Pathways Through Justice A statistical analysis of contact between youth and the WA juvenile justice system Presentation to Justice Research Conference.

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Pathways Through Justice

A statistical analysis of contact between youth and the WA juvenile justice system

Presentation to Justice Research Conference24 November 2005

Anna Ferrante, Max Maller, Nini LohCrime Research Centre

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Background to research

Background/Aims Commissioned by WA Dept of Justice in 2004…to inform their new Juvenile Justice

Strategy Describe extent of juvenile contact with the JJS Explore how juvenile enter and re-enter the system

WA Juvenile justice system Young Offenders Act in 1995 3 major components

– formal police cautioning of juveniles– referrals to juvenile justice teams (JJTs, that is, conferencing) and – Children’s Court of WA

Theoretical underpinnings - labeling, restorative justice & re-integrative principles

Cautioning = simple diversionReferrals to JJTs = diversion “plus”

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

WA juvenile justice system - simplified

Caution JJ Teams Arrest

(& charge)

Children's

Court

Court

orders

3,834 juveniles brought before Court

3,016 distinct juveniles arrested and charged by police

8,259 formal cautions

2,077 referrals to teams

1,112 juveniles referred to teams

by the Court

Contact with Police

Other agencies

[Figures obtained from cross-sectional data from 2002 (Fernandez et al. (2003)]

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

About our Study

Data Formal juvenile cautions (WA Police, 1991+) Referrals to juvenile justice teams (WA Police & DoJ IFS, 1995+) Records of final appearances in the Children’s Court of Western Australia

(CHIPS, 1994+) Adult offending (WA Police, P18, all persons apprehended and charged,

or summonsed, by the police)

Linked data – via INOIS system

Study period = 1995-2002

60,534 juveniles identified as having contact with system (8,874 Indigenous; 49,051 Non-Indigenous)

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Research Questions

How many children come into contact (enter) with the justice system? What form does this contact (entry) take? (What are the ‘profiles’ of kids

coming through these entry points?) What proportion of children have further contact with the justice system?

(re-entry/re-offending rate?) Do the children coming through the different entry point have differential

re-entry/re-offending rates?)

Other questions of interest to DoJ (‘Tell us about juveniles in the justice system’)

– Trends over time?– How many and how quickly to children ‘progress’ to detention?– Regional differences?– Net widening?

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Major findings – ‘Entry’ or first contact

Most juvenile offenders’ first experience of the WA criminal justice system (nearly 80%) is via formal police cautions.

Entry ‘split’ – caution:referrals:court = 77:13:10 (77% of first-timers are cautioned, 13% go to Teams, 10% dealt by court)

Entry ‘split’ same for Indigenous children as for non-Indigenous children Indigenous children enter the system at a greater rate than non-Indigenous

children - by a factor of 3 Indigenous girls enter the system at a greater rate than non-Indigenous girls – by

a factor of 4.2 Very young (10-12 yrs) Indigenous children enter the system at a greater rate

than non-Indigenous children – by a factor of 10.5 Rate of entry fairly stable since 1995 (no net-widening?) The use of formal police cautions as a way of sanctioning first time offenders has

increased over time (at expense of other sanctions)

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Annual rates of entry, by sex & Indigenous status

Indigenous children enter the system at a greater rate than non-Indigenous children - by a factor of 3

Indigenous girls enter the system at a greater rate than non-Indigenous girls – by a factor of 4.2

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Annual rates of entry, by Indigenous status & age

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Q: What proportion of children have further contact with the justice system? (re-entry/re-offending rate?)

A picture tells a thousand words

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Top 10 “contact patterns” of children entering the justice system between 1995 and 2002

Juveniles entering the WA juvenile justice system (1995-2002)

JJT

Caution

Court appearance

692(1.1%)

post-jjs arrest

post-jjs arrest

post-jjs arrest

26,461(43.7%)

4,635(7.7%)

1,292(2.1%)

2,750(4.5%)

1,186(2.0%)

3,921(6.5%)

879(1.5%)

983(1.6%)

10 most common juvenile 'career' paths

(account for 76.6% of all

career pathways)

46,478 (77%) 7,762 (13%) 6,294 (10%)

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Re-offending or recidivism rates

What is likelihood of any further contact within 2 years of first offence?

What is likelihood of “worse” contact within 2 years?

What is likelihood of going to detention?

Starting with a caution….

A. B. C.Sex-race groups Re-offended

within 2 years

Worse re-offending within 2

years

Sent to detention

within 2 years

Non-Indigenous Male 39% 17% 0.50%Female 22% 9% 0.30%

Indigenous Male 61% 36% 3%Female 49% 24% 1%

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Other major findings – Further contact (re-offending)

The more serious the initial contact, the greater the likelihood that juvenile will have further contact with the system (within 2 yrs)

Indigenous recidivism estimates much greater than non-Indigenous estimates (irrespective of type of initial contact)

Indigenous children in youngest age groups have highest recidivism rates

(…accords with literature….an early age of onset foreshadows a longer, more serious & high rate criminal career)

Typical progression path: caution → referral → court (CBO) → detention

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Probability of any further contact with system (within 2 yrs)

CautionPolice Court Dismissed Fine CBO Dtn

Male, Non-Indig 0.39 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.44 0.52 0.55Male, Indig 0.61 0.75 0.69 0.7 0.68 0.78 0.75

Female, Non-Indig 0.22 0.27 0.35 0.36 0.22 0.36 *Female, Indig 0.49 0.65 0.66 0.69 0.56 0.59 *

CourtReferral to JJT

• The more serious the initial contact, the greater the likelihood of further contact with the system (within 2 yrs)

•Some differences between Police and Court JJT referrals (in terms of offender profiles and re-offending rates)

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Probability of worse contact with system (within 2 yrs)

…p estimates, by sex, Indigenous status & initial contact typeCaution

Police Court Male, Non-Indig 0.17 0.12 0.24

age: 10-14 0.17 0.13 0.31 15-17 0.17 0.12 0.25Male, Indig 0.36 0.31 0.46

age: 10-14 0.38 0.37 0.4915-17 0.27 0.22 0.46

Referral to JJT

• Estimates of worse contact are greatest for Indigenous children in the youngest age group.

(…accords with literature i.e. an early age of onset foreshadows a longer, more serious & high rate criminal career)

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Careers leading to detention

Indigenous Non-Indigenous Total

Ave no. of contacts in career with detention

(4 types of contact defined: C/J/K/D) 13.3 9.8 11.0Ave no. contacts prior to 1st detention 7.6 5.4 6.1Rel. position of 1st detention in career 0.6 0.6 0.6

• Little evidence of “fast-tracking” to detention

• Most juveniles in detention have repeated prior contacts with system

• First detention about 2/3 way into ‘criminal career’ for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children

cr im e

centre R E S E A R C H

Implications of findings for policy

Study provided overview of the extent of juvenile contact with the justice system as a whole and with its constituent parts. (Baseline data)

Study found much of the system working ‘as intended’…but…

Study highlighted a number of areas of concern: Earlier contact with the juvenile justice system by Indigenous offenders Higher recidivism rates of Indigenous offenders Variations in recidivism rates, based on type of first contact and age Greater levels of progression (ultimately to detention) by Indigenous offenders

Study provided impetus for evaluation of interventions (especially role & purpose of JJTs) and reassessment of the roles of the diversionary and restorative justice components of the model.

Study provided evidence for targeted interventions (eg MST)