Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:08 am
Time: 3:08 am
Results for juvenile offenders (australia)
32 results foundAuthor: Snowball, Lucy Title: Juvenile Diversion and Indigenous Offenders: A Study Examining Juvenile Offenders in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales Summary: This study addresses the concern that Indigenous juvenile offenders were not receiving the benefits of diversionary schemes. Previous research had suggested that Indigenous offenders are diverted at a significatnly lower rate than non-Indigenous offenders. This research, however, had not compared rates of diversion after adjusting for offender characteristics and other factors that can be taken into account when making the decision to divert. This study assesses how much of the difference in rates of diversion between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders remained after these factors had been taken into account. Details: Canberra: Criminology Research Council, 2008. 24p. Source: Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 117754 Keywords: Indigenous PeoplesJuvenile Diversion (Australia)Juvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Victoria. Parliament. Drugs and cRime Prevention Committee Title: Inquiry into Strategies to Prevent High Volume Offending and Recidivism by Young People: Final Report Summary: The Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee of Parliament is to inquire into and report upon justice and crime strategies in high volume crimes such as theft and property-related offences, which often involve young people; with the Committee to provide recommendations on: (a) causal factors that may influence patterns of high volume crime, with particular emphasis on repeat offences committed by young people; and (b) strategies that may be effective in addressing the underlying causal factors or recidivist patterns of offending. Statement of Principles underlying the Recommendations The following principles are based on the deliberations of the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee and the evidence it has received. These principles underlie and support the recommendations that follow.1 1. Young people make an important contribution to the well-being of the community. Only a small minority of young people get involved in criminal or antisocial behaviour at the expense of the wider community. 2. Most young people deal successfully and responsibly with the challenges of adolescence and the transition to adult life without experiencing serious or lasting difficulties. Conversely, a small minority of young people due to a variety of factors are at risk of engaging in criminal or antisocial conduct. These factors must be understood and addressed in an effort to tackle the range and complexity of problems faced by the minority at risk. 3. There is no one cause or single factor contributing to juvenile offending. Criminal and antisocial behaviour by young people, as with adults, is a complex phenomenon that is attributable to a range of intersecting and overlapping factors. 4. Strategies developed to address youth offending and its causes should be grounded in a rights based framework that places the needs of the child as paramount. At the same time these strategies should address the need for young people to respect others within the community. 5. Policy and program interventions to address youth offending must be based on best evidence. An essential part of any policy development is the ability to rely and draw upon comprehensive and up-to-date data. 6. Strategies and program interventions are not of themselves enough. It is essential that any project developed to address youth offending and antisocial behaviour be subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation. 7. Prevention and early intervention programs and approaches that address the needs of all young people are an essential component of any strategy to prevent or reduce youth offending. 8. Incarceration for young people should only be used as a last resort. For most young people alternative strategies such as diversionary programs have proven to be more successful. 9. Engaging young people in education, training, constructive leisure activities and/or meaningful employment empowers young people and assists in preventing youth offending. 10. There is a need for an 'all of community' approach by which the responsibility for preventing youth offending is shared by all levels of government, the private sector, parents, carers and the community at large. As part of such an approach a coordinated and appropriately funded strategy to reduce youth offending is essential. 11. A range of interventions, methods and approaches is necessary to address youth offending - a 'one size fits all' response is insufficient to tackle the complexities of the problem. Targeted approaches will need to be tailored to different groups of young people at risk in addition to more generalist methods that apply equally to all young people in the community. Details: Melbourne: Government Printer, 2009. 375p. Source: Parliamentary Paper; no. 218, Session 2006-2009. Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/dcpc/high_volume_crime/DCPC-Report_HighVolumeCrime_2009-07-22.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/dcpc/high_volume_crime/DCPC-Report_HighVolumeCrime_2009-07-22.pdf Shelf Number: 116652 Keywords: Community InterventionsDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Juvenile RehabilitationRecidivism (Juvenile Offenders)Repeat Offenders (Juveniles, Australia) |
Author: South Australia. Attorney-General's Department. Office of Crime Statistics and Research Title: Youth CARDS Final Evaluation Report Summary: This report presents findings of the evaluation of the Youth Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS). The evaluation of CARDS was undertaken from July 2005 to December 2006. As far as is possible within the timeframe, the evaluation focused on both process and outcomes. The process evaluation sought to monitor and record key aspects of the implementaion, coordination and operation of Youth CARDS. The outcome evaluation sought to establish the extent to which the aims and intended outcomes of Youth CARDS had been achieved in its pilot period. The evaluation was based on a mixed methods approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative techniques using a range of data collection methods. Details: Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics and Research, 2008. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 6, 2010 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/YouthCARDSFinalEvaluationReport.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/YouthCARDSFinalEvaluationReport.pdf Shelf Number: 120394 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Recidivism |
Author: Richards, Kelly Title: What Makes Juvenile Offenders Different from Adult Offenders? Summary: Responding to juvenile offending is a unique policy and practice challenge. While a substantial proportion of crime is perpetuated by juveniles, most juveniles will ‘grow out’ of offending and adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. This paper outlines the factors (biological, psychological and social) that make juvenile offenders different from adult offenders and that necessitate unique responses to juvenile crime. It is argued that a range of factors, including juveniles’ lack of maturity, propensity to take risks and susceptibility to peer influence, as well as intellectual disability, mental illness and victimisation, increase juveniles’ risks of contact with the criminal justice system. These factors, combined with juveniles’ unique capacity to be rehabilitated, can require intensive and often expensive interventions by the juvenile justice system. Although juvenile offenders are highly diverse, and this diversity should be considered in any response to juvenile crime, a number of key strategies exist in Australia to respond effectively to juvenile crime. These are described in this paper. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 409: Accessed March 8, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/2/2/%7B4227C0AD-AD0A-47E6-88AF-399535916190%7Dtandi409.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/2/2/%7B4227C0AD-AD0A-47E6-88AF-399535916190%7Dtandi409.pdf Shelf Number: 120899 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: Police Bail and Risk of Re-Offending Summary: This study sought to determine whether the police are remanding offenders with a low risk of re-offending. First a model of juvenile re-offending was developed based on offender characteristics available to the police at the time of the bail decision. This model was then used to predict the probability of re-offending for a sample of 23,667 juveniles, 29.1 per cent of whom had been remand by the police. The others had either been released on bail or unconditionally released. The probabilities were grouped into deciles and compared for the police remand and the non police remand groups. After determining the risk of reoffending for the sample of juvenile defendants, it was clear that on average those held on police remand had a high risk of re-offending. However the police are granting bail to a number of high risk offenders. The study found that there is no evidence that the police are remanding juveniles who are at a low risk of re-offending. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 3p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 57: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb57.pdf/$file/bb57.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb57.pdf/$file/bb57.pdf Shelf Number: 121619 Keywords: BailJuvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismReoffending |
Author: Holmes, Jessie Title: Re-offending in NSW Summary: Aim: To provide an overview of adult and juvenile re-offending over the longer term in NSW. Method: Descriptive analysis of data from the NSW Re-offending Database (ROD). Results and conclusion: Most offenders convicted in the NSW criminal courts were reconvicted of a further offence within 15 years of their index offence, and this was especially so for juveniles. Those reconvicted tended to be reconvicted for a variety of offences. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper No. 56: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb56.pdf/$file/bb56.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb56.pdf/$file/bb56.pdf Shelf Number: 121620 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia)OffendersRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Lind, Bronwyn Title: Screening Cautioned Young People for Further Assessment and Intervention Summary: This study aimed to assess whether it is possible to screen juvenile offenders for recidivism risk from information readily available at the time of cautioning a young offender. Data on all 8,537 juveniles cautioned by police or courts in 2006 were analysed using logistic regression. The dependent variable in the logistic regression model was a binary variable measuring reoffending. The potential predictors included number of previous cautions, conferences or court appearances, jurisdiction issuing the caution (court vs. police), Indigenous status, gender, age at index caution, offence type, offence seriousness, prior violence, remoteness (ARIA) and social and economic disadvantage. The final model included prior contacts, jurisdiction issuing the index caution, Indigenous status and gender as predictors. The c-statistic (area under the ROC curve) when comparing predicted with observed values was 0.767, 95% confidence interval (0.757, 0.777). The model fit was confirmed by comparing predicted values from half the dataset with observed values from the other half. The study concluded that it is possible to screen juveniles for future risk of reoffending from data readily available at the time they are cautioned. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 149: Accessed May 5, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb149.pdf/$file/cjb149.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb149.pdf/$file/cjb149.pdf Shelf Number: 121645 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment |
Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Trends in Juvenile Detention in Australia Summary: An overview of key trends in juvenile detention in Australia since 1981 is provided in this paper, based on data contained in the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Juveniles in Detention in Australia Monitoring Program database. In addition, two key trends in juvenile detention in Australia are discussed. First, the substantial increase in the proportion of juvenile detainees that is remanded, rather than sentenced, is identified as a concerning trend. A number of potential drivers for the increased use of remand are outlined in this paper. It is argued that the apparent increase in the use of remand should be a key focus of future juvenile justice research. Second, the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles continues to be an important issue to be addressed. Although rates of Indigenous over-representation have increased steadily, this appears to be due to decreases in rates of non-Indigenous juveniles in detention rather than increases in rates of Indigenous juveniles in detention. It is argued that rather than attempting to determine how juvenile justice policies have failed to keep Indigenous juveniles out of detention, consideration might be given to what has worked in reducing rates of non-Indigenous juveniles in detention. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 416: Accessed May 16, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi416.aspx Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/401-420/tandi416.aspx Shelf Number: 121721 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Technical and Background Paper: Measuring Juvenile Recidivism in Australia Summary: This study is a step towards having national data on juvenile recidivism that are both meaningful and comparable across Australia's jurisdictions. Performance measurement (the use of empirical indicators to measure outcomes that government services are supposed to achieve) has emerged in recent years as a strategy to assist governments assess the impact of their operations, improve service provision and effectively target resources. In the criminal justice sector, recidivism is often used as a measure of the performance of government agencies, such as correctional services and juvenile justice agencies. Recidivism has, however, been identified as a limited and problematic measure of performance, for a range of reasons. It has been argued, for example, that many factors influence whether an offender recidivates, some of which are not within the control of government agencies. Recidivism is a particularly problematic measure of the performance of juvenile justice agencies, as offending peaks during adolescence. As such, juveniles might be expected to recidivate at a higher rate than adults, irrespective of interventions provided by juvenile justice agencies. Recidivism nonetheless remains one important measure of the performance of juvenile justice agencies, albeit one that should be cautiously interpreted. This report presents the findings of a literature review and consultations with key stakeholders in each of Australia’s jurisdictions on measuring juvenile recidivism. It outlines the limitations of using recidivism as a measure of performance for juvenile justice agencies and presents a range of options for better conceptualising and measuring juvenile recidivism. The report also provides four international examples of recent efforts to adopt more robust and meaningful measures of juvenile recidivism. Finally, 13 principles are proposed that could be used to inform and enhance the measurement of juvenile recidivism in Australia. Clearly, measuring juvenile recidivism is a challenging task. This study is an important step towards having national data on juvenile recidivism that are both meaningful and comparable across Australia’s jurisdictions, and that would contribute towards the development of more effective juvenile justice interventions across Australia. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical and Background Paper 44: Accessed June 30, 2011 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/1/B/1/%7B1B1FAF61-B45D-42A4-B93B-E655C4CA078E%7Dtbp044.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/1/B/1/%7B1B1FAF61-B45D-42A4-B93B-E655C4CA078E%7Dtbp044.pdf Shelf Number: 121925 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Australia)RecidivismRehabilitationReoffending |
Author: Australia. Parliament. House of Representatives. Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Title: Doing Time - Time for Doing: Indigenous Youth in the Criminal Justice System Summary: Indigenous juveniles are 28 times more likely than non-Indigenous juveniles to be incarcerated, despite Indigenous peoples representing only 2.5 percent of the Australian population. Indigenous social and economic disadvantage have contributed to the high levels of Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system. the Committee found there is intergenerational dysfunction in some Indigenous communities which presents a significant challenge to break the cycle of offending, recidivism and incarceration. The Committee examined current policy arrangements for overcoming Indigenous disadvantage and found it concerning that the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG’s) Closing the Gap Strategy did not include a National Partnership Agreement dedicated to the Safe Communities Building Block, nor did it include specific targets relating to justice. The Committee found this concerning in view of the weight of evidence it received during the inquiry that linked unsafe communities to the development of negative social norms and increasingly high rates of juvenile offending. The Committee has made 40 recommendations to Government and believes that to effect change in the area of Indigenous disadvantage and disproportionate incarceration rates, the following principles must be applied: engage and empower Indigenous communities in the development and implementation of policy and programs address the needs of Indigenous families and communities as a whole integrate and coordinate initiatives by government agencies, non-government agencies, and local individuals and groups focus on early intervention and the wellbeing of Indigenous children rather than punitive responses, and engage Indigenous leaders and elders in positions of responsibility and respect. Details: Canberra: Australian Parliament, 2011. 378p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2011 at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/sentencing/report/fullreport.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/sentencing/report/fullreport.pdf Shelf Number: 121926 Keywords: Indigenous PeoplesJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Minority GroupsPovertySocioeconomic Status |
Author: Vignaendra, Sumitra Title: Recent Trends in Legal Proceedings for Breach of Bail, Juvenile Remand and Crime Summary: Between 2007 and 2008, the juvenile remand population in New South Wales (NSW) grew by 32 per cent, from an average of 181 per day to 239 per day. This bulletin examines two factors that may have influenced the upward trend: police enforcement of bail laws and changes to the Bail Act 1978 that restricted the number of applications for bail that can be made. It also examines the question of whether the upward trend in the number of juveniles on remand is helping to reduce property crime. The findings show that both factors are contributing to the growth in the number of juveniles remanded in custody. There is no evidence, however, that the growth in the size of the juvenile remand population is helping to reduce property crime. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 128: Accessed November 2, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb128.pdf/$file/cjb128.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb128.pdf/$file/cjb128.pdf Shelf Number: 123216 Keywords: Bail, JuvenilesJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Property CrimesRemand |
Author: Day, Andrew Title: Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres. Part 2: Consultation and Recommendations Summary: Over the last five years there has been much discussion in South Australia, and other parts of the country, about the ways in which government agencies can, and should, respond to the needs of those young people who are considered to be at risk, particularly those who are considered to be at risk of offending or re-offending. It is well known and widely accepted that young people who are categorised in this way are likely to have particularly high levels of unmet need across multiple areas of functioning, with ongoing difficulties related to substance use, mental health, family functioning, educational attainment, as well as specific needs in relation to their offending behaviour. The development of age and culturally appropriate services to meet this diverse range of needs in a timely manner presents a considerable challenge to government agencies and other service providers. Each Australian state and territory manages young offenders in a slightly different way. In South Australia, responsibility for the provision of juvenile justice services (remand, detention and the administration of all youth justice dispositions from the court) lies with the Department for Families and Communities, and specifically Families SA. There are two youth training centres in South Australia, Cavan and Magill, accommodating children and young people from the ages of 10 through to 18. In 2006-07 there were 1011 admissions to secure care representing 500 young people. Families SA has the lead responsibility for the provision of programmes to young offenders, through the relatively recently established Youth Justice Directorate. Since its inception the Directorate has shown a strong commitment to the delivery of interventions that are both needs focused and effective in preventing re-offending in the context of meeting its obligations to young people under the 1993 Young Offenders Act. This report has been prepared at the request of the Guardian for Children and Young People in South Australia. This is a statutory position that reports to the Minister for Families and Communities, and has a mandate for intervention that extends to all children and young people under guardianship or custody orders, including those in secure care on youth justice orders. The Guardian has an important role to play in informing the development of services in this area, and thus commissioned this review of programmes offered in youth training centres in South Australia. The need to review and develop programmes has, however, also been identified by the Youth Justice Directorate as a key improvement area in the Training Centre Action Plan, and by others such as the Social Inclusion Unit, and the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Youth Justice System (SA). Part 1 of this report is dedicated to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature relating to theories and practice in youth justice. This review has been written to provide an up to date account of the current status of evidence relating to programmes that are offered to clients of the Directorate that are intended to reduce the risk of further offending. In any organisation that aims to be ‘evidence-based’, it is important that decisions around the structure, management, and delivery of programmes are made in the light of what is currently known about programme effectiveness. Evidence can take two forms: theories and models about how to understand the reasons why young people offend, and hence their likely need for intervention; and evaluations and trials of programmes that have been used with juvenile justice clients. Developmental theories of crime consistently suggest that antisocial behaviour is the strongest underlying causal factor for criminal behaviour. These theories stress the socialisation process and subsequent social bonds that the young person forms as being paramount to the development of pro-social behaviour and, in our view, are particularly appropriate theories for accounting for juvenile offending. Part 2 of the review reports the findings of a series of consultations with a range of stakeholders, both government and non-government, about the current provision of services and programmes to youth justice clients. Representatives from a range of services and agencies (identified through discussion with the Guardian and the reference group) were invited to take part in the review. These included the Families SA Directorate of Youth Justice, Kumangka Aboriginal Youth Services, Victim Support Services, Social Inclusion Unit Department for Premier and Cabinet, Justice Strategy Unit Department of Justice, Breaking the Cycle (Families SA), Central Community Legal Services, Youth Affairs Council of SA, and Service to Youth Council. In addition focus groups were conducted with residents of both the Cavan and Magill Training Centres, and centre staff members were invited to respond to a questionnaire about the social climate of the centres. Whilst the primary focus of the consultations was on the provision of programmes and services within the youth training centres, it was immediately apparent that broader issues relating to the availability of community programmes, the legal context underpinning any work in youth justice, and the range of services offered by external agencies, were all of direct relevance to the types of programmes that might be both possible and appropriate within the centres. The term ‘programme’ as used in this report requires some clarification. It is used to refer to specific forms of intervention which aim to meet particular objectives, particularly those relating to the reduction in risk of re-offending. Programmes are therefore distinguished from ‘activities’ which are not necessarily goal directed. This definition is somewhat narrower than that proposed by Families SA in its draft Subprogram Development and Implementation Guidelines (November, 2007) which describes programmes as those services provided or coordinated by the agency as a result of the requirements of the juvenile justice system (although we note that one of the aims identified in the Training Centre Action Plan is to ‘engage children and young people in programmes and interventions which challenge and reduce their offending’). Details: Adelaide: Guardian for Children and Young People, 2008. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2012 at: http://www.sapo.org.au/pub/pub10623.html Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sapo.org.au/pub/pub10623.html Shelf Number: 123692 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Youth Training Centers |
Author: UnitingCare Burnside Title: Releasing the Pressure on Remand: Bail Support Solutions for Children and Young People in New South Wales Summary: An increasing number of children and young people in New South Wales are being held on remand in the state's Juvenile Justice Centres. This is due to current policies that make it unnecessarily difficult for children and young people to access bail and result in children and young people remaining in detention on remand when they should be on bail. This position paper was developed in response to the Roundtable on Keeping Children and Young People out of Remand that was convened by the Council of Social Service of NSW on 26 March 2009. The paper highlights the key issues and solutions that were discussed at the Roundtable meeting. Details: Parramatta, NSW: UnitingCare Burnside, 2009. 17p. Source: Internet Resoruce: Accessed January 27, 2012 at: http://www.ncoss.org.au/resources/091028-Releasing-the-pressure.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ncoss.org.au/resources/091028-Releasing-the-pressure.pdf Shelf Number: 123790 Keywords: Bail, JuvenilesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Moore, Elizabeth Title: Youth Justice Conferences versus Children's Court: A comparison of time to finalisation Summary: Aim: To compare police-referred youth justice conferences (YJCs), court referred YJCs and Children’s Court matters on the time to finalisation (i.e., the number of days from referral/charge date to conference/court finalisation date), and assess the contribution of index offence- and/or offender-related characteristics as potential confounders. Method: The study utilised data from the NSW Re-Offending Database (ROD) for three cohorts of young people: those with a court-referred YJC held in 2010 (C-YJC), those with a police-referred YJC held in 2010 (P-YJC), and those with a proven Children’s Court (CC) appearance finalised in 2010. Negative binomial regression models were fitted to determine index offence- and offender-related characteristics associated with time to finalisation. Results: The C-YJC cohort had a significantly longer time to finalisation compared to the CC cohort and the P-YJC cohort, even after controlling for confounders. In addition, the CC cohort had a significantly longer time to finalisation compared to the P-YJC cohort. Older age, being Indigenous, having a case dealt with in a Metropolitan region, and having more concurrent index offences remained significant predictors of an increase in number of days to finalisation in the adjusted model. Conclusion: The findings suggest that police should be encouraged to refer eligible matters to a YJC given the time-related efficiency identified via this pathway. The findings suggest it may be appropriate to consider further revising the legislated time-frames as there may be legitimate reasons for why delays occur. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 8p. Source: Issue paper no. 74: Internet Resource: Accessed March 11, 2012 at http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB74.pdf/$file/BB74.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB74.pdf/$file/BB74.pdf Shelf Number: 124446 Keywords: Case Processing (Australia)Juvenile Justice (Australia)Juvenile Offenders (Australia)Re-Offending (Australia) |
Author: Smith, Nadine Title: Youth Justice Conferences versus Children's Court: A comparison of re-offending Summary: Aim: To compare re-offending between young people processed in NSW with a Youth Justice Conference and those eligible for a conference but processed in the Children’s Court. Method: Using propensity score matching, young persons whose offending was allocated to be dealt with by a Youth Justice Conference in 2007 were matched to those who were eligible for a conference but who were referred to Children’s Court in 2007. These samples were then compared on various re-offending outcomes both without and with adjustment for potential covariates. Both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were conducted. For the intention-to-treat analyses, all young persons allocated a conference not just those who completed their conference outcome plan where included in the conference group. While for the as-treated analyses only young persons who completed their conference outcome plan where included in the conference group. Inverse probabilities of treatment weightings were also applied to estimate the effect of conferencing on re-offending. Results: After adjusting for other factors in the intention-to-treat analyses, no significant differences were found between conference and court participants in the proportion re-offending, the seriousness of their re-offending, the time to the first proven re-offence or the number of proven re-offences. Non-significant results were obtained regardless of whether the definition of re-offending included or excluded justice procedures offences. In the as-treated analyses, the results were similar. Conclusion: The evidence strongly suggests that the conference regime established under the NSW Young Offenders Act (1997) is no more effective than the NSW Children’s Court in reducing juvenile re-offending among young persons eligible for a conference. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 24p. Source: Crime and Justice Bulletin, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 160: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2012 at http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb160.pdf/$file/cjb160.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb160.pdf/$file/cjb160.pdf Shelf Number: 124553 Keywords: Juvenile Courts (Australia)Juvenile Offenders (Australia)Re-Offending (Australia)Restorative Justice (Australia) |
Author: Aalders, Rachel Title: Children and Young People at Risk of Social Exclusion: Links between homelessness, child protection and juvenile justice Summary: Current research demonstrates relationships between child abuse and neglect, homelessness and criminal activity. This report presents key findings from analysis of a data set linking three community-sector data collections: Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), juvenile justice supervision, and child protection notifications and substantiations in Victoria and Tasmania. While this project demonstrated that linking these collections is both feasible and worthwhile, the results are limited by data availability (this project used 3 years of SAAP data, 10 years of juvenile justice data, 18 years of Victorian child protection data and 3 years of Tasmanian child protection data). The accumulation of data over multiple years for all sectors would enable the flows between services over the long term to be identified, but despite the data limitations, the results highlight the possibilities for data linkage in these sectors although caution must be used in generalising these findings. People with involvement in one of the three sectors are more likely to be involved in another of the sectors than the general population Almost 15% of young people under juvenile justice supervision had received SAAP support in the year before their most recent supervision and 8% received support in the year after their most recent supervision. For those with a substantiated child protection notification, 6% received support in the year before and 7% in the year after their most recent substantiated notification. In contrast, about 1% of those aged 10 and older in the general population receive SAAP services as a client in a year and about 2% receive services as an accompanying child (AIHW 2010). More than 10% of those who received SAAP support as an adult had a history of juvenile justice supervision— by comparison, about 1% of those aged 16 or 17 (the peak age for juvenile justice supervision) are under supervision in any given year (AIHW 2011c). (National figures on the proportion of the adult population with a history of juvenile justice supervision are not available.) Young people with a child protection history enter juvenile justice supervision at a younger age Of those under juvenile justice supervision who had one or more substantiated child protection notifications, 21% first entered supervision aged 10–13 compared with 6% of those with no substantiated notifications. Young people without substantiated notifications were more likely to have entered supervision when they were older, with 33% doing so at age 17 compared with 11% of those who had one or more substantiated notifications. Young people, particularly young women, completing a detention sentence are at greater risk of homelessness Within 1 month after the end of a period of sentenced detention, 3% of periods were followed by a period of SAAP support—this increased to 9% within 6 months. Young women were twice as likely as young men to receive SAAP support in the month after the end of a sentenced detention period. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Data Linkage Series, Number 13: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129542237 Year: 2012 Country: Armenia URL: Shelf Number: 126995 Keywords: At-risk YouthChild Abuse and NeglectChild ProtectionDelinquency PreventionHomelessnessJuvenile JusticeJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Thompson, Carleen Title: Review of Empirically Based Risk/Needs Assessment Tools for Youth Justice: Amended Report for Public Release Summary: This report was commissioned on the 8 November, 2005 by the Office of Youth, Department of Communities. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the evidence base for youth justice risk/needs assessment tools and to make recommendations about which of these tools might best meet Queensland’s unique needs and current circumstances. What is an evidence base? Evidence-based policy has been defined as an approach that “helps people make well informed decisions about policies, programmes and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation” (Davis, 1999). Importantly, however, it must be recognised that not all research is of the same quality (Davis, Nutley, & Smith, 2000). Evidence-based policy and practice stresses that the research should not only be competently designed and carried out, but that data should support the findings and conclusions. Additionally, there should be a discussion of the methodological limitations of the study that may potentially bias results, indicate alternative explanations or limit the generalisability of the results (Rycus & Hughes, in press). Evidence-based policy requires a systematic approach to search for appropriate evidence, the critical appraisal of studies that are identified, and a balanced understanding of what the research evidence indicates, taking into account both its strengths and weaknesses (Davis et al., 2000). In recent years there has been a recognition that decision-making in the human services should be guided by evidence derived from scientific research (Gambrill, 1999; Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000). This push for evidence-based practice arose from the realisation that practitioners did not routinely use the best available evidence for their decisions (R. Borum, 2003; Hoge, 2002; A. Rose, 2003; Wiebush, Baird, Krisberg, & Onek, 1995). Youth justice decision making is no exception to these findings, whereby judgements are often made on the basis of factors which lack empirical support. Furthermore, those variables grounded in empirical evidence are often excluded from the decision making process (R. Borum, 1996; Wiebush et al., 1995). The following report utilised numerous sources of evidence to elucidate best practice guidelines for risk/needs assessments and the evaluation of such tools in the youth justice field. The sources utilised in this report include: refereed journal articles, conference presentations and proceedings, independent evaluations commissioned by government agencies which were publicly available, and descriptions and evaluations provided by the risk/needs assessment developers and publishers. The most weight was accorded to empirical evidence derived from either quantitative research or surveys, or descriptive or qualitative research that was published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is the process through which experts in a field of study assess the quality of articles that are submitted to a journal for publication. Consequently, while the standard of journals vary, this process ensures that all articles published meet the standards for that publication. Conference presentations and proceedings do not meet the same benchmark standards as peer-reviewed journals. However, these reports are available for critical appraisal by the research community. Similarly, independently commissioned evaluation reports funded by governments, and available in the public domain, were also considered to be indicative of an evidence base. Internal government/ organisational reports were included because the description of many of the programs and the implementation of these programs was only available through internal reports. Because these reports were generally not subjected to independent critical appraisal, a lesser weight was accorded to them in respect to their contribution to the evidence base. These reports were assessed on the basis of the empirical evidence they presented and the methodological soundness of their research design. Details: Mt. Gravatt, QLD: Justice Modelling@Griffith University, 2006. 246p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2012 at: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Australia URL: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Shelf Number: 127113 Keywords: Evidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Risk-Needs Assessment |
Author: Trotter, Chris Title: Effective Community-Based Supervision of Young Offenders Summary: An increasing body of research suggests that some interventions with offenders can reduce reoffending. While little of this research has focused on the impact of routine supervision of offenders on probation, parole or other community-based orders, a few studies have found that when supervisors make use of a number of specific practice skills, there is a reduced rate of recidivism for those under their supervision. Having first described the effective practice skills, the extent to which these are applied to a population of young offenders is assessed, along with the resultant effect on recidivism. The study involved the direct observation of 117 worker/client interviews conducted by juvenile justice workers in New South Wales. It was found, as with earlier studies generally done with adults, that when workers used particular practice skills, the young people under their supervision had lower reoffending rates. It also found that workers who provided a counselling role made more use of the effective practice skills than workers who did not. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice no. 448: Accessed February 8, 2013 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi448.html Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/441-460/tandi448.html Shelf Number: 127548 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsInterventionsJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Offender Supervision |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Girls and Young Women in the Juvenile Justice System Summary: Summary Relatively few young women are involved in the juvenile justice system In Australia, young women are less likely than young men to enter the juvenile justice system and even less likely to progress to the most serious processes and outcomes. In 2010–11, young men were around twice as likely as young women to be proceeded against by police, more than 3 times as likely to be proven guilty in the Children’s Court, 4 times as likely to experience community-based supervision and 5 times as likely to be in detention. Among the cohorts of young people for whom a complete juvenile justice supervision history is available in 2010–11 (those born 1990–91 to 1992–93), young men were around 4 times as likely as young women to have experienced any supervision when aged 10–17. Young women are more likely than young men to be supervised in the community On an average day in 2010–11, around 93% of young women under supervision were supervised in the community, compared with 85% of young men. Very few young women were in detention—only 85 on an average day (compared with 960 young men). Young women spend less time under supervision than young men, particularly in detention When all time under supervision is considered, young women spent around 2 weeks less than young men under supervision during 2010–11 (171 days, on average, compared with 186) (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory as standard data were not provided). This was mainly due to less time spent in detention (31 days, on average, compared with 68). Young women under supervision are younger than young men Young women under supervision were younger, on average, than young men (excluding Western Australia and the Northern Territory). In 2010–11, rates of supervision were highest among young women aged 15 and 16, compared with ages 16 and 17 for young men. Indigenous young women are over-represented in supervision In 2010–11, Indigenous young women aged 10–17 were around 16 times as likely as non- Indigenous young women to be under community-based supervision during the year, and 19 times as likely to be in detention. This was slightly higher than the level of Indigenous over-representation among young men (13 and 17 times as likely, respectively). Rates of young women under supervision have increased Over the 5-year period to 2010–11, rates of young women aged 10–17 under supervision rose from 0.8 to 1.0 per 1,000 on an average day and from 1.7 to 2.2 per 1,000 during the year, which were greater than the corresponding increases for young men. This was mainly due to increases in the numbers and rates of young women under community-based supervision. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 107: Accessed February 11, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737423108 Shelf Number: 127568 Keywords: Female Juvenile OffendersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: Police Use of Court Alternatives for Young Persons in NSW Summary: Aim: To measure the level of variation across the NSW Police Force’s Local Area Commands (LACs) in the proportion of young persons diverted from court, before and after adjusting for factors police may consider when deciding how to proceed against a young person. Method: Between July 2010 and June 2011, for each LAC in NSW, the number of cases involving young persons that police dealt with by caution or conference referral was calculated as a proportion of all cases proceeded against by caution, conference or court. Factors associated with whether or not a case was diverted from court were examined using multilevel logistic regression. Results: Excluding ineligible cases, the rate of diversion per LAC ranged between 31 and 95 per cent, with 85 per cent of LACs diverting at least 70 per cent of their eligible cases. Additionally, both before and after taking into account factors that police may consider when deciding whether or not to divert, the amount of variation in police use of diversionary options attributable to LAC was small (less than 5%). Conclusion: Variation across LACs in the police use of diversionary options was small. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 167: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB167.pdf/$file/CJB167.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB167.pdf/$file/CJB167.pdf Shelf Number: 127684 Keywords: Juvenile DiversionJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Youth Offenders Act 1997 |
Author: The Nucleus Group Title: Evaluation of the Ramp Mentoring Program: Final Report Summary: Ramp is a personal development and mentoring program specifically designed to meet the needs of high-risk young people aged 13 to 17 years in residential care in the Eastern Metropolitan Region (EMR) of Melbourne. It was established by Whitelion Inc and the Reach Foundation and funded as a pilot project by the Office for Children, Department of Human Services (DHS) from February 2005. In June 2007, DHS contracted the Nucleus Consulting Group to undertake an evaluation of Ramp. The main purpose of the evaluation was to identify and assess the effectiveness and efficiency of Ramp in regard to outcomes and impact and to determine whether the broader program objectives were being met. The evaluation was informed by quantitative and qualitative data from program management, young people participating in the program, Ramp staff, mentors, residential care staff and DHS protective workers. There were a number of limitations to the evaluation including the low response rates of residential care staff and DHS protective workers, which is in part a reflection of high staff turnover and caseloads. Obtaining interviews with young people participating in Ramp also proved challenging and reflected the complexity of working with this group. Ramp participants had high and complex needs - of the 64 young people who participated in some way with the Ramp program over 80% were or have been considered to be at high risk by DHS. Just under half were considered to be abusing alcohol, drugs or other substances, and over a third had Youth Justice involvement. Nearly one quarter of participants had been in care for six years or more. Ramp is unlike other mentoring programs in Victoria as it incorporates additional features - lead mentors to visit residential care units and engage young people, workshops, camps and other activities. These features provide an integrated approach and are essential strategies in conducting an effective program for young people in this target group. The evaluation also found that the Ramp model incorporated features of effective mentoring programs as shown in relevant research. The Ramp strategies have the added benefit of providing young people with a range of positive role models as well as multiple layers of support (from other young people, some of whom are outside the residential care system, Ramp staff, the Reach Crew, other adults, and mentors should they choose to be matched). Not all participants want a mentor, at least not initially, and Ramp provides a way for these young people to also participate and achieve some positive change as well. Ramp is more expensive than some other mentoring programs due to the inclusion of lead mentors and workshops, a camp and associated activities in the service model. However, it is these elements that facilitate the engagement of high-risk young people and that contribute to sustained, beneficial mentoring relationships. Communication between Ramp and DHS protective workers was found to be poor and action is recommended to remedy this situation. Relationships between Ramp and residential care staff were variable due often to high turnover of staff. Where there was a positive relationship, residential care staff worked in a highly complementary way with Ramp, promoting the program to residents and supporting achievements. Good communication between all parties is essential for working effectively with young people. Ramp activities were generally well attended with most of those interviewed believing they were fun and provided a safe and inclusive environment where they could meet new people and make friends. The evaluation demonstrated that Ramp provided a diverse range of activities for young people, particularly those with mentors. Comments from young people participating in Ramp indicated that Ramp provided a stimulating and inspiring experience. A number of factors have been identified that encouraged engagement with Ramp. Matches are carefully considered and given time to develop, including an initial trial and ongoing assessment to ensure both parties are committed. Most matches continue for the mandated 12 months and many go even longer. Young people are mostly very positive about the relationship with their mentor. Mentors spend time with their mentee weekly or fortnightly in a wide range of activities, are very dedicated and work hard at their relationship. Based on length of relationship, observed and reported impact, and general satisfaction amongst both mentors and mentees, the great majority of Ramp matches were found to have been successful. Ramp exceeded targets established in its 2006/07 DHS Funding and Service Agreement. Ramp staff, mentors, residential care workers and the young people themselves all indicated that participants seemed to be more self-aware and had better self– esteem and confidence as a result of participation in the program. Comments from mentors and participants demonstrated that participants also had improved interpersonal and communication skills. Participants were better placed to take responsibility for and control their future than they were prior to entering the program. Many had new, more positive social connections and some were actively working towards more positive life goals. However, for many, given their complex backgrounds, these gains must be regarded as early (but significant) steps in a long journey. A number of the young people involved in Ramp reported to have achieved some important changes in their lives; most believed these changes were a result of participating in Ramp. The Ramp service model embodies a number of significant strengths and this evaluation has demonstrated many positive effects and substantial promise, including the possibility that it will produce long-term savings and benefits to the community through successful intervention in the lives of high risk, difficult to engage young people. In summary the Ramp model appears to have had a positive impact on most of the young people who engaged with the program. The unique elements of the program, such as the ‘lead mentors’, workshops and camps are deserving of further investigation by DHS in the development of mentoring service models. Details: Balwyn, VIC, AUS: The Nucleus Group, 2008. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2013 at: http://www.whitelion.asn.au/files/Ramp_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: http://www.whitelion.asn.au/files/Ramp_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 127728 Keywords: At-Risk JuvenilesDelinquency PreventionJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Mentoring |
Author: Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd Title: Thinking Outside: Alternatives to Remand for Children Summary: Jesuit Social Services has over 35 years experience working with children and young people in Victoria’s youth justice system. We know from our experience that the lives of the children who come into contact with this system are among the least fortunate in our community. They often have chaotic family relationships and involvement with child protection services, problems engaging in school, mental illness and substance abuse problems. These children and young people are more likely to come from communities that experience extreme levels of poverty and disadvantage. Their development is compromised by early life experiences and then further compounded as they become entangled in the web of disadvantage. Contact with the youth justice system and exposure to remand often become further strands to this web. At heart, this study is about these children - for children they are, as legally defined until the age of 18. Victoria has a proud reputation for diverting children away from the justice system and has the lowest child custody rate in Australia, yet our rate of unsentenced detention increased by 67 per cent between 2007 and 2010. This is unacceptable, as detention more often than not exacerbates problems that are already entrenched for most of these children. This report presents the main issues that arose from 12 months’ research by Jesuit Social Services. The fundamental question we set out to resolve in our study was: what can be done better? There is no single solution. However, a first step would be to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years; primary school children have no place in our criminal courts. We must promote attitudes against violence and for children. Our research has found that violent offending of varying degrees of seriousness is the main reason for remanding children and is fuelling an increase in arrests that is proportionally the greatest for the youngest children (those 10 to 13 years of age). Once a child with known social and psychological risk factors comes to the attention of the police or courts we must ensure that an assessment of his or her particular circumstances takes place immediately – whether that be during business hours, late at night or on a weekend. This does not occur currently. There is a need for services that children on remand or at risk of remand can access 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These services must overcome the present service system’s fragmented response to such children. These children have often experienced significant harm yet, by failing to intervene early and intensively to halt such troubled and troubling life trajectories, valuable time to act decisively is lost. Two groups of children are more affected than most - Aboriginal children and children subject to child protection involvement. Both are over-represented in the youth justice system. Our study identified that there was a small group of children who were remanded for the first time when they were between 10 to 12 years of age, all of whom had been involved in the child protection system. Almost a third of these were Aboriginal. Details: Richmond, VIC, AUS: Jesuit Social Services, 2013. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2013 at: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.jss.org.au/files/Thinking_Outside_Research_long_Report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127906 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Courage Partners Title: Final Report: Final Evaluation of Youth in Communities Summary: Courage Partners was engaged by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to conduct an evaluation of the Youth in Communities program. The evaluation commenced in July 2010 and was finalised in June 2012. The final evaluation of the program showed participants are more engaged at school and with their peers, are involving themselves more in cultural programs, sport and leadership activities, and are benefiting from higher self-esteem. The evaluation also found that organisations supported by Youth in Communities had successfully strengthened their service models to deliver better outcomes for young people. This includes developing more gender-specific programs to improve participation among young males, offering youth work traineeships to help create sustainable local employment opportunities, and strengthening relationships with local elders. Details: Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2012. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: https://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2013/youth_in_communities_final_evaluation_report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/02_2013/youth_in_communities_final_evaluation_report.pdf Shelf Number: 128322 Keywords: Aboriginal YouthDelinquency PreventionEducational ProgramsIndigenous YouthJuvenile Offenders (Australia)School Attendance |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia 2011-12: an overview Summary: Almost 7,000 young people are under youth justice supervision on an average day -- On an average day in 2011–12, there were almost 7,000 young people aged 10 and older under youth justice supervision in Australia due to their involvement or alleged involvement in crime. Most (83%) were male and the majority (79%) were aged 14–17. Indigenous young people were over-represented—although less than 5% of young Australians are Indigenous, 39% of those under supervision were Indigenous. Among all those aged 10–17 in Australia, this equates to a rate of 26 young people under supervision on an average day per 10,000 in the population, or 1 in every 385 young Australians. Most young people are supervised in the community -- Almost 6,000 (86%) young people were supervised in the community on an average day in 2011–12, and the remaining 1,000 (14%) were in detention. However, 2 in every 5 young people (41%) under youth justice supervision in Australia were in detention at some time during the year. Young people spend an average of 6 months under supervision -- The median duration of periods of youth justice supervision was about 11 weeks (78 days). Periods of community-based supervision completed during 2011–12 were typically longer (84 days, on average) than both unsentenced (4 days) and sentenced detention (55 days). Some young people experienced more than one supervision period during the year. When all the time spent under supervision during 2011–12 is considered, young people spent an average of about 6 months (185 days) under supervision. Trends are stable, but vary among the states and territories -- Nationally, the rates of young people aged 10–17 under supervision on an average day remained relatively stable (about 26–27 per 10,000) over the 4 years to 2011–12. This stability occurred in both community-based supervision and detention. However, there were differences in trends among the states and territories. Between 2008–09 and 2011–12, rates of young people under supervision on an average day increased in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, and decreased in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Details: Canberra: AIHW, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin no. 115: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/docs/AIHW_YouthJusticeInAustralia2011-12_April2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128675 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Young People Aged 10–14 in the Youth Justice System 2011–12 Summary: Despite being a relatively small group, research indicates that young people aged 10-14 in the youth justice system are at risk of becoming chronic, long-term offenders. Data show that most (85%) young people born in 1993-94 who were supervised at age 10-14 returned to (or continued under) supervision when they were 15-17. They were more likely than those first supervised at older ages to experience all types of supervision when 15-17, and spent more time in total under supervision. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile justice series no.12; Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129543941 Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129543941 Shelf Number: 129532 Keywords: Juvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Richards, Kelly Title: Bail and Remand for Young People in Australia: A national research project Summary: Funded and endorsed by the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, this is one of the first national scale research reports into the bail and remand practices for young Australians. A young person can be placed in custody on remand (ie refused bail) after being arrested by police in relation to a suspected criminal offence, before entering a plea, while awaiting trial, during trial or awaiting sentence. Although custodial remand plays an important role in Western criminal justice systems, minimising the unnecessary use of remand is important given the obligations Australia has under several UN instruments to use, as a last resort, youth detention of any kind. This research identifies trends in the use of custodial remand and explores the factors that influence its use for young people nationally and in each of Australia's jurisdictions. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: Research and Public Policy Series no. 125: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/125/rpp125.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/125/rpp125.pdf Shelf Number: 131685 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Remand |
Author: Aird, Elyse Title: Impact of ICAN Flexible Learning Options on Participant Offending Behaviour Summary: Innovative Community Action Networks (ICAN) is a Department for Education and Child Development (DECD)-led community driven social inclusion initiative that aims to re-engage young people who have disengaged from school or are at risk of doing so. An ICAN developed learning strategy known as a Flexible Learning Option (FLO) provides funding and support for young people to engage in different accredited learning and engagement activities while still enrolled in their school. OCSAR was approached by ICAN representatives and asked to investigate the offending behaviour of FLO participants. Anecdotal evidence suggests that involvement in ICAN and FLO may be associated with a reduction in offending behaviour (ARTD Consultants 2012, Atelier Learning Solutions 2007). Although preventing offending is not a primary objective of ICAN, it is known that disengagement from education is associated with an increased risk of contact with the justice system (Henry, Knight & Thornberry 2012), and it is therefore possible that an improvement in engagement in education would be associated with a reduction in contact with the justice system. The aims of the current study are to: - determine the offending profile of a group of ICAN Flexible Learning Options (FLO) participants before, during and after enrolment in FLO; and - examine the impact of the ICAN FLO strategy on participant offending behaviour. The specific research questions for the study are: - What proportion of FLO students had a record of recent formal contact with the police and/or a proven conviction/s prior to FLO enrolment? - For those who had recent formal contact with police or had been convicted of an offence/s, what is the nature of the offending? - How did the offending profile of FLO students change during and after their FLO enrolment, in terms of rate, type and severity of offending? - How do outcomes following FLO vary according to student characteristics such as Indigenous status, disability status, geographical area and Guardianship status? - How do the age-specific offending rates for FLO-enrolled young people compare with those of the South Australian population? Details: Adelaide, SA: Office of Crime Statistics and Research, Strategic Policy and Organisational Performance, South Australian Attorney-General's Department, 2014. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2014 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/ICAN.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/ICAN.pdf Shelf Number: 132746 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionEducationJuvenile Offenders (Australia)School AttendanceSchool Dropouts |
Author: Wagland, Paul Title: Youths in Custody in NSW: Aspirations and Strategies for the Future Summary: Aim: To investigate the extent to which youths in custody 1) rate specific life goals as important and likely to eventuate; 2) have strategies to achieve their goals; and 3) can anticipate barriers to achieving their goals. Method: A total of 107 detainees drawn from NSW Juvenile Justice centres were interviewed about their life goals. Results: Most youths rated specific life goals, such as having a well-paying job and avoiding trouble with the police, as 'quite important' or 'very important' goals to achieve in the future. When youths were asked how likely it was that these specific goals would be realised, the most common response was 'quite likely' or 'very likely'. The most frequently identified strategies for having a well-paying job included getting the necessary diplomas and starting in a junior position to get experience. The most frequently identified strategies for avoiding trouble with the police were resisting peer pressure and obeying the law. Commonly reported barriers to achieving these goals included associating with antisocial peers, drugs and alcohol usage. Many youths also recognised that getting into trouble with the law would also be a barrier to having a well-paying job. Conclusion: Most youths interviewed in this study placed high importance on specific life goals and were generally optimistic about achieving them. Furthermore, most youths could think of strategies that would help them achieve their goals as well as identify possible barriers to achieving them. These findings have the potential to help service providers and policy makers target their services and policies appropriately. Details: Sydney: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 173: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb173.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/bocsar/m716854l2/cjb173.pdf Shelf Number: 132684 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Juvenile Rehabilitation |
Author: Nisbet, Ian Title: Working together to reduce youth recidivism: exploring the potential of a 'Wraparound' Interagency Service Model Summary: The Family Inclusion Project (FIP) was operational between November 2010 and June 2011. The origins of the project were a series of discussions between senior officers of Juvenile Justice and the Coffs Harbour Indigenous Coordination Centre (ICC) in early 2010. The venue for these discussions was the North Coast Justice and Human Services Regional Forum. This venue is a multi-agency forum coordinated by the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. Its purpose is to coordinate the various justice and human service programs in regional NSW. The ICC and Juvenile Justice recognised that they had shared agenda in terms of reducing both Indigenous over-representation and levels of juvenile recidivism in the criminal justice system. These agencies approached the Centre for Children and Young People at Southern Cross University to coordinate and evaluate the implementation of a Wraparound model of intervention with Juvenile Justice clients. The community of Kempsey on the North Coast of NSW was chosen as the site to conduct the project as it has a history of high levels of general and Indigenous juvenile recidivism and is also the site of a number of government funded family support agencies. The Family Inclusion Project therefore mirrored the collaborative effort that it sought to implement and evaluate. The project was funded by the Indigenous Coordination Centre, coordinated by the Centre for Children and Young People and staffed by a psychologist with research expertise seconded from Juvenile Justice. "Wraparound" is an individualised and strengths-based way of working with families with complex needs. It relies on collaboration among service providers and is based on 10 principles. These principles include promoting family voice and choice in the casework process and using natural supports such as families' networks of interpersonal and community relationships, as well as community based services. The project was important because Wraparound offers a different approach to working with Juvenile Justice clients, which has largely focused on the individual client rather than the families and agencies supporting them. A key feature of the Juvenile Justice Corporate Plan 2010-2013, however, is to improve its community based services by increased use of family-focused programs and interventions and by developing effective relationships with other service providers in all areas of NSW. The Coffs Harbour Indigenous Coordination Centre funded a 12-month trial of a Wraparound casework approach and the project officer was seconded to the Centre for Children and Young People in August 2010. The project concluded with the release of this evaluation report in August 2011. Details: East Lismore, NSW, AUS: Southern Cross University, Centre for Children and Young People, 2011. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2014 at: http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=ccyp_pubs Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=ccyp_pubs Shelf Number: 133902 Keywords: Indigenous PeoplesInterventionsJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Juvenile RecidivismJuvenile Rehabilitation Programs |
Author: Stewart, Jacqueline Title: Indigenous Youth Justice Programs Evaluation Summary: Diversion from the youth justice system is a critical goal for addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous young people in the criminal justice system. In this report, four programs that were already being implemented by states and territories and identified by them under the National Indigenous Law & Justice Framework as promising practice in diversion are examined. The programs were evaluated, as part of a broader initiative, to determine whether and on what basis they represent good practice (ie are supported by evidence). State and territory governments nominated the programs for evaluation. The four programs sit at different points along a continuum, ranging from prevention (addressing known risk factors for offending behaviour, such as disengagement from family, school, community or culture), early intervention (with identified at-risk young people), diversion (diverting from court process - usually for first or second time offenders) and tertiary intervention (treatment to prevent recidivism): - Aboriginal Power Cup (South Australia)- a sports-based program for engaging Indigenous young people in education and providing positive role models (prevention). - Tiwi Islands Youth Development and Diversion Unit (Northern Territory) - a diversion program that engages Tiwi youth who are at risk of entering the criminal justice system in prevention activities, such as a youth justice conference, school, cultural activities, sport and recreation (early intervention and diversion). - Woorabinda Early Intervention Panel Coordination Service (Queensland) - a program to assess needs and make referrals for young Indigenous people and their families who are at risk or have offended and have complex needs (early intervention and diversion). - Aggression Replacement Training (Queensland) - a 10 week group cognitive-behavioural program to control anger and develop pro-social skills, delivered to Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth assessed as 'at risk' of offending or reoffending (early intervention and tertiary intervention with offenders to reduce risk of reoffending). For each program, the evaluation team developed a 'program logic', identifying the activities and goals of the program, and how it articulates within a broader framework of criminal justice prevention. This informed the design of the evaluation and the approach to collecting both qualitative data (from young people participating in the program, program staff, family, or other service providers/community members) and quantitative data to identify any effects of the program on individuals, or the broader community. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2014. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Reports: Special Report: Accessed January 15, 2015 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/005/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/special/005/Indigenous-Youth-Justice-Programs-Evaluation.pdf Shelf Number: 134409 Keywords: AboriginalsAlternatives to IncarcerationAt-Risk YouthEvidence-Based ProgramsIndigenous PeoplesJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Treatment Programs |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2013-14 Summary: There were 6,100 young people under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2013-14, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has fallen from about 6,400 in 2012-13. Most (85%) of these young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Young people spent 26 weeks, on average, under supervision during the year. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 127: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550805 Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129550805 Shelf Number: 135446 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Title: Youth justice in Australia: 2014-15 Summary: There were about 5,600 young people (aged 10 and older) under youth justice supervision in Australia on an average day in 2014-15, due to their involvement, or alleged involvement, in crime. This number has decreased by 23% over the 5 years to 2014-15. Around 4 in 5 (82%) young people under supervision on an average day were male. Most (85%) young people were supervised in the community and the remainder were in detention. Although rates of supervision decreased over the 5-year period for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people, the level of Indigenous over-representation increased. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Bulletin 133: Accessed April 28, 2016 at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129554930 Shelf Number: 138834 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Australia) |