THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA

Report by PIPPA RUDD - 2012 Churchill Fellow

Developing integrated legislative and service system responses to young people in the

child protection and youth justice systems

I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the internet or both, and consent to such publication. I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any Report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet. I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-off or contravention of any other private right or of any law.

Signed: Pippa Rudd Dated: 25 January 2013

2 of 37

INDEX

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

GLASGOW, PAISLEY AND EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND ........................................................................... 3 WASHINGTON DC AND NEW YORK CITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ............................................. 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 4

PROGRAMME.............................................................................................................................. 5

GLASGOW, PAISLEY AND EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND ........................................................................... 5 WASHINGTON DC AND NEW YORK CITY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ............................................. 5

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY CONTEXT .................................................................................. 7

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 8

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 8 OPERATION OF THE CHILDREN’S HEARINGS SYSTEM........................................................................ 8 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................. 11 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................... 15

EVIDENCE BASED INTERVENTIONS WITH CROSSOVER KIDS............................................ 16

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CROSSOVER KIDS POPULATION ............................................................ 16 A FAMILY FOCUSED APPROACH .................................................................................................... 18 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................. 18 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................... 20 THE ROLE OF EDUCATION ............................................................................................................. 21 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................. 23 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................... 24 DISPROPORTIONALITY AND DISPARITY........................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................. 26 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................... 27

PUTTING EVIDENCE INTO PRACTICE..................................................................................... 28

THE CROSSOVER YOUTH PRACTICE MODEL................................................................................... 28 CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION INITIATIVE ................................... 29 RECOMMENDATION ....................................................................................................................... 29

REFERENCES AND MATERIALS COLLECTED....................................................................... 30

3 of 37

INTRODUCTION

Glasgow, Paisley and Edinburgh, Scotland

Over the course of 7 days in Scotland I met with Children’s Panel Members, Children’s Reporters, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and representatives of the Scottish Government in Glasgow and Edinburgh to discuss and observe the operation of the Children’s Hearings System. In addition, I corresponded with a number of academics, who were unfortunately absent from Scotland at the time of my travels, in the lead up to and following the time I spent in Scotland. I am grateful to everyone with whom I met and corresponded for their generosity in providing me with information and further contacts, and for sharing their thoughts on the Children’s Hearing System as it currently operates and on the raft of proposed reforms. I would particularly like to thank the members of the Children’s Hearing Panel in Paisley, Scotland and the young people, families, social workers, school counsellors, foster carers and Children’s Reporters for allowing me to observe their Children’s Hearings.

Washington DC and New York City, United States of America

Over the course of 24 days in the United States of America, I met with researchers and practitioners working in the child protection and youth justice systems to discuss and learn about evidence based interventions with children in or at risk of entering both systems. I also met with organisations, such as the Vera Institute of Justice, which have been successful in influencing the adoption, and importantly the funding, of evidence based interventions with children, young people and their families. I would particularly like to thank Shay Bilchik and Kristina Rosinsky of the Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform for the significant work that so obviously underpins the Certificate Program for Public Sector Leaders, and the inspirational members of my project team:

• John Lum, Washington State Department of Social and Health Services;

• Betty Hopkins, State of Iowa Juvenile Courts;

• Dennis Mondoro, US Department of Justice;

• Onston Placide, Star View Children and Family Services; and

• Jerry Walsh, South Arkansas Youth Services, Inc.

John Tuell and Janet Wiig also provided generously of their time, advice and insights prior to and during my travels, and it is their work on the crossover youth practice model that informs the final section of this paper. My thanks also to Dr Michael Jacobson of the Vera Institute of Justice not only for his insight into the use of research and evaluation to bring about shifts in public policy, but for his recommendation of a side-trip to Ohio to see the American electoral process first hand. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Churchill Trust of Australia, and the NT Trust Committee, for the opportunity to undertake this project.

4 of 37

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pippa Rudd Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, Northern Territory E: pipparudd01@gmail.com M: 0403 975 143

In September and October 2012 I travelled to Scotland and the United States of America to investigate integrated legislative and service system responses to children and youth people in or at risk of entering both the child protection and youth justice systems. The work undertaken as part of the Fellowship comprised three main elements: 1. the investigation of a particular mode of intervention, Children’s Hearing Panels, in

Scotland; 2. the investigation of a broad range of evidence based interventions with children in or

at risk of entering the child protection and youth justice systems in the United States of America; and

3. An exploration of two specific practice and system reform models with a strong evidence base, the Crossover Youth Practice Model and the Systems Integration Initiative.

In Scotland, the opportunity to observe Children’s Hearings was a particular highlight, reinforcing that it is both possible and essential to adopt strategies which sit outside the criminal justice system and which protect community safety and respond to the often significant health, wellbeing and welfare needs of children and young people. The Children’s Hearing System is a beacon for those who continue to advocate that non-punitive approaches to offending by children and young people not only work, but work more successfully than punitive measures. The importance of evidence and doing what works was reinforced time and again during my stay in the United States of America. In fiscally constrained environments, and with rates of juvenile incarceration increasing, we cannot afford to continue investment in measures that do not work; that do not stop young people offending or re-offending; and do not make our communities safer. Different responses – evidence based responses that help parents to parent, ensure success in education and address disproportionate rates of system involvement for Indigenous children and young people – are required from Governments and the community. Thorough and evidence based practice and reform models, and rigorous evaluation and assessment of outcomes will assist to bring forward these different responses. Information gathered during my Fellowship will be shared with colleagues in the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, and provided to members of the Northern Territory Magistracy and NT Police. Copies of all information gathered during the Fellowship will be provided to the Policy Coordination and Youth Justice Units of the NT Department of Correctional Services and an information session held with relevant staff. Professional development sessions will be held with staff of the Family Support Centres in both Darwin and Alice Springs, and offered to a range of government and non-government service providers.

5 of 37

PROGRAMME

Glasgow, Paisley and Edinburgh, Scotland

24 to 30 September 2012

Nick Hobbs, Anne Reeves and Zoie Montgomery, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration Claire Parker and staff of the Paisley Office of the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration Eileen, Ewan and Derek, Children’s Hearing Panel, Paisley Daniel Kleinberg, Children and Families, Care and Justice Division, Scottish Government Erica Clarkson, Branch Head, Youth Justice and Secure Care, Scottish Government Tom McNamara, Children's Hearings Team, Care and Justice Division, Scottish Government Professor Malcolm Hill (via email), University of Glasgow

Washington DC and New York City, United States of America

1 to 25 October 2012 Shay Bilchik and Kristina Rosinsky, Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University John Tuell, Child Welfare League of America Janet Wiig, Co-Director, MacArthur Foundation, Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps (by email and phone) Wendy Whiting Blome, Associate Professor, National Catholic School of Social Service, Catholic University of America Peter Leone, Professor and Director, Special Education Programs, University of Maryland Dr Michael Jacobson, Director, Vera Institute of Justice Margaret diZegera, Director, Family Justice Program, Vera Institute of Justice Members of the Systems Integration Initiative Coordination Team, Massachusetts Due to the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which struck while I was in New York City, I was unable to undertake scheduled visits to the Infinity Charter School in New York City and the New York City Department of Probation.

6 of 37

THE NORTHERN TERRITORY CONTEXT

So much has been written about the state of the Northern Territory youth justice and child protection systems it seems trite to do so again. Yet an understanding of the current context is necessary as a basis for understanding both of the need for alternative approaches, and the difficulty in bringing such approaches to fruition.

• Rates of rates of child protection involvement and incarceration have increased and as have rates of indigenous involvement in both systems over the last decade.

• Indigenous children and young people are overrepresented in both systems,

representing approximately 17% of the Northern Territory population, but between 75 to 85% of those in care on child protection grounds or in the youth justice system.

• Particularly in the youth justice system, there is limited investment in alternative

intervention, with an emphasis on compulsory or custodial measures. Limited therapeutic programs are available to young people within custody or the community, and in many areas of the Northern Territory there is no opportunity for young people to participate in community based criminal justice programs.

• A notable exception is Youth Diversion operated by the Northern Territory Police,

which continues to show significant success in preventing re-offending and diverting young people from the criminal justice system.

• Similarly, in the child protection system, there is a focus on statutory intervention

and the removal of children from their families over family support or resolution focused models of care. The number of children in care has almost doubled in the last five years.

Anecdotally, the Courts are dealing with an increasing number of children and young people who are in the child protection system and offending, or who have offended but whose care and protection needs are not being met. While the needs across the systems are great, it was this area of connection – children and young people with care and protection needs and who are in or at risk of being involved in the youth justice system - on which my Fellowship work concentrated.

7 of 37

THE CHILDREN’S HEARING SYSTEM

“Adult communities need to own their young people”1

Background

The Children’s Hearing System was introduced in Scotland in 1968 following the 1964 Kilbrandon Report Children and Young Persons Scotland. The Hearings were first established through the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and by 1971 had taken over from the courts most of the responsibility for dealing with children and young people.

These legislative reforms were complemented by reforms at an administrative level. The 1966 White Paper on Social Work and the Community recommended the establishment of social work departments, bringing together probation, children’s departments and the social work departments of local councils. The amalgamation of these functions into one agency provided the necessary operational framework and underlying support for Children’s Hearings. In 1985 further legislative amendments introduced the Safeguarders, persons appointed by the Hearing Panels to safeguard the interests of children and young people. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 replaced the 1968 Act, incorporating human rights principles, and supported by Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Rules 1996. The Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 also provided additional powers to Children’s Hearings. However, the framework of Children Hearings recommended by Lord Kilbrandon has remained largely unchanged for over forty years: that whether offending or offended against, the needs of children and young people are the same.

Operation of the Children’s Hearings System

Entry of a child or young person into the Children’s Hearing System begins with a referral from the police, a social worker or other professional or a member of the public to the Children’s Reporter. A child or young person can also self-refer. Where there are immediate child protection concerns, the Sheriff has the power to grant a Child Protection Order. Emergency orders are usually reviewed by a Children’s Hearing Panel within two working days. The thirteen prescribed grounds for referral are broad and include:2

• being or suspected to be the victim of an offence, including physical injury or sexual abuse;

• likely to suffer serious harm to health or development through lack of care; • misusing drugs, alcohol or solvents; • has committed an offence; • is not attending school regularly without a reasonable excuse; • is subject to an antisocial behaviour order and the Sheriff requires the case to be

referred to a children’s hearing; or • is in the same household as a child against whom an offence has been committed.

1 Marshall, 2009, p22. 2 Section 5(2), Children (Scotland) Act 1995

8 of 37

Child protection concerns remain the primary reason for referral and are increasing. While the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is eight years old, only very serious offences by a child or young person under sixteen are dealt with by the Courts. The Crown retains discretion to prosecute in exceptionally serious matters such as murder or manslaughter. Following a referral, a decision is made by the Children’s Reporter to investigate the concerns by gathering information from different sources including social work departments, schools, families and the young people themselves. While information and data sharing arrangements are in place between a number of areas, those interviewed described the positive sharing of information as “cultural” and noted few occasions in which it had not occurred. The level of cooperation between agencies was seen by those working within them to be high. While a significant number of Children’s Reporters are lawyers or social workers, no qualification requirement is set for the position. Children’s Reporters and the members of the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration with whom I met reinforced the importance of relevant competencies and skills, such as decision-making and the ability to work well with children and young people, as more important than set qualifications. Following the investigation, the Children’s Reporter may decide: • not to hold a hearing. The Children’s Report may provide advice to agencies already

involved in the provision of support to the child or may request that police issues a formal warning to the child or young person;

• refer for voluntary support; or • hold a Children’s Hearing because a supervision order is considered to be in child’s

best interest. In youth justice matters, the decision to refer to a matter to the Panel is based not on the number of offences or seriousness of those offences, but on the lack of engagement or an escalation of offending behaviour. The role of the Children’s Reporter at the Hearing is to provide information regarding the investigation and an opinion as to the measures necessary to meet the needs of the child or young person. The Children’s Reporter is not a clerk to the proceedings, but will intervene if the process is not legally competent or where the Panel is not affording due process to the parties. The Reporter will consider what services and interventions are available, to try to ensure the recommendations to the Panel, and the orders subsequently made by the Panel are realistic. However, it was reinforced by representatives of the Scottish Government with whom I spoke that where a service is available, its expense is not a reason to fail to make a referral or present the option to a Children’s Hearing Panel. Prior to the Hearing, any report by the Children’s Reporter or other professionals and agencies, such as school counsellors or health services, are provided to the Panel, the children’s parents and to children over 12. While legal procedures are followed, Children’s Hearings are relatively informal. The buildings used for hearings are physically separate from and unconnected with the

9 of 37

criminal courts and police stations, and Hearings can take place in the evenings and on weekends. I was particularly struck, during the observation of the Hearings, with the lack of security measures compared to Family Welfare Court or Family Court matters I have observed in Australia. Whilst entry into the building in which the Children’s Hearing took place was restricted, there was no security presence within the building, no metal detectors and no searching of bags and belongings on entry. The Panel, parents, the children and the other participants sat around large table in a conference room, where younger children played with toys provided. Proceedings were not recorded, and the Panel wrote the decision on a shared laptop at the end of each Hearing.

In response to questions regarding the informality of Hearings, Panel Members and Children’s Reporters to whom I spoke indicated that this can sometimes mean that people at Hearings behave in way would they would not behave at the Sherriff’s Court. Panel Members in particular spoke about tricky balance between ensuring respect for the system, while ensuring its openness and accessibility. The grounds for referral must be read at the start of the Hearing. The way in which the referral is framed is legalistic, similar to charges, with references to the specific sections of the Act. The grounds must be read out even when they involve allegations regarding the parent’s behaviour such as domestic violence or neglect of the child or children. The parents and child (where the child is able to understand the proceedings) must state whether they agree or disagree on each ground as it is read out. When they person disagree with all the grounds, the Panel must refer the matter to the Sheriff’s Court which settles the question of fact, determining whether grounds for a Children’s Hearing are present. If the Court so finds, the matter is referred back to the Panel. The Court does not make any findings as to the support or supervision requirements that should be imposed. If the parents or young person agree with some grounds and disagree with others, the Panel must form a view as to the importance of the disputed grounds: are they such that failure to consider them as part of the Hearing would prevent the Panel acting in particular way or making a particular order? If the Panel concludes that there are sufficient grounds on which to proceed, it can proceed on an amended statement of facts. Ensuring the views of children are taken into account is a key feature of the Hearing system. The Panel’s final decision and reasons must reflect that the views of the child or children have been taken into account as part of its decision-making. Children, even very young children, must attend the Hearing unless the Panel gives a dispensation prior to the Hearing. This approach requires a significant commitment from the child or young person, the parents and foster carers, where a child has been placed in care. In some circumstances the Panel may grant a dispensation, allowing the non-attendance of a child. In discussion with Panel Members and Children’s Reporters, they indicated that a dispensation would depend on the nature of the allegations being considered and the child’s contact with the parents i.e. where a child has been removed, the Hearings cannot be used as quasi contact visit. Concern was expressed, in relation to one of the Hearings I observed, that the process was being used inappropriately by one parent, who had requested an early review of a

10 of 37

child protection matter. Despite meeting with the social worker immediately prior to the Hearing, the parent did not attend. As the Panel cannot dispense with the parent’s participation in the matter, the Panel has no option but to continue the hearing at another time, and to recall the social workers, foster carers and children involved. Under the current provisions, there is no limit on the number of times an early hearing can be requested by a parent. Where there are concerns that children’s views are not being heard, the Panel can appoint a Safeguarder. The Panel must document its decision-making around the appointment of the Safeguarder and clearly indicate the reasons why a Safeguarder’s involvement and report is required. Members of the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration to whom I spoke indicated that the role of the Safeguarder is less effective when the Safeguarder themselves, the Hearing participants and subsequent Panels lack clarity on the reasons for the appointment. The discussion and decision at Hearing takes place in front of everyone, with Hearings generally taking 45 minutes to an hour. Young people or families may have a Representative present at the hearing, who might be a friend or family member or a solicitor. The Representative is not appointed by the Hearing and does not have a formal role in the proceedings. Following the Hearing, the Panel may decide to discharge the referral or impose a supervision requirement. The Panel’s decision may deal with issues ranging from where the child or young person is to live and with whom they may associate to school attendance and the programmes the young person is to undertake. Consistent with research on support and supervision, children on supervision orders generally live at home and orders are intended to be for a short period only. Where home based supervision is not considered appropriate, a young person may be ordered to secure accommodation: locked facilities where the liberty of the young person needs to be restricted for their own or public safety and to meet their social, educational and health needs. The young person or family may appeal the Panel’s decision to the Sheriff’s Court and it is the role of the Children’s Report to represent that decision at appeal. Generally, it is at the appeal stage, and particularly when secure accommodation or detention orders have been made, that lawyers are more involved in the Hearing system. The local authority holds the supervision requirement and it is the role of the Children’s Reporter to enforce the order. The child or family can ask for review of the supervision order after three months, while a local authority can ask for review at any time. An order must be reviewed within a year. One of the benefits of the system, Panel members told me, was the opportunity to call a review when things are going well for a young person and their family, as well as when things are not going well.

11 of 37

Conclusions

The Children’s Hearings System works.

…well structured community based alternatives to secure confinement even for serious offending young people are at least as effective in reducing re-offending and are much less costly. Young people making the transition to adult court proceedings are more likely to be incarcerated and also more likely to re-offend.3

Since 2007-08 offending by children in Scotland has dropped by 28% and the number of children in custody has fallen by almost 50%. At the time I was in Scotland there were 18 young people in secure care and 92 in detention. Only two girls were held in the system (and were on remand). This represents an incarceration rate of 2 per 100,000 (based on the Scottish population of 5.2 million). This can be compared with the situation in the Northern Territory, which has a population of 220,000: • 16 secure care beds for children have recently been constructed; • around 50 young people are held in custody each day; and • incarceration of girls is increasing, with numbers held in custody (by daily average)

doubling from 2005 to 2010 (NT Government, 2011).

The Children’s Hearing System is not perfect and there are a number of areas that require improvement. Many of these issues are being considered and addressed as part of the current reforms.

Despite the reduction in offending and the reduction in referrals to the Panels the number of children on supervision orders is not reducing. Measures are being introduced as part of the current reforms to reduce the number of children on supervision orders by excluding low level offending and child welfare concerns from the Hearing system and focusing on more complex and high risk matters. Discussions I had with Panel members and members of the Scottish Children’s Report Administration indicated that there are mixed feelings about this approach, with some viewing supervision orders as an opportunity for regular oversight of a child or young person’s case management. Another issue the reforms are attempting to rectify is the automatic referral of a matter to the court when the child is considered too young to understand the proceedings. This approach results in delays, as the matter needs to have an initial Panel hearing with all parties present, then be referred to the Sherriff’s Court, before being referred back to the panel for disposition. A Grounds Hearing, which can be held in the absence of a child too young to understand the proceedings, will be introduced as part of the reforms. Referral to the Sheriff’s Court will still be required following this hearing. In observing Hearings and meeting with Panel members it appears there are limited options available to a Panel when an otherwise well behaved, well cared for child refuses to attend school. While the Panels and the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration take very seriously the responsibility of the state to provide an education to young people,

3 Bill Whyte, 2011, p 4.

12 of 37

there was a shared understanding that truancy alone does not warrant attendance at a secure, residential facility. It was evident that the teachers, school counsellors and government social workers strongly supported the referral of these matters to the Children’s Reporter and the involvement of the Children’s Panels; however, Panel Members with whom I spoke acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with these matters. Under the reforms currently being implemented, rules around children’s participation will be strengthened. In addition to a requirement to ensure the views of children are presented in the Hearing papers, a duty will be imposed on the Panel chair to ask the child the subject of the Hearings whether their views are accurately reflected in these papers. A range of materials have been developed, aimed at different age groups, to provide children and young people with information about the Hearing System. The role of the Safeguarder will be strengthened to ensure an independent assessment and report occurs where babies and very young children are referred to Panels or where there is conflict between social worker(s) and parents. The selection, training and allocation of Safeguarders will be managed through a voluntary sector provider. An advocacy scheme for children is also being incorporated under the reforms, and Scottish Legal Aid Board will take on the role of providing nominated representatives for children and parents otherwise unable to effectively participate in the Hearing process. Legal representatives must ascribe to a code of conduct and good practice requirements and be identified as “supporting the ethos of the system”. The reforms also provide for increased involvement of children and young people in the administration in the operation of the Children’s Hearing System. Children and young people have been involved in the appointment of the new National Convenor and Principal Reporter of the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and will play a greater role, in coming years, in Panel member training and development. A magazine for young people involved in the Hearing system has been developed and “All About Me” events held in a number of locations, as a means of gaining increased participation of young people and greater understanding of their experiences and views. Amendments are also proposed in relation to the establishment of the grounds for the referral to the Children’s Panel (where these relate to offending behaviour) and the imposition of a supervision requirement. Under the changes, these findings or orders will not appear on a young person’s criminal record as a conviction, but as an alternative to prosecution, with the aim of improving reintegration and employment opportunities for young people. The Children’s Hearing (Scotland) Act 2011 is being progressively implemented and is expected to be fully operational by June 2013.

Responding to changing social circumstances and being inclusive of social, ethnic and racial diversity are challenges for the system.

Children’s Hearing Panel members are appointed by Scottish Ministers as representative of the local community. While appointees must be over 18 there is no upper age limit; local authorities strive to have a mix of male and female members with a balance of age and experience. Around 2,500 people are currently appointed as Panel members.

13 of 37

A distinctive feature of the Panels is that members are volunteers and laypeople. While the Scottish Government raised remuneration of Panel members as part of the reforms, it was rejected by Panel members themselves. Annually, there is a 20% turnover of Panel members. The recruitment, development and retention of Panel members have been identified by the Scottish Government as critical to the ongoing success of the Hearing System. There are also questions as to the representative nature of Panel membership and whether this has been achieved in racially and ethnically diverse Scotland. On average, Panels are holding two sessions per month, with three cases per session plus emergency or business meetings. While the number of matters being considered by Panels has decreased, the complexity of these matters has increased, resulting on increased demand on Panel members’ time. The current reforms are aimed at addressing a number of these issues: The establishment of a single national panel and increased support for Panels There are currently thirty-two children’s panels supported by thirty-two local authorities across Scotland. Under the reforms, a single national panel will replace these thirty-two separate panels with members drawn from and sitting in local areas. A new body, Children’s Hearing Scotland, will support the national panel, and will be responsible for recruitment, selection and training of panel members. One of the aims of this rationalisation is to retain the local focus of Hearing Panels while allowing the deployment of Panel members to smaller regional and rural areas where there are often insufficient members to constitute local panels. Improved training and development The Children’s Reporters and members of the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration with whom I met stated that one of the results of the changes to the Hearing system, through the increased focus on complex matters or with a lack of family engagement, is that it is harder and more confrontational to be involved. They reported that there could also be significant tension between social workers and Panel members, particularly where those workers feel their professional advice is ignored. The reforms aim to improve the standard of decision-making, and to up-skill Panel members, giving them greater confidence to deal with complex matters and in their interactions with paid professional staff. It has also been recognised that the greater involvement of legal practitioners, through the new legal aid scheme, will require additional procedural competence and confidence on the part of Panel members. Simple measures have also been introduced, such as a “traffic light” system of ranking Hearings (from more complex red matters to generally straightforward green matters) to ensure Panels are not hearing three complex matters in one sitting. Increased representation of Panel Members The position of National Convenor has been established under the reforms to give increased representation to Panel members, with the first National Convenor appointed in April 2011. While the National Convenor is also the Chief Executive of Children’s

14 of 37

Hearing Scotland, responsible for administrative and operational support to Panels, the role has been described as a figurehead for the Panels, responsible for increasing public recognition and understanding of the Children’s Hearing System and the Panels (CHS Briefing Sheet, 2012).

Early intervention and prevention remain the most important elements of an effective response to children and young people at risk.

In 2008, the Children’s Hearing System was placed within the Scottish government’s strategic framework for children and young people: Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC). One of the conceptual underpinnings of GIRFEC is a hierarchy of support and intervention for children and young people: • family and community provide everyday support and care; • universal provision supports development and builds resilience; • additional support works to overcome disadvantage and supports learning; • specialist help addresses more complex needs that impact on health or well-being;

and • compulsory intervention ensures action to overcome adversity and risk. This hierarchy recognises the use of compulsory intervention (such as supervision orders) as a measure of last resort where required to address young people at serious risk of re-offending or disengagement. Accordingly, the Children’s Hearing System is being refocused on those young people who require compulsory intervention, rather than becoming “bogged down” in dealing with all young people who have committed an offence. A multi-agency case management approach, called Early and Effective Intervention (EEI) has been adopted for those children and young people not referred to the Children’s Hearing System. Linked to EEI are two key roles: • a Named Person – the identification of at least one adult responsible for the young

person; and • the Lead Professional – the social worker or other person responsible for the young

person’s case management and coordination. When a young person has had contact with the criminal justice system, EEI works by ensuring that a social worker visits the young person and their family within one week of that contact. Where a meaningful alternative to compulsory measures can be put in place, the Police will agree not to proceed with charges or referral to Children’s Hearings. Regular case management meetings, including with Police, will regularly monitor and discuss the young person’s progress and ongoing engagement. Implementation of EEI has seen a 40% decrease in offence reports to the Children’s Hearings System in Aberdeen. In Fife, where EEI was used with 16 and 17 year olds, only 75 of the 1,016 young people re-offended within the evaluation period (Kleinberg, 2012, p6).

15 of 37

Recommendation

With variations to reflect its size, in terms of population and landmass, and cultural makeup, a Children’s Hearings System could and should be adopted in the Northern Territory.

Administratively, the implementation of a Children’s Hearing System in the Northern Territory would be a large but not unreasonable undertaking: • Based on the Scottish experience, the establishment of a single Northern Territory

Panel is preferred, with members from across the Territory and representative of the cultural make-up of the Territory. Support for the Panels, including the recruitment, selection and training of Panel members and the operation of Hearings, should be undertaken centrally through a new agency (or division within an existing public agency) established for this purpose.

• The recent alignment of the (previous) Department of Children and Families and the

Department of Education provides the basis for the establishment of a single agency dealing with a range of child welfare issues, similar to the Scottish social work departments. With the inclusion of youth justice functions, the provision of services to children, young people and families referred to the Children’s Hearing System or under supervision, would be a primary function of this new agency.

• Given the size and population of the Northern Territory, it would be necessary to alter

some elements of the Scottish scheme. Rather than establishing a separate Children’s Reporter agency, it is preferred that these functions sit alongside the administration and support for the Children’s Panels. Clear administrative boundaries would need to be established to ensure the operational and policy independence of the Panels and Reporters is maintained.

• It is also unlikely that the Northern Territory could support the operation of separate

advocacy, legal representation and Safeguarder schemes. Instead, consideration should be given to the creation of a merged or hybrid scheme operated by Aboriginal Legal Aid organisations and the NT Legal Aid Commission. Particular emphasis should be placed on the role of Aboriginal Legal Aid organisations given the high levels of Indigenous involvement in both the child protection and youth justice systems.

With over 40 years operation in Scotland, the approach of dealing with child protection and offending as welfare issues and outside the court system, is entrenched. People appear to accept the system as “the way things are done”; seeing it not as remarkable but something they grew up with and have always known. Punitive, law and order approaches seem similarly entrenched in the Northern Territory. The adoption of a Children’s Hearings System in the Northern Territory would require a significant shift from this current approach. It would require Government and community acceptance of what was recognised by Lord Kilbrandon many years ago - whether offended against or offending, the needs of these children and young people are the same.

16 of 37

EVIDENCE BASED INTERVENTIONS WITH CROSSOVER KIDS

Research from Australia and from the United States of America has consistently demonstrated the adverse social outcomes experienced by children and young people who have contact with the child protection or youth justice systems including lower educational outcomes, increased risk of substance abuse, increased mental health and behavioural issues. While little work has been undertaken on “crossover kids” in Australia, there is a growing body of research from the United States of America demonstrating that the adverse outcomes of those who traverse both systems are far beyond those with single system involvement. A number of welfare organisations, lobby groups and research institutes have recognised this to the extent that now developing specific interventions and system wide reforms concentrating on this particularly vulnerable group. Foremost amongst these organisations is Georgetown University, which through its Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform initiated the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare: Multi-system Integration Certificate Program for Public Sector Leaders. Provided over seven days, the course brings together public and private sector leaders, members of the judiciary, and representatives of community based organisations to further their knowledge around effective intervention with crossover kids. Central to the course is the development of a Capstone Project, which sees individual and team participants develop and prepare to implement a project within their jurisdiction to address the needs of crossover kids. The Capstone Project I prepared as part of the Program is an appendix to this report. This section of my report outlines my key findings from attendance at Georgetown University and my correspondence and meetings with organisations working with crossover kids.

Characteristics of the Crossover Kids Population

The research and practice surrounding “crossover kids” identifies a number of pathways by which children and young people enter or are involved in the child protection and youth justice systems. Most simply, a young person who has experienced abuse or neglect and is known to the child protection system engages in criminal or “delinquent” behaviour.4 The young person’s involvement with child protection might be current (i.e. with an open investigation or in care) or historical (i.e. there has been a previous notification or investigation or the child has exited care). Entry through the youth justice system is an alternative pathway for children and young people, whereby their child protection needs are identified following their arrest or incarceration. In addition, child protection concerns might arise when a young person is existing detention and no home or no safe home is available to them (reference).

4 In the Australian context the use of the terms offending or anti-social behaviour are more usual.

17 of 37

Whatever the pathway for crossover youth, studies exploring the characteristics and prevalence of these young people have identified considerable commonalities:

• while the majority of crossover kids are male, there is a higher prevalence of girls in the crossover population than in the youth justice population (Halemba and Siegal, 2011);

• there is a higher prevalence of children of colour in the crossover population than in the youth justice population, the juvenile justice population or the general population (Herz, Lee, Lutz et all, 2011, p2);

• a majority have special education issues, problems at school, mental health problems and / or substance abuse problems;

• these young people tend to commit more violent crimes than the general youth justice population;

• crossover kids have a significant history of placement insecurity, with many experiencing multiple care placements; and

• the age of first offending is lower for this group compared to the general youth justice population.

The need to identify and appropriately address the needs of this group becomes even more critical when one considers studies that have investigated the long-term outcomes for crossover children and young people, which include:

• Higher rates of substance abuse • Higher rates of mental illness • Higher rates of criminal involvement as adults; and • Higher rates of child welfare involvement as parents / perpetrators of abuse and

neglect. There are limited Australian studies which explore this issue, or which have conducted the in-depth research that has been undertaken in the USA. Following discussions with Magistrate Elizabeth Morris, who participated in the Public Sector Leaders Course in 2011, I requested that the Criminal Justice Research and Statistics Branch, Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, consider undertaking research into the prevalence of dual involvement in the Northern Territory. Using a unique identifier that applies to young people in both the Family Matters Court (the care and protections jurisdiction) and the Youth Justice Court (criminal court), the Branch has been able to extract and analyse 15 years of data relating to dually- adjudicated young people i.e. young people who are the subject of a care and protection application and have appeared in the Youth Justice Court. The results of that analysis provide the first insight into the size and nature of this population in the Northern Territory. Mr Joe Yick, who undertook this research, will present the findings publicly in 2013. Questions that are beginning to be addressed in the United States and demand attention in Australia:

• How many crossover youth are there? • Can crossing over be prevented? • What interventions are effective in preventing dual involvement? • What interventions are effective in preventing poor long-term outcomes for children

and young people who are involved in both systems?

18 of 37

A Family Focused Approach

Time and time again the people with whom I met emphasised the importance of ensuring young people, whether in the youth justice or the child welfare, maintain links to their families. Many also looked beyond the involvement of individual families and young people, to the systemic engagement of families in managing and reforming the child protection and youth justice systems. Margaret diZerega of the Vera Institute of Justice, along with Michael Sanders, a private consultant, led a particularly challenging session on family and youth engagement as part of the Georgetown University program. Allowing no answer other than “yes” or “no” they posed a number of questions about children, young people and their families: All youth and families are valuable and have unique strengths? All parents have a right to a relationship and a connection with their children? Permanence is as important as safety? The exercise forced participants to examine (and sometimes explain) the values and perceptions that underpin their approach to family and youth engagement, and led to a more detailed exploration of the “place” of families in both the youth justice and child protection systems. According to Sanders and diZegera, family engagement is “a process of intentional and meaningful involvement of families, on both the personal and organisational levels, in the decision-making, policy development and reform efforts to improve outcomes of any system of which they are a part”. The approach they promoted was one involving three fundamental elements: • a philosophical approach that sees families as assets, which recognises family

strengths and potential and is focused on promoting their development; • a practice of engaging families as resources, emphasising family strengths and

ensuring families are included in planning and decision-making; and • the consideration of family empowerment; the extent to which the family feels

confident and successful in making decisions and taking action in relation to their children, the services and supports available and reform of the systems.

Conclusions

What works in terms of family engagement and empowerment?

Many of the organisations participating in the CJJR and with which I met described current programs that met the philosophical and practice elements described by Sanders and diZegera including: Opportunities for engagement approach A number of organisations have adopted an “opportunities for engagement” approach which characterized every key point in the system (arrest, assessment, initial hearing, adjudication) as a new or further opportunity to engage with families around the decision making and planning for children and young people. While appearing relatively simple, one of the benefits of the approach is in ensuring that a family’s initial apparent

19 of 37

reluctance or unwillingness to engage is not seen as permanent and does not deny them a part in future planning and decision-making. This approach also recognizes and seeks to address other factors around family engagement: families will not engage with systems they don’t understand, and the attitudes of workers are a crucial part of a family’s ability or willingness to engage. An example of this approach was described by diZegera in relation to young people incarcerated in California. Following the introduction of a monthly phone call to families to update them on the activities and circumstances of their incarcerated family member, as well as a revision of printed materials about the detention centre, staff members reported a significant increase in levels of family involvement (diZegera and Verdone, 2011, p9). Youth Genograms A genogram is a pictorial representation of a young person’s family that seeks to identify family strengths and challenges from the young person’s perspective. Using a set of basic symbols a genogram might identify family members with substance abuse or mental health issues as well as those family members the young person trusts, feels they can rely on or with whom there is the potential to develop or sustain an ongoing relationship. The tool can be used to help young people identify patterns of behaviour within their family (such as offending or substance abuse) and assist both the young person and relevant service providers develop meaningful case management plans which build on family strengths and relationships. Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool The Vera Institute of Justice, as part of its Family Justice Program, is assisting three jurisdictions implement the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool (the JRIT). The JRIT is an information collection tool that seeks to: • provide staff with a user friendly method of recognizing and reinforcing positive

connections to family and social networks during and after incarceration; and • build rapport between staff and the young person (diZegera and Sanders, 2012, p9). The JRIT takes about 15 minutes to administer. Juvenile correctional facilities in Arizona, Ohio and Michigan have implemented the tool, with initial results from Ohio indicating that both staff and young people found use of the tool to be a positive experience, with young people reporting that the interaction gave the staff member a better understanding of them and their family situation (Vera Institute of Justice, 2012). Family Finding Family Finding is a technique that relies on the search of public databases, made relatively straightforward through the increasing placement of these on the internet, to identify and locate a child or young person’s family members. It seeks to expand the network of family members available to support a young person, or to locate potential kin carers, where a young person has lost contact with or is unaware of family members.

20 of 37

Family Finding relies on research indicating that there are approximately 150 to 200 living relatives for every child. It is also because of this that Family Finding can be an expensive option, potentially requiring social workers to engage with multiple family members in geographically diverse locations to find relatives suitable and willing to provide care. Fewer agencies were able to identify consistently implemented strategies for family empowerment. Amongst those identified, those considered successful include: • Parent Advocacy or Parent Peer Support whereby parents of children and young

people who were in or had previously had contact with the systems provided information and support to parents “new” to the system. Parent advocates might also attend case management meetings or family group conferencing;

• Youth and Parent Advisory Groups, which seek advice and input from young people and families in the development and implementation of programs and services; and

• where agencies or facilities move beyond advisory mechanisms to the sharing of

organisational power, these may evolve into Co-Management Boards or Structures, where the involvement of young people and their families is embedded in the organisation and might include shaping, conducting or participating in staff selection and development, the identification of staff and organisational performance indicators evaluated through consumer feedback, and importantly, decision-making around resource allocation.

Recommendation

There should be additional investment in, or a reprioritisation of existing resources to, family focused approaches in the Northern Territory youth justice and child protection systems.

21 of 37

The Role of Education

Adults with more years of formal schooling consistently perform better in relation to health, income and employment (Leone, 2010, p5; Australian Bureau of Statistics, Education and Work). The benefits to adults of educational participation, particularly to the tertiary level, include: • lower illness rates and greater longevity; • higher labour force participation rates; and • reduced unemployment rates. Participation in education also results in the subsequent enhancement of children’s education (McMahon, 1998, p322 in Murray, 2007). There is strong acceptance within the countries that I visited that provision of education is an essential public service, with the state having a crucial role to play in delivering educational services, requiring and supporting participation and monitoring its outcomes. In 2010-11, nearly $76 billion was spent by Australian governments on providing pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary education, representing approximately 13% of total government expenditure and 5.1% of GDP5. Over the last five years, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments have made substantial investments in the development and ongoing roll out of a national curriculum and implementation, through the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, of national testing and school and student assessments. At the state and territory level, governments mandate attendance at school for children until a certain age, and implement policies directed at or impose penalties on those who fail to attend or to enforce their children’s attendance at school. Yet ironically, children involved in state systems – because the court has ordered them removed from their parents on care and protection grounds or placed them in detention to protect the public and promote their rehabilitation - have poorer educational outcomes than their peers (Leone and Weinberg, 2010, p5). One of the reasons is that children entering the child protection system or youth justice system display, more than children within the general population, possess the risk factors associated with poor educational attainment. Leone and Weinberg’s 2010 paper, Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems provides a comprehensive and devastating summary of the evidence in this regard including the high rates of substance abuse and mental health issues amongst children entering custody or in care. What emerges in this work and was reinforced through my interviews with researchers and practitioners was the failure of the child protection, youth justice and education systems to adequately respond to these risk factors. And in a number of instances, people referred the adoption of policies and practices that could be said to be driving dual system involvement. Institutionally driven mobility is a significant contributor to poor educational outcomes for children in care. Children often change schools when they enter the system and are

5 5518.0.55.001 - Government Finance Statistics, Education, Australia, 2010-11

22 of 37

placed in a foster home or residential facility outside the previous school district. When placements break down or change, children may be required to change schools each time, such that their participation in education becomes more difficult. In the United States of America, where schools are controlled by local school districts, children can experience: • delays in enrolment, while a school distract considers whether to accept them as a

student, or defers their attendance until the beginning of a new term or semester; • delays in obtaining records or transcripts from the previous school so the new school

is unaware of the subjects they have completed, their level of attainment or special needs that may be been identified; and

• inconsistency in completion or graduation requirements and an inability to transfer credits, such that work completed in a previous school is not recognised towards a grade or qualification in the new school.

Similarly, exiting detention can be a period of significant educational risk for young people whom may be refused re-entry to the school where the offence occurred or because their offending behaviour is perceived as a risk to the school population. The response of schools to behavioural problems is also contributing to the crossing over of kids from one system to another. With children and young people in the child protection system having higher than general population levels of behavioural problems, the adoption of a zero tolerance approach to school infractions is treating behaviours as an offence rather than a medical or psychological condition requiring an appropriate intervention and driving incarceration rates. Similarly, the increasing use of county or private police in schools is contributing to the characterisation of behaviours as criminal (and managed through the criminal justice system) rather than behavioural or disciplinary (and managed through the school in association with relevant service providers). These practices are seen to be increasing the criminalisation of ill or severely disturbed young people; with little or no likelihood they will access the assistance they need to address these issues, or the education that might assist them to change their life path. Of the five members of my project team at the Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform, two are undertaking Capstone Projects related to education and the criminal justice system: • one is undertaking a correctional based project that will seek to improve the youth

justice system’s response to children as young and eight and nine who are apprehended by the police for school based behaviours. As described by her, the current lack of system capacity and resourcing in relation to younger children means that their contact with the youth justice system is noted (as previous police involvement) but no intervention or support is provided to the young person or their family; and

• the Chief Executive of an organisation operating secure residential facilities aims to work with schools in his district to encourage them to adopt and alternative to police involvement in school-based incidents, and thereby reduce the further criminalisation of and inadequate response to children and young people in his care.

23 of 37

Conclusions

What is working to support educational success?

Approaches have been adopted in a number of school districts that are assisting address low levels of participation and poor student outcomes: Educational liaisons Practitioners with whom I met identified two slightly different approaches to educational liaison: • teachers or special educators who work with courts and correctional facilities to

ensure the educational needs of children and young people are reflected in those systems; and

• those who operate within the education system to ensure its responsiveness to the needs of children in the child protection and youth justice systems.

Both have been effective in assisting re-engagement, identifying support needs and monitoring the educational attainment of these young people. Within the Northern Territory, educational liaison officers provide information and advice to the Family Support Centres and the Youth Justice and Family Matters Court in Darwin. While their role has not been formally evaluated, feedback from key stakeholders strongly indicates their effectiveness in assisting case coordination and protecting against failure, by working with courts, schools and case managers to ensure court orders regarding school attendance and participation can be reasonably met. Early education While quality preschool programs have been shown to make a significant difference to long-term educational outcomes, and to the general health and wellbeing of children and young people, participation in preschool programs is generally low for children in child welfare systems (Leone and Weinberg, 2010). In order to address this issue, a number of child welfare organisations now require foster carers to send foster children to preschool, and support attendance financially or practically e.g. through the provision of transport. One evaluation of a preschool program for high-risk children (from disadvantaged neighbourhoods with high levels of criminal justice involvement) found that:

…among those who had received preschool services, the percentage arrested was significantly lower than the comparison non-preschool group, and the preschool group were involved in fewer violent crimes, property crimes and drug crimes.6

Residential and school placement stability In the US, practitioners identified two keys pieces of legislation as addressing the placement and school instability experienced by children in the child protection system.

6 Schweinhart et al, 2005 in Leone and Weinberg, 2010, p34.

24 of 37

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act requires that school districts keep homeless students (including children not in their home because of welfare concerns) in their schools of origin. Where a child’s placement is outside the school district, transportation must be provided to the young person, with the cost split between the relevant school districts. Fostering Connections to Success 2008 requires the assessment of the appropriateness of school placement at time a child is taken into care, as well as the benefits of a foster care placement in proximity to this school. It aims to keep foster kids in familiar surroundings; retaining their links to relatives and friends, their community and cultural connections. I was interested in this approach, in light of the fact that children in foster care “come from some of the poorest, most distressed communities in the United States” and “schools in these communities tend to have inadequate resources, poorly skilled teachers, weak leadership, inconsistent instruction, and a study body with learning problems left unattended” (Leone and Weinberg, 2010, p13) I asked a number of academics and practitioners whether there might be a protective or positive effect in terms of educational attainment from the removal of children from these schools and their enrolment in schools in wealthier neighbourhoods. I also asked whether children entering foster care might have higher levels of school attendance (and subsequent attainment) as a result of their removal from households where they are experiencing violence or the effects of substance abuse and other issues. All strongly opposed these views and emphasised the importance of educational permanency, coupled with cultural and community connection, as outweighing these concerns. Formal evaluation needs to occur to ensure this is indeed the case.

Recommendation

There should be additional investment in, or a reprioritisation of existing resources to, strategies that are effective in supporting children in the Northern Territory child protection and youth justice systems to enter, remain in and succeed in education.

25 of 37

Disproportionality and Disparity

Effective approaches to dealing with dually involved young people require an understanding of and a commitment to address the significant over-representation of some groups: children of colour in the United States and Indigenous young people in Australia. To facilitate greater understanding of these issues, the Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform, with Chapin Hall, has undertaken analysis based on two concepts: disproportionality and disparity. Disproportionality refers an observed difference in the group composition of two populations, and related to the concepts of over and under-representation. For example, one quarter of the children in population 1 (which might be the general population) make up three quarters of the children in population 2 (which might be children in foster care). Therefore these children are disproportionately represented in population 2 (and in this case, over-represented). Disproportionality involves a direct, quantitative comparison of the composition of two or more populations. Disparity refers to difference or lack of equality in input or outcome. For example, if the likelihood of being arrested is different for one group when compared to another, then there is a disparity in arrest rates. The Centre and Chapin Hall argue:

…using the terms interchangeably hides an important relationship: disparities produce disproportionality. Put another way, with specific references to race and ethnicity, the reasons African American children are overrepresented (disproportionately represented) in child-serving systems is because of the disparities in the likelihood of coming into contact with the system and disparities in the likelihood of ending involvement with the system (Wulcyzn and Lery, 2007). More importantly, without addressing underlying disparities, it would be next to impossible to alter disproportionality.

This analysis is particularly useful in an Australian context, where Aboriginal children are disproportionately represented in the child protection and youth justice systems. It promotes consideration of each stage of the system and an exploration of the disparities inherent therein, and the potential to develop more targeted strategies: Are concerns regarding Aboriginal children and young people more or less likely to be reported to child protection? Are matters relating to Aboriginal children more or less likely to be investigated? Are they ore or less likely to be substantiated? Are Aboriginal children more likely to be placed in care and less likely to be reunified with their families? Are Aboriginal children more or less likely than other children and young people to be arrested and charged?

26 of 37

Are Aboriginal children and young people more or less likely to be bailed? Following a conviction, are Aboriginal children and young people more or less likely to receive a custodial sentence than other children and young people? A number of United States studies have considered disparity in relation to African American, Native American, Hispanic and other communities, identifying a range of factors contributing to disparity across the child protection and youth justice systems. Some of these are complex, and relate to the effects of poverty and disadvantage experienced by these population groups. However, when controlling for factors such as income, family circumstances and the nature of the offence or alleged abuse, disparities still exist. For example, African American children in low-poverty areas are about twice as likely to enter foster care as Hispanic children and three times as likely as white children (Wulczyn et al, 2005). Across these studies, continuing disparities have been attributed to, inter alia: • the lack of social services or community based alternatives in some neighbourhoods

and counties; • a lack of agency engagement with African American and Hispanic communities; and • institutional racism and organisational culture or bias.

Conclusions

What works in addressing disparity and disproportionality? Despite efforts to address disparity and disproportionality in the child protection and youth justice systems, there is very little evidence about what works. Instead, a number of promising practices have been identified: Tracking case movement The ability to identify specific areas of disparity is an important first step in developing appropriate strategies to address disproportionality. Ideally, data systems should provide those who use them with the ability to track cases through all stages of the child protection and juvenile justice systems, with information able to be broken down and analysed by gender, race and ethnicity, age, nature of the allegation and offence, and the disposition of the matter. Longitudinal data is more accurate in showing the nature and trends in disparity and proportionality than snapshot or point in time analysis. Team Decision Making Team Decision Making involves a meeting of minority community representatives, family members and social workers to review decisions in relation to children and young people i.e. the decision to remove a child from parents, to change placements, to undertake reunification planning, to seek diversion or a community based correctional order. Those using team decision making with whom I spoke identified that it is not only effective in opening often closed decision making to community scrutiny, but in drawing on community knowledge and resources to reach decisions that might not previously been considered by workers in the system.

27 of 37

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) The JDAI is funded by the Anne E Casey Foundation of Maryland with the US Department of Juvenile Justice as a coordinating centre for reform initiatives, which are taking place across the country. It works to address disproportionality by addressing entry and exit disparity i.e. by tackling the overrepresentation of children of colour in the population of young people entering detention, and the likelihood that children of colour will experience greater periods of time in detention, compared to other populations. The focus of the JDAI is on three elements: • the creation of community based alternatives to detention; • the use of screening and risk assessment tools; and • case flow management to ensure fast tracking of juvenile matters. One of the strategies used in implementation of the JDAI was a “system walk-through” which routinely considered each young person and each stage of the system in order to identify bottlenecks and areas where improvements were required (Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, 2010). The JDAI has demonstrated success in terms of both daily averages and length of stay measures. From 2000 to 2007, jurisdictions implementing the JDAI experienced a decrease in the juvenile detention population of between 30 to 40% and a drop in the average length of stay in detention by 10 to 20 % (JDAI News, 2007).

Recommendation

Additional investment is required to develop, implement and evaluate strategies and programs to address the disproportionate involvement of Indigenous children and young people in the Northern Territory child protection and youth justice systems, drawing on the existing evidence around the disparities in those systems.

28 of 37

PUTTING EVIDENCE INTO PRACTICE

Despite a substantial body of evidence as to “what works” in child protection and youth justice systems, to protect both the young people and the community, Governments continue to invest in interventions with either no evidence base or which have been shown to be ineffective. Two organisations with which I met are seeking to address this through the development and implementation of structured system and practice reform models; the Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform through the Crossover Youth Practice Model, and the Child Welfare League of America, through the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Integration Initiative.

The Crossover Youth Practice Model

The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) is a practical framework for intervention with dually involved children and young people. It sets out the processes, relationships and techniques to be used by system leaders and practitioners in the child protection and juvenile justice systems, from case opening to case closure. The CYPM is currently being implemented in more than 40 sites across 14 US states. The CYPM is concerned with five areas of practice, or points in the systems: • arrest, identification and detention; • decision-making regarding charges; • case assignment, assessment and planning; • coordinated case supervision and ongoing assessment; and • planning for youth permanency, transition and case closure. Each practice area is supported by a flowchart setting out key processes and decision-making points, a summary of the evidence around good practice techniques and interventions, and list of the things the model requires sites to do. For example, under Decision-Making Regarding Charges, the CYPM requires that sites agree to hold diversion meetings that pursue strategies (at an individual and systemic level) to divert young people from further entering the criminal justice system. Throughout the practice model, attention is drawn to techniques and relationships that will support family engagement and reduce disparity and disproportionality. CYPM sites are required to collect baseline and ongoing data necessary to support evaluation of the model, with initial data indicating: • a 50% increase in the early identification of young people entering the youth justice

system who had child protection involvement; and • a 127% increase in the use of joint assessment by child protection and youth justice

agencies; and Overall, CYPM young people, compared to pre-CYPM young people are more likely to receive evidence based or promising practice interventions, are less likely to be detained following arrest, are more likely to be living at home, more likely to be engaged in extra-curricular activities and less likely to have a new arrest at six months after identification (CJJR, 2012).

29 of 37

Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Integration Initiative

Developed by the Child Welfare League of America, the Systems Integration Initiative (SII) is a framework for the integration of the child welfare and youth justice systems to not only address the needs of dually involved children, but to prevent future delinquency and criminal justice involvement by children in the child welfare system (Wiig and Tuell, 2004, xxiii). It sets out a process for jurisdictions to use to develop an integrated approach to program development and service delivery. While the SII is supported by significant research as to evidence based programs and services, it provides these as options jurisdictions might adopt, based on analysis of their own systems gaps. The SII has four phases: • Mobilisation and advocacy, wherein jurisdictions assess readiness for reform, form

required coalitions and governing structures, identify key strategic goals; • Study and analysis, whereby relevant data is collected and analysed, current system

tools are inventoried (such as screening and assessment tools) and potential supports and barriers are identified and analysed including relevant legislation and information sharing approaches;

• Action Strategy development, wherein jurisdictions identify and develop priorities for action and the necessary funding mechanisms; and

• Implementation. The Child Welfare League of America has published a range of documents to support the SII including specific guides for information sharing practices, legal and policy analysis and evidence based programs. A list of these documents is contained in the Reference section of this report. While implementation of the SII has suffered in a number of locations as a result of county and state funding restrictions, there is evidence of its success across multiple sites, including improved case decision-making and coordination, improved court processes, improved resource allocation and improved interagency collaboration.

Recommendation

The Northern Territory should consider the implementation of system reforms and the adoption evidence based practice models, such as the Strategic Integration Initiative and Crossover Youth Practice Model, to address the significant needs of children and young people in the child protection and youth justice systems.

30 of 37

REFERENCES AND MATERIALS COLLECTED

Barnardos United Kingdom, Hear 4 U A Voice 4 U (brochure on advocate scheme). Buffington, K, Dierkhising, C. B, and Marsh, S. C., Ten Things Every Juvenile Court Judge Should Know About Trauma and Delinquency, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2010. Centre for Systems Integration, Colorado Guide 1: Blending and Braiding – Step by Step Instructions to Develop and Expand Fiscal Coordination, Centre for Systems Integration, 2011. diZerega, M and Verdone, J, Setting an Agenda for Family-Focused Justice Reform, Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. Fabelo, Thompson, Platkin et all, Breaking Schools’ Rules: A Statewide Study of How School Discipline Relates to Students’ Success and Juvenile Justice Involvement, Council of State Governments Justice Centre, 2011. Family Justice Program, Families as Partners: Supporting Incarcerated Youth in Ohio, Research Brief, Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. Friedman, M, Trying Hard is Not Good Enough: How to Produce Measurable Improvements for Customers and Communities, Trufford Publishing, 2005. Halemba and Siegal, King County Prevalence Study, Washington State, 2011 Henrichson, C and Delaney, R, The Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers, Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. Herz, Lee, Lutz et all, Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection Between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice, Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2012. Hill, Lockyer, Morton, Batchelor and Scott, The Role of Safeguarders in Scotland, Centre for the Child and Society and Department of Politics, University of Glasgow, 2001. Hurley, T. J., Collaborative Leadership White Paper October 2011, Oxford Leadership Academy, 2011. Kataoka, Langley et al, Responding to Students with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Schools, Elsevier Inc, 2012. Kinscherff, R, A Primer for Mental Health Practitioners Working with Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System, Technical Assistance Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health, 2012. Kleinberg, D, Whole System Approach for Young People who Offend, Scottish Government, 2012.

31 of 37

Leone, P and Weinberg, L, Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems, Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University, 2010. Lutz, L and Stewart, M, Crossover Youth Practice Model, Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform.

Marshall, K, Children’s Hearings and the Love that Binds: Reflections on Community,

Discipline and Exile, The Ninth Kilbrandon Lecture, 2009. Marrow, M, Implementing a Trauma Informed Approach in Juvenile Corrections in Ohio,

Cullen Centre Toledo Children’s Hospital.

Montgomery, Z, A young person’s review of research on children’s views of the Children’s

Hearings System, Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, 2012.

Murray, J, The Wider Social Benefits of Education: A Research Report, University of Sydney, 2007. National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Secondary Traumatic Stress: A Fact Sheet for Child-Serving Professionals, National Centre for Child Traumatic Stress, 2011.

NFO System Three, Children’s Hearings Research, Scottish Government, 2002.

PA Consulting Group, Scottish Youth Justice Baseline, Scottish Government, 2004. Pennell, J, Shapiro, C and Spigner, C, Safety, Fairness, Stability: Repositioning Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare to Engage Families and Communities, Centre for Juvenile Justice Reform, 2011. Sanders, M, Spectrum of Professional Attitudes Towards Clients, 2007. Subramanian, R and Tublitz, R, Realigning Justice Resources: A Review of Population and Spending Shifts in Prison and Community Corrections, Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. Tuell, J. A, Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Integration Initiative: A Promising Progress Report, Child Welfare League of America, 2008. Tuell, J. A, Promoting a Coordinated and Integrated Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice System: An Action Strategy for Improved Outcomes, Child Welfare League of America, 2008. Whyte, B, Effective Intervention for Serious and Violent Young Offenders, Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre of Scotland, December 2011. Wiig, J. K. and Tuell, J. A., Guidebook for Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration: Framework for Improved Outcomes, Child Welfare League of America, 2004.

32 of 37

Wiig, J. K., Widom, C. S. and Tuell, J. A., Understanding Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency: From Research to Effective Program, Practice and Systemic Solutions, Child Welfare League of America, 2004. Promotional and public materials produced by the Scottish Government:

Foundation of the Children’s Hearing System - www.childrens-hearings.co.uk

Children’s Hearings: A Brief Background

Children’s Panels: Information for Referees

Children’s Panels: Panel Member Training

Children’s Panel: Information for Employers

The Children’s Hearing System: Secondary Teaching Pack, 2005.

Getting it Right for Every Child, 2008.

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Brochure, Booklet, DVD Series: All About Me

My Children’s Hearing Colouring Book

All about Children’s Hearings

All about Supervision Requirements

This Hearing is All About Me

Children’s Hearings: Your Rights

Secure Accommodation: Information for Children and Young People

Going to a Children’s Hearing (DVD)

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, Annual Report 2010/11: Changing for

Children.

Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, The Children’s Hearing System: How it

Works

Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011

33 of 37

APPENDIX ONE

Early Intervention with Young People in or at Risk of Entering Both the Child

Protection and Juvenile Justice Systems Project Title: Diverting children and young people from the criminal justice system Project Description: The project involves the assessment of all young people arrested and charged who are:

• Ineligible for diversion under Northern Territory legislation; or • Identified as unlikely to be successfully diverted;

to identify their prior or current child protection involvement or their need for child protection services and provide appropriate case management of these young people. Indicators: The juvenile offending (by apprehension), incarceration and recidivism rates in the Northern Territory. Youth apprehended by police, 2006–07 to 2010–11

Source: NT Department of Justice

Distinct youth apprehended by police, 2006–07 to 2010–11, by Indigenous status

Source: NT Department of Justice

34 of 37

Custody orders made by criminal courts, juvenile defendants found guilty, 2006–07 to 2010–11, by Indigenous status

Source: NT Department of Justice

General wellbeing indicators including educational attendance and attainment, mental health and substance abuse. Story behind the baseline: Legislative amendments introduced in 2006 have reduced the eligibility of young people for diversion. Ongoing staffing pressures within Northern Territory Police have reduced the capacity of this agency to provide the required assessment processes and to conduct diversion programs, including victim offender conferencing. There has been no increase in funding for community based diversion providers over the last five years and few of the services within the current diversion program are tailored to high-risk young people. There is currently limited capacity within Northern Territory Police to identify a young person’s current or previous child protection involvement at the point of arrest. Young people who are ineligible for diversion receive little or no support. It is likely that young people who do not complete diversion are higher risk with greater need for intervention and support. Mapping: • The services currently available to young people who are diverted, including child

protection services • The services available to young people who are not eligible for diversion • Process mapping to identify the process by which referrals are made from Police to

child protection, from Correctional Services to child protection, from diversion providers to child protection

35 of 37

• An appraisal of current assessment tools Project Leadership: A guiding coalition that will meet once or twice per year and comprise the Police Commissioner, the Chief Executive of Correctional Services, Chief Executive of the Office of Children and Families and the Chief Executive of the Department of Education. Project Implementation: A core group that will initially meet fortnightly, then monthly or bi-monthly will undertake implementation as the project progresses. Partners:

• Northern Territory Police

• Department of Correctional Services, Youth Justice Division

• Office of Children and Families

• Department of Education and Children

• Department of Health

• Department of Housing

• Youth diversion providers

• NT Legal Aid Commission, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service

• Relevant community sector peak bodies and service providers: NT Council of Social Services, Safe Aboriginal Families Together Inc, CREATE, Foster Carers’ Association

• The Youth Round Table

• Courts (as the project involves pre-court intervention, this involvement would be advisory rather than as full project participants)

Information / Data Needed to Inform the Project: • Arrests per annum and location of arrest • Number of young people referred for diversion • Number unable to be referred per legislative prohibition and unsuitability (exercise of

police discretion) • Number of young people who successfully complete diversion • Number unsuccessful in diversion program • Profile of kids arrested, diverted, who complete diversion and who do not successfully

complete diversion (age, gender, indigenous status, offence type, child protection involvement, school attendance, mental health involvement)

Performance Measures:

36 of 37

• Number of young people arrested who are assessed • Number of young people diverted and by service type • Number of referrals to support agencies • Number of young people who are assigned a case manager, have a case plan in

place • Number of crossover young people identified. Customers: • Young people who have been arrested, and their families • Victims of crime Services: • Assessment • Diversion – Family Group Conferencing, Victim offender conferencing, NGO delivered

programs • Referral • Case management Performance Measures (Impact): Percentage of crossover youth who successfully complete diversion Percent of crossover youth who re-offend Percentage of young people in the program who are engaged / re-engaged in education Performance Measures (Quality):

Percentage of crossover youth with case manager and case plan (by eligibility / likelihood of success)

Percentage of case plans with education, health or other agency input Percentage of victims satisfied or very satisfied with the diversion process (victim offender conferencing) Strategy:

Pull case files for initial snapshot

Manual identification of young people who should be referred to the program

Weekly interagency meeting to coordinate case planning for child protection involved young people who are arrested (and will be going before the dually involved kids court)

37 of 37

Child welfare worker would not ask for young person to be held in custody in absence of a placement (foster care placement for potential detainees)