.Alternative sanctions for drug users: fruitless efforts or miracle

Crime I aw Soc Clmngc (2009) 52: 51 3 575
DOl JO. I007/sl06li-OO'J·9206-0
.Alternative sanctions for drug users: fruitless efforts
or miracle solution?
Eveline De Wree • Lieven Pauwels ·
Charlotte Co.lman • Rrice De Ru~yver
l'ublish.:.:l online: 12 May :.! ()()<)
'i:! Springer Science I H1.L~ i ne ss Media H. I/. 20o<J
Abstrnct In most Western European cmmtrit:~, including Belgium, judicial
alternative sanctions are increasingly being used for drug usen;. Because no study
info ffie effectiveness of Belgian judicial alternatives for drug users lias yet fieen
carried out, this became tlie ofijective of tfie current re~earch . Tiie design of this
study comprises a pre and post measurement of the criminal activity, drug usc and
situation in different ~phcres of life of 565 diUg-dcpcndcnt offenders. Tw<>
com:lnsiom; can be d.ruwn. First, after an altcmativc sanction or measure is imposed,
there is a rcdu<.'tion in the criminal activity of the offender. Second, this crime
reduction goes limd irr hand with 3 progress irr severn! relevanl life spheres.
Introduction
In the Belgian social, academic and policy context, t1je application of alternative
sanctions ana measures for Clrug users is increasingly stimulated. Belgian I<nowTeuge
cor1ccrning the effectiveness of alternative mcasurc5 and sanctions, however, is mill
largely based upon American cfl'cct Htudics. In the United States, effect studies gain
in importan<.'-C, whereas Europe lags behind. Effect studies arc rarely conducted in
Europe and even for mcta:-mmlyscs European authors arc thns forced to rely mainly
on 7\mcrican research .rcsnlts. Eve1y effect nudy that is contluetc."tt in E urope thus
i~) · C. Colman · B. De
TRCP, Gent, Belgium
1>mail: Evdinc.D~~Wrcct'i!) n gcm.bc
E. De Wroc
Rlly~·<:r
L. Pauwds
SVA:, Ge nt, llefgiu m
~Springer
514
E. De
Wr~e
et al.
1
adds to the knowledge that is so badly needed in this field. The current research is
ttimcd m measuring effect!; of altcrmttivc measures and sanctions 2 for dmg users.
The objective of the research is to examine whether alternative measures and
sanctions generate effects, nnd if so, whal is the nature of these effects .
.Method
Measurement
The effects examined in the currem study concern recidivism and progtcss in several
life spheres. The methods and techniques used in this study arc built along the lines
set out in previous studies:1 Effcm cvuluutions of judicial interventions gcncmlly
focus on recidivism. )\rrcst and reconviction mtcs urc the. most commonly used
indicators for the prevalence of recidivism, [l-3, 6] al!fiough European studies lend
to reslrit:L their opemliomdisalion of recidivism to reconviction ml.es [7]. In ihis
study, however, we did attempt to lind a European counterpart for nnest rates. Die
operafionafisafion "arrest rafe" cannof simply fie 6orrnwed from American liferature,
but instead hal-1 to he adapted to the Western-European jnCiicial registration. We opted
for criminal cliarge a..<> a counterpa1i tor arrest, considering tfie fact tliat tnill is the
oasis of registerea: crime in BeTgium.'l Effect evaluations of trunrmem interrentivns
more often integr-ate progress in several life spheres in their design. However,
mcasming progress in life spherc5 is a difficult task. The main difficulty is to tlnd
criteria that measure progress, without them being too subjcdivc or mondly coloured
by the researcher. ns a consc.qucnc.c, we: can st:c that a lot of differences exist in. the
way this progress is measured in seveml sludies. 5 We based our choice of the life
spheres and the criteria for improvement mainly on the EuropASI-instrumeni, whicfi
1 This research Wtls l'!mdet.l by the Belghm f'etleml Science l'olicy nnd is a· pari or the Resenrch pmgn1mme
in suppnrt or the redeml dmgs policy document.
1 ln HeJ~:fom several types of nftemfltive me~sure~ and SNJctiotL, exf.ort. AI every level of tfie crimino!
ju8tice system tlk possiiJility ex.isls to ilivert offenders (in tlii~ ca~e dm!!. users) away- from tfie traililional
j11dicial patfiway. At the level oftlie pu15Jk pro~ccutor. tmnl.ll!Ction Md mediation in criminal c~s~ are the
main ultemative measureR. I'r<~etorian probation is the third JlOS.~ibility at this level, but this modnliry of
altemulive mensure does nor have nlegnl fromework. AI sentencing le\'el Cwo forms ofprohaiion nllow fm
!he ubnnllonmenlnf frmliliomr11'1ntClions, i.e. a prubaiion onler wi!houl conviclion anll u proh~lion onli!r
wilh tlelay or the execn[ion or fl1e plmi~hmt'll (. Tn the execu!icm c!f senlem.."es n~ w~ll, lher~ is th~
possibility to granl altemalives lo imprisonment Prisoners carr be provisionally or comliliomllly releaNed.
and llins st'iorlcn Llicir imprisonii1Cllf by accepting lo comply wilfi ccrlmn carrdi!ions. Also, prison
scnlcnc"-'5 can be served 1mdcr clccrronic snNcillnncc.
·' Recidivism sludics !,'~TK'mlly invcsug~lc wlicditT or not pt:.T!ions have bc~TI arrested or WJWiclcd aJii..,· a
certain judicio! intcrvcurion. On the liasis tficJ'CQf, arrest ruJd reconviction rntcs arc ca\cnlatcd. (sec: [I J ].
Tficsc 'rates' Me consiikro.1 to & fnilicat(•J'~ of til~ pr~vakncc of rcciJkism. NeAl 1u l!ifs, nt~u Iii~ nuru\J~r
of tim-!8 a person was a.rresteil7convicteil is useil ns lll1 indic.'ltor of recii:livism. In some ~tudles, tfie type of
otTeuce kPaing to the arrest or convktion i~ t.<~li'en lifo acoollnt. (see: [4, 5]).
• Kyv~gunnl opted for u ~imilar openl1illnalbation. Cf. [R].
, Ructli and RogrJ-s, for iu~I~JJCC [9J, O[.ltcc1 to avoi<l Slll~cctivity tiy tcttfng ifrug \JSCrs tfx:msc!vcs defillc
pwgre~s. 11.1 EuropASI, obj~ctivc c.ritclia me souglir to ilclcnninc wlictlicr someone Ii~~ inlpnwcil in tlic life
spliet'-"> smdieil. Til<- serioiJSil.t'~s of profilenl'l i~ expregsed in score~. D\ltcli stni:liel' o.lt:n con tine tfie.m>elves
to posmlating tfi<: 'desired' ~inln lions arJa rnaicoting wfictfier or not tlie clients acfiievea it (e.g. [10].
~Springer
Altemlltive sanctions for dmg
n~tn;
515
is used as an assessment instrument t1>r client<; of drug treatment services [ ll j. \Ve
thus studied dntg usc, financiul situation, housing. social and family relationships and
leisure time . For each of t11csc life spheres ~·c defined an llltimatc goal, wh.ich .is
reached when U1ere is no more need for help or treatmenl. This infonnalion was drawn
from judicial Jiles, which include social reports. We assessed l.he oO'enders' situation
boih before und nfler lhe judkia\ allem:nive, using the ~'lid shown in Table 1.~
Design anii data smu-ces
·n1e design of this study comprises a pre and post rneastu·ement of tfie crirninal
activity of 565 research subjects, and of their situation in relevant life domains.
Regarding recidivism, the pre measurement concerns the calculation of rates of
criminal charges and eonvictions (number per year) before the judicial altcmativc
was granted. J'or the post measurement the same mt.cs arc calculated, but in this ease
Cor the period ape,· Lhe judicial allernative was gnmted. The calculation of these ra[es
is based on criminal record data, galhered from cr:i.minal cuuns. Our results are Lhus
only based on registered crime, while nor necessa1ily all offences committed by Hie
reseat·cfi sufijecis are l<nown to tne police. Tfiis so-calfeo darf nmn6er is a mucli
described limitation of ofl'icially registered crime, which has to be considered in tJie
interpretation of the result<;. Hie measurement of progre~s in relevant life spheres
comprises a pre ana post measurement as well. The situation in fllese life spfieres was
studied in judicial files (of the prosecutor's otlicc and ofjudicial assistants). Based on
these files the researcher assessed the situation in the life spheres before ami after the
juuicial alternative was gmntcd, on the basis of the grid shown in Table 1.
I'm· cvc.cy type of altcmativc sanction or measure, an overview of judicial files
was re.qnesled from Che prosecutor's office or althe jnsl.ice houses 7 in 1hree judicial
dis1ricis . The reference years of the judicial files were 1999 and 2001. The reference
years are inlJS quite recenl while still allowing for a considerable follow-up period.
From the lists that were provided oy the justice autliorities, probal1ilify samples were
drawn for each modality. 8
In order to determine wlieffier a causal relafionsfiip exists oetween Ewo variaoles
(e.g. an alternative sanction ana recidivism), ffie criteria for metfiodologicaf quality
nrc high [12, I 3] . Mo~tly, the Maryland Scientific :\1cthods (MS\11) Scale, a tivc
level scale of research designs, is used as reference point for the identification of
effect studies of good methooological quabty. Only based on a (qnasi-)cxpcrinlcntal
uesign, level three to five of the MSM Scale, can the conclusion be dmwn that a
reduction in recidivism is caused by the alternative sanction. Jn a quasi-ex.pcrin1cnurl
design recidivism would be measured before and after the irrlervenlion (i.e. Lbe
~ llecamce progress in fife spliet·e~ is liy ilefinition a ilynamic vari•1ble, we 11~cd a Jengtliy follow-np pcrioil
nnil la~e ns~essment categories in otdcr ro .f~cilitate ttie nlfocation of the rest":lrcli ~nhjecls to tlie
cntegorie~; .
1
Justice l'iooscs arc tliosc o:ft1c~s n::,ponsi13lc for tlic folfow-ap of' offenders
senlcnctil or conditionn lly rele~~eiL
l'l'fiL,
J)~vc 5ccn conaitionally
lf n~-e~sary. e.g. because uf nllri (iun , \he ~nmpting pnK:ess was rept:ale<t in onler Lo reach the poshilllled
number of Iiles.
K
.g) Springer
51(i
E. De W'ree et al.
Tnfilc J o,·erview of the life spheres inclulled in lhe currenl
Li!c
~'Piicrc
Drug
u~c
~Cully
Silu:tfion
No dmg use (anymore)
Cimite~i contmlled use
Problemalic use. but h-e~tlmenf or a~si~Lilnce
Prolilcm:~Cic usc willian! help or conCuct wil11 lTC<11fllL"Tll services
Regular income rrom profcs~ionnl acci~'iiies
Tmrpomry tmploymcnl
t;uctnploymcnt but a\lowaocd fin~ucial SOJ'port
lllcgnl income
Fi11~d (inilependem) r~ideocc
Temponuy ~siileuce {~liefter. steyiog witll frlenih ... )
or
Fiolllltci"l silualiool
Jlousiug
nomeles.•;rh~AA
Relationships
Lt'isurc time
l'redominllnt (SliJ1portive) L'Onfuchl with non-drug 1L'>el11
lV!ixed con(acls, both wi(h non-lc<rers and users
l'redornitranr conlacls w~rh drug t1sen;
1\<le.tningfol/s!mc!ured
lei~ure ac~i~ilies
(hobby's, fumily ...)
No struc!urcdlmcauingnll leisure aclivilics
judicial alternative) in experimental and comparable control conditions.9 Our study
dues however not rca:ch this methodological standard. In fJ(.,'t, our study cmTcsponds
to the sccon.d level of the JVlSM Scale, which implies the measurement of recidivism
before and afier ihe alternative measure/sanction, but wilhout ll comparable control
wndilion. The Belgian sentencing practice does not allow for llie use of ll:ie classical
experimenilil design: magistrates generally opi Tor altemafive sanctions when
adjudicating a d1ug offender. Only if tlie otl'ences are too ,;;erious, or if tlie offender
persists in crime, i:s a traditional sanction imposed (14, IS]. Given rhis sentencing
practice, any control group would suosfanfialfy aitler from tfie experimental groupiliose wlio are granted a judicial aitemative are nof comparaole fo ffiose wllo are
adjudicated the traditional wuy.
The control condition that is present in a quasi-experimental design serves as a
mc1ms to rule out other :filctors, snch as "'trcmls"' 0, "regression to the mcan,. 1,
spontaneous rccovcry 12 ctcctcm that may iuflucnc.c the results. The thct that we did
not make usc of a control group thus implies that we cannot abstrac:.'t from
irrHoerrcing factors [16] and Lhat we have to oe& in mind that U1e restrlls we find
cannot fully be attributed to the intervention studied. We considered this de~ig;n a
• Even bc!lcr llian !he qunsi-cx~mcn!:ll design arc liic level 4 acsign in which ll.ic conlrol lor oUter
variul:ilc:; lhm inllucncc recidivism is aclilcd ro !lie quasi-cxycrimcnial design and the Jc,•cl S design lha! is
dirmlclcriscd l)y fl random ossigrmtiou of n:scardi truit> to cxpcdJIICltral nnd controlL~ouditious.
111
J'r~viously existing lren!ls pen>isL
11 In n prc-posl dC!'i£,u Inc rcudcr~ey is tound rfi11t tlic follow-up \'nhrcs ;uc llg.1in sit1mtcd closer to rl.ic
mean, liec<~nse ranoom ~rror in 11\e pre-mrosnremcnl po.~siufy cau~~a a proportion of !lie extreme v'llfue~ .
Jt
Improvement occurs spoJJianconsly ani:! iloes uol stem froru til~ juilicin[ int~!Yention.
~Springer
.J\ltemulive
s;mctinn~
for
dn~g u~e~
517
go(Ki alternative, however, because it is longitudinal and allows outcomes to be
studied in existing services and under day-to-day circumst:mccs.
Results
TI.1e results of tliis study concern tEe effectiveness of altemative mea!;ures f{)r drug
users. Tile oO]ecEive was fo fin(l out to wfiat exfenf tllese persons reoffena ana
wfietfier progress occurs in tfle various splleres of fife examined.
T11c sample
We performed analyses on a sample of 565 individuals who were scntcm:cd to a
modality of alternative sanctioning . The research included nine modalities of
alternative measures, situafed a\ lhe various levels in 1he criminal justice system
(pmseculion, sentencing, execution of sentences). The average age of Uie resel:lfch
subjects was 28 years, and the large majority were men (88,3'7o). Various types of
narcotics were used 6y tfie researcfi sn6jecf~, witfi cannaf.iis ana l'ieroin neailing tfie
list. :V1ost research subjects consumed more than one product. The majority of the
research sul)jects were granted tl1e judicial alternative because (1f possessing or
selling narcotics {i.e dtug offences: 58,2%} . .lust over one ffiird naa comm ittea
property offences or violent crime (37J%).
Different types of judicial altcmativcs were intcgmtcd in dill study (cf. T:tblc 2)
This was deemed necessary, because in Belgium, every lcvd of the crin1inul justict:
system has its own sanctions/measures that arc dc.signc<.l to divert (drug) offenders
away from crime and drugs. Alllhese judicial alternatives, applied at diiTerenl levels
lhe criminal justice syslem, are 11sed in such a way Uiat Iiley allow for an
iniiividualized approach 10 dealing witli (orng) oiTenoers.
We therefore cannot pass over flle fact tna! the compo.;;ition of !lie researcli sample
is rather heterogeneous. Difierences exist in the profiles of Hie rese<1rch subjects
accoraing to ffie judicial alternative ffiat was granted fo ffiem. Alternatives at tlie
or
Tal]lc 2 :"'umber of rese;trch
~ubjec~~
per nwdality
Type of judicial altcma!ivc
Frcqm:nc~·
Pcrct.-rr!
Transaction
{iO
\lediation
;n
IO,li
7.R
7
57
10,1
J>r~eforimt
probation
CondiCional disc-harge
Prooa[ion order v.>i!liouc conviction
1.2
93
16,~
116
20.~
Provi~iOil<lln:lcasc
62
11.0
rck~s~
91
16,1
Probation order willi dcluy ol' chc execution or the SL'YI[cncc
Conditional
Electronic monitoring
Total
:l:i
S6S
(1,2
HJO,O
~Springer
518
E. De
Wr~e
et al.
prosecutor:~
level were granted to the youngc't research subjects, who had
committcJ less serious offences (e.g. possession of marihmmn). Those who were
granted probatiou orde1;~ often had not only possessed dnrgs, b11t bad also sold it.
The detected use was no longer limi ted to (mainly) marihuana, but also
encompassed, inter alia, e:xtasy, cocaine and heroin. The research snbjecfs wllo
were granted an alternative }or a prison sentence are somewhnl. older dn1g users in
compm:ison witl1 trie above tneasures. Mostly. they had committed property ana
violent offences, and used fieroin or cocaine .
.In order to t<Jke into account tllese differences in profiles, we present tlie general
reslt1ts and tile results per level of the criminal justice system.
Prevalence of recidivism
Research subjects were foUovicd up dming a 5 year period, in order to tlctcmtinc
whether lhey had reoffe:nded or noL The prevalence of recidiv1sm (= hliVing a new
climinal charge) amounts to 71,7%. lluwever, not every criminal charge was
tollowed by a conviction. Only 36,6% of tlie research subjects were reconvicted.
Tfiis percentage of new convictions is ffierefore far Tower ifian ffie prevalence of new
criminal charges. The prevalence of recidiv:lsm diffen; according to t1ie level of the
criminal justice system ai which the judicial alternafive waR granted (see Table 3).
More conditionallylprovisiona!Ty released offenoers fiad a new criminal c!large
(8 !.9%) than tho~c who had received an alternative sanction at sentencing level
(70.0%); and those who bad rcccivctl their stmction at prosecution level hat! the
fewest new crimin.:Jl charges (57.7%). In addition, the prcvatc.ncc of reconviction
increased in line with the level of settlement of the judi Dial alternative (sec Table 4).
These dilTerences in recidivism rates have lo be considered in relation to !he
differences in the profiles of tlie research subjects according to the judicial
aliernative lhal was gr::mlei:l lo !.hem (see above: The sample}.
Rates of criminal charges and convictions
Evolutions in criminnl activity can be measured by calculating rates of criminal
charges and convicti<>ns. We compare the rate (number per year) of criminal charges
l'ublc 3 lJifferences in prcvulence of new c1iminut
charge~
11C'' ortling lo level of M>fll!lJllenl
Total :lllmple
1ilew crimin!!l charge Cevel or selllement
lnve:;tigalion und
pro$ecutiorl'
Scll!eocing
Yes
64.
57,7"<
142 70.0%
47
42..1%
100.0%
61 30%
• Chi SqtiArl)~ lO, \OJ ; df-2; p <O,OOJ
1
' Conoirionalliisclinrgc WM kft vnt of Tlli>
~Springer
of
Rentenc<!s
'lo
Total
1\J
f.~~cution
145
32
20J WO.IJ% 177
calcnlntion.
81 . 9"/(,
n.r-u
700.f1Yo
3~1
71.7%
140 18.3%
49[ JOOJJ%
A lt~mal i v<' sanct ion ~
Table 4
D ifterenc~s
for dmg user.;
519
in J> revalenc~ of reconvictioos nccorifing to level of setr.l ement
New crhnimll ch~lll~ Level of settlement
\'('5
::-lo
Total
Tom l ,;mnple
lnvc>tigntion and
pmsccuth,n'·'
Scnrcucin!_\
25
86
111
22,5%
73
77, 5%
J28 6) ,7% 95
]()()%
201
E,;:,~cntiOi t
of
sentences
3fi,Jr, ,; RO
}()()%
175
?5,7%
171l 36, 6%
54,3%
309 63,4%
4ll 7 11)1)%
lOfJ!-i\
• Chi Square= t5,760: df'=2; p <.OJ)O l
6
Condiliomd discharge wa~ le.n ou Cor (his calcul ation.
and convictions prior to the judicial alternative with the rate afterwards. u Table 5
shows that the average rate of criminal charges dccrc<tscs to about half 11f its original
value. Whereas the. research subjects on average were subjected to more than two
criminal charges per year before the altcnmtivc was gran1ed, tJ1is was reduced to only
one afterwards. The research sobjects thus have less criminal charges afier (be
allemati ve was granted. 'This is tnte for lhe alternatives a1 every level oflbe criminal
justice system: the average rate of criminal charges is low·er aih::r the altemo1tive was
granted than prior to it. This reduction is significant (p<O,OOl ). At pm::;ecntion level,
tl1e rafe was reduced from l .87 to 0.82 (1==6.742; at'= 11 R; p <O.OOl ); at sentencing
level from 2.53 to 1.17 (t-= ~,481; df=179; p<O.OO I) and at the level of execution of'
sentences from 2.68 to !.4~ . (t"' 6,60H: df"" 164: p<O.OOI) .
The same t·atcs cttn be calculated with rcg:.~rd to the number of convictions (sec
Table 6). A first rate t•cflccts the number of convictions on a ycurly basis before the
alternative was granted, a second rate reflects this number qfier tJIC alternative wa~
granted. If we compare both rates, we sec that there is a signiticmrt reduction in the
average l"clte (p<:O,OOI). The reduction in the average rate is found for altemHtives at
every level of lhe criminal justice system. At prosecution level the avemge
emwiclion rnle fell from 0.31 lo 0.15 (t=3,887; df=l55: p < O.OOl); at sentencing
level from 0.85 fo 0.25 (/""8.575; af==l Rl: p < 0.001); ruJo at the level of execution of
~en fences from 1.05 to 0.33 (/'-" 7,R74; df:.c 162: p < O.OO 1).
Nafme of tfie criminal cfiarges
fn the current study we guvc attention to three specific categories of otl'cnccs,
namely dmg offences (infringements of the drug ln\vs), propc11y offences and violent
offences. Before the alternative was grantcu, 504 research subjects had been charged
wilh offences against the dmg l::t\I'S, 336 with property offenc~s :mel 306 with violent
o!Ierrces. Al1er the alternative ·was granted, this picture changes: 238 had a charge
13
The mle is cakulatffi hy divi ding fhc number or charg~·'convi()tiom lhrough th e time 'lJan u r the periou
conce.me.d. The value lhar is round is JTfuUipli et\ by 365 , The rme thu~ reCl t:cls lhc average number !lf
churg N:'cnnvicrions rer year. Th e. reference pcti ()d fm the ti rsl nt!e ~ lam with the fi ~ t charge <lnd end~
when lh ~ .iudiciul ulre.malive i~ grJnted. '[h e reference perioc\ fhr the s~o n tll'harge starts with ihe j udil'iul
altcmafi,·c ttnd las[s unfil fhc end of lhc Jbllow-up period or iivc yc.1t\~.
~Springer
520
E. De
Wr~e
et al.
Tnlilc 5 Annual rates of crimin:1l charges berore mHl a ITer the judicial alfema(ive
Itate of char~;~:;
l{ate
ll f dwrg~'>
\1can
Sfil. dcvi..rion
Sfd. error mean
H~fh"'
2,41
1,923
,089
A:t\l!r
1,19
f.7li5
,082
't~ 12,468: ar~46J:
:r''.oo 1
for dmg otlences {Cfii Square " 9,324; ar'~ l; p<O.O I), 202 for property offences (Cnl
Squnre"' 74,489; df=l; p<O.OOI) aud 219 tor violent otJences (Chi Square"' 53,992;
df"' I; p<:O.OO IJ. Tfils means ffiaf, oltfiougn aU reseat"cfi suDjects were omg users,
only 45% of these persons got charged with dn1g otfcnccs again in the period after
receiving their alternative sanction (sec Fig. I)
Progress in .lift: spheres
In lhe judicial files (in particular Uie repor[S of Uie judicial assisianls) informn:lion
was ootained COJlceming nie f:ifuation in different life splieres. Tlie situation in tfie
life spfiere.'> oefore and after tfie alternative was assessed. Tlie researcfi su5jects
experience a progress in the life spheres studied aUer the juaicial a.ltemative is
grantea. Tfie percentage of researcfi su6jects wfio use in a non-proolematic way, >vfio
nove a regular joo, fixea resi<:lence, preoominantly supportive contacts wltn nonusers and a meaningful occupation of their leisure time is higher at the end of the
alt\:rrtativc than at the beginning (sec Fig. 2). The percentage regarding drug usc rose
from 31,9% to 67,I%, regarding rntploymcnt from 20,5% to 30,5%, .regarding
housing from 56,5% to 69,4%, regarding social relations from I l% to 64.9% and
regarding leisure rime from 35% [o 75,3%. DiiTerent sleps are thus taken thai bene.fif
their reinlegra!iorr. Improvements in the 1ield of drug use, social and familial
rel<nionships and leisure-time aclivitie.s :rre lhe most pronmmced.
The progress in life splieres parallels the reduction in (.:riminal charges. Those
who ao not use problematicaf\y a! (fie end of tfie follow-up period are also tliose tfiat
nove oeen Cnllrge(} less. Tlle same fiofas fme for tliose fiavfng a regular JOO and fixeo
residence; they reoffended less th<~n those who haa not. (see Table 7)
Dis-cussion
J\s shown in tbt: results, the prevalence of rc-eidivism afkr a: judicial AJ.tcmativc was
grnnted t<J dmg nsers was com;idemble. llowever, sludies examining prevalence of
T~ble
6 Anmmf rates of conviction.~ 5cfore flllO nfler tfie juaiciol :lltenmtive
N
Rare of con~icrion> Defore
Rate of convictions A.fler
"r~Jl,840;
~Springer
dF=500:p<.OOl
501
,7 5
501
.24
Sfd• .leviation
Std. error mean
,982
,56J
,025
,044
i\lt~nwlive sanction~
fiJr
dm~ tl~<!rs
52!
Nature of I he criminal charges
Drug offences
Property
Violence
Nature charge
Is Before
Ffg. 'I
Crimin~l diarg,~
liefore anil
~fter tfi~
• Arter
I
judicial alternntive
recidivism often find higli percentages. For example, Zanis studied persons who
were reterred to treatment services via ''early parole". He found that 2.2% of tlie
researcfi su'6jects were reconvictea: \Vifllin 24 monffis, compared to 34%) of ffie
control group (paro1ccs who had not been referred to treatment) [17]. In a study
examining treatment in prison a relatively high prevalence of recidivism wus tbund
as ''"ell. .ilitcr treatment in prison, it appears that 58% of the graduated was rearrested
and 79% relapsed into dmg usc in a follow-up period of 5 years ( 18]. In a Swedish
sludy, Bishop examined the effecfs of U:eatmenl afier imprisonment: the- results
showed that 64% ofiliose who completed treatmcmt commiiied a new oiTence within
3 years following completion of file freafment. A UK Home Office researcfi tonnd
that 86% l1ftl\e persons who were granted a Drug Treatment and Testing Order, were
reconvicted within a follow-up period of 2 years. The high prevalence of recidivism
tlius is nof out ofline witli results of oilier stuilies. Tfie fad tfiat tfie percentages are
so fiigli, makes people question file effectiveness of alternative measures for d111g
users. Although the percentage of research subjects again charged with an otlcncc is
quite high, it 5hould be taken into account that this just reflects a lower limit: it
shows how many people succeeded in achieving the ideal situation, i.e. no new
chargc. ln the Cllrrent study, almost 30% of the research subjects did nut httvc a new
80
-
70
60 -- -50 - - 40
30
20
10
0
--
r---
r--r---
--
~
--I
1\!o pro61emalic use
--
--
Regularjo5
- r-
- - r----
-
--
-
Fixed residence fiJon-user con1aels
If:!Belore
DAfter
I
-
Leisure time
occopa1ion
Fi::. 2 Progress in lite sp!icrcs
'fl Springer
522
E. De Wree 1.1 al.
Table 7 Prog,ress in life spfieres nnil reci(livism
Life spheres: situatillll at
til~
end of the alternative
Total
New
charg~
:"lo new
cb~rge
71.7%
28,3%
64;2% {n = 17(JJ
35,~% (n~
Tot~ I
JO(f'o
Drug u~e" (Ciii Squarc-24.6.28; df- l ; p-.000)
-No (pro6lematic) "'e
95)
100% {11=:?65)
{n~ J(ij
J00%{11~1.m
59,8% (n "·' 58i
78.ti% (n= 180)
40,2% (n ~ 39)
2 t,4% (11= ?9)
TOO% it~= 97j
100% {n=229J
69,6% (11~ 17-1)
30,4% (n- 76)
100% (n-250)
83% in- 88j
17% (il•l8j
I 00°/. (n ~ 106)
3l,6% (n-5!J)
13,1% (n~?.J)
100% (n=JOI(j
1G.3%
100% (i1= }6(}j
-Pro5Jematic llSe
~7,9% {n = 1//})
Hnanciml Ritulltionh (Chi Squure~ 12.2:12: df~ J; p~ .0001
-Fixed emplo)'mem
-No fixe<.\ employment
12,1%
Rousing• (Chi Square~6,ll98; df= I; p~ . 009)
-Fix:cd
rcsi<l~'llcc
-No fixed residence
Rel:lli()nsbips (n.s.) (Chi
·Pn::domill.tnl
-Coutact~
COiltfldS
witll
OSCl'SS
Sqnru-c~~,354;
W.l tli
dr-1; p-.115)
l.lOLHISCI'S
76,9% (ip81f)
:Leisure Jintt {n.s.) (Cfii Squflre=O,l50; af= f; p= .G9R)
73,8%
-OCCtlJlitd {menniugl\i 1/slructuml)
-Not ()Ccupied
7(,,5%
(n~
778)
(n~J9i
(n~42)
23,.5% (n= 12)
100%
(n~187)
TOO"~ (n=51)
~p~O,Ol; ~ p<O,OOI
charge filed against them atler tEieir judicial altemative. More than 60% dia not incur
a new conviction. Tfiis dicfiofomolL"> measurement of prevalence, nowever, passes
over tne sligfiter improvernellfs in crimina! activity tllat may occur.
Studying rates of criminal charges and convictions may put the high prevalence of
recidivism into perspective. In the current study. rates of cl'iminal charges nnd
conviction rates were lower after the alternative wus imposed than prior to it. This
means that-cvt:n if the research subjects rcoiTcnd-thc number of charges per year
dccrcHscs, as docs the number of convictions per year. Considerable progress could
also be observed in the c:urrem st11dy :ts regards the nature of the offences. Only 215%
of lne sample {or 61% of ilie recidivists) had a new chlfrge for infringements of drog
legislation-although all research ~ubjects are drug DSers. Even if account is only
fa({en of tfie reciu{vists, if appears tfiat a lower percentage of toe re8earcli sufijects
commit infringements of drug legislation, property offences and violent crime afie.r
sanctioning tlian priot· to if. llie reduction in these offences is important, as if
concems tliose crime categories ffiat nave 'fieen Clescrmed in literature as offences
that arc rossibly dmg-rclatcd (cf. consensual, property otfcnces and cxrrcssivc
criminality).
In snnuna:ry, suillcicnt llrgumcnts arc found to snppott the link between
alternative measures for drug users aml recidivism reduction: (i) tvforc th:m 60%
of the research subjects do not incur a new l':Qnviction; (ii) If tlie avemge raie of
charges and of conviclions of the research subjects prior to lhe alternative measures
is compared witf1 fioffi these rates atler tfie altemative measures, we see tfiat tfiere is a
significant decrease. (iii) There is a reduction of infringement!': of the drug
legislation, property otfences and '~olent crime. Even if there is no certainly ihat
~Springer
Altemative
sanction~
for drug
us~r.;
52.1
thc~c successes can be asc1ibcd to alternative sanctions (because of the absence of a
control group), it is still a fact that the alternative smtctions allowed for these
developments in a way that is far less interventionist and hrumfnl thm1 a prison
sentence. The recidivism reducing effec!s of alternative measur~s were also sb{lWn in
other studies.. In a research conducted by MacKenzie, for ex.mnple, a self report \Vas
held among probationers. They were :tsked ttl compare lh~ir activities prior lu Ule
prol'iafion order with tliose after their arrest and the start of the probation period. TI'ie
interviews were nela: snm1Ty after tfie stmi of tlie profiafion periou. and ag:1in affer a
perioa of 6 montns. In ifie interviews it became clear tfiat tfie avemge level of
criminal activity and drug use was lower after arrest and during the probation period
than previous to the arrest [!9J. We could even argue that the reduction in criminal
activity is shmvn more convincingly in our study. because of the fact that we made
usc of registered c1ime data m1d not of self report measurement, which possibly is
ini1ucnccd by a social dcsirubility bias [20).
Moreover. iL is sliawn that allemalive mea-sures have betler results tlum lrndiliomrl
ones. In Al~erican studies regarding e.ITectiveness of dmg courts 14 !be results are
generally similar: clients of the dmg court programs have lower recidivism rates than
those wfiose case was aajudicafed tfte fraaifionaJ way [21 ]. Spofin ofiserved ffiaf
42,1 17o of tlie drug court participants reofl'ended, compared to oO,S% of the research
sul1jecl~ with a traditional sanction. Comparable result~'\ (drug court participants have
lower levels of recidivism) are founCI in eigllt out of nine studies regarding
effectiveness of drug cou1is [22]. Anyway. it is clcM that drug using delinquents who
receive some kind of treatment perform better than those who do not participatc in
treatment [18, 22].
Finally, t11e:rc is also an improvement in virtually every life sphere of the research
subjects. The percenlnge of indJvidrmls using drugs in a non-problenmlic way and
having a steady job and permanent housing increases. ~ore penple appear to
succeed :in surrounding 11iemselves with people wlio snppori lliem (in a drug-free
lit~) and {n finding activities for tfieir leisme time. In tlie confext of alternative
sanctions, various steps are thus taken that benefit the re-inteerration of the person
invofve<l. Kyvsguara examined progress in life splieres 6:1sed on a suOjecfive
evaluafion 5y tfie persons concernoo. In tliis Danis11 stuay, reseorcll suojecfs were
asked whether they had received the help they needed during the follow-up period.
54%i felt helped concerning drug problems; 47% concerning their work sitwttion;
46% concerning leisure time activities; 21.11% concerning social :mtl family relationships; a:nd 31% conccming housing. These research findings support the conclusion
that alternative mc..'lsurcs contribute to the social capital [16].
In Gililifiarr, we oEserved a strong association between U1e elTects regarding
progress in lite spheres and recidivism. Research f;ll~jects who do well os regards
drugs, work and housing at the end of their alternative and reach the 'desired'
u In lhe T;nil~d Stales dmg (lre.almenl) courts were established in order In deal wilh the. problems !hal had
folltlWing lhe increasing m1mber or tlmg cases. Individual~ who have commiiJecl drug relnietl crime
ctm be brought before. ibe drug court. Certain offender~ are howev~ exclucled. e.g. vi olen\ offendern. The
ari~en
drug
CQLln
progmm
implil!.~
the
~lar\
of inlervenUons aimed a\ lhe reJluclion
11f
clrog
LL'lt!
nncl crime
unu
based on rcgolnr conlacls wi!h the dntg couri, drug lcsiing and ircahnm1. Sec: [3].
'f:) Springer
524
E. De Wree el al.
15
situation rcoffcnd less often. TI1c finding of the cmTent study that the reduction in
recidivism parallels the improvement in the life spheres has tm important
consequence. lf the recidivism reduction would not be associated with the progress
in life spheres, lliis could mean ihat U1e reduclion in recidivism merely stems from
1he shorl-lerm deterring effect of l.he alternative measure: Ihe oiTender commits less
ctime, beClluse he is deterred by the higher costs that exist during the period of
supervision. Because we find that tlie reduction in recidivism goes together with the
esfaolisfimenf of social oonds, longer lasting cfianges can fie expected. A nooy of
resemcfi nas already sliown tfiaf societal oonds liave nu impact on criminall)eliaviour
[l9j. The societal bonds of offenders often are weak. When offenders establish these
bonds, however, chances increase tha:t their lives will change drastically. If socictitl
bonds (work. housing, family and social relationships) arc intcnsiticd through the
follow-up of a judicial alternative, informal social controls that arc necessary for
dcsistanc~ of crime arc stimulated. Especially the circumstlntccs of having a ptuincr
(or broader: good family relaf.ionships) and being in employment induce a reduction
in L"liminal behaviuur [23]. The est:ablishmenl of lhese bonds can ilius serve as a
tuming point that initiates positive changes [24],
Conclusion
The present study comprises a measurement of effect based on 555 judicial files. The
objective was to mc.·asurc effects of judicial alternatives 011 recidivism and life
spheres. In general, the results can be considered moderately positive. The question
asked in the title of this article cannot be :mswcrcd in a straightforward m~mncr.
Judicial altematives for dmg users cannot be considered fmitless eiTorts nor miracle
solutions. As is often the case, we have to adopt a middfe course: H is clear ilia\
miracles cannot fie expectea from ilie application
allemalive measures io drug
users, Fiat tliere ill no need for pe:>!'.irnism eitlier.
It was f(nmd tfiat a large majority of the r~earcli subje.cts faced u new crilninal
cllarge after ffie alternative sanction fiaa oeen impose<i. Not every cnarge was
followed by a conviction, because less-serious charges arc dismissed by the public
prosecutor. Just over one third of the research subjects were reconvicted. The
prevalence of recidivism differed according to the level of alternative sanction: the
prcvalc.ncc of criminal charges and .rcc<>nviction increased in line with the level of
settlement of the judicial alternative. Even though the prevalence of recidivism is
high, litcmtnre shows that this is not out of line with other studies. Besides, it is
Eieyond doubl ilia( there is a reduction in recidivism afier a judicial altemalive :is
granted. On average, the research subjects incur le:ss criminal charges and
convictions after the judicial alternative is granted than prior to it. Also there is a
decreilse in ffie consensual dmg relatea crime, properly crime
vjl))ent crime
committe(( oy researcli suojects {expressive ana acquisitive crime). Tilis goes
together with a remarkable progress in life spheres: research subjects use tess
or
ana
Is The ilc.~ircd l;ifuation is alway~ n1c sinmcian in which !here is no ncci:l for trc:rCmcnt or guidance: lur-..ing
a s(cady .iob, a JX-Timmcnl place lo live, suf!icicn( supporlivc social ~md f!!Tllilial rclnliomhips nnd
rncaningrul Jcisurc-limc acci viCic.~.
~Springer
}\:ltemative snncti()ns ti)r drug use"l
525
drugs-and usc it in a lc~s problematic way-h<tVC more supportive family and
social rclHtionsbips uml their leisure time is occupied. Regarding their work situation
there is a progress us well, but less pronounced. Tbc association found between
rel.idivisrn reduction and life spheres is important. Progress in lbe abovementioned
life spheres supports the positive evolution regarding recidivism reduction. The
perspectives are thus promising, as chances lire higher l.hnl changes will last longer.
From this perspective, a judicial altemative is possibly a life event that sparks
imporianf cllanges
ll9J.
References
0().1). f'j,·c-}t'llf Vllh:om~s of Ill ntpCU !i~ comrmmity lrcalmc:nl
of drog-involvcil oftcnilcrn nf!cr rcko. ' from prison. 'rinw ourl nr·linqn em:y , U lj, 88- 106.
Piqucro, N. (200Jj . .A recidivism Mruysis of :VJnryl~nd'o~ r.omuHwily probntiou prog.rruu. Journ11l oT
C!'iminol Jr~slh·e, JJ, 295 .J07.
Sranford, J., & Anigo, D. (2005). Lifting rh.:; Cover on Dmg Conrts: cvalnnlion tlnoiug NJ(l policy
concerns. Jnlernollonnl Journal nJlJ]Tenapr Therapy ontf Crrmpnmlire Criminology. J, 239--259.
Wilson, IL & Fowles. T. (2004}. Dmg trentment ~note~ing orifer9: reconviction r.•te.s. Tfm ifowora
.Journal. 13, 93 98.
Golt!l;<onp, .1., White, :\1., & Roninson, J. i201J I l. Do dn1g courts work'! (letting io~ide the drug court
black box . Jot~rnali!f'lJmg Js.nw.>, 27-72.
l'eeffien, :\1. (2004 ). f'r~clicting re-o-tfending: a 5-year 11rospective ~'tuJy on lcelanclic prison inmnt~.
1'.1;-·,·hology. Crimtt r:md [uw. 197-- -204.
Wurlnn B. Nijssen L. Nulionul sludie-s on recidivism; an invenft)l)' or !urge-scale recidivi~m research in
1. Jnciardi, J., lvlnr!in, S.. & Bn!zin, C.
2.
3.
4.
5.
G.
7.
33 Europetm
Coun!ri~s. ~emonmuum
2006-2, WODC.
Kyv~gaard,
B. (2003). The aimiMI NIN.'<'r. C:tmbtidgc: l.;nivcfl;ify Press.
9. Rnd1i, T., & Rogcrr,, S. (:2004j. How do dmg u~crs define tlicir pmgrc.ss iu lim1.n rcdrrcrion
Qunlirntl~c rcsc.1rcb to develop usct-..~cncmr.:d on!corucs. /Jarm Rt~luu'ion Journol.
8.
prog.ram~'l
10. Biclcumu. 13. c.~. (2002). Opgcva.ngcn onder <lmug. Groni1~gcn, lurrnvfll.
II. Krenz, S. (2004). hencll Vet$ion of tfie addiction severity ini!ex (5tfi edn.): v11lii!il~· anil relia6ility
nmo.np. Swis$ o.piat~ifepenilent l>fltients. Ermrpean :fililicflon Re:umrcli, 17:1- 179.
12. ~'wanoorn, P. {1999). J:•·alul'r"n. Amsterdam: Boo.rn.
!J. Shennan, L (2004). f:Fidem:e-based r..l'ime pn$wm!ion. [<mdon: J{outledge.
14. Jleyens, K. (200(J). Srmjfen als socia!e praktljk. Brussel: VfJH.
15. Vander r.aenen, F. (2(JIJ'f). J)'e nieuwe \-linisteriek Om7.enclorid VOI)f druggel>ruiken;. Jlef
vervolgingsbeleir.l laa( er ~icn ni~t door leioen. Punopricmr, 25(5), 9 30.
16. Kyvsgaurt\, B. (2000). Sup<rrYi~ion or crfTemler.;: c:mnn niJ-rashioned service sys(l)m be (lrany :;er\·i~
in lhe ca~e of presen!-r:lay orfenuenl . .1msnwl of Se<mdinovimr .studies in Oimiuolof{l' and Oime
T'reventiiJn, I, 73 .S6.
17. Z.:mis, D. c.a. (:.'003}. Tiic circclivcncss of early pmulc to subsumcc n.bu~'C ln:afm<:nt facilirics on 24monrli criminal ro:idivism . .Journal of Dm;: Js.we.1', 2~3 :!35.
18. Inciardi, J. (2004 1. Five-year cru!comcs of !hcmpcufic conrrnuni!y ln:aCmcnt or drug-invol vcd
offcn.ilcrs nflcr rek~~c from prison. Crime onil nelinqtU'IW)', 50(1j, !:11 - 106.
19. MnckKcu7k. D. 12002). Tlic imp~cl oftormnl aml inft.>rmal so\'inl conrwh on tlic crin1innl Activities
of proonti<'n~r~ . •hmrtrll/ of Rc~vtmn li in Crinm rrni.l J)!!linqrJ(m<-J', 243 276.
1(J. KioJ!,. R., & WinCUJ>, L. (2008). Doing rewardi on crime IIfli.ljrL'iitP Oxfor(l: ()~ford Gni\'et'Sity Press.
21. Wild,. T., Robert~. A., ill: r:o()per. F.. (2002). CompuJ~(lry substance abuse treatm~nt: An oven'iew of
recent finclings ;uJd i~su~. EunJp(mn ilddicrlo11 Re.w•.orr:h, 811 IJJ.
ZZ. SJlohn, C. e.a. (:!001). Dmg courts nod r~idivism: the re; ults of ~n evaluution using cwo ~·ompa1ison
gmups and muliiple inJiea!oP.l or re('ir.livism . .lmmwl o/ Drug 7_,·suc5, 31. 149 -I 76.
23. Hepbam, .1., & Grillin. ~. (2004). The effect of S()cial bnnds on soce;;ssrul Ul\iustment l<l probation:
an evenl history analysis. Crimiuai.Jnrriw Review, 4fi 75.
24. DeLi, S., & byron :MacKcm1ic. D. (2003) ·n,c !!L!Tldcred dl'ccts o!' a<lull social bonds on lhc L"liminal
aclivilics or probarioncrs. Criminal .Justin• Review. 28t2). ~78 298.
'fl Springer
Reproaucea witn perm iss ion of tne copyrignt owner. Fu rtfier reproduction proh il5ited witfioot permission.