Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Twisting arms or a helping hand? Assessing the impact of ‘coerced’ and comparable ‘voluntary’ drug treatment options

By Tim McSweeney, Alex Stevens, Neil Hunt and Paul J. Turnbull


Despite the rapid expansion of options to coerce drug-dependent offenders into\ud treatment - culminating recently in the provisions of the Drugs Act 2005 and the\ud government’s ‘Tough Choices’ agenda - research findings to date are equivocal about\ud their impact in reducing crime. This paper presents UK findings from a pan-European\ud study on this issue. The results – at both national and international levels - reveal that\ud court-mandated clients reported significant and sustained reductions in illicit drug use\ud and offending behaviours, and improvements in other areas of social functioning.\ud Those entering the same treatment services through non-criminal justice routes also\ud reported similar reductions and improvements. The implications of these findings are\ud discussed in the context of recent policy developments

Topics: HN, HV, HV5800
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Year: 2007
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offender management’, doi
  2. (2005). Agency for Substance Misuse doi
  3. (2006). An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence case: Damien Hanson & Elliot White.
  4. (2003). Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: A practical guide. Cambridge: doi
  5. (2003). Assessing and interpreting treatment effects in longitudinal clinical trials with missing data’, doi
  6. (1987). Chasing the Dragon: Heroin misuse, dependency and crime in the context of south London culture’,
  7. (2004). Desistance, Rehabilitation and Correctionalism: Developments and Prospects in Scotland’, doi
  8. (1992). Development of a short ‘readiness to change’ questionnaire for use in brief, opportunistic interventions among excessive drinkers’, doi
  9. (2005). Drug misuse treatment and reductions in crime: findings from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS). Research briefing no. 8. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. doi
  10. (2005). Drugs and Alcohol’,
  11. (2006). Drugs, crime and social exclusion: Social context and social theory in British drugs–crime research’, doi
  12. (2005). Editorial: On coercion’, doi
  13. (2005). Effective management of the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) and Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR).
  14. (1995). EuropASI: European adaptation of a multidimensional assessment instrument for drug and alcohol dependence’, doi
  15. (1997). European Addiction Severity Index: Preliminary procedure for the computation of the EuropASI composite scores. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research.
  16. (2004). Ex-offender reintegration: theory and practice’,
  17. (2003). Getting by with a little help from your friends: the impact of peer networks on criminality in a cohort of treatment-seeking drug users’, doi
  18. (2004). Getting Tough or Being Effective: What Matters?’,
  19. (2005). Governing partnerships: Bridging the accountability gap. London: Audit Commission.
  20. (2006). How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or does it?’, doi
  21. (2004). Letter to the Editor’, doi
  22. (2006). Levels of conviction following drug treatment – linking data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study and the Offenders Index. Home Office Research Findings 275. London: Home Office.
  23. (2001). Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. doi
  24. (2006). National Probation Service Performance Report 19 and Weighted Scorecard Q3 2005/06. London: Home Office.
  25. (2001). National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS) after five years: Changes in substance use, health and criminal behaviour during five years after intake. London: National Addiction Centre.
  26. (2005). Occasional and controlled heroin use: not a problem? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
  27. (2005). Offender Management Caseload Statistics
  28. (2005). Officially recorded convictions for probationers: The relationship with self-report and supervisory observations’, doi
  29. (2004). Partnerships: where next? London: Matrix Research and Consultancy.
  30. (1998). Perceived coercion among clients entering substance abuse treatment: Structural and psychological determinants’, doi
  31. (2005). Performance Report 16 and Weighted Scorecard 2004/05. London: Home Office.
  32. (2005). Probation Circular 15/2005. London: Home Office. doi
  33. Probation Circular 57/2005. London: Home Office.
  34. (2006). QCT Europe Final Report: Constructing, producing and analysing the qualitative evidence. Fribourg: Université de Fribourg.
  35. (2006). QCT Europe: i trattamenti quasi obbligatori per tossicodipendenti Padova: Cooperativa Libraria Editrice - Università di Padova.
  36. (2006). Quasi-compulsory and compulsory treatment of drug-dependent offenders in Europe. Final report on quantitative evaluation. Zurich: Research Institute for Public Health and Addiction.
  37. (2005). Re-offending of adults: Results from the 2002 cohort. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 25/05. London: Home Office.
  38. (1998). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage doi
  39. (2004). Rehabilitative and reintegrative approaches’
  40. (2002). Rethinking What Works with Offenders. doi
  41. (2005). Returning to Punishment: prison recalls’, doi
  42. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrated model of change’, doi
  43. (2005). Strategy for the management and treatment of problematic drug users with the Correctional Services. London: Home Office.
  44. (2004). Substance Abuse and Crime: Some Lessons from America. Harkness Fellowship Report. New York: Commonwealth Fund of
  45. (2006). Supporting offenders with multiple needs: Lessons for the ‘mixed economy’ model of service provision’, doi
  46. (1998). TCU data collection forms for correctional residential treatment. Fort Worth:
  47. (1985). The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite framework’,
  48. (2002). The Economic and Social Costs of Class A Drug Use in England and Wales, doi
  49. (2005). The effectiveness of criminal justice and treatment programmes in reducing drug-related crime: a systematic review. Home Office Online Report 26/05. London: Home Office. doi
  50. (1997). The Myth of Addiction (Second edition). doi
  51. (2004). The new drugs interventions industry: What outcomes can drugs/criminal justice treatment programmes realistically deliver?’, doi
  52. (2005). The place of the officer-offender relationship in assisting offenders to desist from crime’, doi
  53. (1999). The Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI): A multidimensional research instrument. (
  54. (2006). The relationship between legal status, perceived pressure and motivation in treatment for drug dependence: results from a European study of quasi-compulsory treatment’, doi
  55. (2000). Tightening Up Probation: A Step Too Far?’, doi
  56. (2004). Treatment Effectiveness: Demonstration Analysis of Treatment Surveillance Data about Treatment Completion and Retention. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse.
  57. (2005). Treatment outcomes: What we know and what we need to know. Treatment Effectiveness Series No.2. London: National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. doi
  58. (2002). Vroeghulp Aan Verslaafden. Het Effect Van De Vroeghulp Interventie Aanpak Op Criminele Recidive En Verslavingsgedrag. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute of Addiction Research.
  59. (2004). Whose harm? Harm and the shift from health to coercion in UK drug policy’, doi
  60. (2002). Why the pervasive addiction myth is still believed’, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.