INTERVIEWEE’S OPINIONS

A number of Drug Court Team members and Probation and Parole case managers commented that one of the aims of the Drug Court Program was to keep the participants ‘busy’. However other interviewees suggested that the high level of commitments required on the Program was disadvantageous for those with parenting commitments, who are primarily women.

A Team member and CHS staff member were of the opinion that women with children were often ‘unsuccessful’, as they cannot satisfy the Program requirements. One suggested that

‘the Program discriminates against primary caregivers’. Some interviewees suggested that women were leaving the Program because they were unable to participate fully due to an inability to arrange alternative care for their children. One CHS staff member suggested the reasons for their lack of alternative carers were ‘association problems’, alternative carers or partners being incarcerated, a lack of family support or childcare facilities and financial difficulties. Two participants with children commented that ‘they didn’t see their kids much most days, except for weekends, as they had commitments most weekdays for the Drug Court’.

A treatment provider and Team member also suggested that it was difficult for those who were employed to meet their Drug Court commitments. The Court advises Centrelink that participants are not required to look for work in the early stages of their program, but actively encourages employment or other activity in the latter stages of their program.

5.2.2 Reviewing treatment programs

A number of interviewees commented on participants’ ability to change treatment types as a positive aspect of the Drug Court Program.

Commenting specifically about residential programs, one of the coordinators of a residential centre commented that participants were able to change their residential program too easily

‘if they didn’t like it’. Another treatment provider commented that ‘there are no problems getting people into rehabs but there are problems keeping them there’. Some were reported to retain participants better than others, according to Team members and CHS staff.

People who have been put on naltrexone treatment ‘have not done very well; many have overdosed’, according to one CHS staff member. A Team member commented that ‘we think our people are not reliable enough to be put on naltrexone’.

‘Abstinence in the community is usually for speed and cannabis users. They need a reasonably stable environment and to be highly motivated. Heroin users trying community abstinence always get into trouble’, reported a CHS staff member.

Several Drug Court and treatment staff commented that although many participants are

‘against going on a methadone program’ at the start, they eventually ‘end up on methadone’, as they decide that methadone is a more suitable treatment option and likely to provide them with greater assistance.

5.2.3 Progress on Drug Court programs

All interviewees were asked whether they thought that the participants were progressing on Drug Court programs as they expected.

A number of interviewees reported that generally progress had been slower than they had thought it would be prior to the Court’s commencement. One Team member commented that the length of a Drug Court program has been extended from 12 months to at least 12 months, because it was discovered that a longer time was needed on a program than originally envisaged. Some participants are still in Phase 1 after 18 months on a program. Another interviewee thought that the original phases and 12 months on a program was ‘an arbitrary time that someone chose’.

However one Team member who thought that participants’ progress had been slow commented that ‘all have long drug use histories so I think they have done well to get down to using once per week’. A treatment provider commented that the Court did not recognise improvements but focussed on the negative aspects.

Other Team members thought that participants were progressing through the program phases as they expected. One Team member commented that ‘if they are using two or three times per week and not doing crime then that is a win - it is not ideal but as good as it’s going to get for some’. The Team member thought that ‘there would be more people trying to rort the system and run away. (The Team member has been) pleasantly surprised by the numbers who have decided to try to get something out of the Program’. Another Team member commented that, at first, they ‘did not anticipate that there would be any graduates; I thought the drug problem was only part of it. The participants would have to get used to living on social security and learn to get their self esteem from other things, not the most expensive clothes’. Another Team member had expected progress to be slow because the age at which most participants started using drugs meant that they knew no other lifestyle. Most have reduced their level of drug use on the Program but not ceased. She commented that ‘the court is getting better at noticing that people are making some progress’.

A couple of Team members commented that they were able to tell when participants were progressing well on their Drug Court program. They generally dress more conservatively, put on weight and sit alone in Court when they are doing well.

5.2.4 Opting to serve their gaol sentence

One AHS treatment provider expressed the view ‘that 20 per cent of Drug Court participants give up as the program is too hard; they terminate themselves. The demands for perfection and the zero tolerance of drug use is the problem’. One CHS staff member said that

‘anecdotally, women fail on the Drug Court Program as they have little support in the community while they are on the Program. They have their kids to look after and these responsibilities are their major problem. The participants we see coming back want to plead guilty and do the time after a while as the hassles of keeping up with the program commitments are too great’.