International Journal of Drug Policy
Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 223-234 , August 2005

A comparative review of best practice guidelines for the diversion of drug related offenders

  • Melissa Bull

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationTel.: +61 7 38753328; fax: +61 7 38755608.

Received 5 January 2005 ,Revised 29 April 2005 ,Accepted 20 May 2005.

References 

  1. Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). (1996). Best practice in the diversion of alcohol and other drug offenders. In Proceedings of the ADCA Diversion Forum. Canberra: The Alcohol and other Drug Council of Australia.
  2. Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. (2000, June). 8.9 diversion. In Drug policy 2000: A new agenda for harm reduction. http://www.adca.org.au/publications/Drug%20Policy%202000/89_diversion.htm (accessed 16/07/2003).
  3. Anderson K. Legal responses to illicit drug use policy research. Brisbane: Department of the Premier and Cabinet; 2001;
  4. Anglin MD, Longshore D, Turner S. Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC): An evaluation of five programmes. Criminal Justice and Behaviour. 1999;26(2):168–195
  5. Barton A. Breaking the crime/drug cycle: The birth of a new approach. The Howard Journal. 1999;38(2):144–157
  6. Bean P. The drug treatment and testing order and drug courts. Drugs and crime. Devon: Willan Publishing; 2002;
  7. Bean P. Women, drugs and crime. Drugs and crime. Devon: Willan Publishing; 2002;
  8. Belenko S. Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University; 2001;
  9. Belenko S. The challenges of integrating drug treatment into the criminal justice process. Albany Law Review. 2000;63(3):833
  10. Belenko S. Research on drug courts: A critical review update. National Drug Court Institute Review. 1999;2(2):1
  11. Belenko S. Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review. 1998;1(1):1
  12. Bull M. Just treatment: A review of international programmes for the diversion of drug related offenders from the criminal justice system. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology; 2003;
  13. Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1992). Treatment alternatives to street crime. TASC programmes: Programme brief (NCJ Publication No 129759). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice.
  14. Callaghan RC, Cunningham JA. Gender differences in detoxification: Predictors of completion and readmission. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;23:399
  15. Campbell CI, Alexander JA. Culturally competent treatment practices and ancillary service use in outpatient substance abuse treatment. Journal of substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;22(3):109
  16. Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. (2001). Illicit drug diversion initiative. http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/nids/diversion/index.htm (accessed 16/09/2002).
  17. Cooper, C. S., Nerney, M., Parnham, J., & Smith, B. (2002). Juvenile drug courts: Where have we been? Where should we be going? OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project.
  18. Costanzo, J. (2003). Final report by the pilot programme magistrate pursuant to Section 46, drug rehabilitation (Court Diversion Act 2000) (The Drug Court Magistrate's Final Report). Brisbane: Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General.
  19. Creswell LS, Deschenes EP. Minority and non-minority perceptions of drug court programme severity and effectiveness. Journal of Drug Issues. 2001;31(1):259
  20. Crossen-White H, Glavin K. A follow-up study of drug misusers who received and intervention from a local arrest referral scheme. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):152–171
  21. Davies HTO, Nutley SM, Smith PC. Editorial: What works? The role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money and Management. 1999;19(1):3
  22. Edmunds M, May T, Hearnden I, Hough M. Arrest Referral: Emerging lessons from research. South Bank University: Criminal Policy Research Unit; 1998;
  23. Edmunds M, Hough M, Turnbull PJ, May T. Doing justice to treatment: Referring offenders to drug services. South Bank University: Criminal Policy Research Unit; 1999;
  24. Eley S, Malloch M, McIvor G, Yates R, Brown A. The Glasgow drug court in action: The first six months. Department of Applied Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Scottish Executive Social Research; 2002;
  25. Expert Working Group. (1999). Improving intersectoral impact in drug abuse offending case work. Vienna: United Nations Drug Control Programme, United Nations.
  26. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. (2003). Alternative measures to prosecution. Trends in therapeutic measures: Situation in the EU member states. Available at http://eldd.emcdda.org/print.cfm (accessed 03/02/2003).
  27. Farrell Grant Sparks Consulting, & Farrell, M. (2002). Final evaluation of the pilot drug court. Courts Service, Ireland.
  28. Freeman K. New South Wales drug court evaluation: Health well-being and participant satisfaction. Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; 2002;
  29. General Accounting Office (USA). (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics and results. Washington DC, available at www.gao.gov (accessed 20/12/02).
  30. Green CA, Polen MR, Dickinson DM, Lunch FL, Bennet MD. Gender differences in predictors of initiation, retention and completion in an HMO-based substance abuse treatment programme. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2002;23:285
  31. Guydish J, Wolfe E, Tajima B, Woods WJ. Drug court effectiveness: A review of California evaluation reports, 1995–1999. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2001;33(4):369
  32. Harrell A, Mithchell O, Hirst A, Marlowe D, Merril J. Breaking the cycle for drugs and crime: Findings from the Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminology & Public Policy. 2002;1(2):189–216
  33. Heale P, Lang E. Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT): Final evaluation report. Melbourne: Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre Inc; 1999;
  34. Health Outcomes International (HOI) Pty Ltd. (2003). Evaluation of council of Australian governments’ initiatives on illicit drugs. In Final report to Department of Finance and Administration October 2002 (Vol. 2—Diversion initiatives). Canberra: Department of Finance and Administration.
  35. Hollander Feldman P, Nadash P, Gursen M. Improving communication between researchers and policy makers in long-term care: Or researchers are from Mars; policy makers are from Venus. The Gerontologist. 2001;41(3):312
  36. Home Office. (1999). Drugs interventions in the criminal justice system: Guidance manual. London: Home Office.
  37. Hough, M. (1996). Drug misuse and the criminal justice system: A review of the literature (Home Office Drug prevention Initiative Paper 15). London: Home Office.
  38. Huddleston CW. Drug courts and jail-based treatment. Corrections Today. 1998;60(6):98–101
  39. James S, Sutton A. Development in Australian drug law enforcement: Taking stock. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 2000;11(3):257–272
  40. Lang MA, Belenko S. Predicting retention in a residential drug treatment alternative to prison programme. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2000;19:145
  41. Lawrence R, Freeman K. Design and implementation of Australian's first drug court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2002;35(1):63–78
  42. Leicester G. The seven enemies of evidence-based policy. Public Money and Management. 1999;19(1):5
  43. Lind B, Weatherburn D, Chen S, Shanahan M, Lancsar E, Hass M, et al. New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost-effectiveness. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Attorney General's Department; 2002;
  44. Makkai T. Drug courts: Issues and prospects. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. No 95. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology; 1998, September;
  45. Makkai T. Linking drugs and criminal activity: Developing and integrated monitoring system. AIC trends and issues in crime and criminal justice. No 109. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology; 1999;
  46. Makkai T. Drugs and property crime ABCI Australian illicit drug report 1997–1998. Canberra: ABCI; 1999;pp. 105–113
  47. Makkai, T., & Veraar, K. (2003). Final report on the South East Queensland drug court (Technical and Background Paper Series No. 6). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
  48. McLeod J, Stewart G. Evaluation of the drug diversion pilot programme: A report prepared for the Drugs and Health Protection Services Branch. Victoria: Public Health Division, Department of Human Services; 1999;
  49. Minson J. What is an expert. In:  O’Farrell C editors. Foucault: The legacy. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology; 1997;
  50. Murphy, T. (2000, October). Coercing offenders into treatment: A comprehensive state-wide diversion strategy. In Society for the Study of Addiction Annual Symposium. Leeds, United Kingdom, available at: http://www.wa.gov.au/drugwestaus/html/contents/publications/reports_other/speeches (accessed 16/09/2002).
  51. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. US Department of Justice, Drug Courts Programme Office.
  52. Nelson-Zlupko L, Kauffman E. Gender differences in drug addiction and treatment: Implications for social work intervention with substance-abusing women. Social Work. 1995;40(1):45
  53. New South Wale Drug Court. (1999). Review of drug court procedure. Sydney: Drug Court of New South Wales.
  54. Nolan JL. Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001;
  55. Nutley SM, Davies HTO. The fall and rise of evidence in criminal justice. Public Money and Management. 1999;19(1):47
  56. Peters RH, Haas AL, Murrin MR. Predictors of retention and arrest in drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review. 1999;2(1):33
  57. Rose N, Miller P. Political power beyond the State: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology. 1992;43(2):173–205
  58. Rosenstock L, Jackson Lee L. Attacks on science: The risks to evidence-based policy. American Journal of Public Health. 2002;92(1):14
  59. Russell P, Davidson P. Arrest referral: A guide to principles and practice. Edinburgh: Effective Interventions Unit, Scottish Executive; 2002;
  60. Schwartz R, Rosen B. The politics of evidence-based health policy-making. Public Money and Management. 2004;24(2):121–127
  61. Simpson M. The relationship between drug use and crime: A puzzle inside an enigma. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2003;14(4):307–319
  62. Sondi A, O'Shea J, Williams T. Arrest referral: Emerging findings from the national monitoring and evaluation programmeme. London: Home Office; 2002;
  63. Spohn C. Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues. 2001;31(1):149
  64. Spooner C. Causes and correlates of adolescent drug abuse and implications for treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review. 1999;18(4):453
  65. Spooner C, Hall W, Mattick RP. An overview of diversion strategies for Australian drug related offenders. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2001;20:281
  66. Sung H-E. Rehabilitating felony drug offenders through job development: A look into a prosecutor led diversion programmes. The Prison Journal. 2001;81(2):271–286
  67. Tapin S. New South Wales drug court evaluation: A process evaluation. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Attorney General's Department; 2002;
  68. Taxman FS, Soule D, Gelb A. Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal. 1999;79(2):182–204
  69. Turnbull PJ, McSweeney T, Webster R, Edmunds M, Hough M. Drug treatment and testing orders: Final evaluation report. London: Home Office Research Study; 2000;
  70. Uelmen, G., Abrahamson, D. N., Appel, J. K., Cox, A. L., & Taylor, W. A. (2002). Substance abuse and crime prevention act of 2000: Progress report. Drug Policy Alliance, Sacramento, available at: www.prop36.org (accessed 24/01/03).
  71. Van de Veen SL. Some Canadian problem solving court processes. The Canadian Bar Review. 2004;83:91
  72. Vermeulen, E, Walburg, J. (1998) “What happens if a criminal can choose between detention and treatment: Result of a 4 year experiment in the Netherlands”, Alcohol and Alcoholism, 33(1), 33–36.
  73. Walker J. International experience of drug courts. Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit; 2001;
  74. Weiner HD, Wallen MC, Zankowski GL. Culture and social class as intervening variables in relapse prevention with chemically dependent women. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 1990;22(2):239
  75. Wenzel SL, Longshore D, Turner S, Ridgely MS. Drug courts: A bridge between criminal justice and health services. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2001;29:241
  76. Williams N. Evidence and policy: Towards a new politico-administrative settlement. Political Quarterly. 2002;73:86–97
  77. Young D, Belenko S. Programme retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues. 2002;32(1):297

PII: S0955-3959(05)00077-0

doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.05.007

International Journal of Drug Policy
Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 223-234 , August 2005

Article Tools