Transcript Australian alternatives to arrest and imprisonment for drug

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
Acknowledgements
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
2
Background
•
Australia has a high rate of illicit
drug use
•
•
Long taken a multi-faceted
approach to illicit drugs
•
•
37% ever & 12% recent use
(NDSHS 2013)
To reduce demand, supply & harm
Large expansion of diversion
programs for drug offenders
•
•
No. drug diversion programs
in Australia: 1977-2007
60
50
40
30
20
10
> 52 programs in 2007 (Hughes and
Ritter, 2008)
4 - 5 programs in most states
0
3
Does drug diversion “work”?
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)
4
Challenges
Many methodological problems
(Wundersitz, 2007; Hughes and
Ritter, 2008; Hughes, Shanahan et al, 2014; Bright and Matire, 2012):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lack of comparator / control groups
Narrow set of outcome variables
Inattention to costs (as well as outcomes)
Focus on evaluating individual programs
Challenges in obtaining better data e.g. large
gaps in administrative data
Problems are not unique to Australia (see for example
EMCDDA, 2015)
5
Aims
•
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
6
Project 1: Effectiveness & cost-effectiveness study
•
•
•
•
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:
Sample for today:
•
Drug use (pre and post)
•
•
•
•
Offending (pre and post)
Employment
Relationships
Perceptions of police legitimacy
• 195 (19.5%) arrest
• 614 (61.5%) caution
7
Results: Impacts on drug use
Pre intervention
• 50.8% consumed cannabis on
a daily basis:
•
•
•
Drug use - pre and post
intervention
6
5
Caution: 48.9 %
Arrest: 56.9%
27.7% dependent
4
3
2
Post intervention
• Small reduction in days of
cannabis use
• But evident for both diverted
and non-diverted group
1
0
Arrest
Caution
Days of cannabis use - pre
Days of cannabis use - post
No. other illicit drugs (past month) - pre
No. other illicit drugs (past month) - post
8
Results: Impacts on other crime
Prevalence of other crime:
pre to post
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Charge
Caution
Pre
Post
9
Results: Impacts on social outcomes and cost
Those diverted showed
significantly:
• Less relationship disruption
•
•
Less adverse employment
prospects
•
•
8.0% vs 21.5% charge had immediate
employment changes e.g. termination
Much higher perceptions of
police legitimacy
•
•
28.3% vs 49.7% charge
58% caution vs 74% charge
group
Relationship problems:
by type
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Any
Partner
Charge
Family
Friends
Caution
Costs: $318 vs $1918 charge
10
Implications
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
11
Project 2: Evaluation of a state system
• 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
12
Half of the system map …. police diversion
13
AOD court diversion
14
Referrals by program, 2001/02 to 2010/11
400
350
Number of referrals
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
Year
EIPP
PED
SCON
CADAS
15
Diversion program reach
Drug (population)
Arrests/detections in
2009/10
Diversions
Relative coverage
Alcohol (youth)
257
213
82.9%
Cannabis
296
210
70.9%
Any other illicit drug e.g.
cocaine, MDMA, heroin
COURT DIVERSION
105
7
6.6%
Alcohol or illicit
890
146
16.2%
POLICE DIVERSION
16
Insights
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
Launch of the ACT Drug
Diversion Report & New Plan
Recommend explicit changes including:
• Increasing threshold quantities for other
illicit drugs
• Computerising systems to pay civil
penalties
• Developing the first state diversion strategy
17
Conclusion and implications
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
18
Thank You!
For more information:
Dr Caitlin Hughes
Senior Research Fellow
NDARC, UNSW Australia
[email protected]
www.ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au
19