NCJ Number
190064
Journal
Drug and Alcohol Review Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Dated: June 2001 Pages: 223-230
Date Published
June 2001
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article reports on the methodology and findings of an process evaluation of Australia's Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT) program, which was developed as a pilot program by a small group of magistrates at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court who wished to address the high rate of reoffending while on bail noted among illicit drug-using offenders.
Abstract
The CREDIT pilot program began in mid-November 1998 and continued until the end of August 1999. The program has since continued beyond its pilot phase. CREDIT has provided drug treatment immediately following arrest to alleged offenders with problematic drug use. It has developed a commitment to treatment for such alleged offenders by capitalizing on the fact that they are confronted with entering the criminal justice system. It has diverted alleged offenders with a drug problem to drug treatment, so as to prevent further involvement in the criminal justice process. The evaluation sought to assess CREDIT in accordance with the key performance indicators, i.e., client uptake of the program, retention in and satisfactory completion of treatment, and the extent of reoffending while on bail. It also aimed to identify the successful components and/or failures of the program, including systemic issues that might impact on the successful delivery of the program. Further, the evaluation identified possible improvements to the program and assessed the potential for the program to be extended to other magistrates' courts. Despite a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of the program as measured by key performance indicators, key informant interviews showed a high level of support for the continuation of the program. The evaluation concluded that CREDIT was innovative in concept and development and had been promising in terms of diverting offenders into drug treatment. What was less clear was the efficacy of the CREDIT program in both reducing the rate of reoffending, either while on bail or overall, or in making a significant reduction in the number of people sent to prison or on the actual workload of the court. It was these areas, plus client outcomes, that should be the focus of future evaluation. 2 tables and 11 references