Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:16 pm
Time: 10:16 pm
Results for youth justice courts
1 results foundAuthor: Suggit, Daniel Title: Joining Forces: A partnership approach to effective justice - community-driven social controls working side by side with the Magistracy of the Northern Territory Summary: Community Courts began as a formal pilot project in 2005 within the NT Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the direction of the then Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley, and with funding and support from the Yilli Rreung ATSIC Regional Council. In 2008, the pilot was 'expanded' to program status through the NT Government's Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage: A Generational Plan of Action (2007), which provided a funding commitment of $2.1 million over 5 years: 2008-2012. A Requirement of this funding was for the Department to undertake an external evaluation of the 5 year program. It is understood that the evaluation was intended to be undertaken in the third or fourth year of the 5-year program. However, this evaluation was commissioned at the start of 2012 within the program's final 6 months. The methodology employed by the consultant includes: - Stakeholder consultation (refer: Appendix 1: List of Stakeholders consulted) - Observation of one community court (Youth Justice Court) at Alyangula Court House, Groote Eylandt on 10th May 2012 - Desktop research (refer: References) - Analysis of IJIS data in relation to Community Court pilot and program implementation, reoffending and breach of court orders Key limitations to the effectiveness of this review methodology have been: - Suspension of Adult Community Courts (2011): due to the suspension of Community Courts for adult offenders from 2011 (as detailed below), there was limited opportunity within the current project timeframe to observe this specialist court operation and moreover, to discuss the effectiveness of the program with all participating stakeholders. This particular limitation undoubtedly constrained the consultant's ability to interview Indigenous community participants in relation to this model of court delivery. - Data: the Community Court program objectives refer explicitly to two quantitative indicators of program success: a reduction in both rates of reoffending and breach of court orders. While these may have been both stated program objectives, there appears to have been no commitment to establishing a data analysis framework to monitor these objectives against mainstream outcomes over the past 5 years. It has been left to the consultant - with the patient and time-consuming assistance of NTG officers within and outside the Department - to define, collate, test and analyse the various datasets from scratch. While it is admirable to have identified quantitative measures within the list of original program objectives, it would have been helpful in terms of the program's implementation and subsequent improvement to have established at the outset a framework to monitor and analyse this data. Details: Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/d_suggit_apo_joining_forces_report_sept_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/d_suggit_apo_joining_forces_report_sept_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 145604 Keywords: Community CourtsCourtsJuvenile OffendersPartnershipsYouth Justice Courts |