Australian alternatives to arrest and imprisonment for drug and drug-related offenders: Assessing program and system outcomes

Dr Caitlin Hughes and Dr Marian Shanahan

European Society of Criminology Conference, Porto, 2-5 Sep 2015

2

Other project team members:•Dr Marian Shanahan•Professor Alison Ritter•David McDonald•Florence Gray-Weale •Dr Tim McSweeney•Matthew O’Reilly

Funding:•The National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund•The ACT Health Directorate•The Commonwealth Department of Health•The Colonial Foundation Trust

Acknowledgements

3

Background

• Australia has a high rate of illicit drug use

• 37% ever & 12% recent use (NDSHS 2013)

• Long taken a multi-faceted approach to illicit drugs

• To reduce demand, supply & harm

• Large expansion of diversion programs for drug offenders

• > 52 programs in 2007 (Hughes and Ritter, 2008)

• 4 - 5 programs in most states

4

Range of positive indicators from drug diversion:•Reduced drug use and/or harmful use (Crime Research Centre, 2007; Hales, 2003)

•Reduced incidence of reoffending (Payne et al, 2008)

•Improved relationships with significant others (Ali et al, 1999)

•Fewer negative employment consequences (Ali et al, 1999)

•Reduced utilisation of CJS resources (Baker and Goh, 2004)

Does drug diversion “work”?

5

Many methodological problems (Wundersitz, 2007; Hughes and Ritter, 2008; Hughes, Shanahan et al, 2014; Bright and Matire, 2012):

1.Lack of comparator / control groups

2.Narrow set of outcome variables

3.Inattention to costs (as well as outcomes)

4.Focus on evaluating individual programs

5.Challenges in obtaining better data e.g. large gaps in administrative data

Problems are not unique to Australia (see for example

EMCDDA, 2015)

Challenges

6

• To draw together insights from two recent studies that trialled innovative methods to overcome some of these limitations

• Project one: Evaluation of individual outcomes from police diversion versus a traditional CJS response for minor cannabis offenders

• Project two: Evaluation of an entire state system response including 5 different police and court diversion programs

Aims

7

• Constructed a purpose built online survey: Cannabis Diversion Survey (Shanahan, Hughes, McSweeney, forthcoming)

• Administered to 998 people who had recently detected by police for cannabis possession / use: in the previous 3 to 9 months & self-selected into the survey

• Assessed type of police interventions (diversion vs charge) & time taken and costs of intervention

• Assessed intervention impacts on:• Drug use (pre and post)

• Offending (pre and post)

• Employment

• Relationships

• Perceptions of police legitimacy

Project 1: Effectiveness & cost-effectiveness study

Sample for today: •195 (19.5%) arrest

•614 (61.5%) caution

8

Results: Impacts on drug use

Pre intervention•50.8% consumed cannabis on a daily basis:

• Caution: 48.9 %• Arrest: 56.9%

•27.7% dependent

Post intervention•Small reduction in days of cannabis use •But evident for both diverted and non-diverted group

9

Results: Impacts on other crime

10

Results: Impacts on social outcomes and costThose diverted showed significantly: •Less relationship disruption

• 28.3% vs 49.7% charge

•Less adverse employment prospects

• 8.0% vs 21.5% charge had immediate employment changes e.g. termination

•Much higher perceptions of police legitimacy

• 58% caution vs 74% charge group

•Costs: $318 vs $1918 charge

11

Diversion lead to:•Small reductions in drug use and offending (but no impact compared to those charged)•Improved employment prospects •Less disruptive relationships with significant others•Less adverse attitudes towards police•Very significant cost savings

Net conclusion: police diversion for minor cannabis offenders is cost-effective

Implications

12

• Focus: The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (inc 5 police & court programs) (Hughes et al, 2014)

• Employed a systems approach• Analysis of all existing data on throughput• Conducted 3 x roundtables with 24 stakeholders• Goal: To assess how the system as a whole

operated, including how the programs intersect (and potentially compete), system reach and opportunities to improve system design

Project 2: Evaluation of a state system

13

Half of the system map …. police diversion

Simple CannabisOffence Notice

(SCON)

ADS

Attend police station

SupportLink

Police EarlyDiversion (PED)

Does not attend

Attends assessmentand treatment

EXIT

Report back toarresting officer

Caution?

NO

Criminal charge

YES

EXIT

Criminal convictionand fine

Judgement

NO

ADS

Attend police stationand contact

parents/guardian

Arrangeappointment

SupportLink

Early InterventionPilot Program (EIPP)

Alcohol -youth only Does not attend

Attends assessmentand treatment

EXIT

Caution?Report back toarresting officer

Arrangeappointment

Criminal convictionand fine

JudgementCourt

Criminal charge

Cannabis

Otherillicits

Court

14

Magistratesor

Supreme Court

Criminal charge

AOD related offender- theft, burglary etc

CADASteam

Arrangeappointment

NoCADASrequirements

Suspended sentence withCADAS treatment and/or

supervision (ACTCorrections or Youth

Justice)

Bail withCADAStreatment andsupervision

CADASTeam

AOD treatment

Fail to comply

Comply with alltreatment

Lighter sentence

Judgement

Normal sentence

Judgement

CADASTeam

AOD treatment

Fail to comply

Comply with alltreatment

End of sentence

Judgement

Breach - possibleimprisonment

Judgement

Children's Court

Decision of court

Request for CourtAlcohol and Drug

Assessment Service(CADAS) assessment

AOD issues identified

Offenceseverity?

YES Decision of court

JointAssessment

andReview

Team (JART)assessment

CADASassessment

Request for Youth Drugand Alcohol Court(YDAC) assessment

AOD issuesidentified?

NoYDAC

YDAC

YDAC TeamandJART Fail to comply

Comply

Normal sentence

Judgement

Lighter sentence

Judgement

Youth Justice

NO

Judgement

End ofCADASinvolvement

Arrangeappointment

CADASTeam

CADASassessment

Request for CourtAlcohol and Drug

Assessment Service(CADAS) assessment

AOD issues identified

Bimberi YouthJusticeCentre

MINOR

MAJOR

AOD court diversion

15

Referrals by program, 2001/02 to 2010/11

16

Diversion program reach

Drug (population) Arrests/detections in 2009/10

Diversions Relative coverage

POLICE DIVERSION

Alcohol (youth) 257 213 82.9%

Cannabis 296 210 70.9%

Any other illicit drug e.g. cocaine, MDMA, heroin

105 7 6.6%

COURT DIVERSION

Alcohol or illicit 890 146 16.2%

17

Showed: •Breadth of system – multiple entry points•Good referral system at front end•Large gaps for many minor illicit drug users•Lack of coherence in court system•Misdirected resources

Recommend explicit changes including: •Increasing threshold quantities for other illicit drugs•Computerising systems to pay civil penalties•Developing the first state diversion strategy

InsightsLaunch of the ACT Drug Diversion Report & New Plan

18

The studies indicate that alternatives to arrest for drug offenders offer multiple benefits: •Improving employment prospects•Improving ties with significant others•Increasing police legitimacy •Reducing costs to police / courts

Also shows that the capacity to achieve benefits may be impeded unless there is attention to the broader diversionary and criminal justice system

Reminder of the need to bring together multiple approaches: so as to inform better crime and health policies

Conclusion and implications

19

Thank You!

For more information:

Dr Caitlin Hughes

Senior Research Fellow

NDARC, UNSW Australia

caitlin.hughes@unsw.edu.au

www.ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au