8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
1/26
NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research
Drug diversion programs in NSW, Australia
Craig Jones
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
9/26
What does the evidence say
about the effectiveness ofdiversion programs?
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
12/26
Diversions underYOA 1997(pre-court)
(Luke & Lind, 2002)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
16/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
17/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
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)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
18/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
19/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
20/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
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
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
21/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
Major costs: health ($3.3m), court ($2.8m),sanctions ($1.4m)
Cost per day slightly favoured Drug Court ($144
cf. $152)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
22/26
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)
Study 4: Re-evaluation of effectiveness Compared those entering program with those
assessed and found not eligible
Used rigorous statistical methods to account for non-
comparable groups Drug Court group took longer to commit any new offence
Drug Court group took longer to commit any violent offence
Drug Court group took longer to commit any drug offence
No difference in time to first property offence
(Weatherburn et al., 2008)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
23/26
Compulsory Drug Treatment (in custody)
Small cohort + no comparison group = norigorous outcome evaluation
Some evidence that health improves as they
move through program Low rate of positive drug tests
Generally positive views about program
Low levels of perceived coercion Could not assess whether re-offending
decreases among those on the program(Dekker et al., 2010)
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
24/26
Summary
Some evidence that diversion programs work toreduce offending
Youth Justice Conferencing
MERIT Drug Court
Also some evidence that diversion can produce
monetary savings Cannabis cautioning
Drug Court
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
25/26
Contacts
W: www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au
P: +61 2 9231 9190F: +61 2 9231 9187
8/7/2019 BOCSAR Drug Diversion Research
26/26
References
Baker, J. & Goh, D. (2004). The Cannabis Cautioning Scheme three years on: an implementation and outcome evaluation. NSW Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/R54.pdf/$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