Executive
Summary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juvenile crime rates have remained stable over the last five years. However, juvenile reoffending rates continue to be high. Around one in two juveniles will reoffend compared to one in three adults. |
|
|
|
|
|
The community expects the youth justice system to reduce reoffending. There are several ways to do this. One way is to divert the young offender away from the Children’s Court, as higher reoffending rates are associated with court appearances. The Young Offenders Act 1997 (the Act) made this possible by giving the NSW Police Force an alternative means of dealing with juveniles who commit certain offences. The intent of the Act was to minimise interventions by youth justice agencies, thus reducing reoffending. |
|
|
|
|
|
Another way is to provide support to help
a young offender overcome the factors in their life that may have led them to
committing the offence. If a young offender leaves the youth justice system
without having factors such as homelessness, drug or alcohol abuse, or family
dysfunction addressed, their risk of reoffending is high. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force fulfil their responsibilities under the Act by diverting young offenders from the Children’s Court. However, they have both since recognised that addressing the needs of these young offenders will further reduce reoffending. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Juvenile Justice is responsible for addressing the needs of a young offender who is not diverted from the Children’s Court if they are sentenced to detention or community supervision. |
|
|
|
|
|
In this audit we wanted to find out whether the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force: § identify young offenders’ needs, that is, the factors that led them to committing the offence § address these needs § work with others to reduce juvenile reoffending. |
|
|
|
|
|
We looked at three groups of young offenders: § those supervised by the Department of Juvenile Justice either in detention or under community supervision orders § those participating in a youth justice conference facilitated by the Department of Juvenile Justice § those receiving a caution from the NSW Police Force. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We recognise that the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force manage some of the most socially disadvantaged and troublesome young people in NSW. It is hard for them to address what may have been years of dysfunction and neglect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ideally, interventions that address these problems should occur well before the child commits an offence. The government is establishing a number of early intervention programs such as Families First to address problems arising from family dysfunction. |
|
|
|
|
|
However, these problems can still be present at the time when a young person first offends. If their needs are addressed as early as possible in their contact with the youth justice system, they will have a better chance of overcoming these problems and breaking the juvenile crime cycle. |
|
|
|
|
|
Before agencies in the youth justice system can address a young offender’s needs, they have to find out what factors may have led them to committing the offence. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force generally work together and with other agencies to identify and address the needs of young offenders. We found that this is done particularly well for young offenders who end up in detention and under community supervision. |
|
|
|
|
|
Both the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force have put some practices in place to identify and address the needs of young offenders diverted from the Children’s Court. However, we found that they are not doing this systematically. |
|
|
|
|
|
It follows that where the agency does not identify a young offender’s needs, it cannot address those needs by referring the young offender to appropriate support services or rehabilitation programs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently agencies may be missing the opportunity to help a young person who is at the first point of contact with the youth justice system. Early intervention could prevent both an escalation of the seriousness and frequency of offending by a young person in need of help. It should be pursued wherever possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improve
outcomes for young offenders who participate in youth justice conferences |
We recommend that by January 2008 the Department of Juvenile Justice, in regard to youth justice conferences: § implement a checklist to identify the needs of each young offender and rate their risk of reoffending as either low, moderate or high (page 21) § require convenors to document the results of this review (page 21) § require convenors to ensure conference participants consider interventions and rehabilitation programs consistent with the young offender’s needs and reoffending risk, which could be included on conference outcome plans (page 28). |
|
|
|
|
Improve outcomes for young offenders who receive cautions |
We recommend that by January 2008 the NSW Police Force, in regard to young offenders receiving a caution: § implement a checklist to identify the needs of each young offender and rate their risk of reoffending as either low, moderate or high (page 22) § require Youth Liaison Officers to document the results of this review (page 22) § implement a process of referral for young offenders who have a moderate to high risk of reoffending which will assist them if they choose to attend support services or programs to address their needs (page 31) § and who reoffend, require Youth Liaison Officers to follow-up on referrals (page 32). |
|
|
|
|
Address
cross‑agency issues |
We recommend that the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force refer problems they face in accessing services or exchanging information, to the Cross‑Agency Management of Young Offenders Senior Officer Group or its successor to resolve as part of its strategic cross‑agency approach to managing young offenders (page 36). |
|
|
|
|
|
We
recommend that by June 2007 the Department of
Juvenile Justice:
§ complete its review of Multisystemic Therapy, a family-based treatment model, regarding its suitability as a response to young offenders with complex needs and whose families are clients of many agencies (page 37) § report its findings to the Cross‑Agency Management of Young Offenders Senior Officer Group or its successor (page 37). |
|
|
|
|
Better
reporting of results |
We
recommend that the Department of Juvenile Justice: § monitor results for both one and two year follow-up periods as used in the State Plan (page 38) §
report on trends in reoffending
for each young offender group commencing with their 2006-07 annual report,
both against the State Plan target and using the one and two year follow-up
periods |
|
|
|
|
|
We
recommend that the NSW Police Force: § adopt the State Plan target to reduce reoffending by ten per cent by 2016 (page 38) § monitor results for both one and two year follow-up periods as used in the State Plan (page 38) § report on trends in the number and proportion of young offenders diverted from the Children’s Court commencing with their 2006-07 annual report (page 38) §
report on trends in reoffending
for young offenders receiving cautions commencing with their 2006-07 annual
report, both against the State Plan target and using the one and two year
follow-up periods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter
1 Are young offenders’ needs identified? |
A young offender is someone aged between 10 and 17 years who commits a criminal offence. The number of criminal incidents involving young offenders has remained stable at around 40,000 per annum over the last five years. |
|
|
|
|
The NSW Police Force is the first point of contact with the youth justice system for a young offender who commits a criminal offence. Depending on the type of offence, the young offender’s offence history and whether or not they admit the offence the NSW Police Force can use the alternatives available under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (the Act) to divert the young offender from the Children’s Court. The NSW Police Force will then determine the correct legal action according to the Act, that is to issue a warning, caution or refer the young offender to a youth justice conference. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, around one in two young offenders reoffend within two years of committing an offence compared to one in three adults. However, the rate of reoffending is different depending on the action taken in response to the offence. Young offenders diverted from the Children’s Court are less likely to reoffend. |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Source: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2006 |
|
|
Some young offenders have complex needs that may have led them to committing the offence. If they get help to address these needs, the likelihood of reoffending is reduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Juvenile Justice uses a sound approach to identify the needs of a young offender who is sentenced by the Children’s Court to detention or community supervision. |
|
|
|
|
|
Both the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force have put some practices in place to identify the needs of young offenders diverted from the Children’s Court. However, we found that they are not doing this systematically. |
|
|
|
|
|
Even when they do identify a young offender’s needs, they do not always record the results. This makes it difficult to check that the process is completed for each young offender and if they reoffend, what referrals were suggested at the time. |
|
|
|
|
Chapter
2 Are young offenders’ needs addressed? |
Addressing needs means that a young offender gets help to overcome a problem that may have led them to committing the offence. |
|
|
|
|
The Department of Juvenile Justice uses case management techniques to address the needs of a young offender sentenced to detention or community supervision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also monitors whether support services have been provided and whether needs have been addressed for these young offenders. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Juvenile Justice has guidance material on facilitating youth justice conferences and developing outcome plans. It monitors whether a young offender has completed the actions listed on their outcome plan. However, convenors had differing views about whether or not to include support services or programs on outcome plans. As a result, some young offenders may not receive the help they need. |
|
|
|
|
|
Both the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force have put some practices in place to address the needs of young offenders diverted from the Children’s Court. However, as we found with how they identify needs, they are also not addressing needs systematically. |
|
|
|
|
|
And in regard to whether or not a young offender who receives a caution from the NSW Police Force is referred to a support service or program, this will depend on local practice and service availability. |
|
|
|
|
Chapter
3 Do agencies work together to reduce reoffending? |
Research shows that addressing particular needs of young offenders will reduce the likelihood of them reoffending. However, both the Department of Juvenile Justice and the NSW Police Force claim limitations in doing this because of problems accessing some services and exchanging information. |
|
|
|
|
|
One of the NSW State Plan priorities is to reduce reoffending. The government has set a target to reduce reoffending by ten per cent for both adult and juvenile offenders by 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
Most approaches for managing a young offender are designed to meet individual needs. Yet some young offenders reoffend despite interventions because they may face complex problems such as family dysfunction, negative peer associations, poor educational outcomes or lack of community support. |
|
|
|
|
|
In these cases, there is a need for a treatment model that goes beyond the individual and intervenes at multiple levels to change patterns of behaviour within the family and requires services from many agencies. Currently, the Department of Juvenile Justice is examining a family-based treatment model called Multisystemic Therapy as a means of helping young offenders with complex needs whose families are clients of many agencies. |
|
|
|
|
|
In order to judge the success or otherwise of any intervention to reduce reoffending, data needs to be made publicly available. |
|
|
|
|
|
Although there have been recent improvements in the data collected and published on juvenile reoffending rates in NSW, neither the Department of Juvenile Justice nor the NSW Police Force report publicly on the results of their programs to reduce reoffending for young offenders diverted from the Children’s Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
Response from
the Department of Juvenile Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
I
write in response to the Addressing the Needs of Young Offenders Audit
Report. It is pleasing to see The Audit Office’s acknowledgement of the
positive work and good practice of the department in the areas of client
assessment and case management. Over the past 6-8 years the department has
been investing in improvements to service delivery based on the best
available evidence as to what works in addressing offending behaviour of
juveniles. The
department concurs with the Audit Office findings regarding the opportunity
to identify potential recidivists earlier in the system and engage them in
support structures to deter future offending. The
department will be adopting the recommendations contained in the report
through the development of a checklist of needs to be consistently
administered across the Youth Justice Conferencing (YJC) scheme. However, the
limitations of a checklist in providing an accurate prediction of
re-offending risk must be recognised. Further the department will revise the
guidelines for conference convenors to include instructions that conference
participants are encouraged to include referrals to support agencies as part
of young peoples’ outcome plans. The Department will monitor the impact on
its resources of implementing the Audit Report’s recommendations. By
way of context, the Young Offenders Act 1997 was devised almost a decade ago.
Under the Act the YJC scheme, based on restorative justice principles, was
established as an alternative to instituting formal court proceedings for
certain young offenders. The scheme also provided for the participation of
families and victims in ways not possible in formal court processes. Research
at the time indicated that less intrusive interventions were an effective and
appropriate response to offending for the majority of young people. More
recent research indicates that whilst for the vast majority of young
offenders, diversion from the formal court processes will reduce the
likelihood of re-offending, for a small number of young offenders, it is
important to intervene early in the process to address factors that may lead
to further offending. The challenge presented to justice agencies is to
accurately identify which offenders should have additional support provided
to address their needs. Justice
agencies can only work with offenders for the often relatively short duration
of their court ordered supervision period. Therefore support of juvenile
offenders requires a multi-agency approach. The ability of the department to
impact on the re-offending of juveniles is highly dependent on other agencies’
willingness to work with juvenile offenders and provide access to their
services and programs, in particular those relating to accommodation, mental
health and education. Crimes
committed by juveniles tend to be opportunistic and impulsive. This is compounded
given the high levels of mental health problems, substance misuse and
intellectual disability among juvenile offenders. International
research into brain development over the past 10 to 15 years has highlighted
that there are true developmental differences between adolescents and adults
in the areas of motivation, impulse control and decision-making, as well as
psychological maturation. This
research clearly indicates that adolescents are more likely to undertake
high-risk activities because they have a reduced capacity to foresee
consequences and assess risks and they are more prone to reacting explosively
or misreading signals from others. It
is within this context the department is introducing the internationally
recognised Multisystemic Therapy model, to be named the Intensive Supervision
Program (ISP). The program works intensively with all members of a family to
address factors that contribute to the young person’s offending such as
substance abuse, financial problems, housing needs, family conflict and the
need for troubled young people to establish a support network within their
communities. ISP involves the families of serious young offenders, the
offender themselves, their schools, teachers and principals and works with
police and other important people in their lives. Under
ISP, the young offenders will have to take responsibility for their actions
and have to deal with the significant issues that are contributing to their
offending such as negative peer pressure and poor school performance.
Evaluations of the ISP over the past 10 years have shown up to a 70 per cent
reduction in the long-term rates of re-offending. The
department will continue to work collaboratively with other justice and human
service agencies to address the needs of young offenders and thus reduce the
risk of re-offending. It is through this collaborative approach that the
remaining recommendations of the Audit Report will be addressed and gains
will be made in meeting the priorities of the State Plan. I
would like to take this opportunity to thank the Audit team for the
professional manner in which they approached the Audit and worked with
departmental staff to produce recommendations that maintain the integrity of
the YJC scheme whilst improving outcomes for young people and the community. |
|
|
|
|
|
(signed) Jennifer Mason Director General Dated: 19 March 2007 |
|
|
Response from
the NSW Police Force |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank
you for the opportunity to provide a formal response to the published report.
Recommendation.
Improve outcomes for young offenders who participate in youth justice
conferences. Comment
from the NSW Police Force. Recommendation.
Improve outcomes for young offenders who receive cautions. Comment
from the NSW Police Force. NSWPF supports these recommendations with the following notes: §
The checklist will provide guidance to YLOs on their rating and
will be based on existing guidance developed as part of the research survey
undertaken in 2006 and that utilised by PCYC. YLOs can only rate the risk of
a young person re-offending according to information available at the current
time. This risk rating will not be indicative of the young person’s capacity
to reoffend in a more serious nature, nor take into consideration the variety
of factors beyond the knowledge of the YLO. YLOs who rate risk as low will
not be held responsible for further offending by the young person. §
The rating will appear in the “caution outcome” field on COPs. Additional documentation of this process
will be undertaken manually and kept at the LAC by the YLO. Turnover of YLOs
may impact on the absolute consistency of this process. §
NSWPF will develop a process so that there is consistency of
referral to services for young people at high risk of reoffending. Wherever
possible this will commence with first referral to PCYC Targeted Programming.
NSWPF will also identify the status of services to ensure that there is
accurate information linking any perceived ‘failure’ of a young person to
attend with the actual availability of that service. This information will be
fed back to the SOG. §
The referral process will be consistent with the legislation and
ensure that the referral is not a condition of the caution. §
Follow up on referrals
will be completed at the time of the next caution and will be addressed by the YLO. §
It is appropriate that
this recommendation relates only to YLOs. Despite this NSWPF will ensure,
through the Cautioning Workshop, that officers’ other
than YLOs who deliver cautions in rural areas are aware of the obligation.
Follow-up and feedback from agencies is also dependent on their privacy
arrangements. |
|
|
Recommendation.
Address cross-agency issues Comment
from the NSW Police Force. NSWPF supports this recommendation with the following note: §
Mechanisms to
implement this recommendation are yet to be finalised between the SOG and
NSWPF. Recommendation.
Better reporting of results. Comment
from the NSW Police Force. NSWPF supports these recommendations with the following notes: §
NSWPF supports the
target in the State Plan recognising the Plan’s definition of reoffending is
court appearance or conviction or a Youth Justice Conference. NSWPF will
implement strategies to increase diversions under the
YOA which is a reduction in reoffending by that definition. This target is in
partnership with other agencies. §
Monitoring and
reporting will be targeted with the one and two year reporting periods. One year targets are important as the positive impact of a caution is
felt most within the first year and this should be counted as successful
reduction of re-offending. Outcomes of referrals to PCYC will also be
included in the reporting process. §
NSWPF will review indicators to be included in the annual report based on
the requirements of the recommendation. Every effort will be made to included
these in the 2006-2007 report. §
Reporting on trends will also be enhanced by the outcomes of the research
to be concluded in December 2007. NSW
Police Force is committed to maintaining the good work initiated so far in
addressing the needs of young offenders. We will identify new and better
processes to intervene, record and follow-up progress, to maximise
diversionary options and thereby reduce reoffending by young people. We gratefully acknowledge the positive
comments in the consultation process and final report. I am happy to enclose the formal response by NSW Police and look forward to the publication of the final report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(signed) Ken Moroney AO, APM Commissioner of Police Dated: 7 March 2007 |