MERIT (Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment Program): A Survey of Magistrates

• NCJ Number: 206680
• Author(s): Lynne A. Barnes; Patrizia Poletti
• Date Published: March 2004
• Length: 90 pages
• Sale Source: Judicial Cmssn of New South Wales
• Publication Format: Book (Softbound)
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: This report is Monograph Series 24.

Annotation

In surveying magistrates from New South Wales on the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) program, this study attempted to obtain and analyze information about magistrates’ attitudes towards, and experiences of, MERIT, as well as provide general information on MERIT as a contextual background for magistrates’ responses to the questions posed in the survey.

Abstract

As an outcome of the Australian Government's meeting on drugs, all the States and territories agreed to take a national approach to the diversion of drug offenders into treatment programs. Several diversionary options were proposed with the Magistrates Early Referral into Treatment (MERIT) program being one of those options. Operational in 2000 in New South Wales (NSW), MERIT was designed to complement the adult drug court. It is a special magistrates’ program providing the opportunity for some defendants with drug problems to work, on a voluntary basis, towards rehabilitation as part of the bail process. The MERIT program eligibility criteria is intentionally broad, offering magistrates and the MERIT team a degree of discretion and flexibility. The Judicial Commission of NSW conducted a survey in 2003 of magistrates as part of a wider evaluation of MERIT. The survey was conducted in order to obtain magistrates’ views and experiences of the program with the expectations of providing valuable feedback on the operation of MERIT. A total of 128 surveys were mailed with a total of 59 surveys completed and returned. Highlighted findings from the survey include: (1) almost half of the respondents were very satisfied with MERIT; (2) around three-quarters of the respondents had not changed their attitude to MERIT since becoming involved in the program; (3) around 6 in 10 respondents indicated that their level of job satisfaction had not changed with 4 in 10 respondents stating that job satisfaction had increased since involvement with MERIT; and (4) not one respondent thought that their involvement with MERIT had significantly impacted on their judicial workload with two-thirds indicating it had little impact. Recommendations are presented in regard to the operation of MERIT. Tables, figures, references, and appendices A-B