More evidence needed to improve uptake of NSW police drug diversion initiative

Published on the 04 March 2026

Evidence hub for the NSW Drug Summit 2024

The DPMP Evidence Hub translates research and scientific evidence on topical drug policy issues into plain-language summaries. Photo: Supplied.

Appetite to improve drug diversion initiative is hampered by missing data on its current reach.

Eligibility data for the Early Drug Diversion Initiative (EDDI) is needed to better understand its low-level uptake, research from the UNSW Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) has found.

The EDDI is a police-based diversion initiative brought in by the NSW Government in February 2024.

Police can choose to issue a $400 fine instead of charging someone found using or possessing a small quantity of a prohibited drug or items used for drug administration. The fine can be paid or ‘resolved’ by opting to speak to a nominated health professional.

In its first months of operation, the EDDI had just a 6.4% diversion rate: 7% for persons identifying as non-Indigenous and 2.7% for persons identifying as Indigenous, according to analysis from the Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP).

This low uptake prevents the EDDI from achieving its aim to “provide people with low-level drug offences the opportunity to understand the risks associated with their illicit drug use and receive support,” says Dr Paul Kelaita from the DPMP. The initiative also aims to improve court efficiencies by diverting people away from the court system.

The DPMP analysed public data for the six-month period after the EDDI came into effect; this data did not include breakdowns by eligibility. Additionally, police retain discretion to issue a charge and notice to attend court in all cases.

“There is a demonstrated appetite to improve or revise the EDDI. However, the lack of data on eligibility is a key limitation to understanding how the initiative currently operates,” Dr Kelaita says.

“People need to meet certain criteria. For example, only people caught possessing under what we call ‘threshold quantities’ – specified amounts – of illicit drugs for personal use are able to receive a fine instead of a charge.”

The EDDI requires there are no concurrent offences, including drug driving offences; people cannot be in possession of more than one type of drug (excluding cannabis); and they cannot have any prior serious drug convictions.

“The program’s low reach could be due to police not having sufficient training in the program; to police exercising discretion and choosing (in many cases) to charge instead of fine; or to people who are detected with drugs not being eligible for EDDI,” the applied policy researcher says.

“These three potential explanations all have very different solutions; it’s essential we understand the low program reach to understand which changes can make the most impact. For example, if it’s because people are ineligible, removing police discretion will make no difference.”

Despite evidence and expert reviews recommending police diversion as a second-best option to decriminalisation, it was taken up into policy, he says.

“Our research into how police diversion is understood by police, government officials, advocates and researchers suggests it’s diversely employed to suit stakeholders’ interests and commitments.

“As such, it becomes both a roadblock and a Trojan horse for decriminalisation reform.”

Informing dialogue for effective drug policy, improved health outcomes and social cohesion

The Drug Policy Modelling Program generates research to inform effective alcohol and drug policy. They work in partnership with governments across Australia, drug consumer groups, international researchers and peak bodies, including Harm Reduction Australia and the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL).

The EDDI research was published as part of the DPMP Evidence Hub ahead of the 2024 NSW Drug Summit. The Evidence Hub translates DPMP research and scientific evidence into accessible information to promote more informed policy discussions.

The online hub houses 20 short, evidence-based summaries on topical drug policy issues in NSW, such as changes in heroin deaths; involuntary alcohol and other drug treatment; harm-reduction in prisons; and public opinion on actions against people found possessing illicit drugs.

“There can be a lot of confusion about evidence within the charged space of drug policy. Additionally, research is not always inclusive; it can be difficult to interpret the data,” Dr Kelaita says.

“The hub makes existing evidence on diverse drug policy areas available and easy to digest for the general public as well as advocates, politicians and policymakers to help ensure policy is evidence informed.”

“We look at what the UN drug conventions say about drug policy; how drug law operates between the Commonwealth and the states and territory in Australia; as well as more localised studies, such as public support for non-criminal responses to drug use and harm reduction in Western Sydney.”

The briefs were widely circulated and shared by NGO partners, such as Uniting, in the lead up to the 2024 NSW Drug Summit as well as being referenced in summit plenaries and external media.

Advocating for evidence-informed considerations of decriminalisation

The drug summit was a Labor election promise to build consensus on how the state deals with drug-related harms. It had been more than twenty years since the landmark 1999 Drug Summit, called by then-Premier Bob Carr faced with an unprecedented number of heroin overdoses.

The 1999 summit produced some groundbreaking policies, prioritising treatment over more punitive approaches, Dr Kelaita says.

“It highlighted the inadequacy of the criminal justice system in addressing the complex nature of substance use and dependence and furthered the principle of harm reduction with policies, such as a cannabis diversion program and expanded treatment access, alongside the first medically supervised injecting facility in the English-speaking world. It also recommended decriminalisation of the personal use of drugs.”

Decriminalisation received renewed focus in the lead up to the 2024 summit, he says.

The Evidence Hub provided a case study on widely debated efforts to decriminalise personal use in North America (Oregon and Washington, US and British Columbia, Canada) to promote more informed discussion.

“The two US states and Canadian province introduced decriminalisation for possession of drugs for personal use but have since wound back laws in various ways,” Dr Kelaita says.

“This has been interpreted by some commentators that decriminalisation is a ‘policy failure’. However, North American decriminalisation achieved a reduction in arrests (especially amongst marginalised people) and associated significant cost-savings to government.

“The lack of changes in fatal overdose numbers and concerns about drug use in public spaces – the measures for success – related to existing problems; they were not caused by the decriminalisation measures.”

Assessing direct health outcomes takes time and requires the investment and roll out of treatment, harm reduction and support services, he says.

“The North American laws, even after the windbacks, retained pathways for health responses to illicit drug use and were not a wholesale rejection of decriminalisation as a public health model.”

A speaker from Oregon presented at the drug summit and emphasised the importance of investment in treatment to decriminalisation policy.

In response to sector interest, the DPMP team also created a brief on the decriminalisation for possession of illicit drugs for personal use in Portugal which has been in effect since 2001 and is widely held up as a successful example of the policy.

Decriminalisation and the limitations of the EDDI were discussed at length at the summit. The summit co-chairs recommended reforms to the EDDI, which the NSW Government has supported in principle. The EDDI is currently being evaluated by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

“Understanding the way the current policy works in practice is crucial. As is looking to lessons from other policies, and jurisdictions around Australia and internationally.

“Our research directly feeds into this process by considering the effects of policies themselves, as well as the policymaking processes through which they emerge.”

Examining the summit as a policymaking mechanism

The 2024 Drug Summit was attended by more than 500 people, including many politicians. The DPMP is conducting autoethnographic and qualitative research into its processes and participants’ experiences of inclusion.

Part of the program of study on the summit evaluates its perceived effectiveness as a policymaking mechanism and what lessons could be taken for future policy making summits.

“The 1999 summit is held up as a high watermark in NSW drug policy and by many as an exemplary model of engagement with the community sector, experts and politicians, and yet very little of it is documented,” Dr Kelaita says.

“Our research promotes more effective policy mechanisms and informed policy making through the provision of research insights, drawing on lived expertise and evidence-informed approaches.”