Julian Buchanan

Missing links? Problem drug use and social exclusion

In the late 1980s illicit drug use became a major social problem in the UK. Since then policy and practice has largely been shaped by psychological and medical perspectives that emphasize the physiological and psychological nature of dependence. Concerned by the limited impact in reducing the number of problem drug users, in 2000 the government shifted the emphasis away from voluntary treatment by the health and voluntary sector, towards coercive treatment, initially in the form of a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO). The Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP), a £447 million programme to ‘direct drug misusing offenders out of crime and into treatment’ (Home Office, 2004a: 29) further illustrates and reinforces this shift. This article argues that this shift in approach is also likely to founder, as it continues to be dominated by a narrow focus individuals and their drug dependence, and fails to adequately address the social context, nature and underlying causes of problem drug use.

Drug policy under New Labour 1997-2010: Prolonging the war on drugs:

In 1997 New Labour came to power with a landslide victory. This period also marked a watershed for illicit drug use which had become so widespread across the UK that it was regarded as a mainstream adolescent experience. However, broadly speaking there were two groups of drug users: one group of young people who selectively used drugs on a recreational and largely non-problematic basis; while another group (usually unemployed and socially excluded), who used whatever drugs they could find in a chaotic and problematic manner. Drug taking had become a normalized activity and criminalization of these drugs seemed unenforceable, out of touch and inappropriate. Inheriting an unworkable 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act 1997 seemed an opportune time for the New Labour government to deliver on its ‘promise of change’ and introduce drug legislation fit for the new millennium. This article reflects upon some of the key policy and legal changes introduced by the New Labour government (1997—2010) to manage drug use and misuse.

Incarceration of drug offenders: Costs and impacts

The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme (BFDPP) is a relatively new initiative committed to providing an independent review of the effectiveness of national and international drug policies. This short but well-informed and concise briefing paper draws upon a literature review and statistical data to assess the cost and the impact of incarcerating drug using offenders. The paper suggests that most governments make strong statements about the need to maintain, and often increase, police activity and penal sanctions for drug users, but for the most part it is political rhetoric. However, a few countries have chosen to actively pursue and implement law enforcement-oriented drug control policies that rely heavily upon incarceration. The review suggests that the aim of such policies is to incapacitate, provide an element of retribution, and sometimes attempt to rehabilitate offenders, and in broad terms the approach is an overarching attempt at general deterrence. The United States leads this approach, and the report indicates that the US currently has over half a million drug law offenders in prison. Despite this consistently tough approach, the report suggests that evidence over the last 20 years shows that such policies have largely failed to fundamentally alter the scale and nature of the illegal drug market in the US. The review notes ‘that while the US is consistently one of the biggest incarcerators in the world it retains among the highest drug use prevalence figures’ (p. 6). However, such policies have created a significant financial, social and health cost associated with high rates of incarceration. The review also expresses some concern that in the US drug policies have a disproportionate impact upon people from black and minority ethnic groups. The report concludes: that the fear of arrest and legal sanctions are not a major factor in an individual’s decision on whether to use or deal drugs; there is little correlation between incarceration rates and drug use prevalence; and the impact of enforcement action on price is much less powerful than other market factors and therefore ‘it is hard to justify a drug policy approach that prioritises widespread arrest and harsh penalties for drug users on grounds of effectiveness’ (p. 7). This is a well-written and carefully informed review that should, in a climate in which policy is required to have a strong ‘research evidence base’, raise questions about the increasing use of prison in the US and the UK where drug policy is locked into the criminal justice system.

Managing the damage from drugs and alcohol

The Futures Forum think tank, established in 2005 by the Scottish Parliament, has produced a major review of managing drugs and alcohol in Scotland. The report considers policy and practice to 2025 and is the culmination of a 12 month investigation which included evidence from 25 renowned experts in the drug and alcohol field. This evidence from experts forms a companion report, 12 Dimensions of a Manageable Problem: A Collection of Expert Views. This supplementary report can be downloaded from the website: http://www.scotlandfutureforum.org/assets/ files/12_Dimensions.pdf. Approaches to Alcohol and Drugs in Scotland: A Question of Architecture is a brave report that shows the authors are willing to think outside of the narrow politically constrained perspectives that dominate drug policy. For example, the report questions the wisdom of ongoing prohibition law enforcement-led strategies and instead suggests a more holistic approach to managing drug and alcohol consumption by placing a greater emphasis upon health, lifestyle and social issues. Instead of repeating the over-simplistic mantra of ‘eradicating drug use’ the report pragmatically sets out to explore how Scotland can significantly reduce the damage caused by ongoing alcohol and drug use. The report uses a systems mapping technique and advocates a ‘new approach’ to the drug and alcohol problem, which includes what might appear to be radical ideas such as a legally regulating and taxing cannabis sales, creating drug consumption rooms (safe, clean, managed areas where prescribed drugs can be taken), and the availability of heroin on prescription. Although these ideas raise complex legal, ethical and perhaps more importantly political issues, they are well worn, considered and practised approaches that have had success in other countries. In this respect it appears that Scotland is willing to explore alternative approaches whereas others in the UK may not be ready or willing to do so. Perhaps Scotland has been motivated to think differently because of the failure of traditional UK approaches that led to Scotland having the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. This wide-reaching report has seven key chapters covering: substance culture; governance; enforcement; interventions and recovery; public health; community; and evidence and research. It encourages an ‘all options open’ approach to reduce the damage caused by drug and alcohol. It suggests that all psychoactive substances should be placed within a single legal framework and calls for policy

The incoherence of criminal justice policy

Mass communication and better access to information have led to a world that seems smaller and in some respects less diverse. In the criminal justice context, this is partly because of the influence of North American penal policy, research and thinking around crime, sentencing and the work of the probation service. The tendency towards media driven policy making, which gives more weight to public fears than to empirical evidence about crime, appears to be evolving at pace on both sides of the Atlantic. Criminal justice policy in England and Wales is worryingly responsive to a populist agenda and this has resulted in unstable and unpredictable development of policy and practice. This is characterized by rapid change, repackaging and rebranding, often introduced with little preparation and thought about the impact on front-line practice. In respect of the probation service, the effect has been confusion about the role and purpose of probation. It has also damaged the morale and confidence of probation staff, whose commitment and dedication has always been a major strength. This journal has always strived to combine examinations of policy with practice implications, and this is reflected by the fact that a number of contributions in this issue are from agency staff writing in partnership with academic staff. This edition also reflects shared international concerns for criminal justice matters, with contributions from Ireland, the USA, Scotland and Australia. Articles also examine common issues such as the difficulties of offenders securing employment, public expectations of offenders carrying out visible unpaid work (community service), and the increasing number of community orders breached because of technical violations. In ‘Working with sex offenders in context: Which way forward?’ Trish McCulloch and Lynn Kelly criticise current policy and practice, arguing that it has been too strongly influenced by media stereotypes and moral panics. The result has been an over-reliance on narrow and unproven cognitive behavioural approaches supported by a raft of exclusionary policies and practices. The authors urge a more frank and balanced approach that more openly acknowledges the contradictions and weaknesses of this approach. To this end they identify a number of core tasks they believe are essential if probation service work with sex offenders is to move beyond ‘public and political appeasement’ and concentrate instead upon achieving meaningful change in the behaviour of sex offenders.

The paradox of penal policy

The current government was elected on its pledge to be ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. This is a complex strategy. Clarity and coherence are crucial if its separate strands are to sit together comfortably. The cause of a lot of crime is rooted within deep seated social problems such as a damaged childhood, poverty, parental unemployment, a lack of educational and employment opportunities, and ongoing social exclusion and discrimination. It is right that the government should be ‘tough’ in its commitment to tackle these disadvantages and inequalities, which do not befit one of the richest nations in the world. While a number of good initiatives have been implemented to help ‘the poor’, what limited progress there has been has to be set against the increased privilege and wealth afforded to ‘the rich’. The divide is growing not diminishing. It is a divide that goes beyond income and material possessions – it is evident in widely different lifestyles, values and cultures, and understanding and communication between these polarized groups is poor. If government policy intends to be tough on these unacceptable causes of crime there is some contradiction in being tough on the individual who commits a crime partly as a result of inequality and disadvantage. It amounts to ‘tough on the causes and tough on the victims of those causes’. Clearly criminal action warrants sanctions, but the mantra to be ‘tough on crime’ is in danger of decontextualising crime, and imposing increasingly punitive (and arguably unfair) sentences. Not surprisingly at the time of writing we are heading for an all time high in the number of people held in prison. The government’s tough approach is mirrored by a growing toughness from the community towards people who have committed a crime. This leads to growing division, isolation and makes reintegration more problematic. The articles in this edition of the Probation Journal reflect some of these issues. ‘An evaluation of service provision for short-term and remand prisoners with drug problems’ by Lol Burke, George Mair and Ester Ragonese, draws upon the authors’ research into services for prisoners with drug problems upon their release from custody. They quote the HMI Probation and Prisons thematic report on resettlement issues, which stated that ‘unless something is done to tackle the causes of offending behaviour, and the social and economic exclusion from which

Policing drug markets and treating problem drug users

The report concludes that CDRPs are, in many ways, making steady progress and appear to be striving towards developing meaningful services and solutions to domestic violence, but that most CDRPs still have some progress to make before they are inclusive, and are able to deliver a comprehensive and evidence-based set of interventions that meet diverse local needs. A range of approaches by CDRP to addressing domestic violence are presented in the report, offering the potential for CDRPs to learn from each other. Encouragingly, 54 CDRPs describe themselves as a ‘model of good practice’ and the factors associated with this assessment are tentatively presented in this report for further consideration.

The diverse nature of drug use and the challenge facing CJIP

This special issue coincides with the delivery of the government’s latest drugcrime initiative, the ‘Criminal Justice Interventions Programme’ (CJIP). CJIP is a major part of the Updated Drug Strategy and aims to reduce drug-related crime by making contact with an increasing number of drug-using offenders who are otherwise hard to reach. It will ensure these offenders are offered, and if necessary coerced into, treatment at every stage of the criminal justice process. CJIP seeks to retain these drug-related offenders in treatment, and will offer a continuity of care by supporting them throughout their contact with the criminal justice system. The success of CJIP depends upon whether the services on offer are able to respond appropriately to the complexity and diversity of individual need. Treatment services for problem drug use in the UK have become firmly entrenched in the criminal justice system, despite a lack of clarity concerning the precise nature of the relationship between drugs and crime. There appears to be an assumption that problem drug users want to give up drugs, or should want to give up drugs. Those that fail to respond to treatment are likely to face tougher sentences. Yet, there are some who do not want to give up drugs – perhaps because drugs are a solution to an underlying problem. Others may not be able or ready to become drug free. Some may find that the treatment available is unsuitable for their circumstances and particular needs. This special edition unpacks many of these issues, and highlights the complexity of drug-taking behaviour and the importance of delivering appropriate services. In ‘Missing out: Gender, drugs and justice’, Margaret Malloch highlights the structural disadvantage and deprivation that many drug-using women suffer. She argues these are ‘ingrained and wide-ranging problems that individual workers and services often struggle to address’. Malloch further argues that, like the criminal justice system, drug services are too often geared to meet the needs of men and have failed to properly cater for women. When women fail to respond to such treatment, she argues that more attention should be given to the appropriateness of services and the extent to which they meet the needs of women.

Police Enforcement and Drug Markets

This research brings some reality to the ’war on drugs’ rhetoric. The war is not going to be won on the streets (if indeed it should ever be fought!). Drug dealers and sellers demonstrate an ability to adapt easily to any Police activity and regard the Police as posing little threat to their activity. The strategy of ’supply reduction’ m local communities appears to be an almost impossible task. Interestingly, the authors also focused some attention on demand reduction and the report provides an assessment of the impact of local drug services. Drug users reported a reduction of drug use once in

Reviews : Beyond Offending Behaviour Edited by Mark Drakeford and Maurice Vanstone Arena, 1996; pp123; £14.95 pbk

forward in managing change towards more effective supervision and closing the gap between the policies and the practice. I would have liked to have seen their assessment of some of the currently vogue, management and organisational theories shaping agencies at present. There are, I would suggest, more links than one would expect in supporting the role of the staff supervisor as the key factor in the delivery of effective service. The concept of ’proper selfishness’, as explored by Charles Handy, would seem a relevant perspective. I can envisage returning to this book regularly as a source to inform resolution