Pathways Through Justice A statistical analysis of contact between youth and the WA juvenile justice system Presentation to Justice Research Conference 24 November 2005 Anna Ferrante, Max Maller, Nini Loh Crime Research Centre

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 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 diversion Referrals to JJTs = diversion “plus”

WA juvenile justice system - simplified [Figures obtained from cross-sectional data from 2002 (Fernandez et al. (2003)]

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

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?

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)

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

Annual rates of entry, by Indigenous status & age

Q: What proportion of children have further contact with the justice system? (re-entry/re-offending rate?) A picture tells a thousand words

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

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….

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

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

Probability of worse contact with system (within 2 yrs) …p estimates, by sex, Indigenous status & initial contact type 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)

Careers leading to detention 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

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)