NSW Bureau of Crime

Statistics and Research

Drug diversion programs in NSW, Australia

Craig Jones
Overview

1. About BOCSAR
2. 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
About BOCSAR

• Statistical and research agency within NSW

Department of Justice and Attorney General (est.
1969)
• Goal: provide public and policy makers with timely
and objective information on crime and criminal
justice
• Three main areas of activity:
1. Database maintenance and development
2. Research and evaluation
3. Information service
Why evaluate drug diversion programs?

• Significant Government investment in diversion and rehabilitation

programs
• Despite good intentions, not all programs are effective
• Worst case, some programs could increase crime
• Often cited example: “Scared Straight” (Petrosino et al., 2004)
Why evaluate drug diversion programs?

A recent comparative review of 18 U.S. Drug Courts

revealed 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)
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 but
before 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
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
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
What does the evidence say
about the effectiveness of
diversion programs?
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 cautions
less likely to offend than those going to court

(Baker & Goh, 2004)

Diversions under YOA 1997 (pre-court)

• Not specific to drug offences

• Some evidence that Youth Justice Conferences
more effective than court in reducing offending

(Luke & Lind, 2002)

Diversions under YOA 1997 (pre-court)

(Luke & Lind, 2002)

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)
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 less
likely to re-offend
(Social Policy Research Centre, 2004)
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)
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 = can‟t infer program caused changes

(Freeman, 2002)
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)

NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)

Any theft/drug
Proportion
surviving
1.2 log-rank: p =0.055

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
treated control
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Number of 'free' days till first theft or drug offence
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)

Shop stealing
Proportion
surviving
1.05 log-rank: p =0.016

1.00
0.95
0.90

0.85
0.80
0.75
treated control
0.70
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Number of free days till first shop stealing
NSW Drug Court (post-sentence)

Any drug offence

Proportion
surviving log-
1.05
log-rank: p =0.005
1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75 Treated Control

0.70
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Number of free days till first drug offence
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)
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)

Compulsory Drug Treatment (in custody)

• Small cohort + no comparison group = no

rigorous 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)
Summary

• Some evidence that diversion programs work to

reduce offending
• Youth Justice Conferencing
• MERIT
• Drug Court
• Also some evidence that diversion can produce
monetary savings
• Cannabis cautioning
• Drug Court
Contacts

W: www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au
E: bcsr@agd.nsw.gov.au
P: +61 2 9231 9190
F: +61 2 9231 9187
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/$file/R54.pdf
Carey, S.M., Finigan, M.W. & Pukstas, K. (2008). Exploring the Key Components of Drug Courts: A Comparative Study of 18 Adult Drug Courts
on Practices, Outcomes, and Costs. NPC Research, Portland
Freeman, K 2002, New South Wales Drug Court Evaluation: Health, Well-being and Participant Satisfaction, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics
and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L14.pdf/$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 a
drug 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='_blank‟
Taplin, 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/$file/L13.pdf
Weatherburn, D., Jones, C., Snowball, L. & Hua, J. (2008). The NSW Drug Court: a re-evaluation of its effectiveness, NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research, Sydney, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB121.pdf/$file/CJB121.pdf