The Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) pilot program: court outcomes and recidivism.

• Jurisdiction: Australia
• Author: Passey, Megan
• Date: 01 August 2007

Diversion programs for drug offenders have proliferated in the last decade in the belief that treatment of underlying drug use will decrease an individual's criminal activity. The NSW Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) program diverts adult offenders with significant drug problems, on bail, from the court to a 3-month intensive drug treatment program. This article reports on the criminal justice outcomes of the Lismore MERIT Pilot Program. Findings indicate that participants who completed the program were significantly less likely to reoffend, took longer to reoffend and received less severe sentences than those who did not complete the program. The reduction in reoffending is significantly associated with program completion even when other factors associated with recidivism are controlled for, including previous incarceration. Overall these findings contribute to the growing literature indicating that providing treatment for offenders with illicit drug problems can be an effective crime reduction strategy.

**********

Drug diversion programs have proliferated over the last 10 years in response to the growth of therapeutic jurisprudence which emphasises the potential of courts and the criminal justice system to more adequately and appropriately respond to the drug crime cycle. Drug diversion programs based on this philosophy aim to reduce recidivism by addressing an important risk factor for offending--drug abuse and dependence (Sinha & Easton, 1999).

Drug diversion programs may encompass numerous strategies to address health and social functioning and thus criminal offending. A range of programs has been trialled or established in various Australian states, including cautioning, deferred sentencing, suspended sentences and drug courts (Spooner et al., 2001; Bull, 2003). As noted by Indermaur and Roberts (2003, p. 138), these diversion programs have a relatively long history, with the first Drug Diversion Program developed in Sydney in 1977, but replaced by a scheme more widely available in New South Wales--the Drug and Alcohol Court Assessment Program. Other early programs included postsentence orders in Victoria, the Drug Aid and Assessment Panel in South Australia and the Court Diversion Service in Western Australia. In 1994 the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia prepared a report on alternatives to prosecution for drug and alcohol offenders and hosted a national forum to promote best practice for diversion programs (ADCA, 1994; 1996). More recently, diversion programs for drug (but not alcohol) offenders received significant resourcing under the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative of the Council of Australian Governments (1999).

Drug courts have emerged in Australia as a prominent response to drug-related crime (Indermaur & Roberts, 2003). They are currently operational in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales. The evaluation of the NSW drug court program indicated a reduction in recidivism among participants as measured by 'free time' to first offence (Lind et al., 2002). Reports from the North Queensland Drug Court evaluation found reduced levels of drug use during and after the program and a reduction in post-entry reoffending for those who completed the program (Payne, 2005). Similarly, evaluation of the South Australian drug court model found a reduction in the incidence and severity of criminal offending following program completion (Corlett et al., 2005). However, results from the South Queensland drug court evaluation were not as positive, with recidivism significantly reduced for program completers, but a 'termination effect' present such that those breached from the program offended more quickly than either drug court graduates or comparison groups (Makkai & Veraar, 2003). In Western Australia the reoffending rates of those who completed the program were less than those who were breached (or terminated) from the program and for those who were not accepted to the program (Crime Research Centre, 2003) though the authors were careful to note that the lack of an appropriate comparison group made such findings inconclusive.

Throughout recent years an alternative diversion program to drug courts has developed in Australia, starting with the Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT) program, which commenced in the Melbourne Magistrates Court in Victoria (Popovic & McLachlan, 1999). This program aimed to reduce reoffending by drug dependent defendants while on bail. CREDIT was specifically designed as an early court intervention--aiming to reach a broader range of offenders with drug problems than drug courts which typically deal with the 'hard end' of drug using offenders and often only after lengthy delays following their arrest (Indermaur & Roberts, 2003).

In evaluating CREDIT, Heale and Lang (2001) used police arrest data to assess recidivism. They found little difference in reoffending between CREDIT clients and those who were referred to CREDIT but who, for whatever reason, did not participate in the CREDIT program. Heale and Lang noted that for both groups, 30% of the reoffending had occurred within 7 days of bail being set. The evaluators recognised that nonparticipants were not an ideal comparison group for study, as the majority had been assessed by the CREDIT clinicians and had either elected not to go on the program or were considered ineligible.

Other research has focused on evaluating differences in outcome based on whether the intervention was coercive or noncoercive. In reviewing the role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders, Hall (1997) concluded that there was reasonable evidence that community-based treatment for heroin dependence was effective in reducing heroin use and crime regardless of whether the treatment was legally coerced or not. It is recognised that coercion into treatment is associated with increased entry into treatment (Hser et al., 1998) and longer retention in treatment relative to voluntary treatment (Young & Belenko, 2002; Loneck et al., 1996).

The evidence to date suggests that programs to systematically divert offenders with drug problems from the traditional court system and into formal treatment services may have a moderate impact on reoffending (Harvey et al., 2006). However, the majority of published research has focused on drug courts in the United States. These findings may not apply to other drug diversion programs, including early referral into treatment programs. Further, it cannot be assumed that research conducted in jurisdictions outside Australia will be directly applicable. For example, Australian and US drug laws and drug policy are markedly different (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001).

Early court intervention schemes sit midway between arrest referral schemes (Hunter et al., 2005) and drug courts. They have now become quite widespread in Australia operating in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.

The Lismore Merit Pilot Program

The MERIT Pilot Program was introduced in Lismore in rural New South Wales following the NSW Drug Summit (Reilly et al., 2002). The pilot program began in July 2000 for 2 years but has since continued. MERIT is an initiative between the NSW Attorney General's Department, Chief Magistrate's Office, NSW Health Department and the NSW Police (NSW Attorney General's Dept, 2000). MERIT is an 'opt-in' program with participants required to give informed consent and to sign a behavioural contract. Participants are not required to enter a plea in order to participate. There is no requirement that a determination of guilt be made prior to entry to MERIT. However, once admitted to the program, there is a high expectation of compliance with program standards. As the program is intended to be an early intervention program, police are encouraged to refer potential participants at the time of arrest (Linden, 2003).

Involvement in the program consists of intensive case management over a 3-month period. A treatment plan is negotiated between the MERIT worker and client and may involve detoxification, pharmacotherapy, residential rehabilitation and individual and group counselling (Passey et al., 2006). While supervised random urinalysis is a mandated component of the program, it is undertaken for therapeutic purposes only. The results are only presented to the court where abstinence for particular or all illicit drugs is indicated. MERIT caseworkers are drawn from diverse backgrounds including drug and alcohol treatment, probation and parole, counselling, nursing, mental health, social work and psychology.

The target population for the Lismore MERIT Pilot Program were adult defendants at Lismore and surrounding local courts who had a demonstrable drug problem, were eligible for bail, and who were motivated to engage in treatment for their illicit drug problems. Eligibility for the program was also dependent on the nature of the defendant's offence with serious violent, sexual or wholly indictable offences excluded.

The stated aims of the program were to:

* decrease illicit drug use by participants, during the program and following completion

* improve health and social functioning among participants, during the program and following completion

* decrease drug-related crime by participants, during the program and following completion

* encourage sentences that reflected the better rehabilitation prospects of successful participants.

This article draws from the Lismore Pilot Program evaluation findings to examine the impact of the program on criminal justice outcomes, in particular court outcomes and recidivism (Passey, 2003).

Methodology

All participants who were accepted into the Lismore MERIT Pilot Program for the first time in the initial 18 months of operation (between July 1, 2000 and December 31, 2001) were included. There were 178 people accepted to the program during the study period. An...