Indicador Accesibilidad – pretest y postest

The main indicators of effectiveness for the YDC are the extent of participants’

engagement with the program, reductions in their offending and drug use, and improvement in their health and social functioning. There have been methodological limitations to the evaluation in terms of being able to provide definitive measures of achievement against these indicators. To some extent these limitations are similar to those experienced in evaluations of drug courts in the US and elsewhere. Frequently data are often not available in the form or over the necessary periods of time to show whether program outcomes are sustained and whether they would have been achieved in any case without the particular intervention. In the case of the YDC, there are problems with data on post-program offending for the clientele that need to be addressed for the purposes of future program monitoring.

Many of the quantitative results summarised below therefore have to be treated with some caution and other findings are inevitably more qualitative in nature. In spite of these limitations, the data collected provide a useful picture of program impacts and experiences both for participants as a whole and for a sample group of participants who agreed to be interviewed for the study (around two-fifths of all those who participated during the pilot period).

Program engagement

In the first two years of its operation as a pilot program the YDC received 164 referrals of young people from the Western Sydney area facing possible custodial sentences for serious offences, of whom 75 (46 per cent) were judged eligible and suitable for intensive case management. Of these, 29 (39 per cent) went on to complete the program to the Court’s satisfaction, or to ‘graduate’.

Over this period nearly half the participants chose to extend their involvement in the program beyond the initial six months, with some having several extensions. The average length of time on the program is now around 10.4 months and a few participants have been involved for more than 12 months. This is an encouraging sign of engagement by young people in the program, but it suggests that may be unrealistic in the future to view the ‘normal’ period of participation as being six months. There is also a strong view from program staff that six months is generally too short a period to achieve sustainable results, particularly in areas like education and training.

The problem with formally lengthening the normal period of mandatory involvement, however, is that the program might become less attractive to potential participants, particularly where the custodial sentence they might otherwise face could be significantly shorter than their time on the program.

There are some concerns about involvement for periods of more than 12 months, since remand procedures normally restrict extensions beyond this period. It is also important to retain the voluntary nature of extension, as making it appear an obligation may be counter-productive.

Activities undertaken

Participants undertook a wide range of program activities at rehabilitation centres, at the Intensive Programs Unit and at the Induction Unit. Aside from drug rehabilitation itself, these included various forms of counselling, recreation, and education and training. Well over half the participants engaged in some kind of educational or vocational course, including a special, flexible TAFE-based program specifically designed for the YDC clientele. The Department of Education and Training has estimated that more than half completed these courses satisfactorily. Nearly one-fifth also achieved an employment outcome, either part-time or full-time, although the work was often short-term or casual. Seventy per cent of the young people interviewed said they had attended educational courses while on the YDC program and most found them valuable and satisfying. Overall, the educational element of the program is one of the areas of tangible success. At present there is no specific funding for education and training within the YDC budget and this would need to be addressed if the program continues.

Offending

Data problems make it difficult to be precise about the levels of further offending by program participants and it has not been possible to compare these outcomes with those achieved by similar young people who did not take part in the program. The data on offences also only cover a short period after the pilot and do not allow any assessment of longer-term outcomes.

The best estimates suggest that up to 60 per cent of participants appeared in court on fresh charges while they were on the program, aside from minor breaches of bail conditions. More than half of those who did not offend while on the program went on to graduate from it.

Around 35 per cent of participants overall were not recorded as having offended between leaving the program and the end of 2002, and this included just over 40 per cent of the graduates. However, this includes a small number of participants who were still on the program at the end of 2002 and others who had only finished recently. A few participants had a large number of new offences recorded, but graduates appeared less likely to re-offend than those who did not complete the program. This is a further indication that for many of those involved successful completion of the program is associated with continuing benefits, at least in the short term. Graduation itself, however, is also likely to be linked to greater motivation on the part of particular individuals to deal with their problem drug use and criminal behaviour, so these results do not in themselves prove that lower rates of offending are a direct effect of the program intervention.

Even within the short period up to the end of 2002 nearly two-fifths of participants went on to receive some form of detention in the juvenile or the adult prison system, for either the original offences that brought them to the YDC or later offences. Thus for a substantial proportion diversion from incarceration may only be temporary.

Drug use

There was also evidence of sustained reduction in drug use by a significant proportion of participants. It was difficult to determine accurately the level of drug use and dependency at the time of the interviews, but most said their use had decreased compared to three months before entering the program. Although there were some gender differences in responses about drug use, there were no noticeable differences according to drug of choice, with heroin, amphetamine, cocaine, cannabis and alcohol users all reporting a marked decrease in their drug use. Over half the interviewees reported using heroin as their main drug, while a further 15 per cent reported that they used mainly amphetamines. This is consistent with the pattern for the participants overall. Participants’ final outcomes did not seem to be related to the main drug used, with heroin users more or less evenly divided between graduates and those who did not complete the program.

While the numbers were too small to comment on those who were terminated from the program by the Court, those who went on to graduate from the program reported lower levels of anxiety about missing their main drug of use and of feeling their drug use was out of control than those who terminated themselves from the program.

Graduates also reported stronger desires to stop their drug use more than those who left the program voluntarily. Both groups reported a similar level of difficulty in stopping their drug use. This suggests that graduation tends to be linked to levels of motivation.

Health and social functioning

Although methodological limitations make it difficult to determine the extent of health improvement that can be attributed directly to the program, nearly three-quarters of those interviewed in the first round rated their general health as much

better than six months previously. This is likely to be related at least partly to benefits gained from decreased drug use, having minor health problems addressed through the program (particularly dental work), better sleeping patterns, and regular eating while in rehabilitation facilities, in custody or in other accommodation arranged by the program. However, second round interviews indicated that this health improvement was not sustained over the longer term, suggesting that this may be a short-term gain from initial entry into the program.

In terms of mental health, participants scored lower on a standardised measure than both the general population and young unemployed Australians, although there is no population norm for the particular YDC age group. However, there was some improvement in mental health over the longer term, particularly for the young women.

It appeared the mental health of Indigenous participants was lower than that for others, while those who graduated from the program scored higher.

While measures of social integration suggested that the interviewees were not especially socially isolated or experiencing major problems in social functioning, a high proportion mainly had friends who were other drug users, presenting a challenge for the program. Graduates reported knowing fewer people who were drug users than those who chose to leave the program, and those who chose to leave knew fewer people who were drug users than those who were terminated by the Court. This supports stakeholders’ comments that the social milieu in which participants operated was often a key influence on their behaviour. This pattern was also observable for some of the other social functioning indicators.