1 The impact of the Order
1. The Drug Treatment and Testing Order is a community
sentence introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Order
is intended for drug misusers who have a significant record of
drug-related offending. The Orders run for a minimum of six months
up to a maximum of three years. The average term imposed by the
courts in many areas is 12 months. Offenders on the Order are
supervised by local probation teams and attend drug treatment
and other programmes delivered by probation services, other statutory
providers or the voluntary sector. In 2003-04, the Home Office
allocated £53.7 million to probation areas and treatment
services in support of the Order in England and Wales. Since June
2004, the probation service has become part of the National Offender
Management Service, which also incorporates HM Prison Service.
The National Offender Management Service and National Treatment
Agency for Substance Misuse have joint responsibility for overseeing
delivery of the Order in England. In Wales, the National Offender
Management Service works with the National Assembly to oversee
the Order.
2. The Order is intended to reduce crime and drug
dependency, with the eventual aim of weaning offenders off drugs
permanently. In October 2000 prior to its introduction across
England and Wales, the Order was piloted by the Home Office in
Croydon, Liverpool, and Gloucestershire. An evaluation of the
pilots found that 80% of offenders traced from the original sample
had been reconvicted in the two years after commencement of their
Order. The reconviction rate for those who had completed the Order
was, however, significantly lower at 53%. The rate amongst those
failing to complete the Order was 91%.[3]
3. The main focus for probation teams has been the
delivery of annual commencement targets. The Home Office set a
target for the National Probation Service to achieve approximately
6,000 commencements a year with effect from April 2001, and doubled
the target in December 2002 to achieve 12,000 commencements a
year by March 2005. Since April 2004, however, the Home Office
had set a new target to increase the number of successful completions
on the Order to shift the focus towards outcomes. The effectiveness
of the Order depends on the extent of reductions in offending
and drug misuse achieved. Probation areas had reported that offenders
were achieving reductions in their drug misuse, but data to support
these views had not been collated by all areas. The National Offender
Management Service believed that some of the information on reducing
drug misuse would begin to become available but acknowledged that
further research would be needed to determine the longer term
impact of the Order on reconviction rates.[4]
4. Only 28% of around 5,700 Orders terminated in
2003 had reached full term or had been revoked early for good
progress. The majority of terminated Orders were attributable
to the offender's failure to abide by the terms of the Order (44%),
conviction for another offence (22%), or for other reasons, including
ill health or death (6%). The National Offender Management Service
suggested that the completion rate of 28% was not unreasonable
when set against the challenges posed by offenders with a history
of serious drug misuse and a significant record of drug-related
offending. In its view, the Order placed great demands on people
who often led chaotic lives, and inevitably some found it difficult
to stay the course.[5]
5. Completion rates and early terminations due to
good progress have varied significantly between probation areas
(Figure 2), ranging between 8% in Kent to 71% in Dorset
in 2003. Local completion rates reflected a variety of factors,
including the type of offenders placed on the programme and different
approaches adopted by local courts towards breach and revocation.
The variations also reflected different approaches to treatment
and rehabilitation. The National Offender Management Service reported
that Dorset, for example, had tended to put people on the Order
for six months - compared to twelve months in many areas - and
had placed everyone on the Order in a hostel. The Service recognised
the need to improve completion rates across the country by sharing
good practice and it was looking at those areas with high completion
rates to see what lessons could be learned. The Service suggested
that activities provided alongside treatment, such as basic skills
courses to make people more employable, would help to improve
completion rates.[6]Figure
2: Completed Orders and early terminations due to good progress
as a percentage of all terminated Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
in 2003
Note
The figures for completed Orders and early terminations due to
good progress include cases where the Order expires whilst the
offender is in breach and the Order is not formally revoked by
the courts, for example where a warrant to attend court is outstanding.
In two areas visited which had kept this data they accounted for
17% of completed cases to June 2003 (Leicestershire) and 25% in
the first quarter of 2003-04 (London).
Source: National Audit Office analysis of National
Probation Directorate data
6. Some completion rates reported by local teams
had overestimated the proportion of Orders completed successfully.
In some instances, the figures had included cases where the Order
had expired whilst the offender was in breach but the Order had
not been formally revoked by the courts, for example where a warrant
to attend was outstanding. In Leicester, these cases accounted
for 17% of completed cases between January and June 2003, and
25% of cases in London in the first quarter of 2003-04. The Service
acknowledged that some overestimates had occurred but reported
that such cases would be removed from future figures.[7]
7. The cost per Order of around £6,000 compares
to the average cost of £30,000 for a prison place per year.
This estimate, however, includes the cost of those who fail to
complete the Order. If costs are attributed only to successful
completions, the cost per successfully completed Order rises to
around £21,000. The National Offender Management Service
argued that this estimate failed to recognise that benefits from
reduced drug misuse were often derived even though offenders did
not complete the Order. In its view, the Order offered the advantage
of providing treatment in the community. It suggested by contrast
that offenders leaving custody often spent their discharge grant
on heroin the day they went back into the community. Nevertheless,
the costs associated with achieving a successfully completed Order
confirm the need to increase completion rates and to measure whether
those coming off the Order early sustain any reduction in drug
misuse.[8]
3 Qq 9, 34, 44, 75 Back
4
Qq 11, 83 Back
5
Q3; C&AG's Report, para 3.3 Back
6
Qq 2, 7, 35, 92; C&AG's Report, para 3.10 Back
7
Qq 82, 84 Back
8
Qq 43, 58, 62, 67 Back
|
