Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:26 pm
Time: 8:26 pm
Results for drug offenders (australia)
7 results foundAuthor: Willis, Katie Title: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Law Enforcement Summary: Seizing drugs and arresting those who import, manufacture, grow and/or distribute these drugs is often viewed as the most important purpose of drug law enforcement. This view is certainly strong in popular media depictions of organised drug criminals. Unfortunately, the reality is perhaps far less entertaining or straightforward, although just as, if not more, important. While there is no doubt that a key role of drug law enforcement is to remove drugs and high-risk offenders from the community, the most critical factor is what this actually achieves in the longer term. That is, a community that is less burdened by the impact of drugs, such as crime, illness, injury and death. Increasingly, there is both internal and external pressure on drug law enforcement to demonstrate not just how much work they do (the seizures and arrests), but how well they do it (the community impacts)—something that has so far proven very difficult. This paper outlines the nature of these challenges and summarises findings from a national project that shows a practical and effective way forward in measuring the impacts of drug law enforcement. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 406: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/7/C/3/%7B7C3C0834-EE1D-4013-88D1-938A0D934782%7Dtandi406.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/7/C/3/%7B7C3C0834-EE1D-4013-88D1-938A0D934782%7Dtandi406.pdf Shelf Number: 120875 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug EnforcementDrug Offenders (Australia)Drug Trafficking |
Author: Ness, Alex Title: Patterns of Mephedrone, GHB, Ketamine and Rohypnol Use Among Police Detainees: Findings from the DUMA Program Summary: In recognition of the need for ongoing monitoring of new or less common drug types, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), as part of the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program, interviewed 824 police detainees about their knowledge of and experience with mephedrone, GHB, Ketamine and Rohypnol. Mephedrone was the least known of the four drugs, with only 221 detainees (27%) reporting knowledge of the drug. Only six detainees (<1%) had used the drug in the previous 12 months, while 30 detainees (4%) knew of someone dealing mephedrone at the time they were interviewed. Detainees in East Perth were the most likely to have reported knowledge of mephedrone. GHB was known to more than half of all detainees interviewed (53%) and had been used in the 12 months prior to interview by 23 detainees (3%). More detainees had been offered GHB (8%), or knew of a dealer selling GHB (6%), than any of the other four drug types. Ketamine was known to 43 percent of detainees and had been used by three percent. The prevalence of Ketamine use was equal with GHB, however, knowledge of a current Ketamine dealer was lower (4%). Rohypnol was the most widely known of the four drug types (59%), however, use of the drug in the 12 months prior to interview was lower than for GHB or Ketamine (1%). Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Research in Practice, No. 16: Accessed July 11, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/6/0/%7B0605DBE8-C4C4-46C6-807E-042F849D1826%7Drip16_003.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/6/0/%7B0605DBE8-C4C4-46C6-807E-042F849D1826%7Drip16_003.pdf Shelf Number: 122020 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Jones, Craig Title: Intensive Judicial Supervision and Drug Court Outcomes: Interim Findings from a Randomised Controlled Trial Summary: Aim: To assess whether intensive judicial supervision (IJS) during the early stages of drug court reduces drug use and sanctioning rates. Method: The study employed a non-blinded randomised controlled trial to test the effect of IJS on early-phase substance use and sanctioning rates. All participants accepted onto the Parramatta Drug Court program between March 2010 and March 2011 were randomly allocated into either an IJS or supervision as usual (SAU) condition. The IJS group had phase 1 of their program extended from three to four months and appeared before the judge two times per week during phase 1. The SAU group appeared once per week for three months during phase 1. Results: Participants in the IJS group were significantly less likely to return positive urinalysis tests and had a significantly greater number of episodes of abstinence than participants in the SAU group. IJS participants were less likely to accrue sanctions than participants in the SAU group. There was no significant difference in the odds of having sanctions waived or having to serve sanctions in prison between the two groups. Conclusion: These interim findings provide strong evidence that intensively supervising drug court participants in the early phases reduces early-phase substance use and sanctioning rates. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau o0f Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 152: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf Shelf Number: 123544 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug Offenders (Australia)Intensive Judicial SupervisionProblem Solving CourtsRandomized Controlled Trial |
Author: Bradford, Deborah Title: Illicit Drug Use and Property Offending among Police Detainees Summary: Aim: The primary objective of the current study was to examine whether the frequency of recent illicit drug use is related to higher levels of offending among police detainees in Australia. In particular, the study investigated whether the frequency of property offending escalates with offenders’ self-reported illicit drug use. Method: Data from the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA) program were analysed for a national cohort of 9,453 arrestees interviewed between 2008 and 2010. Statistical analysis examined whether the number of property offences recorded at arrest was related to self-reported frequency of illicit opioid and amphetamine consumption in the 30 days prior to arrest, while controlling for other relevant drug use and demographic factors. Results: Results showed a high level of illicit drug use among police detainees. Outcomes from regression modelling revealed that heavy users of illicit opioids and amphetamines, who reported at least 16 days of use in the month prior to arrest, had significantly more property charges recorded at arrest than both less frequent (moderate) users and nonusers. Compared to non-users, heavy opioid users had 57 per cent more property charges recorded at arrest while heavy amphetamine use was associated with a 53 per cent increase in property charge counts. Higher rates of property offending were also related to younger age, being unemployed and having reported illicit use of benzodiazepines in the 30 days prior to arrest. Conclusion: These outcomes clearly demonstrate that heavy drug use, of either amphetamines or opioids in the 30 days prior to arrest, is associated with frequency of property offending. This has important implications for the treatment of drug using offenders within the criminal justice system. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics Research, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. 12p. Source: Crime and Justice Bulletin, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 157: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB157.pdf/$file/CJB157.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB157.pdf/$file/CJB157.pdf Shelf Number: 124643 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (Australia)Drug Abuse and Crime (Australia)Drug Offenders (Australia)Police Custody (Australia)Police Detainees (Australia)Property Crime (Australia) Drug Use (Australia) |
Author: Kevin, Maria Title: Corrections Treatment Outcome Study (CTOS) on Offenders in Drug Treatment: Results from the Drug Summit Demand Reduction Residential Programs Summary: This report documents program activity and outcomes of offenders who participated in the suite of Drug Summit-funded treatment programs in NSW correctional centres over a three and a half year period to December 2010. This evaluation forms part of a broader initiative, the Corrections Treatment Outcome Study (CTOS), within Corrective Services NSW. The CTOS methodology sought to examine the short and medium term cognitive and behavioural outcomes of program participants, identify factors affecting program success and explore the view of staff and participants involved. In addition to program entry and exit assessments, objective measures were derived from official records on offences in custody, detected drug use in custody and recidivism post-release. Details: Sydney: Corrective Services, NSW, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Bulletin 31: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/366484/corrections-treatment-outcome-study.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.correctiveservices.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/366484/corrections-treatment-outcome-study.pdf Shelf Number: 125176 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse Treatment ProgramsDrug Offenders (Australia)Recidivism |
Author: Shearer, James Title: The prison opiate dependence treatment trial Summary: The Prison Opiate Dependence Treatment Trial (the trial) examined the treatment history and treatment outcomes for 204 heroin users in NSW prisons between January 2002 and January 2004. The trial was commissioned by the New South Wales Corrections Health Service to evaluate the introduction of naltrexone, a long-acting opioid antagonist, through a controlled comparison with the two existing treatments for heroin users: methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and drug-free counselling (AOD). The randomisation of subjects to each of the three treatment groups was not successful due to a number of factors outside the control of the researchers. Principal among these was the very poor uptake of naltrexone. Only 9 out 66 (14%) subjects assigned to naltrexone actually started naltrexone treatment and ultimately only 14 subjects out of 204 (7%) started naltrexone over the entire two year study period. An intention-to-treat analysis would be inappropriate when so few designated subjects received their experimental treatment. Secondly, the improved availability of MMT and the introduction of the mixed opioid agonist/antagonist buprenorphine meant that experimental control for methadone/buprenorphine was largely lost. Finally, the availability of heroin within NSW prisons declined in line with reduced supply in the general community (Day, Topp et al. 2003). Heroin use was a principal outcome for the study. Low levels of heroin use at baseline considerably reduced the likelihood of detecting any treatment effects. For these reasons the trial ceased recruitment in July 2003 but continued follow up until January 2004. The trial was successful in recruiting and following up subjects with a 91% follow up achieved. Subjects were assessed for suitability, randomised and interviewed regarding their drug use history, prison history and other health and psychosocial outcomes. Subjects provided hair samples to be tested for opiate use and finger prick blood samples to be tested for HIV and hepatitis C antibodies. The subjects were re-interviewed at six months and provided further hair and blood samples. At twelve months, record checks were undertaken to examine treatment retention, compliance, concomitant medications and side-effects. For analytical purposes, subjects were divided into five mutually exclusive treatment exposure groups. Subjects who received naltrexone prior to their follow up interview were categorised as the naltrexone study group (n=9). Subjects who received buprenorphine were categorised as the buprenorphine group (n=39). Subjects who received MMT only were categorised as the MMT group (n=89). Subjects who received AOD counselling only were categorised as the AOD group (n=23) and finally subjects who did not receive any of these treatment were categorised as a No Treatment group (n=26). The study found very poor induction and retention rates for oral naltrexone. Only seven percent of all subjects started naltrexone over the two year study period. Among those subjects, only seven percent were retained in treatment at six-months. Six-month retention was significantly lower in the 14 subjects who started naltrexone (7%) compared to the 12 subjects who started methadone (58%) (p=0.0007). Mean days in treatment were 59 (95% CI, 32-86) for naltrexone, 100 (95% CI, 70-130) for buprenorphine and 149 (95% CI, 117-181) for methadone. While compliance to daily doses was good when subjects were receiving naltrexone (98%), most ceased naltrexone once they were released from prison even when specific arrangements were made for community dosing at no cost to the patient. This was of particular concern as overdose risk is highest post-prison release and this may be further increased if subjects have recently ceased naltrexone. No deaths or serious adverse events were noted during the study. Few side effects were noted in those subjects who received naltrexone. Most side effects were minor, including dizziness, nausea, headache, sleep disturbance and loss of appetite which resolved or were manageable. There were no other statistically significant differences in outcomes between the study groups although results were limited by the small sample sizes of the multiple comparison groups. The experience of this study was consistent with other studies of oral naltrexone in Australia and overseas. The study did not replicate the success observed among prison parolees in the US or work release programs in Singapore. The most likely reason for this was that inmates were not subject to coercion or incentives to enter and stay on naltrexone maintenance. In the absence of such incentives, opioid dependent inmates showed a preference for agonist treatment including methadone maintenance and buprenorphine maintenance. Many inmates who achieved abstinence preferred no treatment or drug free counselling over naltrexone. The overall conclusion of the study was that poor patient acceptability and retention did not support oral naltrexone in this treatment group. The study also found relatively poor retention in subjects who started buprenorphine (n=21) due to the high proportion (20%) who were discontinued due to diversion. Diverted buprenorphine was the second most injected illicit drug (11%) after heroin (14%) at follow up. Investigation of alternate dose formulations may be warranted. Half the trial subjects did not receive any AOD counselling, mostly because they declined to attend for AOD counselling (42%) or claimed that counselling was not offered (38%). Given that subjects who received AOD counselling had improved outcomes, the underlying reasons for failure to attend or be offered AOD counselling warrant further investigation. Subjects who received no treatment of any kind had the poorest outcomes on most measures. This group was characterised by shorter sentences. New forms of depot preparations and implantable devices for both naltrexone and buprenorphine may overcome the poor treatment retention experienced in this study: however such devices remain experimental. At the conclusion of recruitment for this study, CHS withdrew funding support for oral naltrexone. We conclude from this study that treatment of heroin dependence in correctional settings using oral naltrexone is relatively ineffective because of limited attraction and poor compliance and that compliance is superior for oral methadone which is also more attractive and more effective. Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 2004. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical Report No. 199: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/prison-opiate-dependence-treatment-trial Year: 2004 Country: Australia URL: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/prison-opiate-dependence-treatment-trial Shelf Number: 106730 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Baker, Tom Title: Alcohol and other drug treatment and diversion from the Australian criminal justice system 2012-13 Summary: In the 10 years to 2012-13, the number of treatment episodes provided to clients diverted from the criminal justice system into alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment for drug or drug-related offences more than doubled, while treatment episodes for other clients increased only marginally. This bulletin assesses the nature of diversion clients referred to AOD treatment services, how they compare with non-diversion clients receiving AOD treatment, and the treatment they receive. About 1 in 4 clients had been diverted from the criminal justice system Nationally, there were 24,069 clients who had been diverted into AOD treatment, comprising 24% of all clients. Diversion clients were younger and more likely to be male than non-diversion clients, and less likely to be Indigenous Among diversion clients: - 25% were aged 10-19 compared with 11% for non-diversion clients - 80% were male compared with 67% of non-diversion clients - 12% were Indigenous compared with 15% for non-diversion clients. Among diversion clients, about 1 in 7 also received non-diversion treatment during 2012-13 While there are client data for just 1 collection year, about 1 in 7 (3,640) diversion clients also received non-diversion episodes during 2012-13 (4% of total clients). Diversion treatment episodes were about twice as likely to involve cannabis as the principal drug of concern compared with episodes for non-diversion clients Diversion episodes were most likely to be for cannabis (43% compared with 20% for non-diversion episodes). This was followed by alcohol (21% compared with 46%), amphetamines (18% compared with 13%) and heroin (7% compared with 8%). Police diversion episodes had less intensive treatment types compared with court diversion episodes Police diversion episodes were far less likely than court diversion episodes to involve counselling (21% compared with 54%) and support and case management only (1% compared with 15%) as main treatment types, and much more likely to involve information and education only (46% compared with 20%) and assessment only (31% compared with 5%). Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 125: Accessed October 15, 2014 at: Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 133954 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversion Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Offender TreatmentDrug Offenders (Australia)Substance Abuse Treatment |