Tackling ‘drug-related’ crime: Are there merits in diverting drug-misusing defendants to treatment? Findings from an Australian case study
| Date | 01 June 2016 |
| Author | Alison Ritter,Caitlin E Hughes,Tim McSweeney |
| Published date | 01 June 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865814555773 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 49(2) 198–220
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865814555773
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Tackling ‘drug-related’ crime:
Are there merits in diverting
drug-misusing defendants to
treatment? Findings from an
Australian case study
Tim McSweeney
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC),
University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia
Caitlin E Hughes
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC),
University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia
Alison Ritter
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC),
University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia
Abstract
This study sought to assess the impact of the pre-sentence Magistrates Early Referral Into
Treatment (MERIT) diversion program in New South Wales, Australia on offending in the
12 months following exposure to the intervention. The comparative design involved an
experimental group of 1017 defendants who exited the MERIT program in 2008 and a
comparison group of 1017 offenders identified as drug misusers following completion of a
Corrective Services’ risk and needs assessment and sentencing in a non-MERIT New
South Wales Local Court during this period. Both groups were selected from a larger
pool of cases (N¼3319) that were found to be significantly different on a number of key
variables. Propensity score matching was used to deal with this non-equivalence. The
outcome measures were: the rate, volume and seriousness of known re-offending.
Recidivism risk factors were also examined for MERIT participants. There was no asso-
ciation between exposure to MERIT and reduced rates of reconviction at 12 months and
group status did not make a significant contribution to the prediction of reconviction,
when controlling for the influence of penalties imposed. The MERIT group had committed
a larger number of offences during this period (including when adjustments were made
for time at reduced risk due to imprisonment), but there were no differences in relation
to changes in offence seriousness. Among MERIT participants, the factor with the largest
Corresponding author:
Tim McSweeney, Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP), National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC),
University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia.
Email: t.mcsweeney@unswalumni.com
effect on risk of recidivism was offence type. Completing the program had a significant
protective effect against recidivism, while the number of prior court convictions increased
this risk. These findings shed light on possible reforms to MERIT aimed at maximising the
program’s crime prevention impact.
Keywords
Australia, pre-sentence diversion, propensity score matching, re-offending, substance misuse
Introduction
‘Drug-related’ crime came to prominence as a significant policy concern in the late 1980s.
Over the intervening period, it has continued to be a pressing social, economic and
political problem, impacting – albeit to varying degrees of severity – upon drug produ-
cer, transit and consumer countries alike. Within consumer countries, in particular,
there is a growing recognition of the relative ineffectiveness of conventional criminal
justice responses (such as fines, community supervision and imprisonment) in tackling
drug use, misuse and ‘related’ crime. In response to this, legislation and policy has
developed in many jurisdictions which seeks to divert detainees, defendants and con-
victed ‘drug-related’ offenders away from the criminal justice system (CJS), or into a
range of diversion programs (encompassing warnings, cautions, referrals to education
and/or assessment, fines, bail conditions, structured treatment, case management and
supervision).
The utilitarian rationale for drug diversion schemes is, superficially at least, fairly
straightforward: diverting and engaging illicit drug users into therapeutic interventions
as they come into contact with the CJS will contribute towards addressing a key
amplifier of their offending behaviour. The evidence supporting the case for using
drug treatment as a crime prevention measure is persuasive: research from Australia
(Teesson et al., 2006), Britain (Gossop, Trakada, Stewart, & Witton, 2005; McIntosh,
Bloor & Robertson, 2007) and elsewhere (Holloway, Bennett, & Farrington, 2005;
Prendergast, Podus, Chang, & Urada, 2002) has consistently shown that exposure to
different forms of drug treatment reduces the need for individuals to engage in crime
by curtailing their use of illicit drugs. In fact, the impact of drug treatment on crime
has been described as one of the ‘most striking’ benefits to arise from such interven-
tions (Gossop, Marsden, Stewart, & Kidd, 2003, p. 301). While the bulk of this evi-
dence base relates to cohorts recruited from clinical rather than criminal justice settings
and often lacks a valid counterfactual (the work by Teesson et al., 2006, being a
notable exception), it nevertheless forms the basis for the often cited mantra that
‘treatment works’.
By contrast, the evidence to support drug diversion and in particular pre-sentence
forms of diversion, tends to be methodologically weak. Interpretation of the available
evidence for effectiveness is complicated by issues relating to program selection
effects, sampling and response bias in evaluation designs and the limited use of matched
comparison groups (Bright & Martire, 2012). This paper examines the impact of an
established Australian pre-sentence drug diversion program on re-offending and
McSweeney et al. 199
To continue reading
Request your trial