Arrest and sentencing

Reducing drug use, reducing reoffending - are programmes for problem drug-using offenders in the UK supported by the evidence?

UK Drug Policy Commission, 2008.
The aim of this review is to consider the evidence underpinning the interventions that make up this important plank of the UK strategies and to identify the key issues and policy implications arising from this, to inform development of both policy and practice and to encourage informed debate about the issues. The review addresses the following key questions:

• What is the extent and nature of problem drug use among offenders and to what extent is this associated with crime and disorder?
• What interventions are in place within the UK for problem drug-using offenders?
• What is the evidence for the effectiveness of these approaches and what are the key factors that impact on effectiveness?
• What are the implications of this evidence for policy and practice?

Download: Full report (PDF 516KB)

Operational process guidance for implementation of testing on arrest, required assessment and restriction on bail

Home Office, 2007.
Guidance for the implementation of the DIP provisions of the Drugs Act 2005.
Web: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/dip/guidance-drugsact-2005

Street policing of problem drug users

Lister s., Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007.
Street policing brings the police and private enforcement agencies into contact with problem drug users. Although many in this group are considered to be prolific criminals, little is known about their interaction with the police. Various factors have made problem drug use less of a focus of law enforcement agendas.
web: http://www.jrf.org.uk/KNOWLEDGE/FINDINGS/socialpolicy/pdf/2161.pdf (PDF)

The Drug Interventions Programme (DIP): addressing drug use and offending through 'Tough Choices'.

Home Office, 2007.
This paper examines the way that the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP) engages and directs Class A drug users from the point of arrest or charge to the point of treatment.
Web: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/horr02c.pdf (PDF)

Evaluation of Drug Interventions Programme pilots for children and young people: arrest referral, drug testing and drug treatment (and testing) requirements

UK. Home Office, 2007.
This is the final evaluation report of the 18-month evaluation of the three interventions piloted by the Drug Interventions Programme for children and young people (10-17 year olds), which began in April 2004.
Web: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/young-people/OLR0707?view=Standard&pubID=444603

Managing drug misusers under probation supervision : guidance for probation, CJITS and CARAT teams

UK. DOH, NTA,National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP), 2007.
This guidance for Probation, CJITS and CARAT Teams has been produced for Criminal Justice Integrated Teams (CJITs), Counselling Assessment, Referral Advice and Throughcare Teams (CARATs) and offender managers in the National Probation Service (NPS). The guidance:

• Describes the respective responsibilities of agencies regarding the sharing of information
• Clarifies how drug-misusing offenders subject to ‘statutory supervision’ (i.e. offenders on community orders or post-custodial licence) should be managed by probation offender managers, CARATs workers and CJIT staff
• Provides a checklist to assist in the preparation of local protocols.
  
  

Web: http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/dip/AC_MANAGINGDRUG_MISUSE_GUIDANCE?view=Standard&pubID=503910

Policing cannabis as a Class C drug

May T., Duffy M., Warburton H., Hough M. Joseph Rowntree foundation, 2007.
This report describes the impact of reclassification on the policing of cannabis possession. The study describes how the legislative changes and associated guidelines have been put into practice and provides a snapshot view of the impact of these changes. This is the only study that has compared the policing of cannabis before and after reclassification. The report also assesses the impact on police resources, explores police views about the changes and examines young people’s knowledge and attitudes about the changes. This report will be of interest to policy makers, police managers, central and local government officials, drug workers, academics and drug researchers.
Download: Full report (PDF 383KB)

Arrestee survey 2003-2006

Boreham R., Cronberg A., Dollin A., Pudney S., Home Office, 2007.
The third of three surveys, conducted in 2003-04, 2004-5, and 2005-6. Subjects covered are: Characteristics of respondents; Substance misuse; Past contact with criminal justice system;Offending; Treatment; Availability and supply of drugs. The survey deals with drug-use and crime, and provides a measurement of self-reported drug misuse among a sample of
individuals arrested in England and in Wales. It also highlights changes across the three surveys
Web: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1207.pdf (PDF 0.9MB)

Incarceration of drug offencers: costs and impacts

Bewley-Taylor D., Trace M., Stevens A. Beckley Foundation, 2005.
(Briefing paper 7). (The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme). Most governments make strong statements about the need to maintain, and often increase, police activity and penal sanctions for drug users. This is based on the idea that strong enforcement, and widespread incarceration, will deter potential users and dealers from becoming involved in the illegal drug market. In fact, very few countries actually follow through on the rhetoric – arrest and incarceration rates for drug users are relatively low in most countries in relation to the total number of users, and the often quoted maximum sentences are rarely, if ever, used. The one country that has consciously used large-scale incarceration as a drug prevention measure is the United States, where approximately 500,000 drug law offenders are currently in prison. Evidence from their experience over the last 20 years shows that, while some marginal impacts on drug prices and prevalence rates can be attributed to this policy, it has failed to fundamentally alter the scale and nature of the illegal drug market. In addition, there are significant financial, social and health costs associated with high rates of incarceration, which perhaps explains why most countries have not gone down this road.
Web: http://www.internationaldrugpolicy.net/reports/BeckleyFoundation_BriefingPaper_07.pdf
(PDF)

Report of a working group for piloting a drug court in Glasgow

Scottish Executive, 2001.
The Working Party was established in February 2001 on the initiative of the Scottish Deputy Minister for Justice, Mr Iain Gray MSP. The Sheriff Principal for Glasgow & Strathkelvin, Edward F Bowen QC, was invited to convene and chair the Working Group. The agreed remit of the Group was:To make proposals to the Scottish Deputy Minister for Justice by Easter on a model, within existing legislation, of a Drug Court and on the arrangements for its operation and establishment in Glasgow Sheriff Court by the Autumn of 2001.
Download: Full report (PDF 199KB)

Drug treatment and testing orders: final evaluation report

Paul J. Turnbull, Tim McSweeney, Russell Webster,Mark Edmunds and Mike Hough, Home Office, 2000.
This report presents the findings of our evaluation of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs), which were introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. This introductory chapter falls into three parts. First it sets out the background to the development of DTTOs. It then considers previous experience, both in Britain and in America, of using the criminal law to coerce problem drug users into treatment. It ends with a section detailing the research methods used in evaluating DTTOs.

Download: Full report (PDF 301KB)