Initiative Paper No. 15. London: Home Office Central Drugs Prevention Unit.
113
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
Hough, M., Clancy, A., Turnbull, P.J. and McSweeney, T. (2003). The Impact of Drug
Treatment and Testing Orders on Offending: two-year reconviction results. Home Office
Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No. 184. London:
Home Office.
Legg D. and Powell, J. (2000). Measuring Inputs – Guidance to Evaluators. London:
Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.
Levin, H. and McEwan, P. (2001). Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications.
2nd edition. California: Ed Sage Publications.
Maden, A., Swinton, M. and Gunn, J, (1992). A survey of pre-arrest drug use in sentenced
prisoners. British Journal of Addiction, 87, p27-33
Maguire, M et al. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford University Press:
Oxford.
Mallender, J., Roberts, E and Seddon,T. Crown Copyright (2002). Evaluation of Drug
Testing In The Criminal Justice System In Three Pilot areas. Home Office Researc h ,
Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.176. London. Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r176.pdf
Matrix MHA and Nacro Crown Copyright (2003). Evaluation Of Drug Testing In The
Criminal Justice System In Nine Pilot Areas. Home Office Research, Development and
Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.180. London. Home Office.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r180.pdf
Matrix. (2003). Compliance audit (unpublished).
O’Shea, J. and Powis, B. (2003). Drug Arrest Referral Schemes: A Case Study Of Good
Practice. London. Home Office.
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Lord
Chancellor and the Attorney General by Command of Her Majesty. Crown Copyright (July
2002). Justice For All.
Probation Circular 00 (2001). Criminal Justice And Court Services Act 2000: Drug Testing
As A Licence Condition.
114
References
Probation Circular 73 (2002). Enforcement of Drug Abstinence Orders (DAO) and Drug
Abstinence Requirements (DAR).
Prochaska, J.O. and Di Clemente, C.C., (1994). The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing
Traditional Boundaries of Therapy. Maladar, F1: Krieger Publishing Company.
Rogers, P.J., Petrosino, A.J., Huebner, T.A. and Hacsi, T. (2000) Program Theory Evaluation:
Practice, Promise And Problems in Rogers P.J., Hacsi, T., Petrosino A.J. and Huebner, T.A.
(eds). (2000). Program Theory Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities. New Directions
for Evaluation series Volume 87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rome, A., Morrison, A., Duff, L., Martin, J. and Russell, P. (2002). Integrated Care for Drug
Users: Principles and Practice. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive: Effective Interventions Unit.
Sherman, L. W. et al. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s
Promising. Office of Justice Programs Research Report: U.S. Department of Justice.
Sin, C. H. (2003) Using NUD.ist N6 in a large-scale national evaluation project: a multi-site
team experience paper presented at the Strategies for Qualitative Research conference,
8th–9th May 2003, Institute of Education, London. Paper available from Matrix’s website
(http://www.matrixrcl.co.uk).
Sondi, A., O’Shea, J. and Williams, T. (2002). Arrest Referral: Emerging Findings From The
National Monitoring And Evaluation Programme. DPAS Paper 18. London. Home Office.
Turnbull, P.J., McSweeney, T., Hough, M., Webster, R. and Edmunds, M. (2000). Drug
Treatment and Testing Orders: Final evaluation report. Home Office Research, Development
and Statistics Directorate Research Findings No.212. London: Home Office.
Yin, R. (1989). Case Study Research: Design And Method. London. Sage.
115
Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system
RDS Publications
Requests for Publications
Copies of our publications and a list of those currently available may be obtained from:
Home Office
Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
Communication Development Unit
Room 264, Home Office
50 Queen Anne’s Gate
London SW1H 9AT
Telephone: 020 7273 2084 (answerphone outside of office hours)
Facsimile:
020 7222 0211
E-mail:
[email protected]
alternatively
why not visit the RDS web-site at
Internet: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm
where many of our publications are available to be read on screen or downloaded for printing.
116