Executive summary

 

 

 

Currently in NSW about one in every 200 young people between the ages of 10 and 17 are convicted of a crime each year.

 

 

 

The Department of Juvenile Justice works with these young offenders to help them lead a life free of crime. It aims to support them so that the next time an opportunity to commit an offence arises, they will recognise it, manage their impulses, and say “no”.

 

 

 

These are some of the most disadvantaged and troublesome young people in society. It is no easy task to address what may have been years of dysfunction and neglect, and a multi-agency response is usually required. For the Department to impact positively on their lives it must know which activities successfully reduce reoffending. It must also have sufficient information to plan how it will deliver services and manage young offenders.

 

 

 

This audit examines how the Department of Juvenile Justice measures its success, and whether decision makers and managers have adequate information to make sound planning decisions and recommend appropriate interventions for young offenders.

 

 

 

Audit opinion

 

 

 

 

The Department’s overall purpose is to reduce reoffending. This is a challenging role. Many factors are involved, often outside the Department’s control. In recent years it has made significant changes to support its work with young offenders. These include improvements to its financial, human resource and IT systems, and changes in the structure and staffing of detention centres.

 

 

 

We found that the Department has sufficient information to manage offenders and plan effectively in the short to medium term. It has access to data on young offenders from its client database. It also identifies outside factors that affect its activities, and researches the latest thinking on what works in reducing reoffending.

 

 

 

However we are unable to determine how well the Department meets its long-term goals. We do not know whether it reduces reoffending and rehabilitates young offenders. It has limited performance information on the effectiveness of its activities and programs. This is partly due to limitations with its client information system which prevent it extracting quality performance data.

 

 

 

We also found that access to information from other agencies was not always timely and some data was unavailable. For example, the Department cannot access court data on young offenders who reoffend in the adult justice system.

 

 

 

Determining the best way to work with young offenders is a critical part of casework. Yet we found that the quality of case plans varied considerably. It was sometimes difficult to determine whether interventions addressed a young offender’s needs or risk of reoffending. And staff do not formally check how well interventions have worked once young offenders have left their care. This means there is less certainty that interventions will reduce reoffending.

 

The Department recognises the challenges that lie ahead and has projects underway to address many of these issues.

 

 

 

Proposed IT upgrades and training programs on best practice from other jurisdictions may improve the quality of case plans for young offenders. The Department has recently developed results based performance measures and has a project underway to improve performance data. This last project is important. The Department must be able to check the effectiveness of its activities so that it can develop strategies based on what works in NSW.

 

 

Summary of recommendations

 

 

 

We recommend that the Department of Juvenile Justice:

 

 

Measuring performance

§         incorporate results based performance measures and targets into its corporate plan (page 16)

 

 

 

§         follow-up the reoffending rates of young offenders following release from the Department including those who enter the adult justice system (page 17)

 

 

 

§         consider measuring other factors which aid rehabilitation such as education or employment (page 17)

 

 

 

§         establish a formal process for analysing performance information to monitor the effectiveness of its activities (page 18)

 

 

 

§         publicly report information on its performance including achievements against performance targets and the outcomes of programs and activities (page 18)

 

 

Access to information

§         design its data systems to extract quality performance data to measure the effectiveness of its activities (page 21)

 

 

 

§         reduce barriers to data exchange with other agencies to improve access to information (page 24)

 

 

 

§         provide ongoing training and networking opportunities for conference convenors (page 26)

 

 

Appropriate interventions

§         review the reoffending risk assessment tool and provide further staff training on its use (page 29)

 

 

 

§         make sure policies on to how intervene with young offenders are consistent to ensure better targeting of staff resources (page 29)

 

 

 

§         make sure that case plan interventions better match offenders’ needs and risks of reoffending (page 31)

 

 

 

§         assess the effectiveness of casework and youth justice conferencing to find out what works in NSW (page 33).

 

 

Audit findings

 

 

Chapter 1

Role and

function

The Department of Juvenile Justice works with young people who admit to or have been found guilty of an offence committed between the ages of 10 and 17. Its vision is to break the juvenile crime cycle; that is to reduce reoffending by young offenders.

 

 

 

To achieve this the Department has two key roles:

§         supervising young offenders in custody or the community

§         managing youth justice conferencing, which aims to divert young offenders from the court system.

 

 

 

The prime focus of the Department’s supervision of young offenders is to address factors that contribute to their offending behaviour. It also helps them to develop their education and life skills so they can appropriately interact with society. To meet these responsibilities the Department has to work closely with other justice and human service agencies and community organisations.

 

 

Chapter 2

Measuring performance

The department has systems in place to monitor and report on its activities, however there is limited information on the effectiveness of its operations in meeting its corporate objectives. Therefore we are unable to assess the Department’s performance in this regard. We also found no evidence that the Department formally analyses activity data at the corporate level, although regional offices analyse this as part of their twice-yearly review.

 

 

 

The department is currently redefining its business information needs and developing results-based performance measures, which may address these issues in future.

 

 

 

Without good performance information, there is a risk that the department may not deliver services in the most efficient and effective way, and therefore is less likely to reduce reoffending.

 

 

Chapter 3

Access to information

The Department has sufficient information to manage young offenders on a daily or short-term basis. It has access to data on young offenders from its client database. It also identifies outside factors that affect its activities, and researches the latest thinking on what works in reducing reoffending.

 

 

 

However we found that although it can obtain most of the information it needs from other agencies, access is not always timely and some data was unavailable. For example it cannot get court data on young offenders who enter the adult justice system. Also the Department is unable to obtain good performance data from its client database to determine the overall effectiveness of its activities.

 

 

 

We also found that more could be done to provide on-going training, mentoring, and networking opportunities for conference convenors.

 

 

 

So although the Department can plan effectively in the short-medium term, it needs good performance data on its activities to develop a strategic approach based on what works in NSW.

Chapter 4

Appropriate interventions

The Department has systems in place to help staff determine interventions for young offenders. However the quality of case plans varied and we found it difficult to determine whether interventions addressed offenders’ needs and risk of reoffending. Also, there is no formal system in place to measure and record the success of individual interventions for young offenders.

 

 

 

The Department’s current focus on case management, and its recent IT upgrades may address some of these issues.

 

 

 

There is limited assurance that risks are being adequately addressed, and we don’t know whether individual interventions are successful. Therefore there is a risk that interventions may not be the most effective in reducing reoffending.

 

 

 

Response from the Department of Juvenile Justice

 

 

 

Thank you for providing the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) with the final draft report of the performance audit Department of Juvenile Justice: Managing and Measuring Success, and for the opportunity to comment on its findings.

 

First, I would like to thank the Audit Office for providing a valuable external perspective on the way the Department defines and uses information for managing, planning and reporting.

 

I am pleased to note that the report acknowledges positive aspects that the Department already has in place in relation to information use and management.  I refer in particular to statements that the Department’s information systems are sufficient to manage young offenders and plan services effectively in the short to medium term.

 

I note further that the report recognises the efforts of the Department in developing organisational performance measures as part of the government’s Results and Services budgetary processes.  As the report also acknowledges, the Department is a major contributor to the development of nationally comparable juvenile justice information.

 

I note the Audit Office’s perspective on the need for further work in the collection and use of appropriate information for longer-term strategic planning, measurement of performance and outcomes for young offenders and the community, and the analysis of the effectiveness of interventions with young people.  These issues are currently being addressed and the department is further developing better performance information on the effectiveness of its activities and programs.  The Performance Audit Report provides valuable advice in relation to this.

 

In relation to the issue of data exchange with other key agencies, the Department has already identified barriers to data exchange and is working with other agencies on this issue.  Through its participation in the Criminal Justice System Chief Executive Officers Forum, the Department is working towards Courtlink, which will provide all appropriate agencies with access to data identifying court outcomes for young people. 

 

The Department recognises that data on reoffending by young people, once they reach the age of 18, is integral to any analysis of recidivism of DJJ clients. This analysis requires collaboration with other agencies such as the Attorney General’s Department, NSW Police and the Department of Corrective Services.  The Department has strong working relationships with both agencies and a range of mechanisms in place for sharing information. 

 

DJJ is undertaking further collaboration with these agencies and organisations such as the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), to develop and access data that may assist the Department in this type of analysis. An agreed consistent national approach on the definition and measurement of recidivism would also be advantageous. I understand that the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently commenced work in this area.

 

 

 

It needs to be recognised that DJJ is a part of a wider criminal justice system and young people are referred to us through processes and agencies outside the Department’s control and influence. In addition, the causes of young people’s reoffending are highly complex and involve a multitude of factors, many of which are also outside the Department’s control.

 

In this context, the report could have been enhanced by the broader understanding that DJJ’s legislative purpose is to provide a range of community-based and custodial services to mandated juvenile offenders. In relation to possible measures of organisational performance, outcomes in relation to housing, education and employment, numeracy and literacy are outside the Department’s scope and cannot be used as benchmarks for its success.

 

Finally, I would like to thank the audit team for the consultative and cooperative approach in which they undertook the review.  The performance audit will assist the Department in the further development of its information management framework.

 

(signed)

 

Dr Elizabeth Coombs

Acting Director General

 

Dated:  30 August 2005