Drug Use Monitoring in Australia : 2004 annual report on drug use among police detainees

Carmen Schulte, Jenny Mouzos, Toni Makkai
ISBN 0 642 53880 8 ; ISSN 1326-6004
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology: 2005
(Research and public policy series, no. 65)

DUMA program : 2004 overview

The purpose of DUMA is to provide an evidence base for policy making in the arena of drugs and crime. It achieves this through:

1. monitoring a key group involved in illicit drugs and crime 'markets' - police detainees - on a quarterly basis;
2. providing quarterly tracking data that allows law enforcement and those involved in border protection such as the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police to examine timely trend data rather than one-off studies;
3. providing information on drug use from those who come into contact with the criminal justice system not just from those known to be drug users such as injecting drug users;
4. validating self-reported recent drug use with urine testing;
5. providing a high quality and large database for analysing the links between drugs and crime; and
6. providing a mechanism for collecting key strategic information on other issues of importance to law enforcement such as drug driving and the use of weapons in crime.

The sites

The initial three years of the DUMA program, from 1999 to 2001, was funded as a pilot study. The four original sites are Southport Watchhouse (Gold Coast, Queensland), Perth Watchhouse (Western Australia), and Bankstown and Parramatta Police Stations (Sydney, New South Wales). DUMA funding was extended for a further two years from 2002 to 2003 and enabled continued monitoring of the original sites along with the addition of three more sites at the Brisbane City Watchhouse (Brisbane, Queensland), Elizabeth Police Station Cells and Adelaide City Watchhouse (Adelaide, South Australia). In 2003, the Australian Government provided funding for a further four years and in 2004, funding was extended to 2007/08. The South Australian Attorney General's Department also extended funding for the South Australian site of Elizabeth until mid 2005. The seven DUMA sites represent a range of different community configurations: two sites represent the urban conurbation of a major state capital city; three cover a metropolitan city area; one the outer suburbs of a major state capital; and the last covers a major tourist and retirement destination.

Demographic data

The demographic profile of police detainees for the year 2004 is as follows:

• The majority of adults were males (85%);
• Around two out of five (44%) were aged between 21 and 30; 16 per cent of detainees were aged 18 to 20, 15 per cent were aged 31 to 35 and 25 per cent were aged over 36;
• Almost half the adult detainees had less than 10 years of formal education; 16 per cent had finished a TAFE course and 11 per cent were currently in TAFE or university, however only five per cent had completed university;
• Half (49%) reported that they had lived in their own house during the past 30 days and less than one per cent reported that they had lived on the street during the past 30 days - a decline from six per cent in 2003;
• Just over a quarter had a full-time job in the past 30 days;
• Most adult detainees (66%) obtained money through government benefits;
• Females were much less likely than males to have income from full-time work (9% compared with 30%) and to rely on government benefits (84% compared with 63%);
• Females were more likely to have lived in their own house than males and to report slightly higher levels of education, although males were more likely to have completed a TAFE or university course;
• Family/friends represent a significant source of money; 27 per cent of males and 32 per cent of females reported income from this source;
• Women were slightly more likely to report income from sex work and shoplifting than males (4% versus 1%, and 12% versus 7%); and
• Men and women were equally as likely to report income from drug dealing and other drug crimes.

Contact with the criminal justice system

In 2004 a significant percentage of police detainees were in frequent contact with the criminal justice system (see Figure 1). Fifty-seven per cent of detainees had a prior arrest in the past 12 months (excluding the current arrest) and of those detainees who had been arrested on a prior occasion, 45 per cent tested positive to either heroin, methylamphetamine or cocaine. In terms of prior imprisonment, 18 per cent of detainees had been in prison during the past 12 months and four per cent had been in prison for a drug offence in the past year. Of all the detainees who had been in prison in the past year, 62 per cent tested positive to heroin, methylamphetamine or cocaine (an increase from 54% in 2003), while 78 per cent of those in prison for a drug offence tested positive to heroin, methylamphetamine or cocaine. There has been relatively little change in these contact figures since the monitoring program began.

Age of initiation and age of arrest

DUMA collects information on the age of first and regular illegal use for nine classes of drugs, as well as the age of first arrest (see Table 1). Based on those detainees who reported regular use of a drug, experimental drug use usually begins with alcohol and cannabis at around the age of 14 years while first use of heroin and methylamphetamine does not usually occur until around the age of 18 or 19 years. If regular use occurs it is usually one to two years after first trying the drug.

The average age of first use for alcohol and cannabis for both males and females is 14. This compares to 19 years for adult males and females for heroin. The average age at which detainees first tried alcohol or illicit substances is younger compared to the general population. The 2001 National Drugs Household Survey (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2002) reported the average age at which males first consumed a full glass of alcohol as 16 years and 18 years for females, while the average age at which Australians first used cannabis was about 19 years.

For all other drugs, the average age of first arrest for both male and female detainees was younger than the average age at which they first used and then began regular use. For example the age of first arrest amongst those who had used cocaine in the past 12 months was 16 for males and 17 for females, yet the age of regular use of cocaine was 21 years for males and 20 years for females (see Table 1). This suggests that for drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methylamphetamine, detainees are more likely to have been apprehended for criminal activities at a younger age than when they engaged in regular drug use (for those specific drugs). Previous research has demonstrated that incarcerated male and female offenders were more likely to have engaged in minor offending prior to illegal drug use - including cannabis (Makkai & Payne 2003; Johnson 2004).

Table 1: Age at first and regular use and age first arrested, 2004*
(for those who used in the past 12 months)

	Males				Females
	Total n	Mean age			Total n	Mean age
		First use	Regular use	First arrested		First use	Regular use	First arrested
Alcohol	1,732	14	15	18	249	14	16	21
Cannabis	1,597	14	16	18	251	14	17	16
Hallucinogens/LSD	39	16	16	14	2	13	17	15
Benzodiazepines	207	18	20	15	57	18	20	17
Methylamphetamine	902	18	20	16	217	19	22	19
Cocaine	88	19	21	16	15	19	20	17
Heroin	428	19	20	16	110	19	20	18
Ecstasy	170	20	21	16	19	21	22	18
Street methadone	58	22	24	16	18	23	25	16
* Estimates are calculated for detainees who reported regular use of that drug. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

Drug use among adult detainees

For ease of interpretation, the drug use results in this section are for adult detainees who gave a urine sample, unless otherwise noted. This distinction makes very little difference to the results presented but gives a consistent sample size and it ensures that when comparing the self-report data and the urine data the same sample are being compared.

Benzodiazepines

The percentage of adult males testing positive to benzodiazepines varied between the sites. Averaged across the year, 13 per cent tested positive in Bankstown, 15 per cent in Elizabeth, 22 per cent in Southport, 20 per cent in Brisbane, 25 per cent in East Perth and 22 and 26 per cent in Adelaide and Parramatta respectively. Compared to the previous year, there has been a slight decrease in the per cent testing positive to benzodiazepines in all sites, with the exception of a one per cent rise in Elizabeth. The most notable significant decrease was recorded at the Adelaide site (30% in 2003 compared with 22% in 2004). In all sites females tested positive to benzodiazepines more frequently than males. Averaging across the seven sites, the percentages who tested positive were:

• 20 per cent of males; and
• 36 per cent of females.

As benzodiazepines are widely available under prescription a positive result does not necessarily mean illegal use of the drug. The urine testing can also detect use up to 14 days. As a result, DUMA asks detainees about both legal and illegal use. Detainees are asked to report if they had taken any prescription medication that had been prescribed to them by a doctor (or health professional) or any over the counter medication over the past two weeks. Seventeen per cent of females and 11 per cent of males reported that they had taken prescription benzodiazepines during the past fortnight. Twenty eight per cent of these people also reported using benzodiazepines illegally in the past 30 days.

Few detainees (n=43) reported that they had injected illegal benzodiazepines in the past 12 months. Of those who had injected in the past 30 days, detainees reported injecting an average of 11 times in the past 30 days.

Cannabis

Cannabis is the most commonly detected drug and this is consistent across all seven sites. This could partly be due to the fact that the urine testing can detect use up to 30 days as compared to less than four days for the other drugs. However, the 2001 National Household Survey on Drugs found that cannabis was the most commonly used of the illegal drugs and 13 per cent of persons aged 14 years and over in the general population reported use of cannabis in the past 12 months (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2002).

Cannabis was least likely to be detected in the Sydney site of Bankstown (39% of adult males tested positive and 30% of adult females) and most likely to be detected in Elizabeth, South Australia - 72 per cent of males and 63 per cent of females. In general, female detainees are more likely to test positive to illegal drugs; a finding which is consistent with overseas research. The exception is cannabis where males (60%) are slightly more likely to be detected with cannabis in their urine than females (52%). This is also found in the self-report data with 61 per cent of males and 53 per cent of females reporting use in the past 30 days.

Cannabis use is concentrated amongst the younger aged detainees. Averaged across sites, 69 per cent of males and 63 per cent of females aged 18 to 20 years and 71 per cent of males and 56 per cent of females aged 21 to 25 tested positive compared to 44 per cent of males and 36 per cent of females aged 36 years or older.

Cocaine

Cocaine is the least frequently used drug. During 2004, Bankstown had the highest number of detainees testing positive to cocaine - sixteen people (6%). This is a slight increase from three people (1%) in 2003, although is not as high as twenty five people (9%) in 2002. The other sites detected very few people having recently used cocaine, with six in Adelaide, five in Parramatta and Brisbane, two in East Perth, one person in Elizabeth, and none in Southport. Self-reported drug use data indicates that averaged across sites, four per cent of detainees reported use of cocaine in the past 30 days. While cocaine use is low among this group, recent work on this small but important group has found that cocaine users are more likely than other illicit drug users to be multiple drug users and to have an extensive history of contact with the criminal justice system (Milner & McGregor 2004).

Heroin

Heroin, once ingested, rapidly breaks down into its metabolites. The confirmatory test allows for the positive identification of these constituent parts. Heroin use is indicated with MAM (monoacetylmorphine) and morphine alone or where the morphine concentration is greater than or equal to the codeine concentration. Of the 538 positive tests for opiates across all the sites, 63 were confirmed with MAM. This indicates that use of heroin had occurred very shortly prior to arrest - these results were mainly concentrated in the two Sydney sites. A further 362 were confirmed with either morphine alone or where the morphine concentration was greater or equal to the codeine concentration. The balance of probabilities is that 79 per cent of those detainees testing positive to opiates were using heroin within 48 hours prior to the interview.

Prior to the heroin shortage that occurred in 2000/01 the level of positive heroin tests varied significantly between sites; the Sydney sites were almost double the proportion of the other original two sites (Southport and East Perth). Since then the proportions testing positive in the Sydney sites have been lower and comparable to all other sites. In 2004, 27 per cent and 17 per cent of all adult detainees in Bankstown and Parramatta tested positive to heroin, 18 per cent in Brisbane, 13 per cent in Adelaide and Southport, and nine per cent in East Perth and Elizabeth.

Compared to 2003, there has been a decline in the overall average proportion of detainees testing positive to heroin. Thirteen per cent of males and 19 per cent of females tested positive to heroin; this compares to 14 per cent of males and 23 per cent of females in 2003. However, these averages could be masking some key changes in the local heroin markets. When looking at individual sites the average figures show that since 2003:

• heroin use has declined slightly in the South Australian sites, East Perth and Southport;
• Brisbane has remained the same; and
• there has been a slight increase in the two New South Wales sites.

Time series analysis was conducted on the proportion of adult male detainees testing positive to heroin per quarter since the heroin shortage (quarter 3 2000) in both NSW sites. Results revealed that the apparent increase in the proportion of adult males testing positive to heroin was statistically significant at the Parramatta site, but not significant at the Bankstown site.

Heroin, compared with drugs such as cannabis and methylamphetamine, tends to be detected in a slightly older age group - especially for males. This is consistent with the age progression associated with various drugs and drug use amongst male and female incarcerated offenders (see Makkai & Payne 2004; Johnson 2005). Averaged across the sites, 18 per cent of males aged 26 to 35 years tested positive to heroin, compared to 12 per cent of males aged 21 to 25 years tested positive. Eight per cent of male detainees aged 18 to 20 years tested positive, as did 11 per cent of male detainees aged 36 years or older. In comparison, females tended to be a little younger than males - 32 per cent aged 21 to 25 years tested positive.

The percentages who self-reported use of heroin in the past 30 days were:

• 23 per cent at Bankstown;
• 22 per cent at Brisbane;
• 14 per cent at Southport;
• 14 per cent at Parramatta;
• 11 per cent at Adelaide;
• 11 per cent at East Perth; and
• 8 per cent at Elizabeth.

Of those detainees who reported use of heroin in the past 12 months, the majority (88%) reported that they had injected the drug in the past 12 months. Of those who had injected in the past 30 days, they reported injecting an average of 40 times in the past 30 days.

Codeine

Of those detainees who tested positive to opiates, 79 per cent had recently used heroin, whereas the remaining 21 per cent tested positive to a substance containing an opiate metabolite which was unlikely to be heroin. As medications that contain more than 8mg of codeine require a prescription from a doctor use may have been legal or illegal. The proportion of detainees who have used an opiate metabolite not identified as heroin has been steadily increasing. In 2000, 10 per cent tested positive to an opiate metabolite, increasing to 18 per cent in 2001, 23 per cent in 2002 and 2003 and falling slightly in 2004 to 21 per cent.

Across the sites, in 2004, eight per cent of detainees in Parramatta had tested positive to codeine, seven per cent in Bankstown, six per cent in Brisbane, four per cent in Adelaide, Elizabeth and East Perth, and two per cent in Southport. Females were twice as likely as males to test positive to codeine, and the drug was most likely to be detected in the 31 to 35 age group for both males and females. When asked about taking prescription or over the counter medications in the past two weeks five per cent said they had taken codeine.

Methylamphetamine

One of the limitations of urine testing is that it cannot distinguish between legal and illegal use. It is possible for some amphetamine use to be prescription use. However the detection of methylamphetamine is confirmation of illegal use. The confirmatory tests indicated that out of 1025 positive amphetamine screens across all sites in 2004, 921 were confirmed with methylamphetamine only or in combination with amphetamines; 62 persons were confirmed with MDMA being present in their urine - half of these were in combination with methylamphetamine, and 74 persons tested positive to amphetamines only. This indicates that 93 per cent of amphetamine use was illegal.

As with previous years, the percentage of detainees who test positive to methylamphetamine varies between the sites. In 2004, East Perth ranged between 29 and 39 per cent of adult male detainees testing positive over the four quarters. Adelaide City recorded between 28 and 36 per cent and Elizabeth between 26 and 37 per cent. Brisbane recorded between 25 and 32 per cent and Southport between 17 and 38 per cent. The average number who tested positive in Bankstown and Parramatta was 13 per cent and 19 per cent respectively.

While it is important to note that there are differences between sites in the percentage testing positive averaged across the seven sites the data indicates that:

• 41 per cent of females tested positive; and
• 29 per cent of males tested positive.

Across all sites methylamphetamine use tends to be concentrated among those aged under 30 years. Aggregated across the sites, 59 per cent of males and 56 per cent of females who tested positive to the drug were aged 30 years or younger (however, in 2003 a higher proportion of females than males under 30 years tested positive). Ten per cent of males and 11 per cent of females who tested positive were aged 18 to 20 years, and 23 per cent of females and 25 per cent of males were aged between 21 and 25 years. In regards to the older age groups, around half of the detainees over 30 years tested positive in the two South Australian sites, Parramatta and Southport, compared with a third in the remaining sites. Across all sites, 29 per cent of females and 23 per cent of males over the age of 36 tested positive to methylamphetamine.

Detainees were asked about their use of illicit drugs. The percentages who self-reported use of methylamphetamine in the past 30 days were:

• 44 per cent at East Perth;
• 42 per cent at Adelaide;
• 41 per cent at Brisbane;
• 37 per cent at Elizabeth;
• 35 per cent at Southport;
• 27 per cent at Parramatta, and;
• 13 per cent at Bankstown.

Compared to the previous year, 2003, there appears to be little change in self-reported use of methylamphetamine in the past 30 days.

Of those detainees who had used methylamphetamine in the past 12 months, almost three-quarters (74%) reported that they had injected methylamphetamine in the past 12 months. Of those who had injected in the past 30 days, detainees reported injecting an average of 33 times in the past 30 days.

MDMA (ecstasy)

The recent use of MDMA is uncommon in all sites. Throughout 2004, four per cent of detainees tested positive to MDMA in Southport; two per cent tested positive in Adelaide, Brisbane, East Perth and Parramatta, and one per cent tested positive in Bankstown and Elizabeth. Since 2000, there has been an observed increase in the proportion of detainees testing positive to MDMA. In 2000, 0.5 per cent of the total sample tested positive to MDMA, this increased slightly to 0.7 per cent in 2001, 1.1 per cent in 2002, 1.3 per cent in 2003, and in the most recent year, 2004, two per cent. While there appears to be an increasing trend, the overall numbers testing positive are relatively small.

Averaged across the sites nine per cent of detainees said they had used MDMA in the past 30 days, compared with eight per cent in 2003. The highest rates of use in the past 30 days were found in the two Queensland sites (16% in Southport and 11% in Brisbane). Ten per cent reported use of MDMA in Adelaide, eight per cent in Bankstown, seven per cent in East Perth and Parramatta and six per cent in Elizabeth.

There is a greater discrepancy between the urinalysis results and self-report data for MDMA than there is for methylamphetamine. Fifty per cent of detainees who stated they had used MDMA in the past 48 hours did not test positive to MDMA. In 2003 it was a little higher at 63 per cent. Of those who did not test positive to MDMA, but self-reported using MDMA in the past 48 hours, 64 per cent tested positive to methylamphetamine, suggesting that a substantial proportion of detainees, who believe they have taken MDMA, may have actually consumed methylamphetamine.

Trends in recent illicit drug use for adult males, 1999-2004

Amongst all seven sites the following broad trends based on the urine results have been identified:

Amphetamine type stimulants

• Amphetamine type stimulants were increasing in all sites until 2004 when methylamphetamine use stabilised across all seven sites. The percentage of detainees testing positive remains highest in East Perth and lowest in the two Sydney sites.
• Between 2003 and 2004 there was a small increase in detainees who were detained on a drug offence, as their most serious charge, who tested positive to methylamphetamine (33% in 2003 compared with 37% in 2004).
• Over the years, MDMA use has been slowly increasing across the sites, with only 0.5 per cent of detainees testing positive to MDMA in 2000, compared with two per cent in 2004.
• Of all sites, Southport had the highest proportion of detainees testing positive to MDMA (4%), compared with two per cent in Adelaide, Brisbane, East Perth and Parramatta, and one per cent who tested positive in Bankstown and Elizabeth.

Heroin

• Heroin use at Bankstown began declining in mid 2000 through to 2001. It remained stable through 2002 and 2003; however there are signs of a consistent upward trend throughout 2004.
• Heroin use at Parramatta was high during 1999 and 2000. There was a significant and sudden drop at the end of 2000. Rates remained constantly low through 2001. Since this time there has been a slow but steady increase through to the end of 2004.
• Although upward trends are being monitored in the two Sydney sites, the overall proportion of detainees testing positive remains well below the levels pre 2001.
• Over time heroin use has been slowly but consistently declining in East Perth.
• Although there have been some fluctuations in the rates, Elizabeth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Southport have remained fairly stable throughout the time period.

Cocaine

• Over time the largest proportions testing positive to cocaine occurred in the Sydney sites during 2001.
• Overall the percentages of detainees who test positive to cocaine have always been relatively small particularly in the non-Sydney sites.

Cannabis

• Cannabis use appears to have been increasing in Adelaide, Elizabeth and Brisbane.
• With some fluctuations cannabis rates were constant in East Perth however there was a sudden increase in the last half of 2004.
• Cannabis use has been consistently declining in Bankstown.
• Although there have been fluctuations over the past five years the overall trend line is flat in both Parramatta and Southport indicating no significant changes.

Overall patterns

• The level of drug use continues to vary across different communities.
• The types of drugs most likely to be detected varies across communities.
• Across time there have been significant changes in the proportions testing positive to particular drugs within communities.

Treatment

One of the avenues for addressing drug misuse has been through the provision of treatment. The DUMA questionnaire asks detainees (who self-report they have ever tried alcohol or an illicit drug) a range of questions regarding drug and alcohol treatment. Data collected includes information on:

• Current and previous treatment history;
• Types of treatment utilised;
• Substance being treated for; and
• Reasons for entering treatment.

Aggregated across the sites 14 per cent reported that they were currently in treatment, which is consistent with the previous year (15%). A further six per cent had been in treatment sometime during 2004 and 23 per cent had been in treatment prior to 2004. Older detainees were more likely than younger detainees to report they had accessed treatment.

Heroin is the drug detainees were most likely to currently be accessing treatment for (72%) or to have accessed treatment for previously (41%). This is also reflected in the type of treatment accessed; with over half reporting they were currently in methadone maintenance. In relation to amphetamines, 14 per cent were currently in treatment and 21 per cent had previously been in treatment. Those in treatment for amphetamine use were more likely to be receiving counselling. Few reported that they accessed abstinence based programs for heroin but they were much more likely to report accessing these programs for alcohol treatment. There has been an increase in the proportion of detainees currently accessing buprenorphine as opposed to those who had accessed it in their previous treatment episode, from six per cent to 26 per cent. An explanation for this increase is that buprenorphine has been replacing methadone in some clinics as the most common pharmacological treatment for heroin addiction.

Ten per cent of detainees who had used illegal drugs during the past 12 months, self-reported that they had been turned away from treatment due to a lack of places. For both current and previous treatment most detainees entered treatment voluntarily (82% and 70% respectively). Of all methods of entry, few detainees reported that they entered treatment through either a drug court or diversion option.

Illicit drug use and self-reported criminal activity

One quarter of detainees were charged with a violent offence, 31 per cent with a property offence, six per cent with a drug offence, five per cent with drink driving, nine per cent with a traffic offence, six per cent with disorder offences and 15 per cent with breaches. Four per cent did not have a charge that came under any of these categories, such as public health and safety offences, regulation offences, property damage and pedestrian offences. Overall males (26%) were more likely to be charged with a violent offence than females (17%), while females (42%) were more likely than males (29%) to be charged with a property offence (see Table 3). A substantial minority of both males (15%) and females (13%) were charged with breaches of good order offences.

Table 3: Most serious offence, adults, 2004*

	Male		Female
	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent
Violent	670	26	77	17
Property	741	29	193	42
Drugs	164	6	25	6
Drink driving	138	5	10	2
Traffic	228	9	35	8
Disorder	138	5	29	6
Breaches	385	15	58	13
Other	91	4	30	7
Total (n)	(2,555)	(100)	(457)	(100)
* See methodological appendix for description of classification scheme for most serious offence Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

While the data presented below is averaged across the sites, differences exist in the offence and drug use profiles of the sites; and readers should consult the site-by-site tables for site comparisons. Comparisons with the last two year's data with the current data show very few differences in the link between recent drug use and offence charges from 2002 to 2004 for adult males (see Makkai and McGregor 2003; Milner, Mouzos and Makkai 2004).

Violent charge: adult male detainees

Those detained for a violent offence tested positive to a range of drugs:

• 24 per cent to methylamphetamine;
• 19 per cent to benzodiazepines;
• 55 per cent to cannabis;
• 11 per cent to heroin;
• 65 per cent tested positive to any drug; and
• 38 per cent tested positive to any drug excluding cannabis.

Property charge: adult male detainees

Of those detainees whose most serious charge was property offending:

• 39 per cent tested positive to methylamphetamine;
• 28 per cent to benzodiazepines;
• 64 per cent to cannabis;
• 21 per cent to heroin;
• 83 per cent to any drug; and
• 61 per cent to any drug excluding cannabis.

Drug offences: adult male detainees

For those who were detained on a drug offence as their most serious charge:

• 37 per cent tested positive to methylamphetamine;
• 22 per cent to benzodiazepines;
• 63 per cent to cannabis;
• 16 per cent to heroin;
• 85 per cent to any drug; and
• 58 per cent to any drug excluding cannabis.

Drink driving offences: adult male detainees

Of the people detained for a drink driving offence as their most serious charge:

• 12 per cent tested positive to methylamphetamine;
• 7 per cent to benzodiazepines;
• 51 per cent to cannabis;
• 4 per cent to heroin;
• 61 per cent to any drug; and
• 20 per cent to any drug excluding cannabis.

Traffic offences: adult male detainees

People detained for a traffic offence as their most serious charge tested positive to a range of substances:

• 28 per cent to methylamphetamine;
• 7 per cent to benzodiazepines;
• 62 per cent to cannabis;
• 8 per cent to heroin;
• 74 per cent to any drug; and
• 36 per cent to any drug excluding cannabis.

Disorder offences: adult male detainees

Of those people detained on a disorder offence as their most serious charge:

• 15 per cent tested positive for methylamphetamine;
• 15 per cent for benzodiazepines;
• 59 per cent for cannabis;
• 5 per cent for heroin;
• 69 per cent for any drug; and
• 28 per cent for any drug excluding cannabis.

Breaches: adult male detainees

People can be detained by the police for an outstanding warrant or breach of an existing legal order. This was the case for 13 per cent of adult male detainees during 2004. Of these people:

• 28 per cent tested positive to methylamphetamine;
• 22 per cent to benzodiazepines;
• 68 per cent to cannabis;
• 10 per cent to heroin;
• 80 per cent to any drug; and
• 43 per cent to any drug excluding cannabis.

Almost half (47%) of the detainees reported that they had used drugs, including medications, prior to their arrest. Forty-one per cent said that they had sold illegal drugs for money at some point in their lives, however only 10 per cent said they were looking for illegal drugs at the time of their arrest. Generally, those who used drugs prior to arrest, and had sold illegal drugs, were more likely to test positive. Again the 2004 data are consistent with the findings from previous years.

Drug availability and local drug markets

State and territory and national law enforcement are particularly concerned with both the demand for and supply of illicit drugs and invest significant resources targeting the illicit drug trade and the interdiction of illicit drugs into Australia. With the move more towards intelligence led policing (see Ratcliffe 2003) there is a greater emphasis on the systematic and rigorous collection of data on both drug use and drug use trends, and on the dynamics of illicit drug markets. In terms of demand it is important to understand where, how and when the level of demand changes. Many factors can effect change in the demand-supply relationship. For example in the local market where demand and supply converge, intervention strategies aimed at curbing local illicit drug markets will effect some change to the supply market. Similarly, factors that affect supply, if sufficiently effective, will effect some change to the local drug market resulting in a 'domino effect' (that is, changes to one market may directly impact on other markets). Furthermore, markets are potentially susceptible to manipulation at all levels by dealers and suppliers. It has been suggested that one of the important factors affecting the level of drug use is availability of the drug at the local level (Bennett 2000). Impacting on supply at the local level will at the very least make it difficult for purchasers to obtain drugs in their local area.

The DUMA questionnaire contains a series of questions aimed at measuring local availability and ease of obtaining drugs in their local drug market in the past 30 days. In 2004, seventy-one per cent of detainees across all sites self-reported obtaining drugs in the past 30 days - 27 per cent always paid cash, 24 per cent never paid cash, while almost half (49%) had used both cash and non-cash means. The use of cash varied across drug types:

• cannabis and cocaine were equally as likely to be obtained through either cash or non-cash means; and
• heroin and methylamphetamine were more likely to bought using cash.

Detailed questions were asked about the method of contact, the location and the source of the last drug purchase. Some key findings (see Table 4) were:

• the most common method of contacting a dealer for heroin, methylamphetamine or cocaine was calling on a mobile phone;
• cannabis dealers were more likely to be contacted by visiting the dealer's house/flat;
• around one in ten sourced drugs by approaching the dealer in public;
• cannabis and methylamphetamine were more likely to have been purchased from a house/flat;
• heroin was equally as likely to have been purchased from a house/flat or on the street;
• around one in ten had their drugs delivered to their home;
• heroin was the drug most likely to have a regular supplier (68%) while cocaine was most likely to have been purchased from a new source (24%);
• heroin and cocaine were least likely to have been bought in the suburb where the detainee lived; and
• cannabis was most likely to have been bought within the detainee's own suburb (52%).

Further analyses found that when cannabis, heroin or methylamphetamines were bought within the detainee's own suburb, the supplier was likely to have been a regular supplier. This was not the case for cocaine. With this drug the regular source was more likely to be outside of the detainee's own suburb. Also, those who had a relatively stable supply of drugs were more likely to report sourcing from a house or flat. For those who had used a new source at their last time of purchase, heroin and cocaine were more likely to have been purchased from the street or an abandoned building. However, those who had purchased cannabis and methylamphetamine from a new source were more likely to have done so at a house or flat.

Table 4: Key drug market characteristics for those who paid cash for drugs in the past 30 days (per cent), 2004*

	Cannabis	Heroin	Methylamphetamine	Cocaine
Method of contacting dealer
Mobile phone	23	45	35	32
Phone	12	22	16	18
Visit a house or flat	38	18	25	18
Approach them in public	11	8	10	12
Location of last buy
In own suburb	52	36	41	26
Place of purchase
House or flat	61	41	53	40
Street	20	41	26	35
Home delivery	11	13	11	14
Source
Regular source	59	68	61	59
Occasional source	25	18	24	17
New source	16	14	15	24
* Excludes some categories, and therefore may not sum to 100. Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

Drug related crime

In 2004, the majority of detainees did not attribute any of their offending to drugs; 37 per cent reported at least some of their offences were drug related (excludes alcohol). Results from the Drug Use Careers of Offenders project found that 30 per cent of incarcerated males and 32 per cent of incarcerated female offenders reported illegal drugs as a causal risk factor in their offending (Makkai & Payne 2003; Johnson 2004).

Detainees who self-reported using any illicit drugs in the past 12 months were more likely to state that their offending behaviour was drug related compared to those who had not used any illicit drugs in the past 12 months. The proportion that had attributed at least some of their offending to illegal drugs was:

• 60 per cent in Brisbane;
• 51 per cent in Adelaide;
• 50 per cent in Southport;
• 44 per cent in Elizabeth;
• 43 per cent in Parramatta;
• 37 per cent in East Perth;
• 32 per cent in Bankstown.

Adult male detainees reported that they had been arrested on average 1.8 times in the past 12 months. This does vary slightly amongst the sites with the two New South Wales sites having slightly lower averages than the other sites (ranging between 0.8 and 1.3), with Brisbane having the highest number of arrests (2.5) in the last 12 months. The average number of arrests is much higher for offenders who report having used illegal drugs in the past 12 months. The average number of arrests is slightly higher again for those who report illegal use of drugs in the past 30 days and who tested positive. Detainees who were classified as drug dependent or who tested positive to methylamphetamine or heroin had the highest average number of arrests in the past 12 months (see Table 5).

Table 5: Frequency of arrest and drug use patterns, adult male detainees, 2004

	Mean number of arrests in the past 12 months
Never used illegal drugs	0.9
Used illegal drugs in the past 12 months	2.1
Used illegal drugs in the past 30 days	2.2
Tested positive to illegal drugs	2.1
Tested positive to methylamphetamine	2.3
Tested positive to heroin	2.2
Tested positive to cannabis	2.0
Dependent on illegal drugs	2.5
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

Self-reported alcohol use

Like its UK counterpart (New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring - NEW ADAM), the DUMA program relies on detainees self-reporting their alcohol use. Similar to the general population, the vast majority of detainees have used alcohol. Ninety-eight per cent of all adult detainees reported that they had tried alcohol. Of relevance to this report and the DUMA program is heavy drinking. Unfortunately, time constraints in the police stations and watchhouses preclude asking the detailed alcohol questions that are used in the National Drug Strategy Household Survey. Nonetheless in DUMA, male detainees were asked if they had five or more drinks on the same day during the past 12 months; and females were asked whether they had three or more drinks on the same day during the past 12 months. In total, 69 per cent of males and 57 per cent of females responded 'yes'. Detainees who had drunk at that level were then asked if they had done so in the past 30 days and if they had drunk at all in the past 48 hours. Fewer indicated they had drunk at this level in the past 30 days (55% of males and 44% of females) and still fewer who reported drinking at this level in the past 30 days reported drinking in the past 48 hours (37% of males and 26% of females).

There is considerable overlap between heavy drinking and testing positive to illicit drugs. Of those who reported drinking at this level in the past 30 days and in the past 48 hours, 73 per cent tested positive to at least one other drug. Sixty three per cent tested positive to cannabis, 23 per cent to methylamphetamine, 19 per cent to benzodiazepines, five per cent to heroin and less than one per cent to cocaine. Twentynine per cent tested positive to two or more of these drugs. Compared to the 2003 data, the proportions have increased, with the exception of benzodiazepines and heroin, for those testing positive and consuming at this level.

Not unexpectedly, adult male detainees charged with a drink driving offence were most likely to report that they had consumed alcohol in the past 48 hours (73%) and drunk at least five or more drinks on the same day during the past 30 days (80%). Forty-nine per cent of those charged with disorder offences had consumed alcohol in the past 48 hours at this level, followed by 43 per cent of those charged for a violent offence, 25 per cent for a traffic offence, 39 per cent for a breach of justice order, 26 per cent who were charged with a drug offence and 25 per cent of those charged with a property offence.

Table 6: Psychological distress and dependency (column per cent), 2004

	Alcohol		Drugs		Both
K10 Scale	Not dependent	Dependent	Not dependent	Dependent	Not dependent	Dependent
Low	28	14	33	12	28	10
Moderate	22	18	23	19	20	17
High	27	27	31	29	25	28
Very high	23	41	13	41	27	45
Total (N)	(148)	(215)	(120)	(442)	(646)	(142)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

Juvenile data

In addition to adult detainees, juveniles (under the age of 18) are also interviewed in the NSW sites of Parramatta and Bankstown. In 2004, 93 juvenile detainees were interviewed with 67 of these agreeing to provide a urine sample (72%). Eighty-three per cent of juveniles were male and 17 per cent female. In Bankstown, 55 per cent of juveniles reported they had completed Year 10 or less at school, while this was the case for 39 per cent of the juveniles at Parramatta. More juveniles reported still being in school in Parramatta (57%) than in Bankstown (29%). This is partly a function of age - more of the Bankstown detainees were aged 16 or older (71%) than in Parramatta (55%).

It is important to note that the data from juveniles are not a reflection of the overall numbers that police deal with at each police station. Police are sometimes able to deal with juveniles away from the police station, parents can refuse access to the young person and, as with adults, the young person can refuse to participate despite the parent agreeing to the interview. There are also differences in access protocols for juveniles aged 15 or younger at each site, due to specific police concerns. For these reasons caution should be exercised about drawing wider conclusions from these data to the broader group of juveniles who may be taken into custody at these police stations.

The overwhelming majority of juveniles reported that they lived in someone else's house during the past 30 days (89%). In Parramatta, juveniles who were interviewed were most likely to have been arrested for a property offence (67%), whereas 49 per cent of Bankstown detainees had been charged with a violent offence. There was an overall rise noted in violent offences from 2003 - although this may be due to more males being in the sample in 2004. Police had previously arrested 68 per cent of the juveniles in Bankstown and 57 per cent in Parramatta during the past 12 months. Overall, five per cent reported being in a juvenile detention centre in the past 12 months. Few juveniles said they had been seeking drugs at the time of the arrest, although 16 per cent had used drugs just prior to the arrest and 23 per cent had sold drugs for money at some time. Twenty per cent reported that at least some of their offences were drug related.

Forty-three per cent in Bankstown and 40 per cent in Parramatta tested positive to at least one drug. Juveniles were most likely to test positive to cannabis, although 19 per cent in Bankstown tested positive to methylamphetamine and seven per cent in Parramatta tested positive to heroin. Self-report information from juveniles found that 10 juveniles had used methylamphetamine in the past month. Rates of ecstasy use in the past 30 days are slightly higher amongst these juveniles - 17 per cent (n=11) compared with eight per cent of adults at the NSW sites.

Methodology

Linking questionnaires and urine records

To ensure confidentiality of the information collected, once the questionnaire has been completed and the urine specimen obtained, a barcode is attached to each so that the two sets of data can be matched at the AIC. The questionnaires are mailed directly to the AIC and the urine specimens are couriered to the laboratory in Sydney. No record of names or signatures is kept and urine specimens are destroyed once the urine results are received and validated by the AIC.

Quality control processes

Prior to each data collection period, interviewers undergo training that covers both the questionnaire and the operating procedures at their specific site. An important quality control mechanism is the interviewer error reports. The site coordinator audits each questionnaire on-site. Errors are fed back to interviewers to address any problems. The questionnaires are then audited a second time at the AIC where every error is noted for each interviewer. These are compiled and sent back to site managers for the next training round. The most common errors encountered are: where no response has been recorded on a particular question; where a question was asked but should have been skipped and where a question was incorrectly coded. Experience has shown that interviewer error rates are higher than is acceptable at two points:

• when an interviewer is first starting; and
• when an interviewer has worked on the project for some time and a level of complacency slips into the process.

Urine compliance levels by interviewer are also closely monitored and problems addressed as they arise. In addition, a technical workshop is held on a yearly basis bringing together key DUMA stakeholders and data collectors. A separate meeting is held for the data collectors (site co-ordinators and managers) to discuss issues in relation to the operation of DUMA. It is also an opportunity for the sites to share their experiences of how issues have been addressed over the year.

Response rates

Table 7 outlines the logistics of the DUMA program at each site. This includes: the periods over which the fieldwork was undertaken; the number of hours interviewers were in the police station/ watchhouse; the number of detainees approached and interviewed and the number of specimens collected for each site in each quarter.

As fewer females than males are detained by the police, the sample size for this group is considerably smaller. This factor should be borne in mind when examining the data for females. Similarly, as the number of juveniles is small, data for juveniles are not presented on a quarterly basis.

Table 7: Fieldwork information, 2004

Quarter	Site	Period	Hours in facility	Number approached	Number interviewed	Specimens collected
Q1	Adelaide	16/02/04 - 13/03/04	384	188	180	140
	Bankstown	19/01/04 - 19/02/04	307	115	101	71
	Brisbane	23/02/04 - 21/03/04	224	181	159	152
	East Perth	15/02/04 - 07/03/04	341	223	190	151
	Elizabeth	19/01/04 - 14/02/04	384	182	176	147
	Parramatta	17/02/04 - 16/03/04	277	110	90	71
	Southport	26/01/04 - 25/02/04	186	120	104	95
Q2	Adelaide	10/05/04 - 05/06/04	288	145	132	98
	Bankstown	13/04/04 - 06/05/04	301	102	88	63
	Brisbane	11/05/04 - 07/06/04	224	228	213	205
	East Perth	02/05/04 - 23/05/04	341	216	178	140
	Elizabeth	13/04/04 - 08/05/04	366	172	167	124
	Parramatta	06/05/04 - 04/06/04	284	90	84	69
	Southport	14/04/04 - 10/05/04	168	99	89	85
Q3	Adelaide	09/08/04 - 04/09/04	366	187	177	146
	Bankstown	12/07/04 - 05/08/04	302	106	88	62
	Brisbane	09/08/04 - 05/09/04	224	177	160	154
	East Perth	08/08/04 - 29/08/04	341	173	141	101
	Elizabeth	12/07/04 - 07/08/04	288	157	148	113
	Parramatta	05/08/04 - 03/09/04	277	93	82	66
	Southport	12/07/04 - 08/08/04	168	103	93	87
Q4	Adelaide	08/11/04 - 04/12/04	366	159	154	122
	Bankstown	13/10/04 - 06/11/04	306	150	125	82
	Brisbane	10/11/03 - 07/12/03	224	213	193	190
	East Perth	17/10/04 - 07/11/04	341	221	191	137
	Elizabeth	11/10/04 - 06/11/04	276	140	135	113
	Parramatta	06/11/04 - 01/12/04	287	101	86	49
	Southport	13/10/03 - 14/11/03	168	128	110	107
Total	All sites	2004	8,009	4,279	3,834	3,140
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

In 2004, a total of 3,834 detainees were interviewed of whom 3,741 were defined as adults in their relevant jurisdiction; 93 were juvenile detainees from the New South Wales sites. Detainees can choose to complete the interview and not provide a specimen. Of those who agreed to an interview, 82 per cent also provided a urine sample (n=3,140).

Table 8 shows that the response rate for the interview is similar across sites and between males and females. Differences do occur, however, in terms of the provision of a urine specimen. With regard to gender differences, males were equally as likely to provide a urine sample as females in Brisbane, while females were more likely to provide a urine specimen in East Perth and Southport. Males were more likely than females to supply a urine specimen in Adelaide, Bankstown, Elizabeth and Parramatta. Age also plays a role in provision of a urine specimen with juveniles less likely to provide a specimen than adult detainees. Although as noted earlier in the report, other factors may account for the refusal. Differences between sites in the provision of a specimen can largely be attributed to differing procedures between jurisdictions and the physical conditions within the site. For example, in the Sydney sites detainees are normally released within four hours of being brought to the police station. Thus, the window of opportunity for obtaining an interview and urine specimen is short.

Overall, the response rates obtained in DUMA are higher than those normally achieved in social science research in Australia, while the response rate for the interview (90%) is still higher than the response rate for the Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey (50%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2002).

Table 8: Response rate by gender and adult status, 2004

	Adelaide	Bankstown	Brisbane	East Perth	Elizabeth	Parramatta	Southport
Adult males
Number approached	546	361	681	689	563	280	389
Number agreed to interview	514	316	610	582	540	250	344
(Per cent who agreed to interview)	(94)	(88)	(90)	(84)	(96)	(89)	(88)
Number who provided urine specimen	412	218	590	439	436	191	324
(Per cent who provided urine of those who agreed to interview)	(80)	(69)	(97)	(75)	(81)	(76)	(94)
Adult females
Number approached	133	44	118	144	88	54	61
Number agreed to interview	129	37	115	118	86	48	52
(Per cent who agreed to interview)	(97)	(84)	(97)	(82)	(98)	(89)	(85)
Number who provided urine specimen	94	23	111	90	61	34	50
(Per cent who provided urine of those who agreed to interview)	(73)	(62)	(97)	(76)	(71)	(71)	(96)
Juveniles
Number approached		68				60
Number agreed to interview		49				44
(Per cent who agreed to interview)		(72)				(73)
Number who provided urine specimen		37				30
(Per cent who provided urine of those who agreed to interview)		(76)				(68)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

It is important to note that although the sites are referred to by the name of the area where the site is located, the catchment area for the site may not necessarily reflect the city boundaries. Different jurisdictions deal with detainees in different ways. State legislation governs length of detention, reason for detention and the procedures for detention. The estimated size of the catchment area varies between the seven sites with the smallest being Adelaide (142,168 people) and the largest being Brisbane (898,480 people).

None of the sites have 24-hour coverage; interviewers enter the sites at times when the number of detainees is expected to be at a maximum. During these periods all eligible detainees are asked to participate in the study. The major eligibility criteria are that the person has not been held in custody for more than 48 hours (This occurred in 24 cases during 2004). Some detainees are deemed by local police staff to be ineligible; this is usually due to an assessment that there is a risk to the interviewer - they may be violent or intoxicated. This occurred in 309 cases during 2004, representing seven per cent of those potentially available for an interview. This is consistent with the 2003 data. Thus, the sample is not a random sample of all detainees brought to the police station, nor is it a random sample of all people detained by the police. Further research is planned to examine the issue of how representative the DUMA sample is.

Two other factors affect the 'randomness' of the sample. First, in all four jurisdictions police are increasingly using a number of mechanisms to reduce the number of people being brought into the police station for processing. These include diversion programs, 'notices to attend court' (or equivalent) or 'cautions'. Normally, these notices or cautions would be for minor offending. Diversion programs tend to focus on drug possession cases and juvenile offenders. The DUMA study therefore, does not pick up these people. Second, the study is anonymous so it is not possible for individuals to be tracked across the interview periods. Given that a substantial number of detainees self-report having been arrested in the past 12 months, it is highly likely that a small group of detainees will be appearing in more than one of the quarters and it is also possible for a person to appear more than once in a quarter. Strictly speaking, the sample is one of detentions rather than detainees. Detainees are asked at the end of the interview if they can recall participating in the study on a previous occasion. In 2004, 552 detainees said yes (which represents 15% of the sample) while another 10 said they could not recall. This is slightly higher than that recorded in 2003 where 13 per cent reported that they had participated in the study on some previous occasion. Due to the fact that DUMA is now in its seventh year of collection in most sites, this number is predicted to rise again slightly for 2005.

Drug testing

Much prior research has documented the shortfalls of relying solely on self report data. Some of the issues affecting self report data include: the ability of the respondent to accurately recall events, especially drug use over defined time periods; as well as the willingness of the respondent to share information of a sensitive nature to interviewers. These shortfalls are likely to result in the under-reporting of particular behaviours, including drug use and participation in illegal activities. In order to enhance the veracity of self report information obtained from police detainees, and as a cross-validation measure, the DUMA program conducts urinalysis on the urine samples voluntarily provided by police detainees. Urine testing is the most cost-effective means to objectively measure the presence of illicit drugs. It is also a scientifically valid measure of drug use within the known limits of the test (see discussion below).

All urine samples provided first undergo a screening test for six classes of drugs - amphetamines, benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, methadone and opiates. A positive test is deemed to have occurred when the drug or its metabolites are detected at the cut-off levels prescribed at AS/NZS 4308. These cut off levels have been set in accordance with Australian Standards. In the case of the drug classes amphetamines, opiates and benzodiazepines, if a positive result is obtained a further set of tests are preformed (confirmatory testing) to ascertain which specific drugs are present in the urine. The urinalysis results indicate whether the drug has been consumed shortly prior to detention at the police station or watchhouse for all drugs except cannabis and benzodiazepines. With these two drugs a positive test indicates use up to 30 days for cannabis and 14 days for benzodiazepines. Table 9 indicates the average detection times and the cut-off levels for a positive screen.

Table 9: Cut-off levels and drug detection times (per cent)

Drug Class	Cut-off AS 4308 (ug/L)	Average detection time
Amphetamines	300	2-4 days
Benzodiazepines (hydrolysed)	100	2-14 days
Cannabis	50	Up to 30 days for heavy use; 2-10 days for casual use
Cocaine	300	2-3 days
Methadone	300	2-4 days
Opiates	300	2-3 days
Source: Makkai (2000)

There are five important points to note:

1. the screen detects the class of drug, not the specific metabolite;
2. false positives and false negatives can occur;
3. detection times can vary depending on rates of metabolism and excretion;
4. a positive result does not necessarily imply illegal use of the drug; and
5. the presence of the drug does not necessarily mean the person was intoxicated or impaired.

All drug testing for the program is conducted at the one laboratory - Pacific Laboratory Medical Services, Northern Sydney Area Health Service - in Sydney. The laboratory is accredited to the AS/NZS 4308. See Makkai (2000) for further information.

Table 10 shows the proportion who tested positive to probable heroin, methylamphetamine or cocaine use, and also self-reported drug use in the past 48 hours and past 30 days. The data are consistent with other studies - there is a higher level of under-reporting for recent use (past 2 days) than for use in the past 30 days. Just over half of those who tested positive to heroin or methylamphetamine self-reported that they had used in the past 48 hours; this increases to just under three quarters for heroin, and four out of five for methylamphetamine for the past 30 days. Importantly around one quarter did not disclose use in the past 30 days. Disclosure is much lower for cocaine however the numbers are very small. The level of discrepancy between self-reported methylamphetamine use and urine results has remained consistent over previous years. However, there appears to be a gradual increase in the non-reporting of heroin use in the past 30 days amongst police detainees. In 2001, 21 per cent of the detainees who tested positive to heroin failed to report their recent use of heroin, in 2002 it was 23 per cent, 27 per cent in 2003, and in the most recent year, 2004, 30 per cent failed to report their heroin use.

There are a variety of reasons which could explain non-reporting by those testing positive. The most obvious is that people are more reluctant to self-report drug use around the time of arrest. However it is also possible that people believe they have used drug X when they have not in fact done so. This is more likely to be the case with MDMA (ecstasy) where it is difficult for the consumer to really know what they have purchased. As DUMA is primarily concerned with measuring drug use around the time of arrest, the importance of urine testing cannot be underestimated in this environment. If drug policy is to be underpinned by 'evidence', that evidence needs to be as reliable and valid as is humanly possible. If data are biased, for whatever reason, program development and implementation could be harmful to both individuals and the broader community.

Table 10: Comparing urinalysis and self-reported drug use, 2004

	Heroin		Methylamphetamine		Cocaine
	Urinalysis result		Urinalysis result		Urinalysis result
	Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative
Self-reported use past 48 hours	53	2	56	3	34	<1
Self-reported use past 30 days	70	5	81	18	57	3
Total (n)	(425)	(2,615)	(921)	(2,118)	(35)	(3,005)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, DUMA collection 2004 [computer file]

Most serious offence

Most detainees (75%) are charged with three or less offences. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' Australian Standard Offence Classification scheme (1997) is used to assign charges to eight categories - violent, property, drug offences, drink driving, traffic, disorder, breaches and other. In this report, detainees are assigned to the most serious of the charges collected. The hierarchy from most serious to least serious is: violent, property, drug offences, drink driving, traffic, disorder, breaches and other. Thus, if the person has been charged with a violent offence and a property offence, the violent offence will take precedence.

Explaining compliance levels

Relative to other social science studies, the compliance levels on both the interview and the urine are relatively high. A number of factors can account for this but there are four important ones. First are the assurances of confidentiality, including a statement assuring confidentiality signed by the director of the AIC (and in three jurisdictions co-signed by the Police Commissioner). The clear independence of a well-trained interview team is another factor. It is a requirement that no current or former police officers from that jurisdiction can be hired as interviewers and all interviewers are required to undergo training prior to entry into the site. This training is compulsory regardless of whether the interviewer has participated in prior collections. In addition to these factors, detainees are assured that their information will only be presented in aggregated form, that no names are recorded and that the urine specimens are destroyed immediately after the test has been completed. The AIC Research Ethics Committee gave ethics clearance for the project in January 1999 for the duration of the pilot study, and again in December 2001 for the duration of the second phase. Each separate addendum also receives ethics clearance as well. Finally, once processed by the police, the interview can alleviate the boredom of confinement.

Oversight committees

Each site has its own local steering or advisory committee (see Table 11). The committee's role is to support the local data collectors, monitor the local progress of the study, suggest ways of improving the project, undertake appropriate analyses of their own site data, and ensure dissemination of information at a local level to relevant agencies. The AIC has also established a scientific advisory board to assist in technical matters as they arise. All the committees comprise a cross-section of people including representatives from local law enforcement and researchers.

Table 11: Representatives of the DUMA committees

Committee	Chair	Institutional affiliation
New South Wales Steering Committee Chair	Dr Don Weatherburn	NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
South Australian Steering Committee Chair	Detective Chief Superintendent Denis Edmonds	SA Police Service
Western Australian Steering Committee Chair	Superintendent Ron Carey	WA Police Service
Queensland Steering Committee Chair	Assistant Commissioner George Nolan	QLD Police Service
Scientific Advisory Board Chair	Dr Toni Makkai	Australian Institute of Criminology

An important aspect of DUMA is the dissemination of questionnaire and urinalysis results. This involves sending quarterly results from the urinalysis to the sites within two weeks of their being received at the AIC, and it provides timely intelligence to inform local policy and strategic initiatives. In addition, local sites are provided with confidentialised unit record files for secondary analysis within four weeks of their collection each quarter. This ensures that those in law enforcement who are tasked with tackling local crime issues are best equipped with the most up to date DUMA data for their area to address the problems. The AIC DUMA team also produces a quarterly newsletter that is distributed to key stakeholders, site managers and data collectors. The newsletter highlights key events and important dates, a snapshot analysis of one jurisdiction per quarter, as well as other information of interest to those involved in some way with DUMA.

A platform for further research

DUMA provides an important platform for more in-depth research in the criminal justice field. A number of additional studies have been launched at the local sites to capture additional data for specific policy purposes. These have included stolen goods, drug driving and amphetamines. DUMA provides a unique platform from which to collect data to assist in evidence-based policy-making, and to inform strategic intelligence. DUMA also has the potential to assist in the evaluation of public health interventions in the longer term. Overall, trends and issues highlighted via the DUMA data can be used to inform policy and program development, complementing and enhancing the approaches taken by key law enforcement. It can also be used to inform appropriate mental health responses. For example the mental health addendum (which has not previously been run by DUMA) is highlighted within this report.

Data usage

DUMA data can be used at a variety of levels and for a variety of purposes. Data can be used to argue for policy shifts in internal resources, or to determine the effectiveness of particular interventions, or for monitoring purposes. However, the data are also useful at the more macro level of state and federal government. Because data are collected, audited and documented under the same set of protocols, greater confidence can be placed on their comparability, validity and reliability and can inform policymaking in the realms of housing, treatment, policing, courts and correctional institutions, to name a few. DUMA data is also increasingly being used in reports produced by other agencies. Links to published material can be found at the AIC's website www.aic.gov.au.

Examples of agencies and organisations that have requested/used data

• Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• Australian Crime Commission
• Australian Federal Police
• Australian National Council on Drugs
• Crime and Misconduct Commission - Queensland
• Australian Government Attorney-General's Department
• Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs
• Courier Mail
• State and Territory Police Services
• New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
• Australian Associated Press
• Australian Customs Service
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
• National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
• Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
• Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Qld Treasury
• South Australian Justice Portfolio
• NSW Department of Health
• University of New South Wales
• South Australian Office of Crime Statistics and Research

Methodological note

In the following tables some column percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding errors.

The 'any drug' category in the following tables refers to detainees who tested positive to methylamphetamine, benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine or heroin. 'Multiple drug use' refers to those detainees who tested positive to two or more of the above drugs.

In the 2003 Annual Report, it was noted that a number of changes had been made in the reporting of the urine data. Specifically, previous annual reports only reported on the proportion testing positive to the screens - that is the proportion testing positive to opiates and amphetamines. A positive opiate screen does not distinguish between morphine, codeine or monoacetylmorphine. The confirmatory results however, can distinguish between these opiates providing a more valid measure of heroin use as well as enabling the tracking of other opiate substances such as morphine. In the case of amphetamines positive screens do not distinguish between amphetamine, methylamphetamine or ecstasy (MDMA). Although MDMA is detected in the confirmatory test for amphetamines it is usually classed as a separate drug under phenethylamines because of its hallucinogenic effects. In reporting the urine results, the confirmatory results for opiates and amphetamines are used providing separate estimates for heroin, codeine, methamphetamines and MDMA. Any comparison with previous reports must take these changes into consideration.