The costs of crime associated with stimulant use in a Canadian setting

Abstract

Background: Costs attributable to criminal activity are a major component of the economic burden of substance use disorders, yet there is a paucity of empirical evidence on this topic. Our aim was to estimate the costs of crime associated with different forms and intensities of stimulant use. Methods: Retrospective cohort study, including individuals from three prospective cohorts in Vancouver, Canada, measured biannually (2011-2015), reporting stimulant use at baseline assessment. Monthly crime costs included policing, court, corrections, and criminal victimization (2016 CAD). We estimated monthly crime costs associated with mutually exclusive categories of crack, cocaine, methamphetamine, and polystimulant use, stratified by daily/non-daily use, relative to stimulant abstinence, as well as the independent effects of treatment (opioid agonist (OAT) and other addiction treatment). We used a two-part model, capturing the probability of criminal activity and costs of crime with generalized linear logistic and gamma regression models, respectively, controlling for age, gender, education, homelessness, mental health issues, employment, prior incarceration, alcohol and opioid use. Results: The study sample included 1,599 individuals (median age 39, 65.9% male) assessed over 5299 biannual interviews. Estimates of associated monthly crime costs ranged from $5449 [95%C.I.: $2180, $8719] for non-daily polystimulant use, to $8893 [$4196, $13,589] for daily polystimulant use. Cost differences between daily/non-daily use, injection/non-injection, and stimulant type were not statistically significant. Drug treatment was not associated with lower monthly crime costs in our sample. Conclusions: Substantial crime-related costs were associated with stimulant use, emphasizing the urgency for development and implementation of efficacious treatment regimens.

Methamphetamine use, health and criminal justice system outcomes: A systematic review

“…After the removal of 2520 duplicates, 3814 studies were screened on title and abstract. Following title and abstract screening, the full text of 86 records was screened, resulting in nine publications meeting the inclusion criteria [19,29,[31][32][33][36][37][38][39]. The results of the quality assessment are included in the supporting information available online (Table S1).…”

“…The items that the smallest proportion of studies were endorsed for were groups/participants being free of the outcome at the start of the study/time of exposure (75%) and strategies used to address incomplete follow up (67%). It should be noted however that incomplete follow up was only an issue for three of the studies [29,31,33]. All studies were endorsed for recruiting study groups from the same population, measuring exposure in a valid/reliable way, identifying confounding factors and measuring outcomes in a valid/reliable way.…”

“…The nine included studies were set in Sweden [19,[36][37][38][39], the United States [29,32], Taiwan [31] and Canada [33]. Six of the included studies solely involved participants who were in custodial settings at some stage during the study period [29,31,32,[37][38][39].…”

“…Two of the studies involved participants who were either in custody or subject to community corrections orders at some stage during the study period [19,36]. One study involved participants who were recruited in the community and who may or may not have reported prior and/or subsequent contact with the CJS (incarceration, community-based supervision or arrest) or criminal activity [33].…”

“…Follow-up times varied by study; four studies did not report a fixed follow-up time due to participants entering or exiting the cohort at different times [19,33,36,38]. The shortest fixed follow-up time reported was nine months [29] and the longest was five years [31].…”