bocsar drug diversion research

8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research

1/26

NSW Bureau of Crime

Statistics and Research

Drug diversion programs in NSW, Australia

Craig Jones


2/26

Overview

1. About BOCSAR2. Why evaluate drug diversion programs?

3. At what stage does diversion happen in NSW?

4. What programs are operating?5. What does the evidence say about the

effectiveness of diversion programs?

6. Summary


3/26

About BOCSAR

Statistical and research agency within NSW

Department of Justice and Attorney General (est.

1969)

Goal: provide public and policy makers with timelyand objective information on crime and criminal

justice

Three main areas of activity:1. Database maintenance and development

2. Research and evaluation

3. Information service


4/26

Why evaluate drug diversion programs?

Significant Government investment in diversion and rehabilitationprograms

Despite good intentions, not all programs are effective

Worst case, some programs could increase crime Often cited example: Scared Straight (Petrosino et al., 2004)


5/26

Why evaluate drug diversion programs?

A recent comparative review of 18 U.S. Drug Courtsrevealed that courts which place a strong emphasis on

research and evaluation have higher graduation rates

and are more cost effective than courts without this

emphasis(Carey et al., 2008)


6/26

At what stage does diversion happen?

All stages: Pre-court: before the person is charged and brought

before the courts

Pre-plea: after the person is brought to court butbefore they enter a plea

Pre-sentence: after a person pleads guilty but before

they receive their final sentence

Post-sentence: after the person is sentenced but as

an alternative to custody

In custody: specialist prisons for drug offenders


7/26

What programs are operating in NSW?

Pre-court Cannabis cautioning: police discretion to issue written warnings

for cannabis and other drug offences

Young Offenders Act 1997:discretion to issue formal cautions

or deal with offenders by way of Youth Justice Conference Pre-plea

Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT)

Adult focussed, 3-month treatment program, operates in 66+ Local Courts

Magistrate may take treatment into consideration when sentencing

Pre-sentence

Youth Drug and Alcohol Court: juvenile-focussed, involving

intensive supervision, case management & treatment


8/26

What programs are operating?

Post-sentence Adult Drug Court

Community-based alternative to prison, prison sentence wholly suspended

conditional on compliance with treatment

Intensive treatment, frequent urinalysis, judicial oversight Rewards & sanctions system

In custody

Compulsory Drug Treatment Program

Compulsory alternative to mainstream jail Five-stage drug treatment program:

S1: Closed detention, non-contact visits

S2: Semi-open detention, day release

S3: Community custody

S4: Parole

S5: Voluntary case management


9/26

What does the evidence say

about the effectiveness ofdiversion programs?


10/26

Cannabis Cautioning (pre-court)

Scheme implemented largely as planned Successfully diverting offenders from court

Significant savings in police and court time

Some evidence of net-widening offenders who would have been informally warned

now receiving formal cautions

Did not assess whether those receiving cautionsless likely to offend than those going to court

(Baker & Goh, 2004)


11/26

Diversions underYOA 1997(pre-court)

Not specific to drug offences Some evidence that Youth Justice Conferences

more effective than court in reducing offending

(Luke & Lind, 2002)


12/26

Diversions underYOA 1997(pre-court)

(Luke & Lind, 2002)


13/26

MERIT (pre-plea)

Applied rigorous statistical methods Compared all offenders accepted onto MERIT with matched

comparison group:

MERIT & comparison groups equally likely to commit any new offence

4 percent fewer MERIT participants convicted for a new theft offence

2 percent fewer MERIT participants convicted for a new drug offence

Compared offenders who completed MERIT with matched

comparison group:

12 percent fewer completers convicted for any new offence

4 percent fewer completers convicted for a new theft offence

MERIT completers and comparison groups equally likely to be convicted for

a new drug offence (although rare outcome may have been problematic)

(Lulham, 2009)


14/26

Youth Drug & Alcohol Court (pre-

sentence)

No comparison group = no rigorous outcome evaluation Approximately 35 referrals per year

40% complete the program

60% return to court with fresh charges while on program

Most report that their drug use is reduced while on

program

Improvements in mental health

Could not assess whether drug court participants lesslikely to re-offend

(Social Policy Research Centre, 2004)


15/26

NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)

Study 1: Process evaluation Semi-structured interviews with 12 team members, 18 health

staff and 20 offenders

Detailed report on the structure of the program

Major findings:

Initial establishment problems (e.g. establishing relationship between treatment

providers and court, identifying who would do urine screens etc) but these abated

Immediate short custodial sanctions problematic moved to graduated sanctions

Eligibility requirements problematic (e.g. Aboriginal under-represented)

Positive aspects also identified (e.g. inter-sectorial approach, program intensity)

(Taplin, 2002)


16/26


Study 2: Health and well-being Face-to-face interviews with 200 participants at baseline and

three follow-up points 4-months apart

Major findings:

Very poor health and social function at outset

Significant improvements in health & well-being over time

Self-reported weekly expenditure on drugs reduced

High levels of satisfaction

Low retention rates (60 per cent terminated)

No comparison group = cant infer program caused changes

(Freeman, 2002)


17/26


Study 3: Cost-effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (treatment = 309, control = 191)

Major findings:

Drug Court group took longer to commit first: Theft/drug offence (although mainly drug offences)

Shop stealing offence

Drug offence (mainly possession of opiates)

(Lind, et al., 2002)


18/26


Any theft/drug

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of 'free' days till first theft or drug offence

Proportion

surviving

treated control

log-rank: p=0.055


19/26


Shop stealing

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Number of free days till first shop stealing

Proportion

surviving

treated control

log-rank: p=0.016


20/26


Any drug offence

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Number of free days till first drug offence

Proportion

surviving

Treated Control

log-rank: p=0.005


21/26


Major costs: health ($3.3m), court ($2.8m),sanctions ($1.4m)

Cost per day slightly favoured Drug Court ($144

cf. $152)


22/26


Study 4: Re-evaluation of effectiveness Compared those entering program with those

assessed and found not eligible

Used rigorous statistical methods to account for non-

comparable groups Drug Court group took longer to commit any new offence

Drug Court group took longer to commit any violent offence

Drug Court group took longer to commit any drug offence

No difference in time to first property offence

(Weatherburn et al., 2008)


23/26

Compulsory Drug Treatment (in custody)

Small cohort + no comparison group = norigorous outcome evaluation

Some evidence that health improves as they

move through program Low rate of positive drug tests

Generally positive views about program

Low levels of perceived coercion Could not assess whether re-offending

decreases among those on the program(Dekker et al., 2010)


24/26

Summary

Some evidence that diversion programs work toreduce offending

Youth Justice Conferencing

MERIT Drug Court

Also some evidence that diversion can produce

monetary savings Cannabis cautioning

Drug Court


25/26

Contacts

W: www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au

E: [email protected]

P: +61 2 9231 9190F: +61 2 9231 9187


26/26

References

Baker, J. & Goh, D. (2004). The Cannabis Cautioning Scheme three years on: an implementation and outcome evaluation. NSW Bureau of

Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/R54.pdf/$file/R54.pdfCarey, S.M., Finigan, M.W. & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the Key Components of Drug Courts: A Comparative Study of 18 Adult Drug Courts

on Practices, Outcomes, and Costs. NPC Research, Portland

Freeman, K 2002, New South Wales Drug Court Evaluation: Health, Well-being and Participant Satisfaction, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics

and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L14.pdf/$file/L14.pdf

Lind, B, Weatherburn, D, Chen, S, Shanahan, M, Lancsar, E, Haas, M & De Abreu Lourenco, R 2002, NSW Drug Court evaluation: cost-

effectiveness, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney,

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L15.pdf/$file/L15.pdf

Luke, G & Lind, B 2002, Reducing juvenile offending: Conferencing versus court, Crime and Justice Bulletin no. 69, NSW Bureau of Crime

Statistics and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB69.pdf/$file/CJB69.pdf

Lulham, R 2009, The Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment program: impact of program participation on re-offending by defendants with adrug use problem, Crime and Justice Bulletin no. 131, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney,

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB131.pdf/$file/CJB131.pdf

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C. & Buehler, J. (2003). Scared Straight' and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile

delinquency. Campbell Review Update I, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070927013116/http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/ssrupdt.pdf.

Social Policy Research Centre (2004). Evaluation of the New South Wales Youth Drug Court Pilot Program. Social Policy Research Centre,

Sydney,

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/drug_court/ll_drugcourt.nsf/vwFiles/YDAC_Final%20Report%20_revised_March%2004PRINT.pdf/$fil

e/YDAC_Final%20Report%20_revised_March%2004PRINT.pdf#target='_blankTaplin, S 2002, The New South Wales Drug Court Evaluation: A Process Evaluation, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney,

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L13.pdf/$file/L13.pdf

Weatherburn, D., Jones, C., Snowball, L. & Hua, J. (2008). The NSW Drug Court: a re-evaluation of its effect iveness, NSW Bureau of Crime

Statistics and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB121.pdf/$file/CJB121.pdf

bocsar drug diversion research

Documents