THE HISTORY OF THE YOUTH COURT SINCE 1989

Part V: MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOMES

Is the Youth Court working, or is it a model that has passed its height in fashion? While what 'working' means will depend on the individual case, reduction in re-offending and satisfaction of FGC participants are factors to be considered. Overseas research suggests that the New Zealand model has the potential to deliver even better results.

A Satisfaction of FGC Participants

Early research by Maxwell and Morris show high levels of satisfaction by parents and young people (84-85%), compared to lower levels of victim satisfaction (51%).[103] A major reason for this lower level of victim satisfaction was low victim turnout. This also impacts on the offender: the success of FGCs lies in the fact that the offender faces the impact of his or her wrongdoing. Conversely, when victims are often not present, such as instances of crime against institutions,[104] the efficacy of FGCs is lost because the victim does not have a face. This problem was addressed by changes following the Mason Report to ensure that victims are informed sufficiently and in time, and that non-threatening venues are chosen. Now, while the absence of victims is largely because they choose not to attend, there are still instances of victims not being informed.[105]

Victim participation and satisfaction is perhaps best examined through real life examples. The following account is one of many that highlights the flexibility of a system to pay more than lip-service to victims' needs and is creative enough to offer solutions to young offenders that may help alter offending behaviour. It is a summary of a plan formulated by a FGC that was presented to and accepted by a Youth Court judge. The offender was 15 and although intelligent, came from a home with a parent with mental illness and low socio-economic status. He assisted robbing a shop with a rifle, which resulted in charges of aggravated armed robbery and theft. At the FGC he expressed remorse. The victim originally wanted the offender to be referred to the High Court for sentencing as she believed the Youth Court would merely "smack him on the hand." However, since the first of three FGCs the victim had a change of heart, taking into account the fact that the offender's mother has personally visited her shop and apologised. The victim then requested that the offender work for her shop to repay the debt of the robbery, proposing that he live with her during the weekends and holidays when he is working. This, in her opinion, would enable the offender to see first hand the impact the offending had on her family, and teach him the values of a close knit family. This plan was accepted by the members of the FGC.

B Recidivism Rates

Recidivism rates after a young person has been 'processed' through the youth justice system are crucial when considering the success of the Youth Court. Maxwell and Morris studied the impact of the FGC on re-offending rates by looking at a group of youth offenders who went through the FGC process, then contacting them four years later to see if they had any subsequent conviction.[106] They found that:

• 27% of the sample were convicted within one year of their FGC;

• 44% within two years;

• 55% within three years; and

• 61% within four years.

More recent research by Maxwell and Morris concludes that the nature of youth justice does affect critical outcomes for young people, both in terms of reducing offending and increasing the probability of positive life outcomes, emphasizing that conferences that support the young person and diversionary practices are more beneficial than stigmatization.[107]

C The New Zealand Model across the Tasman

During the 1990s, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania all introduced some form of conferencing scheme in response to juvenile offending which were based on the New Zealand model of FGCs. Early examples include an alternative juvenile cautioning programme in Wagga Wagga, which embodied key features of the New Zealand scheme, but also made some important refinements such as greater emphasis on the rights of victims.[108] The Youth Justice Conferencing scheme in NSW was established by the Young Offenders Act 1997 as an alternative to court processing, and employs a similar forum for the young offender to face those impacted by the offence. BOCSAR (the New South Wales Bureau of Criminal Statistics and Research) evaluated the New South Wales Youth Conferencing Scheme in 2000, which appears to confirm that conferencing does reduce re-offending rates and also shows a high rate of satisfaction on the part of all parties with conferencing.[109] For example, 98% of victims felt that they had an adequate chance to explain the loss and harm resultant from the offence, and 94% felt that the conference took adequate account of the effect of the offence on them. This suggests that proper resourcing as in NSW considerably increases the effectiveness of a conferencing model.

Footnotes

103 Supra n 47, 115 and 120.

104 For example, vandalising supermarket property.

105 Supra n 44, 6.

106 Morris, A and Maxwell, G "Family Group Conferences and Convictions." Occasional Papers in Criminology No. 5 Victoria University of Wellington, 1997.

107 Supra n 44, 10.

108 Hon R Tickner (Keynote Address to the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee National Conference, Perth, 24 May 1994).

109 Lawlink NSW website <http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1> (at 26 August 2003).