Services to Young Offenders
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
In August 2000, the State Government introduced its Juvenile
Justice Reform Strategy through the policy document—A Balanced
Approach to Juvenile Justice in Victoria. The aims of the
strategy were to:
- divert young offenders from
entering the youth justice system
- better rehabilitate
high-risk young offenders
- reduce the likelihood of
reoffending among those released from custody, through better
pre-release transition and post-release support
programs.
Young offenders, aged 10 to 20 years, apprehended in Victoria,
can be diverted from custody through various diversion programs and
services and community corrections orders administered by youth
justice units. Victoria operates a unique ‘dual track’ custodial
sentencing system, where young people aged 18 to 20 who commit an
offence that warrants a custodial sentence may avoid time in an
adult prison by serving a sentence in a youth justice centre. Young
offenders placed on community‑based orders or in custodial
supervision are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Human
Services (DHS). Those who enter the adult correctional system are
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice (DoJ).
DHS and DoJ provide a range of rehabilitation programs for young
offenders in custody and on community-based orders. DHS also funds
non-government providers to deliver a range of transitional and
intensive post‑release support services for young offenders who
return to the community. These services include:
- information and
referral
- employment assistance,
education and training placements
- accommodation
services
- family
support.
DoJ, through the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (MCV), delivers
a range of court‑based diversion programs aimed at early
intervention and breaking the cycle of reoffending for young and
adult offenders. These programs include the Drug Court, Court
Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment/Bail
Support Program, the Court Integrated Services Program and the
Criminal Justice Diversion Program (CJDP).
The focus of this audit was to determine the extent to which the
diversion and rehabilitative services provided by DHS and MCV to
young offenders:
- maximised diversion from
the criminal justice system
- reduced the risk of
reoffending
- improved
rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
The scope of the audit was limited to a selected range of
services focusing on the younger age groups and those considered
most likely to benefit from specialist interventions. The audit
covered services to young offenders provided by:
- DHS through youth justice
units and youth justice custodial centres and the Adult Court
Advice and Support Service (ACAS)
- MCV through CJDP and the
Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC).
1.2 Findings
Service planning
At the time of the Juvenile Justice Reform Strategy’s
introduction, over seven years ago, the State Government indicated
that the achievements of the strategy would be evaluated and
reported to the community. While selected data is available to
suggest that some of the reforms have been effective, and a range
of independent reviews and evaluations have been conducted, the
strategy has not been evaluated and reported to the Parliament and
the community.
The audit identified areas for improvement in the planning of
services for young offenders including the development of:
- outcome measures and
targets linked to key youth justice objectives
- performance measures and
targets that link to key strategic and operational activities and
initiatives for juvenile justice.
In recognition of this, DHS has recently commissioned research
through the Australian Institute of Criminology and established a
number of projects to develop more suitable measures at both a
local and national level.
A more whole‑of‑government approach should be developed to
planning youth justice services.
In relation to MCV, the court’s planning documents need to
clearly describe the diversion services and initiatives that aim to
prevent young offenders from progressing through the justice
system.
Service coordination
The audit identified some positive examples of coordination in
youth justice services. For example, the location of a range of
government services at NJC in Collingwood facilitates service
coordination and the timely referral of young offenders to
treatment and counselling services.
DHS has well developed processes to coordinate services for
young offenders through:
- agreements and protocols
between DHS program areas and other government agencies involved in
the provision of youth justice services
- contracted
community‑based service providers.
Needs identification
The identification of young offenders’ needs is largely
effective. However, in the absence of criteria to assess the
suitability of offenders to participate in CJDP, there is a risk of
inconsistency in the identification of suitable CJDP candidates.
The development of such criteria for Victoria Police would reduce
the potential inconsistencies in determining the eligibility of
offenders to participate in CJDP.
Case management and service delivery
Youth justice units and youth justice custodial centres use
appropriate case management practices to: establish clear aims and
objectives for young offenders; match the level of interventions
with the assessed level of risk; meet the needs of Indigenous
offenders through Koori justice programs; support the reintegration
of young offenders into the community.
Diversion coordinators refer offenders to other government
service providers co‑located at NJC for a needs assessment,
referral services and interventions required to address their
identified risks and needs.
Information systems
The Client Relationship Information System (CRIS) is a critical
system for youth justice. The system does not currently provide
sufficient analytical data to management on the effectiveness of
interventions and services in rehabilitating young offenders and
reducing rates of reoffending. DHS is currently improving the
functionality of CRIS to enable greater data interrogation and more
flexible and tailored management reporting. These improvements
should focus on aligning planned interventions and services with
the achievement of assessed outcomes for young offenders and for
the youth justice program as a whole.
A whole‑of‑government approach should be adopted for data
collection and analysis to support shared needs identification,
planning and coordination of youth justice services.
Efficiency and effectiveness
It is difficult for Parliament and the community to assess the
efficiency and effectiveness of services supporting the
rehabilitation of young offenders and reducing reoffending, because
of the limitations of outcome and performance measures.
The costs and resource utilisation for
CJDP are managed within a simple service delivery model with an
adequate level of information and control. However, the information
does not focus on the efficiency of service delivery.
DHS has not conducted periodic research
to assess changes in the rate of youth reoffending over time.
Therefore, audit cannot provide any assurance as to whether the
Juvenile Justice Reform Strategy has effectively reduced the
likelihood of reoffending.
Given that reducing youth reoffending and improving
rehabilitation are central objectives of the Juvenile Justice
Reform Strategy announced in August 2000, addressing the limited
information available on the achievement of these objectives should
be a priority.
Recognising the need to measure outcomes achieved by individual
youth justice programs, DHS recently commissioned the Australian
Institute of Criminology to advise on appropriate outcome-based
measures for the youth justice system.
We analysed DHS data and a subset of performance data for 10 to
17‑year‑old offenders. Consistent with the objectives of the
Juvenile Justice Reform Strategy, we found a reduction in the
number of young offenders serving custodial sentences in Victoria
between 2000–01 and 2007–08. They are being diverted from
progression into the into the youth justice systems. The data also
show that access to pre‑release, transition and post‑release
support programs has increased.
The MCV and DoJ need to embed outcome-based performance
measurement to assess reoffending rates, the diversion of offenders
from the justice system and the extent to which behaviours of
offenders are modified.
Service improvement
There is a service improvement culture within youth justice
services that is evident through the implementation of DHS’s
Service Excellence Framework. Service improvement mechanisms at
youth justice custodial centres included the incorporation of young
offenders and custodial staff input into the quality review
process. Nevertheless, youth justice units and ACAS lack a
structured approach to incorporating client feedback into
continuous improvement processes.
Feedback from offenders and victims is obtained for CJDP.
However, the information gained is not being used for continuous
quality improvement in the delivery of the program.
The audit found that a number of
independent reviews and program evaluations commissioned by DHS
have lead to significant service improvements. For example, reviews
into security and operational practices have reduced the number of
escapes from custodial centres and the Rehabilitation Review
resulted in the implementation of the Victorian Offender Needs
Indicator for Youth. DHS also has a number of current reviews
underway into youth justice service delivery, focusing on service
development and improving service delivery options. It is important
that these reviews inform future innovation and service improvement
in the system.
1.3 Conclusion
Among the staff and agencies providing youth justice services,
this audit identified a high level of commitment and effort toward
achieving the Victorian Government’s Juvenile Justice Reform
Strategy goals. The strategy itself has clearly articulated aims,
objectives and outcomes for young offenders, which underpin
statewide planning for youth justice units and youth justice
custodial centres.
In the areas of the youth justice system we examined, and
consistent with the aims of the strategy, there are indications of
success, including the diversion of young offenders from custodial
sentences, demonstrated good practice with respect to needs
identification, case management and the delivery of rehabilitation
programs, and increased access to pre‑release, transition and
post‑release programs.
Reducing youth reoffending and effectively rehabilitating the
behaviour of young offenders are central objectives of the
strategy, however DHS could not conclusively demonstrate that these
goals were being achieved. Critically, gaps in performance and
outcomes measurement are impairing the ability of Parliament and
the community to monitor the youth justice system as a whole.
Although DHS has undertaken a range of independent reviews and
program evaluations, there needs to be an improved focus on the
implementation of data collection systems and performance
measurement to establish the effectiveness of these services in
achieving improved outcomes and the government’s youth justice
objectives.
While the delivery of CJDP is well
managed, MCV was unable to demonstrate its effectiveness in
diverting young people from reoffending. While CJDP is provided to
all eligible offenders, young offenders constitute 15 to 20 per
cent of all participants. Performance measures specifically
relating to this group should be developed.
Multiple government and non‑government
agencies are involved in the delivery of youth justice services.
Developing a more whole‑of‑government or ‘joined up’ approach to
planning, coordination, data collection and performance measurement
in Victoria’s youth justice system needs to be a priority for all
agencies in the system.
1.4 Recommendations
Service planning
- DHS should review the Juvenile Justice Reform
Strategy to determine its relevance and the extent to which its
objectives and outcomes have been achieved (Recommendation
3.1).
Needs identification
- MCV should provide Victoria Police with clear
criteria to determine the eligibility and suitability of offenders
to participate in CJDP (Recommendation 5.1).
Integrated case management and service delivery
Information systems
- DHS
should enhance the management
reporting capability of CRIS to identify:
- trends in the needs
of young offenders
- the effectiveness of
interventions and services in meeting the assessed needs of young
offenders and modifying their behaviour
- the extent to
which interventions and services contribute to the rehabilitation
of young offenders and reduced recidivism (Recommendation
7.1).
- DHS, in conjunction
with other State Government departments and agencies involved in
the delivery of youth justice services, should develop a
whole‑of‑government approach to data collection and analysis to
support shared planning and service development. This should be
complemented by arrangements to support effective information
sharing within and across agencies (Recommendation
7.2).
Cost, efficiency and effectiveness
- DHS should:
- ensure that outcome measures being developed by
the Australian Institute of Criminology adequately assess the
effectiveness of youth justice programs and services in reducing
reoffending and improving rehabilitation
- assess the feasibility of using the Victorian
Offender Needs Indicator for Youth to enable the effectiveness of
youth justice programs, services and interventions aimed at
rehabilitating young offenders to be measured
(Recommendation 8.2).
- MCV and DoJ should measure and report the number
of young offenders accessing CJDP, the nature of service and
intervention referrals that are made, and the number of diversion
plans that are successfully completed (Recommendation
8.3).
- MCV should develop and implement outcome-based
performance measures that assess the effectiveness of CJDP in:
- achieving a sustained rate of reduction in
reoffending and diversion of offenders from progressing through the
justice system
- rehabilitating offenders through referral to
services and interventions that are aimed at changing their
offending behaviours (Recommendation 8.4).
Service improvement
- DHS should implement a structured client
feedback mechanism for youth justice units and ACAS that provides
young offenders with the opportunity to provide input into the
delivery of community‑based services and supervision
(Recommendation 9.1).
- DHS should develop its CRIS to systematically
collect and analyse data demonstrating the extent to which
system‑wide initiatives are improving responsiveness in service
delivery and the achievement of client, program and system outcomes
(Recommendation 9.2).
- MCV should analyse information received on CJDP
questionnaires, and report key findings (Recommendation
9.3).
RESPONSE provided by the Secretary, Department
of Human Services
The department welcomes the report, as
it reinforces the fundamental direction and operation of Victoria’s
youth justice system, and will assist in fine tuning the future
direction and performance of the system. The recommendations in the
report are generally supported by the department and careful
consideration has been given to the potential implications arising
from these recommendations.
General comments and detailed responses
to the recommendations provided by the Secretary are located at
Appendix A of the Report.
RESPONSE provided by the
Acting Secretary, Department of Justice
The department welcomes the report and
supports in principle its recommendations. The Secretary notes that
some of the recommendations will need to be thoroughly considered
before the department can commit to implementing them as they may
have resource implications and will require collaboration with
Victoria Police.
General comments and detailed responses
to the recommendations provided by the Secretary are located at
Appendix A of the Report.