1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9 Results: Impacts on other crime

10. 10 Results: Impacts on social outcomes and cost Those 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. 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. 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. 13 Half of the system map …. police diversion

14. 14 AOD court diversion

15. 15 Referrals by program, 2001/02 to 2010/11

16. 16 Diversion program reach Drug (population) Arrests/detections in 2009/10 DiversionsRelative coverage POLICE DIVERSION Alcohol (youth)257 213 82.9% Cannabis29621070.9% Any other illicit drug e.g. cocaine, MDMA, heroin 10576.6% COURT DIVERSION Alcohol or illicit 89014616.2%

17. 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 Insights Launch of the ACT Drug Diversion Report & New Plan

18. 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. 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