Developing ethical identities in young offenders through restorative justice practice in Australia

Restorative justice is firmly established in Australian juvenile justice. While the official language used to describe restorative initiatives varies across states and territories, the most common form is a meeting or conference between young offenders and their victims (most commonly known as a family group or youth justice conference). During the past decade, an impressive amount of empirical research has examined how the restorative justice process affects offenders, victims and other participants (such as supporters for young offenders and victims). Results from this line of research are remarkably consistent and show that participants generally regard restorative conferences as procedurally fair and that they are satisfied with the outcomes (eg what young offenders agree to do to make up for their offending behaviour, such as offer a sincere apology or perform work for the victim or the community). What is less common, however, is the perception among participants that restorative conferences achieve the key aim of restoration.By ‘restoration’ we refer to encounters where ‘offenders apologise, their apologies are accepted, victims offer forgiveness,and conferences conclude with a feeling of mutual good will’.

Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21)

Background
Restorative justice is “a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future” (Marshall 2003). Despite the increasing use of restorative justice programmes as an alternative to court proceedings, no systematic review has been undertaken of the available evidence on the effectiveness of these programmes with young offenders. Recidivism in young offenders is a particularly worrying problem, as recent surveys have indicated
the frequency of re-offences for young offenders has ranged from 40.2% in 2000 to 37.8% in 2007 (Ministry of Justice 2009)

Objectives
To evaluate the effects of restorative justice conferencing programmes for reducing recidivism in young offenders.

Search methods
We searched the following databases up to May 2012: CENTRAL, 2012 Issue 5, MEDLINE (1978 to current), Bibliography of Nordic Criminology (1999 to current), Index to Theses (1716 to current), PsycINFO (1887 to current), Social Sciences Citation Index (1970 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current), Social Care Online (1985 to current), Restorative Justice Online (1975 to current), Scopus (1823 to current), Science Direct (1823 to current), LILACS (1982 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Restorative Justice Online (4May 2012),WorldCat (9May 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (19May 2012) and ICTRP (19May 2012). ASSIA,National Criminal Justice Reference Service and Social Services Abstracts were searched up to May 2011. Relevant bibliographies, conference programmes and journals were also searched.

Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of restorative justice conferencing versus management as usual, in young offenders.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the data. Where necessary, original investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.

Main results
Four trials including a total of 1447 young offenders were included in the review. Results failed to find a significant effect for restorative justice conferencing over normal court procedures for any of the main analyses, including number re-arrested (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.71; P = 0.99), monthly rate of reoffending (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.16; P = 0.61), young person’s remorse following conference (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.10; P = 0.06), young person’s recognition of wrongdoing following conference (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.80; P = 0.14), young person’s self-perception following conference (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.63; P = 0.85), young person’s satisfaction following conference (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.07; P = 0.45) and victim’s satisfaction following conference (OR 4.05, 95%CI 0.56 to 29.04; P = 0.16). A small number of sensitivity analyses did indicate significant effects, although all are to be interpreted with caution.

Authors’ conclusions
There is currently a lack of high quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice conferencing for young offenders. Caution is urged in interpreting the results of this review considering the small number of included studies, subsequent low power and high risk of bias. The effects may potentially be more evident for victims than offenders. The need for further research in this area is highlighted.

History of offending behavior in first episode psychosis patients: A marker of specific clinical needs and a call for early detection strategies among young offenders

OBJECTIVES Previous literature suggests that early psychosis (EP) patients with a history of offending behavior (HOB) have specific clinical needs. The aims of this study were to assess: (1) the prevalence of HOB in a representative sample of EP; (2) the premorbid and baseline characteristics of patients with HOB, and (3) the potential differences in short-term outcome of such patients when compared to patients without HOB. METHODS The Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) admitted 786 EP patients between 1998 and 2000. Data were collected from patients' files using a standardized questionnaire. Data of 647 patients could be analyzed. RESULTS HOB patients (29% of the sample) were more likely to be male with lower level of premorbid functioning and education, have used illicit substances and have attempted suicide. They presented with a more complex clinical picture and had poorer 18-month outcome. Most importantly, they had a significantly longer duration of untreated psychosis. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the high prevalence and specific features of EP patients with HOB, our study confirms a need for additional research in this domain and for the development of specific treatment strategies. Most importantly, it suggests a need for the promotion of early detection strategies among the populations of young offenders, considering that some of them may be going through the early phases of a psychotic disorder and that reduction of treatment delay and provision of well adapted interventions may have a significant impact at numerous levels in such patients

Controlled study into the effectiveness of individual client-centred counselling for young offenders in residential care

This study is toe first documented account in the British Isles of an evaluation of the effectiveness of client-centred counselling with young offenders in secure residential care. It is a test of Rogers' (1957) position on the 'necessary and sufficient' conditions of therapeutic personality change within a counselling relationship. Forty teenage male offenders, the subjects of Training School Orders, were randomly allocated in equal numbers to either an experimental or control group. Boys in the experimental group received weekly individual sessions of client-centred counselling over a seven month period. Boys in the control group received no formal counselling but were shown to have similar intellectual, personality, socio-economic and criminal backgrounds to those in the experimental group. It was hypothesised that counselled subjects would show more positive outcomes than control subjects over a range of measures relating to criminal behaviour and self-conception. The results indicated that the counselled subjects had a significantly lower rate of offending and a srnaller range of offences over a mean follow-up period of 2.5 years. They were also licensed from the institution significantly earlier and spent less time in custody during a one year follow-up after counselling was completed. Self-conception measures gave less clear-cut results. The direction of change towards better adjustment favoured the counselled subjects but the magnitude was often small. Those counselled subjects with most positive behaviour change tended to have significantly improved self-evaluation, less self/ideal self discrepancy and more variation on 'actual' self concept compared to pre-counselling. The results are discussed in the context of client-centred theory, methodological adequacy of the experimental design, and their application to the future treatment of young offenders in secure residential care.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions relevant for young offenders with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, or self-harm

Background: Mood and anxiety disorders, and problems with self harm are significant and serious issues that are common in young people in the Criminal Justice System. Aims: To examine whether interventions relevant to young offenders with mood or anxiety disorders, or problems with self harm are effective. Method: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials relevant to young offenders experiencing these problems. Results: An exhaustive search of the worldwide literature (published and unpublished)yielded 10 studies suitable for inclusion in this review. Meta-analysis of data from three studies (with a total population of 171 individuals) revealed that group-based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) may help to reduce symptoms of depression in young offenders. Conclusions: These preliminary findings suggest that group-based CBT may be useful for young offenders with such mental health problems, but larger high quality RCTs are now needed to bolster the evidence-base.

Getting lost in the field : the unpredictable nature of fieldwork with young people

This chapter focuses on the unpredictable nature of fieldwork with young offenders, specifically with those in a marginalised context. We begin by recounting our experiences working with young people who have had contact with criminal justice processes, particularly those who are the subject of extreme levels of official social control. We then turn to a discussion of the challenges associated with the unpredictable nature of fieldwork, specifically the difficulties associated with negotiating access with gatekeepers and negotiating with young people. We also discuss specific challenges with the research ethics governance of ethically sensitive research in this context (e.g. interviewing young people about offending behaviour). Finally, we recount our experiences in working these young people, with a focus on ‘the grunt’: that is, drawing out young peoples’ stories in interviews. We conclude with some reflections on the need to develop systematic instruction in qualitative work in this specific context.

Practice and Policy in the UK with Children and Young People who Display Harmful Sexual Behaviour: An analysis and critical review

This article considers the trajectory and effectiveness of policy, procedures and practice in the UK since the early 1990s in responding to young people who display problematic and harmful sexual behaviours. It draws on data from three publications in which research, policy and practice in the last 20 years have been reviewed. Key themes raised by Masson and Hackett are revisited including: denial and minimisation; terminology and categorisation; similarities with other young offenders; the child protection and youth justice systems; and assessment and interventions. The authors find that there is improvement in recognition of, and practice in response to, this group of young people, but good practice standards are inconsistently applied. With devolution of political powers, Scotland and Northern Ireland are now embarking on a more strategic response than England. The absence of a public debate and prioritising of primary prevention of child sexual abuse is noted.

Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian Contexts

This article surveys literature bearing on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders, with a particular focus on comparing different approaches to dealing with the issue in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about the “punitive turn” in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. Our findings suggest that there are significant differences in the manner and extent to which Australia and Canada have invoked parental responsibility laws and policies as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. We conclude by speculating on some of the reasons for these differences and establishing an agenda for additional needed cross-jurisdictional research. In particular, we argue that it would be fruitful to undertake a cross-jurisdictional study that examines the development and effects of parental responsibility laws across a larger number of different Western countries as well as across individual states and provinces within these national jurisdictions.

“Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent” : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian contexts

In this article we survey relevant international literature on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders. In addition, as a starting point for needed cross-jurisdictional research, we focus on different approaches that have been taken to making parents responsible for youth crime in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about parental responsibility, the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. One unexpected finding of our literature survey is the relatively sparse attention given to the issue of parental responsibility for youth crime in legal and criminological literature compared to the attention it receives in the media and popular-public culture. In Part I we examine the different views that have been articulated in the social science literature for and against parental responsibility laws, along with arguments that have been made about why such laws have been enacted in an increasing number of Western countries in recent years. In Part II, we situate our comparative study of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches within a broader discussion of arguments about the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. In Part III, we identify and examine the scope of different parental responsibility laws that have been enacted in Australia and Canada; noting significant differences in the manner and extent to which parental responsibility laws and policies have been invoked as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. In our concluding discussion, in Part IV, we try to speculate on some of the reasons for these differences and set an agenda for needed future research on the topic.

Juvenile justice in Queensland and Canada : new legislation reflecting new directions

Due to their similar colonial histories and common law heritage, Australia and Canada provide an ideal comparative context for examining legislation reflecting new directions in the field of juvenile justice. Toward this end, this article compares the revised juvenile justice legislation which came into force in Queensland and Canada in 2003 (Canada, Youth Criminal Justice Act, enacted on 19 February 2002 and proclaimed in force 1 April 2003; Queensland, Juvenile Justice Act, amended 2003). There are a series of questions that could be addressed including: How similar and how sweeping have been the legislative changes introduced in each jurisdiction?; What are likely to be some of the effects of the implementation of these new legislative regimes?; and, how well does the legislation enacted in either jurisdiction address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children who have been caught up in juvenile justice systems? This article addresses mainly the first of these questions, offering a systematic comparison of recent Queensland and Canadian legislative changes. Although, due to the recentness of these changes, there is no data available to assess long-term effects, anecdotal evidence and preliminary research findings from our comparative study are offered to provide a start at answering the second question. We also offer critical yet sympathetic comments on the ability of legislation to address the fundamental difficulties experienced by children caught up in juvenile justice systems. Specifically, we conclude that while more than simple legislative responses are required to address the difficulties faced by youth offenders, and especially overrepresented Indigenous young offenders, the amended Queensland and new Canadian legislation appear to provide some needed reforms that can be used to help address some of these fundamental difficulties.

The politicization of youth crime in Scotland and the rise of the 'Burberry Court'

In 2003, the youth justice system in Scotland entered a new phase with the introduction of a pilot youth court. The processing of persistent 16 and 17 year old (and serious 15 year olds) represented a stark deviation from a ‘child centred’ and needs-oriented state apparatus for dealing with young offenders to one based on deeds and individual responsibility. This article, based on an evaluation funded by the Scottish Executive, is the first to provide a critical appraisal of this youth justice reform. It examines the views of the judiciary and young offenders and reveals that the pilot youth court in Scotland represents a punitive excursion that poses serious concerns for due process, human rights and net widening.

Alternatives to youth imprisonment : evaluating the Victorian youth attendance order

On 22 June 1988 the then Minister for Community Services Victoria, Race Matthews, officially launched the Youth Attendance Order (YAO), a high tariff alternative for young offenders aged between 15 and 18 years who were facing a term of detention. Throughout the order's gestation, much debate occurred about the impact it would have on rates of juvenile incarceration as well as about the potential ‘net widening’ effect it could have on less serious offenders. In May 1994 the National Centre For Socio-Legal Studies at La Trobe University submitted its report evaluating the Victorian Youth Attendance Order. This article presents some of the major findings of that report and examines the future options for this high tariff order in juvenile justice

Evaluation of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court Pilot

A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Its objectives were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. An evaluation of the pilot commissioned by the Scottish Executive found that it appeared in many respects to be working well. It was a tightly run court that dealt with a heavy volume of business. With its fast track procedures and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business. Whether a dedicated Youth Court was required or whether procedural improvements would have been possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was, however, more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Court should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Court was intended to avoid the risk of net-widening and its consequences for young people.

Evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court Pilot 2003-2005

Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Although introduced as one of a number of measures aimed at responding more effectively to youth crime (including young people dealt with through the Children’s Hearings System), the Youth Courts were intended for young people who would otherwise have been dealt with in the adult Sheriff Summary Court. The objectives of the pilot Youth Courts were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. Evaluation of the Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilots suggested that they had been successful in meeting the objectives set for them by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Both were tightly run courts that dealt with a heavy volume of business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements included the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, the reduction in trials, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Courts was dependent upon effective teamwork among the relevant agencies and professionals concerned. Good information sharing, liaison and communication appeared to exist across agencies and the procedures that were in place to facilitate the sharing of information seemed to be working well. This was also facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication, and in the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Groups to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis. However, whether Youth Courts are required in Scotland or whether procedural improvement were possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Courts should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Courts were intended. This suggested the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned.