Final report on the North Queensland Drug Court

Jason Payne
ISBN 0 642 53886 7 ; ISSN 1445-7261
Australian Institute of Criminology, 2005
(Technical and background paper series, no. 17)

Executive summary

In November 2002 Queensland's Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000 was amended to enable the establishment of a pilot program drug court in Cairns and Townsville. The aim of the program was to target and divert into treatment, rather than prison, high-volume property or drug offenders whose offending is attributable to their drug dependency. The program consists of the Intensive Drug Rehabilitation Order (IDRO), a three-phase rehabilitation plan aimed at ensuring an offender's abstinence from drug use and crime, while improving their health, family and social connectedness.

In 2003, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) completed the final outcomes evaluation of the South East Queensland Drug Court. The AIC was subsequently asked to extend its evaluation to the two northern courts. As such, this evaluation uses the quantitative data extracted from the North Queensland Drug Court database, a purpose built data capturing system for all offenders referred to the program, and offending information from centralised QPS criminal history records. The quantitative analyses are supplemented by qualitative information obtained during interviews with drug court team members and participants. The aim of the evaluation is to document the implementation, operation and outcomes of the North Queensland Drug Court pilot program for 26 months from its inception in 2002.

Referral and participation

In terms of referral and participation, 243 offenders had been referred to the pilot program for assessment as at 31 December 2004. Of these, 120 (49%) were issued with an Intensive Drug Rehabilitation Order (IDRO) while 123 (51%) were not admitted to the program.

Of those issued with an IDRO:

• 45 (38%) had been terminated and 10 (8%) had absconded;
• there were 41 active participants, the majority of whom were in phase one; and
• there were 24 graduates (20%).

In terms of offenders referred to the North Queensland Drug Court, the general profile indicates that:

• the majority were unemployed males aged in their late twenties, who were married or living in a de facto relationship;
• only 22 per cent of referred offenders were female and eight per cent identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander;
• referred offenders were most likely to have been dependent on either amphetamines or cannabis in the six months prior to referral, while only 20 per cent reported being dependent on opiates; and
• referred offenders had an average of 40 lifetime charges recorded by the police, the majority of which were for property offences. One third had been charged as a juvenile, with the average age of 20 years at first charge.

Procedural issues

Qualitative interviews with drug court team members and participants revealed a number of issues for the operation and implementation of the North Queensland Drug Court pilot program. The first was lower than expected referral rates, which has seen the North Queensland Drug Court program maintain an average current participation rate of 50, roughly 30 below the funded cap. A number of reasons have been attributed to the low referral rate, but most likely is that the referral rate is an accurate representation of the actual number of eligible offenders being processed through the courts, and the funded cap of 80 participants was an unrealistic target given current eligibility criteria.

Improving referral rates in North Queensland will be assisted through:

• modifications to the eligibility criteria, particularly in relation to the 12-month maximum prior imprisonment criteria; and
• more efficient and effective targeting of treatment and rehabilitation services to minimise termination rates.

This evaluation also noted low referral rates for Indigenous offenders. The qualitative interviews highlight a number of barriers to referral, including:

• limited dissemination of program information to local Indigenous communities and legal practitioners, including the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service;
• problems in communicating and establishing a good rapport with Indigenous offenders at the time of referral; and
• the application of eligibility criteria which inadvertently prohibit many Indigenous offenders from participating in the drug court program.

Offender assessment forms an integral component of the North Queensland Drug Court program. The first assessment begins at the time of referral, where the referring magistrate must give consideration to the offender's 'legislative eligibility'. This includes whether the offender is likely to serve a term of imprisonment. This evaluation notes a high proportion of ineligible determinations due to offenders not being likely to serve imprisonment, and suggests that greater attention and assessment is needed to prevent the referral of ineligible offenders from the magistrates' courts. This might be achieved through the ongoing education of magistrates and other legal representatives to ensure the consistent application of eligibility criteria at the referral stage.

The second stage of assessment occurs after referral but prior to program placement. The qualitative interviews indicated a need for more frequent application of psychological and mental health assessments along with better tools for assessing offender motivation and willingness to participate. Continued investment and improvement in assessment tools will help reduce terminations and improve long term drug court outcomes.

Program operation

The North Queensland Drug Court program has operated since November 2002. In this time:

• participants have, on average, taken 138 days to complete phase one, 115 days to complete phase two and 101 days to complete phase three;
• forty-seven participants (39%) had absconded at least once while on the drug court program. The average number of days to abscond was 51. The risk markers identified for absconding were having a prior history of absconding (especially in the preliminary assessment phase) and being dependent on opiates;
• the majority of participants undertook either residential or non-residential drug treatment. An average of 30 days was spent in residential treatment for the first episode;
• participants had a total of 2258 court appearances;
• a total of 778 treatment team episodes were conducted;
• a total of 5636 urinalysis tests had been completed, 18 per cent of which were positive. The majority of positive tests were for cannabis, followed by amphetamines;
• the most frequently used sanction was imprisonment, followed by community service; and
• rewards were given more frequently in Cairns. Overall, the most common reward was a decrease in community service.

Operational issues

There were a number of implementation issues identified during this evaluation of the North Queensland Drug Court. These issues, many of which have been overcome through the implementation of the joint practice and procedures, were noted by either drug court participants or drug court team members as problems likely to have resulted in less favourable outcomes for the drug court. In summary, these included:

• the limited provision of after-hours supervision and treatment services;
• the location of residential and non-residential treatment services within close proximity to areas frequented by drug users;
• the lack of emergency drug court accommodation for situations when drug court clients are required to vacate a residential treatment service; and
• participant relocation resulting in the displacement of offenders away from family.

A unique opportunity to interview terminated drug court participants allowed an examination of the key issues and problems faced by those who are 'unsuccessful'. The interviews revealed the importance of a stable family relationship in assisting in the rehabilitation process, and the problems associated with other psychological and emotional issues experienced by participants. This highlighted the need for an ongoing monitoring and review process whereby the assessment and case management tools used by the North Queensland Drug Court can be examined for their effectiveness and appropriateness for drug court clientele.

Regional implementation

The North Queensland Drug Court pilot program operates within the Cairns and Townsville magistrates' courts. The programs were established under the same legislation and with the same operating procedures. A single Drug Court Coordinator was responsible for overseeing the operation of both programs. Nevertheless, this evaluation noted some differences between the two courts:

• a greater number of referrals were made in Townsville (135 versus 108);
• the average number of days taken to achieve a successful referral was higher in Cairns, and the average number of pre-IDRO court appearances was higher;
• offenders referred in Townsville were younger, less likely to be married or living in a de facto relationship, less likely to be employed and more likely to have been a drug user of more than one illicit drug in the six months prior to their referral; and
• in Cairns, referred offenders had a larger number of prior drug charges, but were older when first apprehended and charged for any offence.

Comparative data were provided to examine the differences in both participant profile and program operation between the North Queensland and South East Queensland Drug Court pilot programs. The comparative data for South East Queensland were drawn from the 2003 final evaluation (Makkai & Veraar 2003). This comparative analysis indicates that participants in North Queensland:

• were the same age, slightly more likely to be female, and less likely to report having either suicidal thoughts or Hepatitis C;
• were more likely to have used cannabis in the six months prior to referral, but less likely to have used opiates and amphetamines, and less likely to report having previously accessed drug treatment;
• completed each phase in fewer days, with the average time to graduation 120 days less in North Queensland;
• were less likely to abscond during phase one; and
• were sanctioned at a higher rate, although being less likely to be given imprisonment as a sanction.

These differences have important implications for the development and implementation of regional drug court programs. Firstly, offender differences indicate the varying treatment and supervision needs of those who are likely to access the program. This means that supervision and treatment models may need to be adjusted/modified to accommodate these needs - and may account for the procedural differences which have developed between the courts since 2002.

Secondly, from a planning and implementation perspective, the differences between locations also raise questions about pre-implementation feasibility assessment, and whether further analysis can be undertaken prior to the establishment of a regional drug court program to ensure the most appropriate treatment and supervision model is implemented. Should the expected clientele vary by location, the establishment and funding of treatment and rehabilitation programs may also need to be adjusted to accommodate these differences.

Drug court outcomes

This evaluation was tasked with examining whether the North Queensland Drug Court pilot program has been able to reduce the offending and drug use of participants while improving their health and social function. In terms of re-offending, this evaluation finds that as at 31 December 2004:

• post-entry re-offending is significantly reduced for those who successfully complete the drug court program;
• of those successful participants who do re-offend, the time taken to re-offend is significantly longer;
• all participants recorded reductions in offending after admission to the drug court program, and the reductions were greatest amongst the graduates; and
• there is a significant termination effect, where terminated offenders re-offend sooner than both graduates and the comparison group.

Comparative analysis was used to examine differences in re-offending between the North and South East Queensland Drug Court pilot programs. These analyses suggest that:

• prior to referral and admission, participants in North Queensland were, on average, apprehended by the police more often;
• the post-entry re-offending estimates for graduates were the same in North and South East Queensland;
• the post-entry re-offending estimates for terminated participants were also the same in North and South East Queensland; and
• despite differences in the pre-referral arrest frequency, the post-entry arrest frequencies were improved in both North and South East Queensland - with graduates in North Queensland demonstrating a greater overall reduction in arrest frequency.

At this early stage, statistical analyses are complicated by small sample sizes making it difficult to conclude whether the drug court program is achieving its primary objectives. Nonetheless, the results so far indicate that the North Queensland Drug Court program has achieved comparable results to those indicated in the South East Queensland evaluation (Makkai & Veraar 2003), although further analysis is needed after a greater number of participants have been referred to and graduated from the program.

In terms of drug use and health outcomes, this evaluation finds evidence that:

• both graduates and terminates reduced the level of their drug use for the duration of their participation, as indicated by the declining number of positive drug tests;
• graduates of the drug court program reported significant improvements across the range of physical and mental health measures of the Short Form 36 Health Survey; and
• at the time of graduation, participant health status was equivalent to Queensland population norms.

No data were available from participants no longer under supervision (both graduated and terminated) in relation to drug use and health. As such, this evaluation cannot determine whether the reductions in drug use and improvements in health are sustained in the long term. The lack of systematic health and drug use data during the post-graduation/termination period has been noted in many other drug court evaluations in Australia and overseas. It is clear that further research is needed to assess the long term impact of the drug court program.

Post-graduation issues

Finally, this evaluation was supplemented with qualitative interviews with a variety of participants of the North Queensland Drug Court program. In terms of graduates:

• the drug court program was reported as a unique and worthwhile opportunity for dealing with drug use and offending;
• post-graduation offending and drug use appear linked to changes in personal and family relationships;
• drug re-use was often reported as mechanism for dealing with stressful situations; and
• other areas, such as psychological and mental health issues, may also be linked to post-graduation re-offending.

These interviews highlighted the importance of additional psychological assessment and relationship counselling services for participants on the drug court program. More research is needed to isolate and understand these factors in greater detail so that modifications can be made to improve the drug court outcomes for all participants.