Introduction

The Probation Service, while increasingly focused on public protection, remains concerned with the rehabilitation of offenders and, although it has slipped to the bottom of the list, rehabilitation remains as one of the Service's five aims alongside protecting the public, reducing reoffending, punishing offenders in the community and ensuring offenders are aware of the effects of crime on victims and the public (National Probation Service, 2001, p iv). Rehabilitation has been described as ‘full restoration to the formerly errant citizen of his/her rights and responsibilities’ (McNeil, 2010, p 9), which would suggest that the focus of rehabilitation is on the person at the centre not only becoming a law-abiding citizen (see Gough, Chapter Four, this volume), but being accepted as such and being encouraged, helped and allowed to shed a former criminal identity (Robinson and Raynor, 2006, p 337). However, according to McNeil (2010, p 10), rehabilitation within criminal justice has been reinterpreted as a means of reducing crime and, as such, there is a danger that strategies concerned with contemporary forms of rehabilitation may be overly skewed towards restrictive and punitive interventions rather than constructive and reintegrative strategies. Enter the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR) which, like its predecessor the Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO), was introduced as a response to drug-driven crime and, alongside other community sentences, is required to be tough and effective in tackling the causes of offending behaviour (HM Government, 2008, pp 14–20).

This chapter explores the introduction and delivery of DRR, giving consideration to it as a catalyst for change and its potential for contributing to the rehabilitation of drug misusing offenders. It will draw on enquiries made to offender managers in nine Probation Service areas, which specifically aimed to explore the way in which the DRR is delivered, the expectations of those on such orders, the impact of enforcement and local arrangements for reviews. Throughout, reference will be made to the recent Review of the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (Sondhi et al, 2011) commissioned by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), and the perceptions of offenders subject to a DRR will be highlighted.