Evaluation of Queensland Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (QIDDI) Police Diversion Program: Final Report

Evaluation of Queensland Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (QIDDI) Police Diversion Program: Final Report

QUEENSLAND ILLICIT DRUG DIVERSION REFERENCE GROUP EVALUATION OF QUEENSLAND ILLICIT DRUG DIVERSION INITIATIVE (QIDDI) POLICE DIVERSION PROGRAM FINAL REPORT undertaken by HEALTH OUTCOMES INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD JIM HALES MELINDA MAYNE TURNING POINT ALCOHOL AND DRUG CENTRE AMY SWAN SILVIA ALBERTI ALISON RITTER on behalf of QUEENSLAND HEALTH ALCOHOL TOBACCO & OTHER DRUGS SERVICES QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

CONTENTS PART A: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1 Introduction... 2 1.1 Background...2 1.2 The Queensland Police Diversion Program...2 1.3 The PDP Evaluation...5 2 Summary of Findings... 8 2.1 Overview of Activity...8 2.2 Compliance with DDAP Session...9 2.3 Police Perceptions of the PDP...9 2.4 Service Provider Perceptions of the PDP...14 2.5 Impact of the PDP on Participants...18 2.6 Conclusion...24 2.7 Summary of Recommendations...25 PART B: SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY 3 SIS Methodology...29 3.1 Activity and Throughput Data...29 3.2 Impact on Agencies...29 4 Activity and Throughput Data...33 4.1 Referrals...33 4.2 Compliance...38 4.3 DDAP Participant Demographics...42 4.4 Further Treatment...47 4.5 Court Data...48 5 Police Survey...51 5.1 Officer Profile...51 5.2 Diversion Experience...52 5.3 Effectiveness of Diversion...54 5.4 Diversion processes...59 5.5 Knowledge and Understanding...62 5.6 Comments...64 Queensland Police Diversion Program Final Report i

6 Police Consultations...68 6.1 Management Issues...68 6.2 Operational Issues...69 6.3 Suggested Improvements...70 6.4 Conclusions...71 6.5 Recommendations...72 7 Service Provider Consultations...73 7.1 Diversion Experience...73 7.2 Overview of the DDAP Session...73 7.3 Training Needs...73 7.4 Administrative Issues...74 7.5 Intervention Issues...76 7.6 Linkages with Police...78 7.7 Client Impacts...78 7.8 Suggested Improvements...79 7.9 Recommendations...80 PART C DIVERSION OUTCOMES STUDY 1 Introduction...98 1.1 Background...98 1.2 Terms of Reference...99 2 Methodology...100 2.1 Design...100 2.2 Study Procedures...101 2.3 Measures...101 2.4 Data Analyses and Statistical Terms...102 2.5 Issues...103 2.6 Limitations...104 2.7 Ethics and Informed Consent...104 3 Results...105 3.1 Diversion Group Results...105 3.2 Comparison Group Results...123 3.3 The Cannabis Diversion Experience...126 3.4 Discussion...130 Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report ii

4 References...134 Appendix 1: Plain language statement...135 Appendix 2: Consent to participate...137 Appendix 3: Consent to follow-up and locator information...140 Appendix 4: Quantitative interview schedule...142 Appendix 5: Qualitative interview schedule...170 Appendix 6: Analysis of variance outputs (mean scores)...171 Appendix 7: Polydrug use by diversion group by gender...173 Appendix 8: SCL-90-R T-scores... 174 Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report iii

TABLES SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY Table 4.1.1: Referrals by Police to the DCS, 24 June 2001 to 31 March 2003...33 Table 4.1.2: Referrals and Referral Rates by Health Zone...35 Table 4.1.3: Age Distribution of Offenders Referred to Diversion...36 Table 4.1.4: Estimated Weight of Drugs at Offence for Offenders Referred to Diversion...37 Table 4.3.1: Employment Status of DDAP Participants...45 Table 4.5.1: Court Appearances by Persons Convicted of a Minor Illicit Drug Possession Offence by Diversion Status...49 Table 5.1.1: Rank by Years of Service for Respondents...51 Table 5.1.2: Primary Role of Respondents...51 Table 5.1.3: Number of Respondents and Distribution of Diversions by Police Region...52 Table 5.2.1: Respondent Experience in Diversion...53 Table 5.2.2: Estimated Number of Diversions by Survey Respondents...53 Table 5.2.3: Most Common Reason Given for Not Diverting Offenders...54 Table 5.3.2: Proportion of Offenders Believed to Comply with Requirement to Attend the Diversion Session by Experience of Respondent...55 Table 5.4.1: Average Length of Time on Phone to DCS...60 Table 5.4.3: Frequency of Form 42 Usage (Generated by Polaris)...60 Table 5.4.4: Time Taken Relative to Prosecution...61 Table 5.5.1: Knowledge and Understanding of the PDP and its Health Session...62 Table 5.2.4: Most Common Reason given by Respondents for not Diverting Offenders by No. of Diversions Conducted...91 Table 5.2.5: Most Common Reason for not Diverting Offenders by Police Region...91 Table 5.3.1: Proportion of Offenders Believed to Comply with Requirement to Attend the Diversion Session...92 Table 5.3.3 Proportion of Offenders Believed to Comply with Requirement to Attend the Diversion Session by Police Region...92 Table 5.3.4: Extent to Which Respondents Believe the Aims of the PDP are Achieved...92 Table 5.3.5: Perceptions of Overall Effectiveness of PDP with Respect to Its Aims...93 Table 5.3.6: Overall Perceived Effectiveness of Program with Respect to Its Aims by Respondents Experience in Conducting Diversions...93 Table 5.3.7: Overall Perceived Effectiveness of Program with Respect to Its Aims by Police Region...93 Table 5.3.8: Benefits of the PDP...94 Table 5.3.9: Perceived Impediments to the Successful Operation of the PDP...94 Table 5.4.2: Average Length of Time on Polaris...94 Table 5.5.2: Usefulness of PDP information Sources...95 Table 5.5.3: Responses to Statements about the PDP...95 Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report iv

Table 1: DOS-Queensland participation rates for diversion and comparison groups...105 Table 2: Age breakdown by gender: Diversion group...106 Table 3: Employment status: Diversion group...106 Table 4: Employment status by gender: Diversion group...107 Table 5: History of imprisonment: Diversion group...108 Table 6: Regular cannabis use: Diversion group...109 Table 7: Regular cannabis use by gender: Diversion group...109 Table 8: OTI Q Scores for regular cannabis use by gender: Diversion group...109 Table 9: Regular alcohol use: Diversion group...110 Table 10: Regular alcohol use by gender: Diversion group...110 Table 11: OTI Q Scores for regular alcohol use by gender: Diversion group...111 Table 12: Regular amphetamine use: Diversion group...111 Table 13: Regular amphetamine use by gender: Diversion group...112 Table 14: OTI Q Scores for regular amphetamine use by gender: Diversion group...112 Table 15: Regular hallucinogen use: Diversion group...113 Table 16: Regular hallucinogen use by gender: Diversion group...113 Table 17: OTI Q Scores for regular hallucinogen use by gender: Diversion group...113 Table 18: Regular (low-level) drug use by drug type at baseline and six month follow-up: Diversion group...114 Table 19: Regular (low-level) drug use at baseline by drug type and gender: Diversion group...115 Table 20: Number of cigarettes per day by gender: Diversion group...115 Table 21: Polydrug use across four time points: Diversion group...116 Table 22: Proportion of self-reported crime in the month prior to interview: Diversion group...117 Table 23: Number of crime occasions in past month: Diversion group...117 Table 24: Frequency of overall crime across the four points in time (ANOVA): Diversion group...118 Table 25: Frequency of cannabis dealing in the month prior to interview: Diversion group...118 Table 26: OTI Health Scale total scores by gender: Diversion group...119 Table 27: HIV Risk-Taking Behaviour Scale (HRBS): Diversion group...120 Table 28: Proportion of diversion group with an identified psychiatric disorder by gender SCL-90-R)...121 Table 29: Social functioning: Diversion group...122 Table 30: Social functioning by gender: Diversion group...122 Table 31: Employment status: Comparison group...123 Table 32: Proportion of regular drug use: Comparison group...124 Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report v

FIGURES Figure 3.2.1: Process Used to Disseminate Surveys to Officers...30 Figure 3.2.2: Surveys Sent Out and Returned by Work Units...30 Figure 4.1.1: Referrals by Police to the DCS, 24 June 2001 to 31 March 2003...34 Figure 4.1.2: Referrals by Police to the DCS by Health Zone...34 Figure 4.1.3: Referral Rates per 100,000 Population by Health Zone...35 Figure 4.1.4: Age Distribution of Offenders Referred to Diversion...36 Figure 4.1.5: Indigenous Status of Offenders Referred to Diversion...37 Figure 4.1.6: Elapsed Time from Date of Offence to Date of DDAP Appointment...38 Figure 4.2.1: Compliance with DDAP Requirement, 24 June 2001 to 31 March 2003...39 Figure 4.2.2: Compliance with DDAP Requirement by Health Zone...39 Figure 4.2.3: Compliance with DDAP Requirement by Age Group...40 Figure 4.2.4: Compliance with DDAP Requirement by Indigenous Status...41 Figure 4.2.5: Compliance with DDAP Requirement by Offence Type...41 Figure 4.2.6: Compliance by Elapsed Time from Offence to DDAP Appointment...42 Figure 4.3.1: Age and Gender Profile of DDAP Participants...43 Figure 4.3.2: Indigenous Status of DDAP Participants...43 Figure 4.3.3: Marital Status of DDAP Participants...44 Figure 4.3.4: Educational Status of DDAP Participants...44 Figure 4.3.5: Country of Birth of DDAP Participants...45 Figure 4.3.6: Employment Status of DDAP Participants...46 Figure 4.3.7: Pension Status of DDAP Participants...46 Figure 4.3.9: Nominated Other Drugs of Concern...47 Figure 5.3.1: Respondents Perceptions of Participants Compliance with Requirement to Attend Diversion Session...55 Figure 5.3.2: Aggregated View of Extent to which Aims of Diversion are Achieved...56 Figure 5.3.3: Perceptions of Overall Effectiveness of Program with Respect to Its Aims...57 Figure 5.3.4: Aggregated View of Perceived PDP Benefits...58 Figure 5.3.5: Perceived Impediments to the Successful Operation of the PDP...59 Figure 5.4.1: Time Taken Relative to Prosecution by Respondents Experience in Conducting Diversions...62 Figure 5.5.1: Perceived Usefulness of PDP Information Sources...63 Figure 5.5.2: Aggregated Responses to Statements about the PDP...64 Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report vi

PART A INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background The development and implementation of diversion programs by State and Commonwealth Governments is a result of the long-standing interface between crime and substance use. Significant numbers of offenders experience problematic substance use and, as such, are of concern to both the criminal justice system and health sectors. Diversion programs seek to refer offenders with problematic substance use issues who have contact with the criminal justice system into treatment. Diversion aims to improve outcomes for substance using offenders through referral to treatment and, for the community, by reducing substance use and associated criminal activity (Swan, O Keeffe, Alberti and Ritter, 2002). The development of diversion programs has been supported by both research and experience. Links between substance use and crime have been consistently demonstrated, there is greater acknowledgement that criminal justice sanctions alone do not facilitate positive behaviour change and that incarceration can negatively impact on offender behaviour. Contact with the criminal justice system can be highly stressful for offenders and this represents an opportune time to engage offenders in treatment for the purposes of behaviour change. Diversion programs have the potential to reduce the cost of crime on the criminal justice system, health sector and the community. The high costs of law enforcement, in particular the judicial and corrections systems, are often attributed to substance using offenders. Furthermore, the costs of problematic substance use to the health sector are substantial. 1.2 The Queensland Police Diversion Program In April 1999, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) released the National Illicit Drug Strategy, a whole of government approach to addressing illicit drug use, comprising both demand management and supply reduction strategies. At the core of the early intervention activities was a nationally consistent diversion initiative which received over $111 million in funding. Diversion programs seek to target illicit drug users at an early stage of their contact with the criminal justice system and divert them into drug education, assessment or treatment interventions. Diversion usually occurs at one of two points; either from police (thus preventing a complying offender from having to attend court) or from the court itself (either as a condition of bail, a pre-sentencing agreement or a condition of sentence). All states and territories now have drug diversion initiatives of some description. Some states, such as Victoria and New South Wales have expanded their existing drug diversion programs with the COAG funding. Prior to the commencement of the Queensland Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative s (QIDDI) Police Diversion Program (PDP) on 24 th June 2001, Queensland s only existing drug diversion program was the Drug Court Pilot Program, which had commenced in south-east Queensland on 13 th June 2000. A second QIDDI initiative, the pilot Illicit Drugs Court Diversion Program was introduced in March 2003. The Police Diversion Program (PDP) has the following aims: To provide people apprehended for a drugs offence with an incentive to address their drug use early and, in many cases, before incurring a criminal record; To increase the number of illicit drug users accessing assessment, education and treatment; and To reduce the number of people appearing before the courts for possession of small quantities of cannabis. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 2

In essence, the PDP enables people who admit to committing a minor drugs offence, as defined in legislation, who do not have a history of violence and who have not previously been offered diversion, to attend a 1-2 hour assessment and education session with an accredited provider. If the person accepts the offer of diversion, then the person is not charged with the drug offence and an appointment is made by police (through the Diversion Coordination Service (DCS)) for the person to attend a Drug Diversion Assessment Program (DDAP). If the person attends the session, then no further action is taken. If the person does not attend, then a charge for contravening the direction of a police officer may be raised against them. 1.2.1 Diversion Processes In order to further understand the observations that have been made about the PDP by police and providers, the process of diversion is set out in detail below. A person must be offered diversion by police if the following criteria are met (s.211 of Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000) (PPRA): (a) (b) A person is arrested for, or is being questioned by a police officer about a minor drugs offence; and The person has not committed another indictable offence in circumstances that are related to the minor drugs offence; and (c) The person- I. has not previously been convicted of an offence involving violence against a person; or II. has been convicted of an offence involving violence against a person for which the rehabilitation period under the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 has expired; and (d) During an electronically recorded interview, the person admits having committed the offence; and (e) The person has not been offered the opportunity to attend a drug diversion assessment program. A minor drugs offence involves possession of not more than 50gms of cannabis or possession of a thing for use, or that has been used for, smoking cannabis and does not include an offence where the possession is an element in an offence involving production, supply or trafficking of cannabis (refer to s9,10(1) or 10(2)(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986). In order to ascertain eligibility, the police officer must: Deal with the exhibits in an appropriate manner; Interview the person with respect to the offence and record the interview electronically; Record the admission electronically; Obtain the person s criminal history; and Determine whether the person has been previously offered diversion. If the person is eligible, they must then be advised about the PDP, informed about the DDAP itself, and then offered diversion (this should be recorded electronically). If the person is ineligible for diversion or refuses diversion, this must be recorded on the police computer system known as Polaris. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 3

If a person accepts the offer to attend a DDAP, then the officer must: Obtain a CRISP number for the offender; Call DCS and obtain a diversion reference number and an appointment at the nearest location for the offender; Enter the required details on the Polaris computer system; Print a Form 42 from Polaris and have the person sign it; Advise the person that failure to attend is an offence against s445 of the PPRA; Give a copy of the completed Form 42 to the offender, fax a copy to the DCS and keep the original on file; Release the person; and Complete the required registers. The above describes the process when the diversion is conducted at a police station. The diversion process may also be completed away from a police station using a hand-written form and a micro-cassette recorder, with the remaining elements completed upon return to the station. DCS advises the nominated health service provider that an appointment has been made and requests the provider to confirm the appointment. At the DDAP, the provider delivers the program in accordance with the QIDDI guidelines (this includes conducting the assessment, providing key information, running a video and providing appropriate resources and referrals). The appointment takes between one and two hours. The provider must then complete the relevant paperwork, including completing the National Diversion Minimum Data Set (NDMDS). Once the session has been completed, the client signs the compliance form and the provider faxes the form to the reporting police officer and to the DCS. If the client does not attend the session, the provider must likewise fax the compliance form to the reporting officer and DCS, indicating that the client has not complied. Once the offender has complied or not complied (and the fax notification has been received), the officer must update Polaris with the outcome of the session. This closes off the drug offence. If the outcome was noncompliance, the reporting officer may proceed with respect to a charge of contravening the direction of a police officer (s.445 PPRA). The original possession charge is not proceeded with. 1.2.2 The DDAP Intervention Each DDAP session takes approximately two hours to complete and involves assessment of cannabis use and drug-related problems, education on the health effects of cannabis, and referral to appropriate treatment services as required. DDAP service providers identify the most appropriate intervention for clients by conducting an individual standardised assessment of: the individual client s overall pattern of cannabis use; the impacts of their cannabis use (eg. health, financial, social); the level of cannabis dependency; and screening for other drug-related problems. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 4

Information gathered through the assessment component then informs both the DDAP service provider s delivery of relevant health information and, where necessary, the referral to appropriate treatment services. Following the assessment, DDAP service providers assist each client to examine their personal awareness of the impacts of cannabis use, provide a framework for consideration of the costs and benefits of use, and consider alternatives to continued drug use. Through the DDAP process, clients have the opportunity to: identify and assess their personal cannabis use patterns; consider the impacts of their personal cannabis use on their health, financial, social, and legal status; avoid the legal harms associated with a criminal conviction for a minor drugs offence; and receive factual information about the consequences of cannabis use and available treatment options. 1.2.3 Unique Characteristics of the PDP The key elements of the Queensland diversion initiative which distinguish it from similar programs implemented in most other states are: Offering an eligible offender diversion is mandatory (the officer has no discretion once the person s eligibility has been established); It applies only to cannabis and implements for smoking cannabis (not other illicit drugs); It is a one-off intervention (although clients dependent on cannabis are offered a referral for voluntary further treatment). That is, there is one diversion opportunity and, once it has been offered (regardless of whether the person accepts or not), a person is not eligible for another diversion; and The offender is referred to an assessment and education session at the first opportunity, rather than a graduated response adopted in most other states and territories. 1.3 The PDP Evaluation Health Outcomes International (HOI) and Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre were contracted by Queensland Health to conduct an evaluation of the Police Diversion Program. A parallel evaluation is also being conducted by HOI with respect to the Court Diversion component of QIDDI. The evaluation methodology for PDP comprises two discrete components: A System Impact Study (SIS) involving police and treatment services; and A Diversion Outcomes Study (DOS) (involving 240 diversion clients). Health Outcomes International undertook the System Impact Study and sub-contracted Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre to conduct the Diversion Outcomes Study. In the course of the evaluation, a considerable number and wide range of people contributed their time, ideas and perspective s to the evaluation. The evaluators express their sincere gratitude to all those who have contributed to our findings. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 5

1.3.1 Scope of the Evaluation System Impact Study (SIS) This component of the evaluation examines the activities undertaken within the PDP and assesses the impact of the PDP, individually and collectively, on the major services involved in the implementation of the PDP: police, courts and treatment services. The expected outcomes from this component of the study include: Detailed understanding of how the PDP has been implemented in Queensland; The impacts of the PDP initiatives on police, courts and treatment services; and Strategies for improving the PDP initiative, from the perspective s of those implementing it. Data on activities of the PDP and its participants have been drawn from a number of sources, including police statistics, referral and appointment data from the DCS, data from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General on court appearances for relevant offences, and the National Diversion Minimum Data Set (NDMDS) from Queensland Health which provides information on the characteristics of persons attending a diversion intervention. Data on the impact of the PDP on participating agencies is primarily qualitative in nature and has been collected via interviews, focus groups and surveys with representatives from each of the service types. Such data collection was undertaken at two points after the implementation of the PDP. The first round of consultations occurred in November/December 2001 after the program had been in operation for around six months. The purpose of this round of consultations was to identify any difficulties with the implementation process and the program itself, and to provide feedback to the Queensland Illicit Drug Diversion Reference Group (QIDDRG) regarding changes that could be made to improve the program. Focus groups were held with 185 police across the 15 target locations and interviews were conducted with 46 service providers. With the addition of some other stakeholders (such as the QIDDRG), the total number of people consulted with during Round 1 was 252. A report on the findings of the first round of consultations was presented to the QIDDRG in January 2002. The second round of data collection was undertaken in May/June 2003, and comprised a survey of approximately 3,500 police officers who had experience in conducting diversions; interviews with Officers in Charge of police stations; interviews with service providers at nominated locations; and interviews with other nominated informants. Details of the methodology employed and groups participating are presented in Section 4 of this report. Findings from the second round of the SIS are presented in Part B of this report. Diversion Outcomes Study The Diversion Outcomes Study (DOS) provides information on individual outcomes of the QIDDI, that is, this study seeks to determine whether diversion 'works' for people being diverted. The main aim of the study is to examine the outcomes of diversion for participants. The anticipated outcomes of diversion are: Decreased or cessation of drug use Decreased drug-related criminal activity Changed attitudes towards police and/or courts Increased knowledge about the harms and risks of drug use Improved physical and mental health status Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 6

Increased retention in treatment Increased employment prospects, and Enhanced family and social relationships The research design addressed each of these potential areas of effect with a view to ascertaining the nature, extent and duration of any effect. This research was an interrupted time series design that incorporated four points of interview: baseline, six week, three month, and six month follow-up. Two groups of participants were drawn from the PDP. One group (n=224) comprised diverted offenders who attended their mandatory cannabis assessment and education session, while a smaller comparison group (n=15) included offenders who had breached their diversion option by failing to attend the required session. Using validated instruments, all interviews covered basic demographics, drug use history (including a detailed description of drug use in the month preceding interview), criminal involvement, mental health, physical health and risk-taking behaviours. Participants were also asked to comment specifically on their perceptions of the diversion intervention. Findings of the Diversion Outcomes Study are presented in Part C of this report. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 7

2 Summary of Findings 2.1 Overview of Activity 2.1.1 Throughput From the date of its commencement on 24 th June 2001 to 30 th March 2003 (the most recent period for which detailed data has been analysed in this report), a total of 10,623 offenders were referred by police to the Diversion Coordination Service for a DDAP service. Referrals have risen consistently throughout this period, with slight dips in the first quarter of each calendar year. This represents by far the highest rate of referral for a program of its type in Australia. Comparative data for other states follows: NSW s Cannabis Cautioning Scheme had a total of 6,474 cautions issued throughout NSW from March 2000 to March 2002. NSW Police commenced the issue of Second Caution Notices from 1 September 2001, whereby offenders are required to undertake a mandatory health education session on the use of cannabis. As at 31 March 2002, 14 offenders had been issued with a second caution notice and agreed to receive the mandatory education session to expiate the second caution. Victoria s Cannabis Cautioning Program had 1,706 cautions issued from October 2000 to March 2002. Of these, 179 attended an optional education session offered in conjunction with the caution. In South Australia 773 diversions were conducted for young people for cannabis related offences from September 2001 to June 2002. Of these, 635 received education materials, 41 had a brief intervention and 97 were assessed. In Western Australia, the Cannabis Cautioning System provides formal cautioning of first-time offenders apprehended for simple cannabis offences. Cannabis cautioning consists of one-and-a-half to two-hour, face-to-face, individual or group single education sessions that must be completed within 14 days. From July to December 2001, a total of 389 offenders were issued with cautions. Tasmania has a three tier approach to cannabis diversion, whereby first offenders are formally cautioned by police and provided with some educational materials, second offenders are referred to a brief intervention session that involves face-to-face counselling, and those identified for a third time possessing or using cannabis are diverted to drug assessment and treatment. From February 2000 to Mach 2002, a total of 1,297 offenders were diverted to Level 1, 213 were diverted to Level 2, and 84 were diverted to Level 3. One of the key differences between the Queensland PDP and similar cannabis diversion programs in other states is that it is compulsory for police in Queensland to offer diversion if the offender meets the eligibility criteria, whereas in other states, police have discretion over this decision. This appears to be the main contributing factor to the considerably higher number of referrals in Queensland compared to other states. The extent to which the more graduated response evident in most other states programs affects police decisions to offer diversion is unknown at this stage. An initial analysis of court data reveals that the PDP has resulted in fewer minor illicit drug possession charges being prosecuted through the courts than would have occurred without the PDP (a reduction of about 28% over the first two years). Whilst this study has not sought to quantify the financial impact of such a reduction, it is reasonable to conclude that there have been cost savings, and that such savings are likely to be considerable given the number of court cases avoided. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 8

2.1.2 Referral Characteristics Overall, 33% of referrals came from residents of each of Queensland Health s Central and Northern Zones, with 30% coming from the Southern Zone. Given the population concentration in the south of Queensland, this suggests that this area is significantly under-represented in the rate of referrals relative to other areas of the state. Of offenders referred to diversion 76% were males, 23% were females, and 1% did not have their gender identified. The mean age of persons referred was 26 years (median 23 years). The youngest offender referred was 10 years of age at the time of the offence, while the oldest was 70 years old. 92% of persons referred were identified as being non-indigenous, while 6% identified as being of Aboriginal but not Torres Strait Islander origin. A further 2% identified as being of Torres Islander but not Aboriginal origin. The mean drug weight held by referred offenders at the time of their offence was 3.84 grams (median 1 gram), with approximately 80% of all offenders referred having 5 grams or less of cannabis at the time of their arrest. Only 5% of offenders had a drug weight in excess of 20 grams at the time of their arrest. 2.2 Compliance with DDAP Session Of the 10,623 referrals, 8,602 offenders complied with the requirement to attend the Drug Diversion Assessment Program (DDAP), representing an overall compliance rate of 81%. This has been fairly consistent throughout the reporting period, as well as across regions. Compliance was higher among the youngest age group (under 16 years) where it was 85% and the older age groups (36 years and over (89%). Compliance was lowest (77%) among offenders aged 16 to 20 years. Among offenders identified as being of Aboriginal but not Torres Strait Islander origin, compliance was lowest at 68%, compared to persons who identified as being of Torres Strait Islander but not Aboriginal descent (70% ). Both groups were lower that those offenders identified as being non- Indigenous, where compliance was 83%. The lower rate of compliance among Indigenous offenders is an area of concern, and one that warrants further investigation and action. The mean time between the date of referral by police and the date of the appointment to attend a DDAP intervention was 22 days (median 16 days). Overall, the mean time from the date of the offence to the date of the appointment with the DDAP was 26 days (median 18 days). Compliance decreased consistently from 86% when the elapsed time was 5 days or less, to 74% when the elapsed time exceeded 60 days. Given the apparent link between the elapsed time between referral and the DDAP appointment and the compliance by offenders, ongoing efforts should be made to ensure that this lag is minimised wherever possible. 2.3 Police Perceptions of the PDP The perceptions of police about the PDP both in terms of the extent to which it has met its stated objectives and the effectiveness of its operational processes were sought through a survey of officers who had completed an entry on Polaris (i.e. had arrested someone for an eligible offence since the commencement of the PDP), together with a series of interviews with eight officers in charge of selected stations across Queensland. Nearly 2,000 officers responded to the survey. The size of the response and the profile of respondents (both in terms of their rank, location and experience in the PDP) indicate that the survey may be regarded as representing the views of police across Queensland. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 9

2.3.1 Reasons for not Offering Diversion Overwhelmingly, the main reason for a person not being offered diversion was because they refused or declined to be interviewed (63% ). Interestingly, as experience among officers in diverting offenders increased, fewer of them reported the main reason for not offering a person diversion as their refusal to be interviewed. This is the only reason that is consistent across experience levels. Other reasons vary across experience, or the response levels are too low to reveal a reliable trend. 2.3.2 Estimation of Compliance About 53% of officers had a realistic estimation of the actual compliance rate of offenders in attending the DDAP, while 30% of officers believed that 50% or less of offenders they diverted actually complied with the requirement to attend. Again, it was found that those officers with less experience in offering diversions generally have a lower estimation of the proportion of offenders who comply. Whilst recognising that many officers have a good knowledge of this aspect of the PDP, this data suggests that there remains a significant number who might benefit from more information about the actual compliance rate and the outcomes of the PDP among participants. 2.3.3 Perspectives on the PDP s Effectiveness Achievement of Diversion Aims When asked whether they considered the PDP had achieved the official aims of the program, over 50% of officers considered that the PDP had not contributed at all to reducing crime, while only slightly less thought that the PDP was not at all effective in reducing re-offending (49% ) or discouraging drug use (47%). On the other hand, the PDP was generally considered to be effective in reducing the workload of criminal courts and improving access to health services. Overall, approximately 70% indicated that they considered that the individual aims of the PDP had been either not achieved at all or only partially achieved. This suggests that most officers consider that there is no perceived benefit from the PDP to law enforcement agencies, with the main benefits accruing to the courts and through access to health services. When asked about the extent to which the PDP was effective overall, 26% of officers thought it was not at all effective and 54% considered it to be partially effective. Only 12% of officers considered that the PDP was mostly or totally effective. There is a slight trend indicating that officers with greater experience have a more positive view about the effectiveness of the PDP overall. Benefits of Diversion Officers were asked what they considered to be benefits from the PDP. The main three benefits identified included: Keeps first time offenders and juveniles out of court (75% ). Provides police with a positive way of dealing with first time and juvenile offenders (71% ). Enables easier disposal of exhibits (59% ). Aspects of the PDP that were perceived to provide little or no benefit to police or in general were: Reducing offending associated with drug use (65% ). Takes less time (63%) and reduces paperwork (62%). Provides opportunity for police to interact positively with offenders (55% ). Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 10

Impediments to Diversion Officers were asked to identify which factors they considered to be impediments to the successful operation of the PDP. The main factors identified were: Not taken seriously by offenders (81% ). Non-compliance penalty is too lenient (77% ). Cannot provide information about diversion until after admission is made (67% ). Little or no impact on repeat offenders and recidivism (67% ). The factors that were considered to present little or no impediment to the successful operation of the PDP are those which define the boundaries of the program (single diversion only (75% ) and the eligibility criteria (67%)). Officers were fairly evenly divided as to whether or not the view that diversion was a police role represented an impediment to the operation of the PDP (46% said it was little or no impediment, while 45% said it was some to a significant impediment). 2.3.4 Perceptions of the PDP s Processes Diversion Booking Processes Officers were asked to report the average length of time they spent on the phone to the Diversion Coordination Service (DCS) in order to make an appointment for a diverted offender. The most common length of time was 3-5 minutes. Of those officers who had made a diversion appointment, 91% indicated that it took 10 minutes or less, and 70% indicated it took 5 minutes or less. The average length of time that respondents spend on the Polaris system to record the action taken in relation to a minor drugs offence was 10 minutes or less for 65% of respondents. When asked to compare the time it takes overall to offer a diversion and complete the required documentation with the equivalent processes involved in referring the offender to court, the most common response was that the time taken was about the same. Overall, the majority (71%) of officers believe that diversion takes the same amount of time or saves them time. Further analysis indicates that those officers with greater experience in offering diversions generally consider that it takes less time than the processes involved in prosecuting offenders. Thus it appears that the introduction of the PDP has not resulted in any increase in officers time to complete the arrest process, and to the extent that the PDP has resulted in fewer matters being referred to court, prosecutor costs (and other costs associated with court hearings) have been avoided. Knowledge of the Program Officers were asked about their current knowledge and understanding of the PDP processes and their knowledge of the assessment, education and counselling session conducted by health service providers. Overall, 86% of respondents said that they had a fair, good or excellent knowledge and understanding of the PDP. About 12% said they had poor knowledge and understanding. Officers were much less confident about their knowledge of the diversion session conducted by service providers. In total, 63% of respondents reported that they had no knowledge or that their knowledge was poor. Information Sources Officers considered most of the various information sources to be more useful than not (i.e. they were ranked as reasonably useful or very useful ). Other officers were the most used resources (94% of responses) and the most useful (83% of responses). This was followed by Own experience offering diversion, used by 92% of respondents and ranked as useful by 78% of respondents. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 11

2.3.5 Other Views Offered Officers were asked a number of open-ended questions about the eligibility criteria for the PDP and any changes they believed should be made to the program. 784 responses were received to the first question (41% of survey respondents) and 542 responses were received to the second question (28% of all respondents). The responses received seem to reflect more negative perceptions than the responses to previous questions which all but a few respondents completed. Notwithstanding these limitations, the responses provide an indication of the issues of concern to a number of officers and which may warrant further consideration. Eligibility Criteria The most common suggestion made with respect to amending the criteria for the program was that the amount of cannabis that constitutes a minor drugs offence should be reduced (34% of comments). There were a few suggestions as low as 1 to 5 grams, and some as high as 30 grams, but most respondents suggested a weight in the range of 10 to 20 grams. The second most commonly suggested change to the existing criteria for the PDP was that a person with any previous drug conviction (particularly for trafficking and supply) should be ineligible for diversion (24% of comments). There was a further view put in 11% of comments, that a person should be ineligible if they have any criminal history at all. Other comments covered a wide range of suggestions, but generally reflected a view among respondents that the eligibility criteria should be tightened in different ways. Other Changes The most frequent suggestion made to change the PDP was that the penalty for non-compliance should be increased, including continuing with the original drug offence together with a charge for contravening the direction of a police officer (31% of comments). The second most frequent change proposed was that the program should be scrapped (12% of comments), followed by suggestions that diversion should be limited to Court only (9% of comments). There is clearly a strong sentiment amongst some police that the program is not effective and that offering diversion is not their role. There were also a number of comments made regarding the difficulties officers had with the process of conducting a diversion and suggestions for ways in which it could be made simpler. These observations generally related to the computer systems (Polaris and CRISP) and the difficulty of making appointments, re-scheduling appointments and following up on compliance. 2.3.6 OICs Perspectives Officer Attitudes The eight OICs interviewed generally reported that they considered that their officers attitudes had changed significantly over the past two years and that officers are now more accepting of the PDP and their role (albeit somewhat begrudgingly at times). However, many are still sceptical that diversion works (which police interpret as meaning that people who have been diverted will stop using and not come to the attention of police for drug related matters again), and particularly resent having to divert long term users and people with prior dealing, trafficking and cultivation offences. These observations are generally consistent with the findings of the officer survey. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 12

Compliance Procedures OICs unanimously reported that the current process of notifying police of compliance (or non-compliance) by fax was difficult. OICs are required to follow up any diversion entries that have not been finalised after the appointment date, and because OICs do not receive a copy of the compliance notice/fax, nor is there a record of incoming faxes, they are not in a position to know the outcome of the diversion. This requires extensive (and often time-consuming) follow up with the original reporting officer. Several options were put forward for addressing this issue: email or hard copy. A range of benefits and problems were identified with both of these options that may inhibit their application universally. Consequently, given the widespread agreement among the OICs interviewed about the problems associated with faxing compliance notices, and the variation between the OICs about what method (i.e. email or mail) would work best in their station, it may be best if each station determines how it wants its compliance notices sent through, and then negotiate with local service providers to arrange that method. Attitudes to Process Most OICs reported that the diversion process is usually quicker than the process of charging someone with the same offence now that most officers are familiar and accepting of the process. The process of offering diversion is well established and most OICs considered it to be straightforward. There were no negative comments about the DCS appointment scheduling process and most OICs observed that it works seamlessly. Appointment Rescheduling Universally, OICs were critical of the process required to change an appointment. Whilst they understood the requirement for police involvement in altering the date/time of an appointment in certain circumstances, they often found the process to be time consuming and problematic, particularly since it requires the original reporting officer to approve the change. An alternative approach was put which permitted the direction (i.e. the appointment time) to be varied by any officer. The reporting officer would then need to be notified of the new direction in an appropriate and reliable manner, with a copy to their OIC. Computer Systems Most OICs identified that the computer-based component of the PDP process was cumbersome and unwieldy, as it requires the use of two separate systems - CRISP and Polaris. The systems are not integrated, so data has to be entered on both systems, and this was considered to be a more time consuming process than necessary. However, whilst OICs expressed a strong preference for the development of a new integrated system, they recognised that the problem is not limited to the PDP and that any redevelopment would necessarily be part of a much wider system review and development process. Provision of Program Information prior to Admission of Offence The legislation governing the PDP precludes police from advising a person who is otherwise eligible for the PDP about the program until the person has admitted the offence as it may be considered an inducement to admit the offence. A number of OICs considered this to be a frustrating situation as many people who may benefit from a diversion were denied access by maintaining their right to silence. This was seen as being particularly so for Indigenous offenders who are generally advised not to admit an offence. The OICs suggested that a process be developed by which offenders could be advised about the PDP at the earliest possible opportunity and in the most hands off manner. Any such approach would clearly need to be considered carefully, having regard to the civil rights of offenders. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 13

Timing of a Diversion In a similar vein to the above, several OICs felt that the window of opportunity to offer a diversion should extend until the date of the first court appearance. Legislative change may be required to extend the time within which people are deemed eligible to be offered diversion. However, if this means that police may need to undertake three separate processes (a notice to appear, then a withdrawal of that notice, followed by a diversion), it is unlikely that the majority of police would be supportive of such a change. 2.3.7 Discussion The responses to the survey of police officers, together with interviews of a sample of OICs have revealed fairly consistent responses to a wide range of issues relating to the PDP. Clearly, many officers continue to have concerns and reservations about the effectiveness of the PDP in regard to its ability to have a positive impact on participants, and in particular on their drug use and criminal activities. They perceive the main benefits of the PDP as being largely its capacity to reduce the workload of the Courts, and to provide greater access by offenders to health services. OICs consider that the earlier resistance among some officers to the PDP has reduced somewhat, and that more officers are now more supportive of the program than they were when it was first introduced, particularly in its potential to have a positive impact on young people and those early in their drug use. The fact that the requirement to divert an eligible offender to the PDP is mandatory undoubtedly reinforces officers preparedness to undertake this activity. A number of suggestions were made in regard to the eligibility criteria for the PDP, particularly in regard to the exclusion of persons with prior convictions involving trafficking and/or dealing of drugs, and those on an existing Court order, and modification to the criteria relating to prior violent offences. Similarly, there is considerable support for changing the penalty for not complying with the requirement to attend the DDAP session. We believe that these suggestions warrant further consideration, and accordingly have made recommendations in each of these areas. In regard to the process of offering a diversion to an eligible offender, and the subsequent activities involved in following up participants compliance, police indicated that they are generally happy with the approaches and methods adopted in most areas, and find them at least no more onerous, and in many instances less onerous, than the alternative of referring the offender to Court. However, there remain a number of areas where further improvements have been identified that warrant further investigation and consideration. In particular, the capacity to provide information to an eligible offender earlier in the diversion process to inform their decision about accepting an offer, the processes surrounding the recording and follow-up of compliance with the DDAP session, and the rescheduling of appointments may all be improved. Finally, there is widespread support for streamlining and integrating the existing computer systems used in the PDP, but recognition that this may need to be part of a wider systems redevelopment. 2.4 Service Provider Perceptions of the PDP Consultations with about 17 service providers who provide the DDAP session to PDP participants were conducted across Queensland. The average number of clients was 137, with five providers seeing 20 or less and six people seeing 250 or more (with the highest number of clients being 460). Most of the service providers had been with the program since its inception, while about five people had commenced PDP service provision in the last twelve months. Evaluation of the QIDDI Police Diversion Program Final Report 14