Original Article

Journal of Criminology
0(0) 1–21
Drug offence detection ! The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
during the pandemic: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00048658211007532
An ARIMA analysis of rates journals.sagepub.com/home/anj

and regional differences in

Queensland, Australia

Cameron T Langfield and

Jason L Payne
School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, Australia

Toni Makkai
Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia

Abstract
Public commentary has offered mixed opinion on the likely impact of COVID-19 restrictions
on drug-related offending. On the one hand, it is argued that drug users – and the drug
markets in which they interact – may have become the incidental targets of law enforcement
as police seek to enforce social distancing regulations by focusing their efforts on street-level
pedestrian activity or open-air gatherings. On the other, interstate border closures and
restrictions on person and freight traffic are thought to have interrupted illicit drug supply
chains, temporarily reducing or displacing market activity at the street level and thus reducing
police detections of drug users. In this study, we extend current analyses of crime during the
COVID-19 pandemic to explore how the rate of police detection for drug possession and
other drug-related offences has changed. Using crime data from the Australian state of
Queensland, we use Auto-Regressive Integrated and Moving Average time series modelling
techniques to explore historical trends and their dynamic forecasts. We then compare actual
offence rates for March through June to identify any statistically significant changes. We find
that reported drug offences significantly vary across time and location highlighting that the
impact of COVID-19 is not universal across Queensland. Thus, the significant heterogeneity
in local drug market dynamics that has elsewhere been documented remains even in a major

Corresponding author:
Cameron T Langfield, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Email: ctl090@uowmail.edu.au
2 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

crisis with significant changes in policing activity and resource allocation. Our analysis has
significant import for criminal justice practitioners in further understanding drug market
dynamics and drug-related offending during COVID-19 restrictions.

Keywords
COVID-19, crime, drug possession, drug-related offending, policing activity
Date received: 10 March 2021; accepted: 15 March 2021

Introduction
COVID-19, the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2
(SARS-CoV-2), was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization
(2020) on 11 March 2020. Not since the 1918 Spanish Flu has the world experienced
such a wide-reaching public health crisis; one that has resulted in unprecedented public
health and economic measures aimed at reducing the spread of the virus and mitigating
economic consequences, respectively. In response, Australia moved quickly to imple-
ment a number of policies in an effort to reduce the rate of transmission within the
community. These efforts have included, but were not limited to, the closure of schools,
the closure of most non-essential businesses and the closure of international borders
with a 14-day quarantine period for all returning travellers. Furthermore, these restric-
tions also extended to limits on public and street-based gatherings (up to two people)
and the federal government advised Australians to only leave their homes for exercise,
essential shopping, to access medical services, and for work/education activities that
could not be completed remotely (see also Payne et al., 2020, 2021). Without question,
the advent of this global pandemic and the introduction of wide-reaching mobility and
physical distancing measures represent a unique, once-in-a-generation opportunity for
both the policy and research sectors.
Here in Australia, the rate of COVID-19 infection and transmission has remained
relatively low. The majority of early Australian COVID-19 cases had acquired their
infection from overseas travel, or from contact with a confirmed case who had travelled
overseas (Australian Department of Health, 2020c). Nationwide, containment measures
were coordinated by the federal government through the National Cabinet (see
Bonyhady & Duke, 2020), though individual states and territories had autonomy in
choosing which restrictions to implement, and the timeline upon which to implement
them. Queensland was decisive in its response to COVID-19 and was the first Australian
state to declare a public health emergency under the Public Health Act 2005 on 29
January 2020 (Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2020). In addition
to the widespread restrictions already introduced by the federal government,
Queensland borders were closed on 26 March (Queensland Government, 2020a) and
interstate travel was restricted to only residents, and individuals living in border com-
munities undertaking essential services and activities (Queensland Government, 2020a).
School closures came into effect on 30 March and were only open for children of
essential service workers (Welburn, 2020). In early April, further restrictions were
Langfield et al. 3

introduced, and only Queensland residents could cross the border, effectively closing off
all tourism and non-essential travel (Queensland Government, 2020a). These restrictions
were enforceable by law throughout mid-late May. At time of writing, and in line with
relaxing restrictions elsewhere in the country, Queensland has begun easing some restric-
tions, including borders reopening, and relaxing the limits on public gatherings
(Queensland Government, 2020c). However, what impacts these restrictions have had
on drug use and drug offence rates, is largely unknown and the aim of this study is to
document what happened during the pandemic using recorded drug-offence data for the
state of Queensland. From here we proceed with a review of the contemporary and
emerging international literature on drug-use and drug market changes during COVID-
19, then follow with some hypotheses derived from criminological theory.

Prior literature
Changes in drug use
Not long after the pandemic was declared both policy and research experts warned of an
increase in community level drug use (Lee & Bartle, 2020; McGowan, 2020). Three main
mechanisms were cited as a likely cause of this increase. First, the temporary closure of
the entertainment and hospitality industries was predicted to result in a large increase in
unemployment, particularly among young Australians (Coates et al., 2020; Noble et al.,
2020). Work- and stay-at-home orders also meant that a large proportion of those who
continued to work did so from home (Beck & Hensher, 2020). Social distancing regu-
lations restricted mass gatherings, putting a temporary end to major sporting events,
and significantly limiting smaller gatherings (Beck & Hensher, 2020), effectively ending
the night-time economy and other entertainment opportunities (Beck & Hensher, 2020).
Collectively, these measures have meant that many Australians stayed home, unable to
undertake their normal work and absent of the rituals of their employment to govern
their daily activities. Coupled with the abrupt end to most forms of outside entertain-
ment and social engagement, this is believed to have resulted in an increase in recrea-
tional drug use (Lee & Bartle, 2020; McGowan, 2020).
Second, emotional and financial consequences of COVID-191 will likely result in an
increase in community-level drug use, specifically as a coping strategy (Dietze & Peacock,
2020). The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, 2020) has itself warned
that the financial pressures and strain of COVID-19 may increase substance use due to a
deterioration of both individual- and societal-level socioeconomic outcomes. This is most
likely to manifest as an increase in the frequency and quantity of use among existing users,
but there is also some potential that new drug users might emerge in the context of the
pandemic (Dietze & Peacock, 2020). Of most concern is the disproportionate impact that
unemployment and social isolation will have on pre-existing drug users who are a disadvan-
taged population (Bonn, 2020) that already experience significant social and personal con-
sequences of their drug use (Human Rights Watch, 2016; Stevens et al., 2019). Further, being
known as a ‘junkie’ or ‘addict’ (Joyce et al., 2019) is already associated with a range of socially
isolating and stigmatising effects and so COVID-19 may serve to exacerbate existing drug use
trajectories. To date, the empirical evidence on community level drug use is limited and
mixed. Here in Australia, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (2020) reported
4 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

an increase in both cannabis and alcohol use among a convenience sample of regular illicit
drug users N ¼ 702, i.e., those who used at least once a month in the past 12 months), but a
decrease in the use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and cocaine.
The third mechanism cited as a potential cause for an increase in drug use is a
reduction in treatment availability and utilisation among drug users. COVID-19 restric-
tions have significantly impacted the service delivery capacities of drug and alcohol
treatment facilities, and some have needed to cease their services altogether, even if
temporarily (McGowan, 2020). In positive news, the Australian Federal Government
pledged an additional $6 million to the delivery of online treatment programmes
(Australian Department of Health, 2020a), but some have argued that this funding is
inadequate (see McGowan, 2020) because physical distancing regulations have placed
an even greater burden on already over-stretched, under-resourced treatment pro-
grammes throughout the country (Howard, 2020; McGowan, 2020). Further, drug
users are likely to suffer severe health consequences of their drug use – partly due to
a reduced ability to access appropriate healthcare and drug treatment, potentially put-
ting them at increased risk of contracting and suffering severe complications of COVID-
19 (Lee & Bartle, 2020). It follows that those who were accessing drug or other medical
treatment prior to COVID-19 are now potentially unable to access those services and
may be less motivated to seek support for their drug use (see Bonn, 2020).

Changes in drug supply and drug market dynamics

Another potential impact of COVID-19 is the disruption to global, national and local
drug supply chains as a consequence of international and interstate border closures
(UNODC, 2020). In Australia, international passenger arrivals from mainland China
were restricted from 1 February (ABC News, 2020), while interstate movements into
Queensland were restricted from 26 March (Cansdale, 2020). Although it is difficult to
know at this early stage how these restrictions impacted street-level supply, there have
been several anecdotal reports of drug users and drug markets adapting in harmful
ways. For example, the practice of illicit drug ‘stockpiling’ and ‘bulk-buying’ has
been documented (Hamilton & Stevens, 2020; Winstock et al., 2020), especially in the
UK and Mexico (Felbaba-Brown, 2020; Reynolds, 2020) with the consequence of dis-
torting street level markets with rapidly increasing prices (Lee & Bartle, 2020) and
decreasing drug purities (Birch, 2020; Hillier, 2020; Reynolds, 2020). Evidence from
the Global Drug Survey (Winstock et al., 2020), in which over 60,000 participants
over 11 countries took part, shows that just over half (56%) reported that there was
decreased availability of illicit drugs compared to before COVID-19, but that the purity
and range of drugs remained largely unchanged. However, while just over half of
respondents (52%) reported that their last drug transaction was not impacted by
COVID-19, 1 in 10 (10%) reported longer wait times to get drugs than usual, and
14% reporting paying a higher price than usual. For the average drug user, these
changes are likely to result in riskier drug using habits, including but not limited to
an increase in drug use (Hamilton & Stevens, 2020), substitution with unfamiliar sub-
stances (Hamilton & Stevens, 2020; Reynolds, 2020), and a host of other complicating
health consequences (Hamilton, 2020; Hamilton & Stevens, 2020; McGowan, 2020;
Reynolds, 2020).
Langfield et al. 5

Much like other analyses of crime rates during COVID-19 in Queensland (see Payne
et al., 2020), street-level drug market activity is also likely to be affected by social
distancing regulations which serve to significantly limit pedestrian traffic in normally
busy shopping districts, transit hubs and economic zones (Dietze & Peacock, 2020).
Google (2020) mobility data for the month of May confirm this, showing a 40%
decrease (relative to the months of January and February) in time spent at transit
stations, as well as a 13% and 16% reduction in time spent at parks and retail/recreation
locations, respectively. This sudden and dramatic shift in nominal pedestrian activity is
likely to have reduced the opportunities for concealment and makes local drug market
activity more visible to law enforcement. Even without an increase in community level
drug use or any specific targeting by police, drug possession and supply offences may
well have increased during the COVID-19 restrictions simply as a function of the height-
ened visibility of drug markets and drug users.

Changes in policing priorities and practices

Finally, it is also possible that drug-related detection may have fluctuated during the
beginning of the pandemic as a consequence of the shift in policing priorities – from
routine policing activities to the enforcement of social distancing regulations. Under
the relevant federal guidelines, members of the community were prohibited from gather-
ing in public places in groups of more than two (Australian Department of Health, 2020b)
and street policing efforts are known to have been re-directed to enforcing these new rules
(Brown & Lewis, 2020; Human Rights Law Centre, 2020). As a result, police effort and
attention has been significantly diverted to the street-based exchanges of pedestrians,
some of whom may be engaged in drug selling and supply and some of whom may be
incidentally detected for the possession of drugs during other encounters with police (see
Morgan, 2020).2 In New South Wales (NSW), for example, we know that the use of drug
detection dogs had not been suspended because of COVID-19 (see Gregorie, 2020).
Incidental detention aside, there is also a growing concern that law enforcement have
used the COVID-19 restrictions as an opportunity to proactively target some popula-
tions of individuals, including drug users. The use of ‘targeted’ and ‘proactive patrols’
has been reported in NSW (see Levin & Kashyap, 2020) while in Queensland transport
hubs have become the focus of a ‘crack-down’ on drug users and drug possession
(‘Brisbane train stations become focus in drug crackdown’, 13 May 2020). Proactive
efforts to target drug users as a specific interest in COVID-19-related policing will likely
increase the reported rates of drug possession and supply offences.

Lessons from before the pandemic

In the absence of clear empirical evidence favouring a particular hypothesis, prior
empirical and theoretical work, even if not specific to COVID-19 pandemic-like scenar-
ios, may shed some light on how drug users and drug markets were affected. Stickle and
Felson (2020), for example, argue that COVID-19 presents the largest criminological
experiment in a century, and further argue that the vast majority of the available evi-
dence has provided support for opportunity-based theories of criminal behaviour, in
particular the Routine Activities Theory (RAT) perspective (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
6 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

According to RAT, crime will likely occur when three elements converge in time and
space – a motivated offender, lack of capable guardianship and a suitable target (Cohen
& Felson, 1979). Colloquially termed the ‘crime triangle’, this perspective is potentially
valuable in describing how COVID-19 measures may impact drug offences, but also
crime more generally. The reduced pedestrian activity in metropolitan and inner-city
areas (see, for instance, Google, 2020) is likely to have reduced passive surveillance and
guardianship generally. According to RAT, it is possible that drug market activity may
have increased as guardianship temporarily declined. Conversely, others have elsewhere
indicated that both property and violent offending have decreased in the absence of
suitable targets (Abrams, 2020; Andresen & Hodgkinson, 2020; Ashby, 2020;
Campedelli et al., 2020; Davey, 2020; Freeman, 2020; Gerrel et al., 2020; Mohler
et al., 2020; Payne et al., 2020, 2021; Shepherd, 2020). Paradoxically, the suitable
target for a property offender is also the capable guardian of a local drug market so
it makes sense that drug detections could increase while property and other offences
decline. This emphasis on time and space also means that incidental drug detections
might increase because police are more likely to encounter those drug users or drug
sellers who remain active in market where there is significantly less pedestrian activity.
Beyond routine activities, past research on drug markets has similarly emphasised the
highly localised nature of key market dynamics (see Corsaro & Brunson, 2013), but also
the spatiotemporal variability of drug detections (Mazerolle et al., 2007) and their
responsiveness to policing activity. Intervention analyses, including for example the
US-based Drug Market Intervention, has shown that proactive and intelligence-led
strategies tend to have a significant effect on drug detections (Braga & Weisburd,
2012; Braga et al., 2018) suggesting that market participants are cognizant and respon-
sive to changes in detection risks (Payne & Langfield, 2021). Further, research also
indicates that absent a specific and targeted policing strategy, many drug detections
occur opportunistically during activity such as traffic stops or when searching premises
for stolen goods (Lister et al., 2007). Given this, we might expect drug markets to have
needed to respond to the external influences of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular
the external changes to the visibility of drug transactions and the increased risk of
detection that this may bring. Indeed, there are some early reports that the decline in
property and violent crime has freed resources and allowed local area police to focus on
proactive opportunities that directly target or incidentally detect drug users.
Finally, it has been suggested that the significant restriction on the movement of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, including interstate travel here in Australia, is likely
to have reduced supply or shifted nominal drug market activity into different locations
(most likely residential). This, it is believed, is likely to have made it more difficult for
police to target and intervene in drug transactions and could foreshadow a decline in
drug detections. For now, these arguments are anecdotal and speculative, and it is here
that the present study seeks to offer some new insights.

The current study

The growing literature offers no clear hypothesis for a change in drug-related offences
during the COVID-19 pandemic. To the knowledge of the authors’, this study offers one
of the first analyses of changes in rates of drug offence rates (possession and supply)
Langfield et al. 7

during the COVID-19 pandemic. We use data from the state of Queensland, Australia,
to answer two important questions: did the offence rate for drug possession, drug supply
and other drug offences change during COVID-19 restrictions (March to June 2020)
and were these changes geographically homogenous? Specifically, we use officially
recorded drug offence rates to model the offence-rate trend over six years between
February 2014 and February 2020. We then compute dynamic forecasts and compare
these with the observed offence rates for the four months between April and June 2020.3
Importantly, physical distancing and other COVID restrictions came into effect in
Queensland in mid-to-late March, were in effect for the entirety of the month of
April and had begun easing mid-late May/early June. Given that this article is primarily
concerned with the effects of COVID-19 on drug-related offences, the four-month
period used in this study was chosen to reflect the three stages of Queensland restric-
tions, namely: pre-restrictions, during restrictions and post/ongoing, but eased, restric-
tions. This allows us to uniquely assess whether drug offence rates significantly changed
during a crisis.

Methodology
Data
These data are drawn from the Queensland Government’s Open Data Portal (ODP;
Queensland Government, 2020b). The ODP reports state-wide monthly offence rates
per 100,000 of the Queensland population, as well as offence rates for each of the 78
Local Government Areas (LGAs) across the state. For this study, we use the offence
rates for drug possession, sell/supply/trafficking offences combined, as well as an ‘other
drug’ offences category.4 Of course we acknowledge that administrative data have
limitations, including the underreporting of actual offence numbers and incomplete
data entries that impact their reliability. In the absence of more complete data, we
have operationalised these monthly data as a proxy measure for reported drug offence
rates during the early months of the pandemic.

Measures
For each of the offence categories, we operationalise an Auto-Regressive Integrated
Moving Average (ARIMA) model on the monthly offence rate between February
2014 and February 2020.5 To do this, we use fable v0.2.1 (O’Hara-Wild et al., 2020),
a time series forecasting routine operationalized for use with the statistical programme R
(R Core Team, 2020). ARIMA models are a specific type of time series forecasting
technique which capitalize on several key time-series parameters – the series trend
and seasonality, its lagged auto correlations and its lagged partial auto-correlations
(correlations between residual errors). Put simply, past values of each time series are
used to identify predictable patterns. These patterns are then used to specify a statistical
model from which forecasts can be computed. Like all models, the relative accuracy of
any forecast depends on the strength of the relationship between past and future values.
Using fable, the final ARIMA specification for each offence type is derived from an
iterative parameter search algorithm. The algorithm is a variation of that which was
8 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

proposed by Hyndman and Khandakar (2008) for automatic ARIMA modelling.

Specifically, the need for trend and seasonal differencing is first identified using a
series of Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) tests (see Kwiatkowski et al.,
1992). Then, the auto-regressive (AR) and moving average (MA) parameters are opti-
mised through a series of comparative model analyses in which four baseline models are
calculated and compared. The best of these baseline models (based on the model which
produces the smallest Aikake Information Criteria (AIC)) is then used as the starting
point for an iterative model search function that tests single unit changes to the AR and
MA parameters. Any new model that outperforms the starting model (again, based on
the AIC) is selected and the iterative search function is repeated until such time as no
alternative model can be found (see Hyndman & Athanasopoulos, 2020).
At the conclusion of the automated ARIMA modelling procedure, two estimates of
model accuracy are calculated – the Mean Absolute Scaled Error (MASE) and the Mean
Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). Both are derived by ‘training’ each model on the
in-sample data for 2014–2018 and then comparing the model performance against the
out-sample data for 2019. The MASE (see Hyndman & Kohler, 2006) is a numerical
representation of the error produced by the forecast for 2019, compared to the average
error produced by a naı̈ve model for 2014–2018. A MASE estimate less than the value of
one implies that the ARIMA model outperforms a basic one-step ahead naı̈ve model. A
value greater than one implies the model is no better (or possibly worse) than a naı̈ve
estimation. MAPE is an estimate of the average error produced by the forecast in for the
out-sample data in 2019. In this case, month-by-month error is defined as the percentage
difference between the forecast and the observed offence rates. The average of these
errors percentages represents the MAPE. Crucially, offence series with little or no
offence counts will produce extreme estimates of MASE greater than the value of one
(values approaching infinity). Similarly, some offence counts are simply too low or
longitudinally volatile to produce reasonable ARIMA forecasts. These models result
in large values for MAPE. In this study, we treat any model with extreme values of
MASE (>100) and/or MAPE (>50%) as ‘not able to be estimated’.
For all estimable models we then use the final specification to forecast point estimates
and 95% confidence intervals for a six-month period ending in August 2020. We then
compare the observed offence rates for March to June 2020 to the forecasted point
estimate for the same month. We also consider its position within the confidence interval
of the forecast and we only conclude that the offence rate has changed under COVID-19
conditions if the observed value falls outside the upper or lower bounds of the 95%
confidence interval.
Finally, to explore geographical heterogeneity we repeat the procedures above on the
offence-specific time-series data for each of the 78 LGAs in Queensland. A total of 234
models were executed and the results are summarised here in this article with a specific
focus on the 12 LGAs that have a population greater than 100,000. The full model
specifications and output of this analysis can be found in supplementary tables that have
been made available with the online version of this manuscript. In this article, we pro-
vide a summary of these results as comparisons of the forecasted and observed rates
(presented as an estimate of the ratio-difference) with an indication of whether the
observed rate was statistically lower or higher.
Langfield et al. 9

Results
Drug possession
Between 2014 and 2019, state-wide drug possession reported offence rates have
averaged at around 60 offences per month, per 100,000 of the population, fluctuating
between a low of 45 in April 2018 and a high of 78 in August 2016 (Figure 1). A seasonal
pattern indicates that drug possession offence rates are typically higher in winter and
lower in summer. Using this historical series, an ARIMA model was estimated yielding
a good fit to the data (MAPE ¼ 5.1; MASE ¼ 0.5).6 It forecasted an increase in drug
possession offences for March through August, coinciding with the advent of COVID-
19 and the introduction of social distancing. The actual observed rates of drug posses-
sion were statistically lower than was forecasted in March, then statistically higher than
forecasted for April, May and June. The increase in drug possession offence rates in the
latter three months exceeded the normal seasonal increase and in May the rate of drug
possession offences (90 per 100,000) was the highest ever recorded in the history of the
series.
Across the state’s 78 LGAs, the drug possession offence rate of 29 LGAs could be
reliably modelled using ARIMA methods. In the majority of these LGAs, drug

Observed Forecast Forecast CI (95%)

120

100

80
Rate (per 100,000)

60

40
COVID Restrictions

20

0
Dec-13

Jun-14

Dec-14

Jun-15

Dec-15

Jun-16

Dec-16

Jun-17

Dec-17

Jun-18

Dec-18

Jun-19

Dec-19

Jun-20

Dec-20

Figure 1. Queensland DRUG POSSESSION rates and forecasts. Note: The shaded area represents
the three months in which COVID-19 restrictions were either in effect or easing. For instance,
Queensland borders were closed on 25 March, except for essential travel and freight. On 30 March, the
Queensland Premier introduced tighter social distancing measures, and placed Queensland into lock-
down. On 16 May, restrictions were eased to allow 10 people to dine-in at restaurants and cafes. On 31
May further restrictions were eased. By 3 July, Queensland eased restrictions to almost pre-COVID
levels. Source: Queensland offence rates, Open Data Portal.
10 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

possession offences were higher than predicted for April (n ¼ 23), May (n ¼ 26) and June
(n ¼ 25), although only in May were the majority of these increases statistically signif-
icant (n ¼ 16). In general terms, the increase in drug possession offences, particularly in
May, was a state-wide phenomenon with very few LGAs recording a lower-than-
forecast rate and none recording a statistically significant decline.
Of the 12 most populated LGAs in Queensland (those with a population greater than
100,000), the largest increase (measured as the percentage difference between the
observed and forecasted rate) was seen in Redlands City Council in May, where drug
possession offence rates were 85% higher than forecast. This was followed by Logan
City Council and Mackay Regional Council in May (þ58%). Conversely, the Sunshine
Coast Regional LGA saw drug possession offences’ rates increase by just 20% in May, a
result that was not statistically significant and might have reflected normal period-by-
period variation.
Since the official government social distancing restrictions were implemented in late
March and early April, the totality of change throughout the pandemic (so far) can be
measured as the average percentage difference between the total number of actual drug
possession offences and the total number of forecasted offences in the three months
from April to June. This essentially smooths the month-by-month fluctuations and
identifies LGAs that were relatively more or less affected during the pandemic. The
results of this averaging suggest that state-wide, drug possession offence rates were
higher than forecast by a magnitude of 29%. Some LGAs saw a more dramatic increase,
including Mackay Regional Council (þ57%) and Logan City Council (54%), while the
average impact in other LGAs was relatively small. For example, the Gold Coast City
and Sunshine Coast Regional Councils, drug possession offence rates were only 14%
and 17% higher than forecast across the April–June period.

Sell, supply and trafficking offences

The historical rate of sell/supply/trafficking offences is highly variable (Figure 2) and
from this historical data, the state-wide ARIMA model (MAPE ¼ 24.3; MASE ¼ 0.8)
forecasted an increase for July, but a stable rate for the months of March, April, May
and June. The observed rates of sell/supply/trafficking offences were statistically higher
than was forecasted in March, then statistically lower than forecasted for April, May
and June. However, the observed offences rate did not exceed the modelled 95% con-
fidence interval (see Figure 2) and so we cannot conclude that these offences changed
under COVID-19 conditions.
Sell/supply/trafficking offences increased during April and May (3% and 19%,
respectively) but decreased by 32% in June. At the LGA level, sell/supply/trafficking
offences four LGAs could be reliably modelled using ARIMA. For this offence type, the
largest increase was seen in Gold Coast City Council in April, where the recorded
offence rate was 319% higher than forecast. This was followed by Cairns Regional
Council in May which reported a 310% increase in these offences. Conversely,
Brisbane City Council saw supply/sell/trafficking offence rates decrease by 24% in
May, a result that was not statistically significant.
Langfield et al. 11

Observed Forecast Forecast CI (95%)

70

COVID Restrictions
60

50
Rate (per 100,000)

40

30

20

10

0
Dec-13

Jun-14

Jun-15

Jun-16

Jun-17

Jun-19

Jun-20
Dec-14

Dec-15

Dec-16

Dec-17

Jun-18

Dec-18

Dec-19

Dec-20
Figure 2. Queensland DRUG SELL SUPPLY rates and forecasts. Note: The shaded area represents the
three months in which COVID-19 restrictions were either in effect or easing. Source: Queensland
offence rates, Open Data Portal.

Other drug offences

Using the historical series for other drug offences, a state-wide ARIMA model was
estimated yielding a good fit to the data (MAPE ¼ 6.0; MASE ¼ 0.5). Other drug offen-
ces have similarly fluctuated across the same period (Figure 3), with the observed rate of
other drug offences being lower (and not statistically significant) for both March and
April, but statistically significant and higher than forecast for May and June (Figure 3).
In addition, the offence rate of 26 LGAs could be reliably modelled (see Table 1). Across
LGAs, other drug offences were higher than predicted for April (n ¼ 16), May (n ¼ 20)
and June (n ¼ 22); however, only in May the majority of these increases were statistically
significant (n ¼ 5). The largest increase was seen in Mackay Regional Council in May,
where other drug offences were 72% higher than forecast. This was followed by
Brisbane (þ67%) and Townsville City Councils in May (þ55%). Conversely; however,
Gold Coast City Council saw other drug offence rates increase by just 11% and 7% in
May and June, respectively.

Discussion
COVID-19 represents a once-in-a-generation global public health threat. The impact of
this pandemic on numerous policy sectors has drawn considerable attention from schol-
ars and researchers internationally. However, very little research has specifically exam-
ined the impacts of COVID-19 on drug-related offences. This study offers one of the
first dedicated analyses of this topic using aggregate and geographically disaggregate
12 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

Observed Forecast Forecast CI (95%)

120

100

80
Rate (per 100,000)

60

40

COVID Restirctions
20

0
Dec-13

Jun-14

Dec-14

Jun-15

Dec-15

Jun-16

Dec-16

Jun-17

Dec-17

Jun-18

Dec-18

Jun-19

Dec-19

Jun-20

Dec-20
Figure 3. Queensland OTHER DRUG OFFENCE rates and forecasts. Note: The shaded area rep-
resents the three months in which COVID-19 restrictions were either in effect or easing. Source:
Queensland offence rates, Open Data Portal.

data from the Australian state of Queensland – the third largest in the country by
population. Our analysis was motivated by two main objectives. The first was to exam-
ine whether the rate of drug possession, supply/selling/trafficking offences and a com-
bined ‘other drug’ offence category had changed during the period COVID-19
restrictions were in effect (modelled between the months of March and June). The
second was to explore whether these changes were geographically homogenous across
Queensland’s 78 LGAs.
The results show that state-wide drug possession offence rates in Queensland
increased statistically in April and remained statistically above forecast through to the
end of June. Drug selling/supply/trafficking offences were unchanged throughout the
same period, although we note that the small number of offences and high volatility in
the historical series make accurate forecasting difficult.7 For the final category of ‘other
drug offences’ – which captures a wider range of drug-related offences (but not posses-
sion or supply) – offence rates also increased beyond statistical expectations in May and
June. In conclusion, the reported rates of drug possession and other drug related offen-
ces were higher than would have been expected in the absence of the COVID-19 pan-
demic and its associated social distancing regulations.
Geographically, the above-mentioned trends were relatively consistent across the
state. For example, of the 29 LGAs with sufficient data to generate drug possession
forecasts, the rate was higher than forecast in 23 LGAs in April, 26 in May and 25 in
June. For other drug offences, forecasts could be generated for 26 LGAs and the offence
rate was higher than forecast in 20 LGAs in May and 22 in June. Of course, not all of
Table 1. Summary of ARIMA models.
Estimated
resident Drug possession Supply, trafficking, production Other drug offences
populationa
March April May June March April May June March April May June
Langfield et al.

State-wide summary (of

n ¼ 78)
Estimable models – 29 4 26
LGA’s with increase (n – 8 (0) 23 (3) 26 (16) 25 (6) 2 (0) 2 (1) 1 (1) 2 (0) 9 (0) 16 (1) 20 (5) 22 (4)
significant)
LGA’s with decrease (n – 21 (2) 6 (1) 3 (0) 4 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 3 (0) 2 (0) 17 (0) 10 (0) 6 (0) 4 (0)
significant)

Key LGA snapshot (% difference from forecast)

Brisbane City Council 1,253,982 1.6 19.5 54.9* 19.3 64.3 53.0 24.2 31.2 4.1 21.1 66.9* 30.1
Gold Coast City Council 62,0518 3.8 1.3 26.9 12.4 4.1 318.9* 50.2 2.6 0.2 1.8 11.7 6.9
Moreton Bay Regional 469,465 30.0* 28.3* 33.9* 9.0 N.E. 29.1 4.7 14.4 1.6
Council
Logan City Council 334,358 22.6 50.4* 58.2* 48.7* N.E. 2.4 7.1 27.2 35.0
Sunshine Coast Regional 328,428 19.5 10.5 19.2 20.8 N.E. 9.0 34.7 25.7 14.6
Council
Ipswich City Council 222,307 25.4 24.0 48.6* 51.2* N.E. 12.0 16.3 24.8 61.0*
Townsville City Council 195,032 36.9* 14.1 38.0* 25.6 N.E. 21.0 12.3 54.6 27.9
Toowoomba Regional 169,008 4.0 3.5 47.2* 14.4 N.E. 7.3 14.2 40.5 42.2
Council
Cairns Regional Council 166,862 11.4 22.3 49.4* 25.9 48.6 24.8 310.1* 108 15.0 26.9 23.9 3.6
Redland City Council 158,815 36.8 6.9 85.2* 7.7 N.E. 27.7 22.1 51.7 4.0
Mackay Regional Council 116,763 2.7 39.8 57.8* 74.7* N.E. 6.4 47.8* 74.5* 87.0*
Fraser Coast Regional 106,712 10.1 10.1 45.3 60.8* 39.8 65.6 31.2 39.8 34.9 22.5 39.4 39.4
Council
State-wide 5,130,000 14.7* 30.7* 36.8* 19.0* 65.6 3.1 18.7 31.6 8.8 1.6 39.1* 23.4*
a
Estimated resident population, 2020; N.E. model not estimable from the available series.
*Statistically significant.
Source: Queensland Government Open Data Portal.
13
14 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

these increases were statistically significant, but where statistically significant results
were found, they were almost universally (with one exception) for increases in the
offence rate. The data on selling/supply/trafficking were simply too sparse to disaggre-
gate into many LGA specific forecasts, but of the four that could be modelled, none
exhibited any statistically significant change.
Anecdotal evidence has suggested that consequent to declines in other crime rates (see
Payne et al., 2020, 2021), police may have been afforded some additional operational
time to target drug markets with greater intensity than usual. We think this is possible,
but not at a state-wide level, otherwise the data would have shown a commensurate
increase in drug selling, supply and trafficking offences, which it did not. Instead, it was
drug users who have been detected at higher than usual rates, presumably in the pos-
session of small, non-trafficable quantities of drugs and/or drug use paraphernalia.
Perhaps these results are an artefact of an increase in community-level drug use, some-
thing others have suggested might be a consequence of the pandemic (Dietze & Peacock,
2020). In our view, these data cannot speak to the broader question of community-level
drug use; however, we doubt that any increase in community level use would result in
such a rapid increase in reported offences by police. To be sure, drug possession offences
likely only represent a fraction of all drug use activity across the community, and a 30%
increase in offences would imply an implausibly large increase in community-level use,
holding all other factors constant. Instead, we think it is more likely that the increase in
reported drug possession offences has resulted from COVID-19 related changes to day-
to-day policing practice. Specifically, the higher than forecast drug possession rate is
most likely a consequence of a proactive policing approach that has diverted policing
resources away from their normal investigative and enforcement activities and in favour
of street-level and community-style policing activities. With more police on the street
enforcing stay-at-home and social distancing regulations, the probability of detection
for drug possession was presumably higher than normal.
Notwithstanding the potential increased risk of detection that has resulted from a
change in police practice, it is also likely that this risk has been compounded by a change
in the visibility of drug users. Social mobility data have demonstrated a large shift in
normal pedestrian activity across areas of cities and towns that are normally bustling
with economic and social activity (see Google, 2020). These rapid and dramatic shifts in
pedestrian mobility may have also impacted the routine activities of both drug markets8
and drug users. As we outlined in the introduction of this article, opportunity-focussed
theories such as RATs potentially provide futile ground for explaining the increase in
drug-related offences. The lack of capable guardianship, which has no longer been
provided by the usual visitors and pedestrians of these spaces, has likely given rise to
increased visibility of drug users. Further, given the wealthy history of drug-crime
research which links dependency-related compulsive behaviour with increased criminal
activity (see, for example, Bennett & Holloway, 2009; Felson & Staff, 2017; Gizzi &
Gerkin, 2010), the COVID-19-related disruption to drug markets may have necessitated
the need for more overt or risky drug market interactions, which potentially increased
the visibility of drug users. It is also possible that drug users are less likely to comply
with COVID-19 restrictions (specifically those that call for stay-at-home orders) and less
likely to desist from both crime and drug use.
Langfield et al. 15

There is one complexity we think worth noting here. Specifically, an increase in the
rate of drug offence detections can occur either as a result of an increase in prevalence
(i.e., an increase in the number of persons detected for drug-related offences), an
increase in the frequency (i.e., an increase in the number of times persons are detected
for drug-related offences), or both. This distinction will be important for generating a
more fulsome understanding of the increase. Our discussion so far has assumed some
stability in the behaviour of drug users and that drug detections increased as a result of
changes in policing activity. The opposite may also be true – that the behaviour of drug
users changed during the pandemic, making them more vulnerable to detection even if
policing activity remained unchanged. Without individual-level offence data we cannot
be certain, and this is an area that requires further research. Emerging evidence from
elsewhere in Australia suggests that COVID-19 restrictions have fundamentally changed
the methamphetamine market (Voce et al., 2020), and as a result it is likely that drug
user behaviour has also changed in response, involving new buying and selling behav-
iours (e.g., stockpiling), and engaging in online transactions. Lastly, it is worthy to note
that the latest report from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission National
Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program (2020) has shown that there is little to no change
in excreted levels of any of the major drug types during the COVID-19 period. However,
by virtue of its aggregate nature, wastewater analysis cannot inform our understanding
of individual drug user behaviour.
We end this analysis with a reflection on those atypical results that are somewhat
hidden in the wider story of this article. For example, although the data on sell, supply
and trafficking offences were difficult to forecast, two locations stood out. These were
the Gold Coast City Council and Cairns Regional Council, where sell-supply reported
offences increased by 319% and 310%, in April and May, respectively.9 Of particular
note was that drug possession offences did not increase in the Gold Coast by the same
order of magnitude (up by only 1.3% in April). Only detailed information from
Queensland police about the nature of their operational activities will help to clarify
what contributed to this result, although for the Gold Coast, at least, we understand
that there was concentrated effort by police to target drug distribution through
Operation Sierra Hill (Vonderen, 2020). While little is known about the specifics of
Operation Sierra EdgeHill, we do know that two senior constables of the Queensland
Police Force were detained in August for related offences (Vonderen, 2020). In any case,
further research is needed to investigate the individual characteristics of these LGAs to
truly understand the impact of COVID-19 on drug-related offences.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
16 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

ORCID iDs
Cameron T Langfield https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5596-3478
Jason L Payne https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3342-4550

Notes
1. For example, evidence from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the months of March
and April – when physical distancing regulations were introduced in Australia – shows that
42% of Australians felt restless, with a further 35% reporting feelings of nervousness, and 11%
reporting feelings of hopelessness (ABS, 2020).
2. However, it is also likely that the change in policing priorities has meant that drug detection
rates have declined. For instance, enforcing border closures and restrictions, investigating
lockdown and isolation breaches, as well as policing panic-buying may have diverted police
resources away from drug markets.
3. In each of the figures in this article, we produce dynamic forecasts for the three drug offence
categories for the months of April to August 2020. However, we have updated these figures to
include the most up-to-date offence data for July to December 2020.
4. This combined category includes unlawful possession of restricted drugs; owning property
which is obtained from trafficking drugs; possessing drug-related things or utensils; permitting
use of a place for an offence related to dangerous drugs; possession of restricted chemicals and
drug laboratory equipment. See https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-h
andbook/offenders-and-victims/drugs/drug-offences-and-penalties-in-queensland/ for more
information.
5. We have selected this four-year time period to coincide with similar forecasts produced for
violent and property offending (see Payne et al., 2020; 2021) in the same jurisdiction. We have
used estimates of the MASE and MAPE to confirm model fit and to minimise the risk that the
conclusions in this article are supported on inadequate models.
6. Readers are reminded that MAPE measures the Mean Absolute Percentage Error for the
model’s forecast in 2019. In this case, the average error was six per cent, which means that
the model was about 94% accurate in predicting the actual drug possession detection rate in
2019. The MASE was 0.5, meaning the model out-performs a basic one-step-head naive
model.
7. In Australia, drug possession offences comprise almost 90% of all national illicit drug arrests
(Australian Crime Intelligence Commission, 2018) and so it is not surprising that trafficking
and sell/supply offences were relatively infrequent in number, and that the overall trend was
difficult to forecast.
8. As foreshadowed in the introduction to this article, drug markets have multifaceted and diverse
international supply chains and export routes; however, the majority of drug market behaviour
is localised to specific regions and locations, and the behaviour of these markets is dictated by
the specific characteristics of the locations in which they are embedded.
9. It is important to note that the Gold Coast City Council shares a border with NSW, and
that this border has been closed since 26 March (Queensland Government, 2020a). Given
this, and the restrictions on freight and border crossings, it is possible that the significant
rise in sell-supply offences for the month of April in the Gold Coast City Council was the
result of drug market operators attempting to cross the border with large quantities of illicit
drugs – either being imported into Queensland or being exported into NSW. This same
explanation, however, does not hold for Cairns, which is on the northern-most tip of
the state.
Langfield et al. 17

References
ABC News. (2020). Australians told not to travel to mainland China due to coronavirus threat,
border restrictions tightened considerably. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://www.abc.net.
au/news/2020-02-01/australians-told-not-to-travel-to-china-due-to-coronavirus/11920742
Abrams, D. S. (2020, August 28). COVID and crime: An early empirical look. U of Penn, Inst for
Law & Econ Research Paper No. 20-49. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3674032or http://dx.doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3674032
Andresen, M. A., & Hodgkinson, T. (2020). Somehow I always end up alone: COVID-19, social
isolation and crime in Queensland, Australia. Crime Science, 9(1), 25. doi: 10.1186/s40163-020-
00135-4
Ashby, R. (2020). Initial evidence on the relationship between the coronavirus pandemic and
crime in the United States. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ep87s
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020, April 14–17). Household impacts of COVID-19 survey.
Retrieved May 16, 2020, from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4940.0
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. (2018). Illicit Drug Data Report 2017–2018.
Canberra: Retrieved from https://www.acic.gov.au/sites/default/files/illicit_drug_data_
report_2017-18.pdf?v=1564727746
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. (2020). National Wastewater Drug Monitoring
Program. Canberra: Retrieved from https://www.acic.gov.au/publications/national-wastewa
ter-drug-monitoring-program-reports
Australian Department of Health. (2020a). Additional $6 million to support drug and
alcohol services during COVID-19 [Media release]. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-h
on-greg-hunt-mp/media/additional-6-million-to-support-drug-and-alcohol-services-during-
covid-19
Australian Department of Health. (2020b). Limits on public gatherings for coronavirus (COVID-
19). Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-corona
virus-2019-ncov-health-alert/how-to-protect-yourself-and-others-from-coronavirus-covid-19/
limits-on-public-gatherings-for-coronavirus-covid-19
Australian Department of Health. (2020c, March 28). New and cumulative COVID-19 cases in
Australia by notification date. Australian Government Department of Health. Retrieved July
9, 2020, from https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/new-and-cumulative-covid-
19-cases-in-australia-by-notification-date
Beck, M. J., & Hensher, D. A. (2020). Insights into the impact of COVID-19 on household travel
and activities in Australia – The early days under restrictions. Transport Policy, 96, 76–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.07.001
Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2009). The causal connection between drug misuse and crime. The
British Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 513–531. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azp014
Birch, L. (2020, Apirl 6). Coronavirus border control measures expected to disrupt illegal drug
distribution. Retrieved 18 May, 2020, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-06/border-
control-may-disrupt-illicit-drug-distribution-in-wa/12119830
Bonn, M. (2020, April 23). Decriminalizing drug use as we contain the coronavirus is the humane
thing to do. The Conversation.
Bonyhady, N., & Duke, J. (2020). Leaders in unprecedented ‘national cabinet’ to tackle corona-
virus. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/leaders-in-unprecedented-
national-cabinet-to-tackle-coronavirus-20200313-p549wd.html
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime
Control. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-
9133.12353
18 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on Crime:A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 49(3), 323–358. doi: 10.1177/0022427811419368
Brisbane train stations become focus in drug crackdown, Courier Mail. Retrieved May 13, 2020,
from www.couriermail.com.au%2Fquestnews%2Fsoutheast%2Ftwo-men-to-face-court-after-
major-bayside-drug-bust%2Fnewstory
Brown, A., & Lewis, K. (2020, April 22). ACT police warn flouting social distancing rules can lead
to fines. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6731679/not-
a-joke-police-warn-repeat-offenders-will-face-consequences/
Campedelli, G. M., Favarin, S., Aziani, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). Disentangling community-
level changes in crime trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chicago. Crime Science, 9(1),
21. doi: 10.1186/s40163-020-00131-8
Cansdale, D. (2020). Queensland imposes state border restrictions from midnight Wednesday due
to coronavirus crisis. Queensland imposes state border restrictions from midnight Wednesday
due to coronavirus crisis. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-
24/coronavirus-queensland-state-border-closure/12081694
Coates, B., Cowgill, M., Chen, T., & Mackey, W. (2020). Shutdown: Estimating the COVID-19
employment shock. Grattan Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
Corsaro, N., & Brunson, R. K. (2013). Are suppression and deterrence mechanisms enough?
Examining the “pulling levers” drug market intervention strategy in Peoria, Illinois, USA.
International Journal of Drug Policy, 24(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.
12.006
Davey, M. (2020 (April, 21)). Victoria police respond to family violence risk during ‘very stressful
time’ of coronavirus. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/
21/victoria-policerespond- to-family-violence-risk-during-very-stressful-time-of-coronavirus
Dietze, P. M., & Peacock, A. (2020). Illicit drug use and harms in Australia in the context of
COVID-19 and associated restrictions: Anticipated consequences and initial responses. Drug
and Alcohol Review, 39(4), 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13079
Felson, R. B., & Staff, J. (2017). Committing economic crime for drug money. Crime &
Delinquency, 63(4), 375–390. doi: 10.1177/0011128715591696
Freeman, K. (2020). Monitoring changes in domestic violence in the wake of COVID-19 social
isolation measures. Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief, 145(4), 1–4.
Gerell, M., Kardell, J., & Kindgren, J. (2020). Minor covid-19 association with crime in Sweden.
Crime Science, 9(1), 19. doi: 10.1186/s40163-020-00128-3
Gizzi, M. C., & Gerkin, P. (2010). Methamphetamine use and criminal behavior. Int J Offender
Ther Comp Criminol, 54(6), 915–936. doi: 10.1177/0306624x09351825
Google. (2020). COVID-19 community mobility report. Retrieved June 12, 2020, from https://
www.gstatic.com/covid19/mobility/2020-05-09_AU_Mobility_Report_en.pdf
Gregorie, P. (2020, April 4). The new police power in NSW to deal with COVID-19. Retrieved
May 18, 2020, from https://www.mondaq.com/australia/crime/912212/the-new-police-powers-
in-nsw-to-deal-with-covid-19
Hamilton, I. (2020). What will covid-19 mean for the illegal drug market and people dependent
upon it? The BMJ Opinion.
Hamilton, I., & Stevens, A. (2020, March 27). How coronavirus is changing the market for illegal
drugs. The Conversation.
Hillier, D. (2020, 21 March). Drug dealers say coronavirus is already affecting supply and
demand. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/dygebq/drug-deal
ers-how-coronavirus-affecting-business
Langfield et al. 19

Howard, D. (2020). Special Commission of Inquiry into crystal methamphetamine and other
amphetamine-type stimulants. NSW Government Retrieved from https://www.dpc.nsw.gov.
au/publications/special-commissions-of-inquiry/the-special-commission-of-inquiry-into-the-
drug-ice/
Human Rights Law Centre. (2020). Explainer: Police powers and COVID-19. Retrieved May 18,
2020, from https://www.hrlc.org.au/police-powers-and-covid19
Human Rights Watch. (2016). Every 25 seconds: The human toll of criminalising drug use in the
United States. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/report/every-25-seconds-h
uman-toll-criminalizing-drug-use-united-states
Hyndman, R., & Athanasopoulos, G. (2020). Forecasting: principles and practice, 2nd edn.
OTexts, Melbourne, Australia.
Hyndman, R. J., & Khandakar, Y. (2008). Automatic time series forecasting: The forecast pack-
age for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 1(3).
Hyndman, R. J., & Koehler, A. B. (2006). Another look at measures of forecast accuracy.
International Journal of Forecasting, 22(4), 679–688. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.
2006.03.001
Joyce, M., Sklenar, E., & Weatherby, G. (2019). Decriminalizing drug addiction: The effects of the
label. MOJ Research Review, 2(2), 83–91.
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of
stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series
have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1), 159–178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-
4076(92)90104-Y
Lee, N., & Bartle, J. (2020, April 15). Drug use may increase the risk of coronavirus. Here how to
reduce the harms. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://theconversation.com/drug-use-may-
increase-the-risk-of-coronavirus-heres-how-to-reduce-the-harms-135556
Levin, A., & Kashyap, T. (2020). Law enforcement and police powers in NSW during COVID-19.
Judicial Officers’ Bulletin Judicial Commission of NSW.
Lister, S., Wincup, E., & Seddon, T. (2007). Street policing of problem drug users: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Mazerolle, L., Soole, D. W., & Rombouts, S. (2007). Street-Level Drug Law Enforcement: A
Meta-Analytic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3(1), 1–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.4073/
csr.2007.2
McGowan, M. (2020, April 27). ‘On top of everything’: Coronavirus is making Australia’s drug
crisis a whole lot worse, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/on-
top-of-everything-coronavirus-is-making-australias-drug-crisis-a-whole-lot-worse
Mohler, G., Bertozzi, A., Carter, J., Short, M., Sledge, D., Tita, G., Uchida, C. D., &
Brantingham, P. (2020). Impact of social distancing during COVID-19 pandemic on crime
in Indianapolis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101692
Morgan, S. (2020, April 9). Speeding drivers, drug users, party goers cop extra COVID-19 fines,
The Canberra Times. Retrieved from https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6718752/the-
latest-fines-given-for-breaching-covid-19-public-health-orders/
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. (2020, June). ADAPT study wave 1 bulletin: Key
findings from the ‘Australians’ Drug Use Adapting to Pandemic Threats’ (ADAPT) Study.
https://6d4c02d1-3362-4c6f-a837-b46833d5b1a5.filesusr.com/ugd/8a9f74_
c264d95a82f14b0fbd68031668d6d77b.pdf
Noble, K., Hurley, P., & Macklin, S. (2020). COVID-19, employment stress and student vulner-
ability in Australia. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/40603/1/COVID-19%20employment%20stress%
20and%20child%20vulnerability.pdf
O’Hara-Wild, M., Hyndman, R. & Wang, E. (2020). Fable: forecasting models for tidy time series.
R package version 0.2.0. Retrieved from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fable
20 Journal of Criminology 0(0)

Payne, J. L., & Langfield, C. T. (2021). How risky are heroin markets? A multi-site study of self-
reported risk perceptions among police detainees in Australia. International Journal of Drug
Policy, 90, 103062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103062
Payne, J. L., Morgan, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2020). COVID-19 and social distancing measures in
Queensland, Australia, are associated with short-term decreases in recorded violent crime.
Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi: 10.1007/s11292-020-09441-y
Payne, J. L., Morgan, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2021). Exploring regional variability in the short-term
impact of COVID-19 on property crime in Queensland, Australia. Crime Science, 10(1), 7. doi:
10.1186/s40163-020-00136-3
Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet. (2020). Queensland first to make emergency
declarations in January [Media release]. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from http://statements.qld.
gov.au/Statement/2020/3/16/queensland-first-to-make-emergency-declarations-in-january
Queensland Government. (2020a). Queensland border restrictions. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from
https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/government-actions/border-closing
Queensland Government. (2020b). Queensland offence rates – open data portal [SBS]. Retrieved
May 15, 2020, from https://www.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/offence-rates-monthly-from-july-
1997
Queensland Government. (2020c). Roadmap to easing restrictions. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from
https://www.covid19.qld.gov.au/government-actions/roadmap-to-easing-queenslands-
restrictions
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Reynolds, E. (2020, April 5). It’s stockpiling, but not as you know it. Why coronavirus is making
people hoard illegal drugs. CNN. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/05/uk/illegal-drug-sh
ortage-coronavirus-gbr-intl/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
Shepherd, B. (2020, April 17). Coronavirus pressures see extra focus placed on family and domes-
tic violence, ABC News. Retrieved from https://www. abc.net.au/news/2020-04-09/coronavi
rus-family-and-domestic-violence-fears-grow/12136652
Stevens, A., Hughes, C. E., Hulme, S., & Cassidy, R. (2019). Depenalization, diversion and
decriminalization: A realist review and programme theory of alternatives to criminalization
for simple drug possession. European Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1477370819887514
Stickle, B., & Felson, M. (2020). Crime rates in a pandemic: The largest criminological experiment
in history. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12103-020-09546-0
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2020). COVID-19 and the drug supply
chain: From production and trafficking to use [Research brief]. United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime. https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/covid/Covid-19-and-drug-
supply-chain-Mai2020.pdf
Voce, A., Finney, J., Gately, N., & Sullivan, T. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic constricts metham-
phetamine supply in Perth. Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publi
cations/sb/sb29
Vonderen, J. V. (2020). Two Queensland police officers detained and suspended in drug trafficking
probe. Retrieved August 3, 2020, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-01/two-queens
land-police-officers-suspended-drug-investigation/12515206
Welburn, A. (2020). Schools to be student free zones because of coronavirus. Retrieved May 15,
2020, from https://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/story/6698785/pandemic-forces-school-
closures-in-queensland/
Winstock, A., Zhuparris, A., Gilchrist, G., Davies, E., Puljevic, C., Potts, L., Maier, L. J., Ferris,
J. A., & Barratt, M. (2020). Global drug survey edition on COVID-19 key findings report:
Langfield et al. 21

Exceutive summary. Retrieved September 14, 2020, from https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/

gds-covid-19-special-edition-key-findings-report/
World Health Organization. (2020, March 11). WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the
media briefing on COVID-19. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://www.who.int/dg/speech
es/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19–-11-
march-2020