HOME DETENTION
IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Kenneth J Studerus
Director, Home Detention
Probation and Parole Service
Department of Corrective Services
INFORMATION & LIBRARY SERVICES NSW DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES /+tI -r B,'lc'; f
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
~::;ru 3 9339 04989544 1
CONTENTS:
Home detention in New South Wales 1997
Judicial Officers' Bulletin: Home detention - Evaluating the progress
Home detention research study Feb. '98
Home detention research study June '98
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Utilisation by Courts - Feb. - May '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Offender profile - Feb. - May '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Home detention revocations to 10 July '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Utilisation by Courts -Feb. Oct. '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet : Assessment results - Other than home detention
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Home detention revocations 11 July to 10 Nov. '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Offender profile to 17 Oct. '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Completions to 30 Nov. '97
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Offender profile 21 Feb. '97 - 20 Feb. '98
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Utilisation by Courts Feb. '97 - Feb. '98
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Assessment results - Other than home detention
Home detention program - Fact sheet :Home detention revocations 11 Nov. '97 to 20 Feb. '98
Home detention program - Fact sheet: Completions 21 Feb. '97 - 20 Feb. '98
HOME DETENTION
The New South Wales Government has introduced Home Detention as an alternative manner of serving the fixed or minimum term of a sentence of imprisonment of up to 18 months. Operations commenced in February 1997.
PURPOSE This paper is intended to briefly recount the background to this alternative penalty option and to outline the main features of Home Detention in New South Wales. The understanding and acceptance by sentencers of the rationale for this program is crucial to its success.
BACKGROUND Over the past decade a range of more intensive community correctional programs have sprung up in Australia and overseas. Many of these are commonly referred to as "home detention" but this common name hides substantial diversity in program aims and features. Authorities in New South Wales examined a wide range of "home detention" models before developing a proposal appropriate to this State. In order to validate the concept and gain operational experience, approval was granted in 1992 for a pilot home detention type program, using existing legislative provisions for supervised recognisances, under the name Intensive Community Supervision (ICS). The positive evaluation of ICS in 1994 led to the development of the current Home Detention program. Home Detention builds on the experience of ICS while resolving operational difficulties experienced as a result of the lack of a legislative base for that program. Home Detention is subject to substantially the same conditions and monitoring procedures as ICS.
As with ICS, entry to Home Detention is determined by sentencers. It varies significantly from ICS in three ways: (i) an offender is admitted to Home Detention after sentence has been passed rather than upon deferral of sentence; (ii) a Home Detention Order has a specific legislative base; (iii) serious breaches will be reported to the Parole Board which has authority to revoke a Home Detention Order.
1
AIM OF HOME DETENTION Home Detention in NSW is clearly aimed at diversion of offenders from incarceration in prison and is not intended to be an alternative to periodic detention, community service orders or other non-custodial alternatives. It is designed to provide a rigorous and closely monitored community supervision program acceptable to sentencers and the community. Home Detention is substantially more punitive, more intrusive and more costly than any other penalty alternative short of full-time custody. It will only be cost effective if its use is limited to offenders who would otherwise have served their sentence in full-time custody. The importance of this diversionary aim will be reflected in the evaluation of Home Detention. While this will also address community safety, family impact and rehabilitation, its central focus will be on indicators of the extent to which detainees have actually been diverted from custody. If substantial diversion cannot be demonstrated, substantial change or withdrawal of Home Detention as a penalty option will be appropriate.
ADMISSION TO HOME DETENTION After imposing sentence on an eligible offender the sentencing judge or magistrate may refer the matter for assessment of suitability for Home Detention. Such referral operates to stay the execution of sentence pending completion of the assessment. Offenders guilty of sexual offences, serious crimes of violence, major drug trafficking and other specified offences are ineligible for consideration. Assessments are conducted by officers of the Probation and Parole Service and consider the impact of Home Detention on family and/or co-residents as well as the offender. If the officer considers that the offender poses no substantial threat to the family or other members of the community and can be managed successfully under the terms of Home Detention, and if the consent of the offender and all co residents is obtained, the offender is recommended as suitable. Where such recommendation is made and the court concurs, the court may by order direct that the fixed or minimum term of the sentence be served by way of Home Detention.
2
CONDITIONS Offenders on a Home Detention Order are subject to extensive and rigorous conditions incorporated in an undertaking entered into by the offender. These conditions are intended to constrain the offender's liberty to an extent that approximates confinement in minimum security custody with access to day release programs. The primary constraint is the restriction to place of residence except when undertaking specified activities approved by the supervising officer. Detainees must also abstain from alcohol or prohibited drugs and are subject to testing for use of such substances. Standard conditions are specified by regulation but additional specific conditions may be imposed by the court.
CASE MANAGEMENT The Home Detention Program in NSW is designed around the skills of experienced Probation and Parole Officers. Management of detainees will emphasise both compliance with the conditions of the program and encouragement of offender development. The monitoring of compliance depends on a high rate of personal contact with the offender, family members and significant others. The high levels of contact necessary to effectively monitor compliance permit a more intensive relationship than in traditional supervision, thus enabling officers to better support an offender's efforts to change.
A significant number of detainees are employed. For those not employed but able to work, pre-vocational and vocational training and job search activities are emphasised in case planning. For those unable to work, other productive developmental activities outside the residence are encouraged. The smaller caseloads, more flexible working conditions and the requirement to monitor all out of-residence activities allow officers assigned to Home Detention to liaise more closely with supporting community agencies than is possible in normal supervision.
3
MONITORING The primary monitor of compliance with a Home Detention Order is the supervising officer. Supervision guidelines (based on those used in the ICS trial) set expected levels of contact with offenders and others. These require a high rate of face-to face contact (including evenings and weekends) and frequent phone contact. Offenders in ICS were, on average, seen in person every second day and similar levels of contact are maintained in Home Detention. Detainees are not generally required to report to an office. Monitoring occurs instead in the offender's environment to provide a clearer picture of his or her situation. All out-of-residence activities are subject to monitoring. Electronic monitoring is used to supplement human monitoring. This minimises the requirement for routine compliance checking by officers through the night and gives increased assurance of compliance with residential restrictions at other times. Indications from the electronic monitoring system that an offender is absent without authorisation are transmitted to a supervising officer by pager. The officer initially attempts to re-establish contact by phone. If unsuccessful they respond in person to the offender's residence to determine if a breach has actually occurred.
The drug and alcohol abstinence provisions of the Home Detention Order are monitored by breath and urine testing. Each officer is equipped with a breathalyser and a kit with the equipment necessary to obtain and properly transmit urine samples. This enables officers to administer a test any time they observe signs of drug or alcohol use or have other reasons to be suspicious.
In order to effectively carry out field based supervision as described above, Officers in Home Detention are each provided with a car, a pager and a mobile phone as well as the necessary equipment for electronic monitoring and drug and alcohol testing.
4
BREACH PROCEDURES When a supervising officer determines that a breach of Home Detention conditions has occurred there must be a formal response. Breach and response are to be recorded on the case file. The response can be more stringent monitoring and an internal sanction (eg. formal warning, further restrictions on activity, withdrawal of privileges) or application for revocation of the Home Detention Order. The discretion of the officer in responding is subject to guidelines suggesting appropriate response to breaches of varying type, severity and frequency and is further guided by consultation with the Home Detention team leader and other members of the team. In considering the appropriate response, maintenance of the credibility of Home Detention as a rigorous penalty will be a significant consideration. Serious breaches or recurring minor breaches will be immediately referred for consideration of revocation.
The authority for revocation of a Home Detention Order is the Parole Board. Procedures to be followed closely parallel those for breach of parole. The nature of Home Detention requires that, where revocation is sought, procedures must be expeditious. This is achieved by establishing strict time standards for completion of breach reports and transmittal to the Board and by negotiation with the Board to give speedy attention to such breaches. In determining whether or not a breach has in fact occurred the Board will apply the administrative standard of proof ("balance of probabilities") rather than the criminal standard ("beyond reasonable doubt") applied by courts considering breaches of a recognisance. The use of this standard reflects the status of the home detainee, like that of the parolee, as an offender subject to a custodial sentence.
5
PROGRAM ORGANISATION Home Detention is established as a program within the Probation and Parole Service. It is headed by a Director, Home Detention, reporting to the Assistant Commissioner, Probation and Parole. Experienced officers of the Service have been selected and assigned to Home Detention teams consisting of a Unit Leader, three or four officers and clerical support. The program initially covers the entire Sydney metropolitan area plus Wollongong, the Central Coast and the Newcastle/Lower Hunter region. Five teams have been established based (where possible) in existing Probation and Parole Offices.
The program is capacity-limited on the basis of one Unit Leader or Probation and Parole Officer per ten offenders. This ratio is considered necessary to maintain the required levels of contact, provide around the clock coverage and ensure that each team is capable of providing internal relief for short absences.
Officers assigned to Home Detention work as and when the job requires rather than to a fixed schedule and are on-call around the clock. Staffing levels are sufficient to ensure that each officer is relieved from all duties for at least two days per week. Team meetings are held weekly. These deal with procedural issues but also feature regular case discussion to ensure a consistent approach to emerging case management issues.
The demands of Home Detention on officers are much more onerous than normal community supervision but are widely variable. Officers assigned to Home Detention are, therefore, paid a substantial" all incidents" allowance in addition to salary to compensate for these additional demands.
Expansion beyond the metropolitan regions to less densely populated areas is intended but this will require further program development and may require a different organisational structure and/or working conditions.
6
CONCLUSION Home Detention is a key part of the Government's strategy of encouraging the use of alternatives to full-time custody for less serious offenders. It is a rigorous penalty whose natural target group is not the first offender or white-collar criminal but, rather, those offenders who are imprisoned today more because of the persistence of their offending than because of its seriousness. Used for this group, Home Detention can contribute to a reduction of imprisonment rates in NSW while still providing appropriate punishment.
7
THE PATH TO A HOME DETENTION ORDER
ASSESSMENT BY NO ASSESSMENT BY PROBATION & PAROLE (PSR) PROBATION & PAROLE (PSR)
*SeeH.D. Act Sec. 6&7 & H.D. Regs. Sec. 6
** See H.D. Act Secs. 8& 10& H.D. Regs. Sec. 7 STAY EXECUTION OF SENTENCE & REFER FOR H.D. ASSESSMENT
\
\ \ ,-----
~DETENTIONO~
JuJiciaI fficers' BuIIelin Published by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales
HOME DETENTION - EVALUATING THE PROGRESS
Mr Ken Studerus Director, Home Detention, Department of Corrective Services
The first year of operation under the Home Detention Act 1996 (NSW) (the Act) was completed on 20 February 1998. This article revisits the primary aim of the legislation; which the author contends is to establish home detention, within the legislative parameters set by the Act, as a clear alternative - of commensurate severity - to full time imprisonment. It also generally reviews the first year of operation under the Act and considers prospects for the future of home detention. Note: In R v Byrne (unrep, 5 August 1998, NSW CCA) the court stated that home detention is "less onerous" than full time imprisonment and did not follow the majority judgment in R v Smith (1997) 95 A Crim R 373 (Smith is discussed at notes two and three, and accompanying text, below). The court in R v Lambrinos (unrep, 17 July 1998, NSW CCA) also agreed with the dissenting opinion in Smith. The resulting division of opinion is scheduled to be considered in mid-August 1998 by the specially constituted five judge bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal that will decide R v Jurisic. A summary of Jurisic will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Judicial Officers' Bul/etin. r'J'he terms "home detention," "home confinement," Home detention in New South Wales is clearly an .i"intensive supervision" and other similar alternative to imprisonment. The government (and its expressions are used with no particular precision to predecessor, with the Intensive Community describe a wide array of community-based Supervision Trial) set out to establish a programme to correctional programmes. They may differ as to target divert less serious offenders from confinement in group, entry mechanism, level of control, use of correctional centres. That intent is set out in s 4 of the electronic monitoring or even basic intent. Home Detention Act 1996, where home detention is Nevertheless, the broad underlying concept has said to be "a means of serving a sentence of full time clearly grown from a perception that too many people imprisonment." Section 4(2) of the Act, moreover, are confined in prisons. clearly indicates that home detention is not intended Such programmes are often referred to as as an alternative for offenders who might be dealt "alternatives to imprisonment" or "intermediate with appropriately by periodic detention or by a penalties." These terms are not synonymous. The non-custodial sentence. A further expression of the former term implies limiting the use of the intent to use home detention only as a direct programme to offenders who deserve to be deprived alternative to full time confinement in a correctional of their liberty and who - but for the availability of centre is seen in ss 5 and 9 of the Act, which only home detention - would serve their confinement in a permit referral for home detention assessment after a prison. An intermediate penalty is less clearly qualifying sentence of imprisonment has been intended to be diversionary. It may be used as a more imposed. stringent alternative to other community-based The potential benefits of diversion include the options, rather than as a diversion from prison. The more effective use of scarce resources and the structure of a home detention programme, its entry avoidance of the collateral harm to offenders and their and breach procedures, conditions, levels of families which may flow from imprisonment. monitoring and resource requirements will all be Irrespective of the potential benefits, the design of influenced by the choice made between these any diversionary programme must provide for the competing viewpoints. maintenance of community safety. As well as
\'0 III III (' I () NII III bp r 7 fll(lilial Orri(prs' Bllilplin ------
requiring the careful evaluation of the potential risk to specific areas to be considered in assessing suitability the community during the assessment of suitability, are listed in s (10)(2) of the Act but no indication is safety considerations dictate that offenders be provided as to how these factors are to be evaluated. monitored closely whilst on home detention. In developing guidelines for officers carrying out In New South Wales we have capitalised on the these assessments, the Probation and Parole Service high level of contact required for effective monitoring has emphasised two broad issues - risk of harm and by using the contacts as an opportunity to encourage acceptance of responsibility. behavioural change. The use of experienced Probation The first of these issues has been addressed above _ and Parole Officers for all contacts (rather than and its consideration is clearly mandated. The second security guards or custodial officers, as used in some issue has no specific provenance but it relates to the other jurisdictions), and the implementation of requirement for the offender to consent to a Home intensive developmental interventions, are significant Detention Order and derives from an understanding programme features that are intended to support of the demands of the programme and its overall rehabilitation as a secondary objective. aims. Most offenders who are sentenced to Suitable offenders imprisonment are characterised by repeated failures The concept underlying home detention in New to abide by the conventions of society. Home South Wales is that many less serious offenders - detention, however rigorous the monitoring, cannot whose -crimes and past history merit deprivation of directly prevent the breach of its conditions. It relies, liberty, and who would otherwise have served their rather, on an offender finding the self-discipline - sentences in a correctional centre - can be managed given the support and encouragement of family, co successfully within the community. This notion forms residents and supervising officers, and the deterrent the basis of ss 5 - 10 of the Act, which deal with the effect of rigorous monitoring - to enforce his or her eligibility and suitability of offenders for home own order. This will be a substantial achievement for detention. most offenders. To have any realistic expectation of The definition of "less serious" offenders is success, offenders must at least have a basic provided, in part, by s 5 of the Act, which specifies the acceptance of responsibility; as demonstrated by a maximum sentence to which home detention may readiness to address their underlying problems and apply (18 months). Whilst almost all sentences of co-operate with interventions that are designed to imprisonment that are imposed by the Local Courts help them. Testing the resolve of offenders to help are within this limit, only about ten per cent of themselves is a significant part of the assessment sentences of imprisonment imposed by the higher process. courts would qualify. The category of "less serious" offenders is further The first year of operation defined by the non-availability of home detention for In the first year of operation 246 offenders were particular kinds of offence (s 6) or for offenders with referred for an assessment of suitability and 177 of specified offending history (s 7). With the exception of these (139 male and 38 female) were admitted to the exclusion of certain drug offenders in s 6(h), both home detention. It is pertinent to note that, of the of these sections deal with particular offences of remaining offenders who were not admitted to home violence or potential violence and with orders made detention, Probation and Parole Officers assessed 41 to protect against violence. The concern for public offenders as being unsuitable for home detention: safety that underlies these explicit exclusions is eight offenders were assessed as being unsuitable reinforced by ss 8(3), 10(2)(c) and 10(2)(f) of the Act. because of an undue risk of harm to the community; These sections implicitly call on both the assessing 19 offenders were assessed as being unsuitable due to Probation and Parole Officer and the court to evaluate insufficient motivation; nine offenders were assessed an offender's potential for violent or sexual offending; as being unsuitable due to a lack of co-operation from and to exclude particular offenders where there is a family members and/or co-residents; two offenders perceived likelihood of such offending. committed further offences during the assessment Beyond the provisions discussed above, the Act period; one offender was unwilling to change provides little guidance on the important issue of the "inappropriate employment"; one offender absconded appropriateness of home detention for particular during the assessment period; and one offender did offenders. It is left to the discretion of the court; not exhibit adequate evidence of an intent to refrain however, the admission of offenders who have been from further drug use. referred for assessment to home detention is subject to a favourable report by the assessing officer. Several
AIICfllsl 199R JII " i (' i il lor ri (' (' r s' BII II (' lin
These cases represent a general failure of offenders monitoring. They are subject to intrusion in their to demonstrate a readiness to accommodate their homes at any time and they are bound by many lifestyles to the demands of home detention, and to restrictions on their behaviour. Although their place of commence addressing the problems which underlie confinement is in the community, they are in no sense their offending. Many of these cases represent an free. The Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Smith2 has implicit refusal of consent and, together with the six said that the conditions applying to home detention offenders who explicitly refused to consent to home restrict the freedom of movement of the detainee3- detention (as required by s 8(1)(a) of the Act), they emphasise the rigour of home detention as perceived "upon terms which are comparatively as rigorous by offenders. as those as would be applied to a prisoner in a Additionally, notwithstanding the readiness of the minimum security institution who was permitted courts to impose a Home Detention Order, seven work or study release privileges." offenders appealed their sentence on severity grounds. Appellate courts have substituted lesser To impose a sentence of imprisonment and allow it sentences in three cases (periodic detention, a to be served by way of home detention is an recognizance and a fine).! escalation of penalty for someone who would otherwise have received periodic detention, a Use by the courts Community Service Order or another lesser There are nine District Courts and 34 Local Courts punishment. It is also a misuse of scarce resources; as within the area currently covered by home detention. the features of home detention which are intended All but one of the nine District Courts and 26 of the 34 to make it credible as a direct alternative to Local Courts have referred at least one offender for confinement in a correctional centre also make it home detention assessment during the first year of dramatically more expensive than lesser options. operation. The procedural features of the Act are intended to Substantially higher rates of referral, however, are emphasise its diversionary intent and minimise required if home detention is to attain an operational instances of net-widening. On the evidence available size that will enable it to become cost effective. to date, they are generally effective. The composite profile of offenders who have been admitted to the Net-widening? programme is like that of offenders who have The central question in an evaluation of a programme traditionally been imprisoned. Most had a significant that is aimed at diverting offenders from full time prior offending history and have experienced a wide institutional confinement is: "Would an offender who range of available penalty options. A substantial has been sentenced to a diversionary option (in this majority have a history of alcohol and other drug case home detention) have been imprisoned if the problems. Assessing officers are generally confident diversionary option had not been available?" While it that offenders who have been admitted to home is difficult to categorically know the answer to this detention would have been otherwise imprisoned, question in particular cases, it is nevertheless useful to but there are some causes for concern. pursue statistical and qualitative indicators which A significant number of detainees have had suggest the likely pattern of answers. Cases in which minimal or no record of prior offending. This is in part the answer would be "no" constitute net-widening. If explained by the availability of home detention at the answer to the question above would have been District Court level, where sentences of imprisonment "yes," it raises a further question: "For how long?" The are more likely to relate to the seriousness of the answer, once again, may be unknowable in an offence rather than to a persistence in offending. absolute sense; however, net-widening will occur to There is, however, an increased incidence of first the extent that a sentence served by way of home offenders who have been referred from a limited detention exceeds the sentence that would have been number of Local Courts. Many of these referrals seem imposed if home detention had not been available. unrelated to the seriousness of the offence and they Either sort of net-widening is to be avoided reflect misperceptions about the purpose, because of the deleterious impact it has on offenders intrusiveness and cost of home detention. (and their families) and on the resources available for A further concern is the high incidence of female correctional programmes. The imposition of a Home offenders. Home detention is a good alternative to a Detention Order deprives an offender of liberty no correctional centre for women with children; however, less than confinement in a correctional centre. the proportion of women among detainees (21%) far Detainees may go nowhere and may do nothing exceeds the proportion of women (7.7%) amongst the outside their residence without the permission of eligible inmate population. It even exceeds the their supervising officer, and without being subject to proportion of women appearing before the courts for
"0 I \I m (' ION \I III I) (. r 7 J \I (I i ( i it I 0 I f i ( (. r,' B \I II (' I I II
sentence. It will require further study to determine if Cost effectiveness women are being diverted at a greater rate than men or If used to capacity within its current catchment area, if the availability of home detention has led to an the cost of home detention would be one-third of the escalation of penalty for some women. cost of minimum security imprisonment. Costs in home detention are almost entirely direct operating Revocations costs, whilst imprisonment costs include a substantial Given the rigorous conditions of home detention, the capital component. The full extent of the nominal stringent monitoring and the past record of most cost difference can therefore only be realised as detainees, it is not surprising that a significant savings if home detention reduces correctional centre number of offenders (34) have had their order for intakes sufficiently; so as to allow for the closure of, home detention revoked. This does not, however, or to avoid the future construction of, the facilities indicate a high level of reoffending. In all but one that are or would be required to house existing and case, the reason for revocation was not a new offence projected inmate populations. Given the size of but a breach of the programme rules; particularly the typical correctional institutions, home detention must breaching of curfew and the use of alcohol or other achieve a caseload of approximately 200 detainees if drugs. Only six of these offenders were charged with it is to become cost effective. The programme new offences; and in five cases the new charges presently has the capacity for 200 detainees but has coincided with or followed other breaches, and were achieved a caseload of just over 140 detainees. Cost only dealt with after revocation. Four of the six new effectiveness is further undermined by the extent of charges were driving offences (and two of these were any net-widening; as this adds to the operational reported to the police by the supervising officers) costs of home detention without creating any while the remaining two were shoplifting and break, opportunity for offsetting savings from other areas. enter and steal. The experience of revocations in New South Wales is consistent with that of other jurisdictions. Many Future prospects offenders managed to serve a significant portion of Continued expansion at present rates should result in their sentence before it was revoked. Many of the a caseload of 200 detainees by the end of 1998. A offenders whose Home Detention Order was revoked caseload of about 400 offenders is ultimately have, in subsequent interviews, remarked on the achievable within our current catchment area. progress that they had made whilst on home In the longer term, we are faced with the task of detention, notwithstanding their revocations. further developing the design of home detention, so Revocations, therefore, should not be seen as a failure as to make it available in the rest of the State. There of the programme but, more constructively, as partial are also plans to explore the use of home detention as successes and an indicator that home detention is an option that commences at the end of a term of operating with the rigour that was intended. imprisonment. An evaluation of the first year of operation Successes suggests that home detention can play an increasingly In the first year of operation 56 offenders successfully important role in containing the growth of inmate completed their set term of home detention! It is too populations, without added risk to public safety, and soon to have a clear picture of any rehabilitative with a favourable prospect for the rehabilitation of the outcomes, but early indications are positive. In offenders who are diverted away from prison. addition to the encouragement and support provided by their supervising officers, the desire to no longer be bound to the house provides detainees with a strong motivation to participate in rehabilitative programmes. Detainees are demonstrating very high Endnotes rates of attendance and participation in Attendance Centre programmes, other group or individual 1 The other four cases were not finalised at the time counselling programmes and education or training of writing and may eventually result in admission initiatives. Counsellors, teachers, employers and to home detention. family members are providing substantial positive 2 (1997) 95 A Crim R 373. [See editorial Note at the feedback about the progress of many of the offenders beginning of this article.] in the programme. 3 Ibid at 377. 4 Another offender whose order was revoked was subsequently reinstated following a review by the Parole Board and he successfully completed the balance of his term.
Home Detention Research Study
What is Home Detention? 2. Key Issues of the Research Home Detention legislation allows certain offenders serving a full time custodial sentence of 18 months or less the The key issues of this Home Detention Scheme opportunity to serve their sentence while remaining within research study include the following: the community. Offenders on the scheme are closely monitored by the Home Detention Unit within the NSW • Examining the potential effects of Net-Widening on Probation and Parole Service. Serious or repeated the Criminal Justice System. breaches of the Home Detention conditions will result in an • Measuring the cost effectiveness of the Scheme. official revocation. The offender is then required to serve • Examining the effects on the families of Home De the balance of their sentence within a correctional facility. tainees. • Examining the success of Home Detention as a diver 1. Terms of Reference sion from full time custody. • Efficacy measures - completions/revocations etc. Since September 1997, the NSW Dept of Corrective Services has been undertaking a review of the Home 3. Methodology Detention Scheme. The terms of reference for the research study are taken from the Home Detention Act In order to complete this study, the research design 1996: incorporates the following elements: Clause 28 • Completion of an extensive Literature Review on (1) The Minister is to review this Act to determine whether the issues related to the Home Detention Scheme. the policy objectives of the Act remain valid and whether The Literature Review will examine: the diversion the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives and to determine the impact of the Act ary effects, success and failure rates, different on families. technologies, cost effectiveness, and any docu mented effect on families. (2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as possible after the period of 18 months from the commencement of • The development of an Information Data Base. section 11. This Data Base will function as the primary source (3) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in of information on the assessment and evaluation each House of Parliament within 6 months after the end processes within the Home Detention Scheme. of the period of 18 months. • Extensive interviews with all involved (4) The Minister is to continue to monitor, and report to both stakeholders:- detainees, families, representatives Houses of Parliament on, the impact of this Act on from govt. and non government organisations, families. Such a report must be tabled at least once in representatives from the judicial system and the each calendar year after the year in which the report referred to in subsection (3) is tabled. academic community. • Establishment of a Research Steering Committee. This Committee is made up of representatives of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Re search, the NSW Judicial Commission, the NSW Institute of Criminology and the NSW Depart ment of Corrective Services. The Committee acts as the principal advisory body for the planning, implementation and interpretation of the research
1
j
• The development of a collaborative netwidening In accordance with legislative requirements, a Co research exercise with the NSW Judicial Com Residents Survey Form will be designed and imple mission. This is aimed at analysing and identifying mented. This will provide important data for use in the any potential netwidening effects of the Home De specific Home Detention Co-Residents Study. tention Scheme on the sentencing processes of the local and district court system. 4.2 Interviews • Development of an Exit Survey. This survey will be The following interviews have already taken place: used as a tool in examining the direct effects of Home Detention Orders on detainees and their 30 Home Detention Detainees lifestyle. This survey will be given to all detainees 3 Representatives of the Judiciary and the Law prior to completion. 5 Representatives from Dept Corr Services • Development of a Home Detention Co-Residents 2 Representatives from other Gov Dept Study. This study is aimed at examining any effects 5 Representatives from Community Org. the Home Detention Scheme may have on the 5 Members of the Academic Community routine and lifestyle of families and co-residents of 5 Home Detention Teams detainees. This involves the completion of a small questionnaire and participating in a series of exten It is envisaged that interviews will continue to be un sive interviews. dertaken throughout the study. It is anticipated that over the next six months there will be further inter 4. Current Position views in the following areas: • Families and/or Co-Residents of Detainees The first six months of the study have been largely spent establishing the methodology of the study and • Judges and Magistrates initiating the implementation of the research method. This section will illustrate the progress of the research • Successful Detainees which commenced in September 1997. • Home Detention Personnel 4.1 Data Base The computerised Data Base has been designed and is 4.3 Efficacy Measures operational. Data collection forms have been designed following extensive consultation with Home Detention The following graphs give a brief update on existing Officers The forms include: Home Detention statistics. These statistics refer to the period between February 1997 and December Assessment Form all those assessed 1997. There has been a noticeable increase in the Evaluation Form all partiCipants percentage of women participants in the program, Exit Survey partiCipants on exit from 13.6% in April 1997 to 25.5% in December Revocation Profile those who breach 1997, as the graph illustrates.
It will be another six months before there is enough It is also important to note, that 8.4% of referrals for information in the Data Base for useful statistical anal assessment were ineligible in terms of the current ysis. Over the next six months the Home Detention legislation. Magistrates and Judges are responsible Data Base will become more extensive and valuable for granting Home Detention assessments. In some information will be made available for analysis and cases there seems to be either confusion over the presentation. It is expected that this information will eligibility criteria or insufficient information at sen lead to: tencing. This will be monitored throughout the study and reported in future progress reports. If this trend • Comprehensive analysis of sentencing trends. continues, it may be appropriate to examine the • Extensive demographic profile of detainees. existing pre-sentence procedures currently opera • Home Detention Scheme analysis tional within the NSW court system. • Patterns in case management planning
2
NSW Home Detention Scheme Completed Assessments
Suitable 76.2%
Ineligible 8.4%
Not Suitable 15.4%
consolidated reports - Feb 1997 to Dec 1997
NSW Home Detention Scheme Partici pation by Gender
April 1997 Dec 1997 Male 74.5% Male 86.4%
Female 13.6% Female 25.5%
consolidated reports - April 97 to Dec 97
3
clude: 5. Developing Protocols • Obtaining on-going consent from affected families. • Privacy and/or unresolved issues In response to the needs of the Home Detention Scheme, Departmental and Inter-Departmental proto 5.2 The NSW Department of cols have been identified and development is under Corrective Services way. The three main areas of protocol development The Classification Unit in conjunction with the Home include: Detention Unit, within the Department is currently de • Individual suitability assessment. veloping protocols aimed at addressing the needs of • Individual case management planning and imple Home Detainees who breach their Orders and serve the mentation balance of their sentence within a correctional facility. • Police Liaison. The primary areas of protocol development are as follows: 5.1 The NSW Department of Community Services (DOCS) • Maintaining consistency in classification outcomes DOCS has been actively involved with the Home for revoked Home Detainees on reception to full Detention Unit in developing protocols which effec time custody. tively ensure a thorough assessment process, partic ularly if children are involved in any 'determination of • Continuity of case management strategies. It is suitability' for program inclusion. DOCS works in envisaged that case plans devised while the of collaboration with Home Detention Units to investi fender is placed on an Order are continued if the gate through their own Data Bases, any information offender is revoked and placed in a correctional fa concerning individuals under assessment for Home cility. These plans usually pertain to the continu Detention. The focus of these searches centres on ance of Drug and/or Alcohol counselling, psycho their previous record as carers of children e.g.: the logical counselling or family counselling. existence of any Child Care Orders over the past five years. DOCS also provides regular information ses • Examining the viability of including appropriate sions for Home Detention Officers aimed at maintain Home Detainees in specialised programs such as ing a focus on the importance of a child's emotional Works Release, Section 29 Special License Re and physical safety during a parent's Home Deten lease, etc. tion Order. At present, DOCS involvement is primarily directed • Monitoring the emotional and physical well-being of at the assessment process, in line with legislative revoked detainees. Specific groups such as intel requirements. A comprehensive form has been de lectually and physically disabled inmates, women signed and is currently being utilized, when appropri inmates, young offenders and inmates with little ex ate, by Home Detention Officers in their assessment perience of incarceration, will be targeted. procedure. Between the commencement of the Home Detention Scheme in February 1997 and December 1997, DOCS has assisted in the assessment process 5.3 The NSW Police Service for 99 out of 215 official assessments. Of the 99 The NSW Police Service in conjunction with the Home assessments involving DOCS, 22 were deemed Detention Unit are developing important liaison proto either unacceptable, required further assessment or cols which will assist in the community management of required special conditional proviSions. Home Detainees. There is particular concern surround ing a number of areas which include: The research study will examine the viability of util • Possible conflict in domestic arrangements which ising DOCS involvement throughout the entirety of result in Apprehended Violence Orders. an Order to ensure optimum safety for affected chil dren. This involvement would include any necessary • Prompt execution of Warrants in relation to official Parole Board Revocation Orders. monitoring of families where a pre-existing history of instability is prevalent, or where 'notifications' have been placed throughout the duration of and HDO. • Arrests of Home Detainees on additional charges. The central concerns which need addressing in-
4
1
• Community Education of all community based Orders. 7. Research Steering Committee 6. Revocations The Research Steering Committee has been estab lished to provide expert advice on the research meth This study is examining the revocations of Home De ods and findings. The membership of the Committee tainees in order to determine any particular circum consists of: stances and behaviour patterns that contribute to an individual's revocation. This study will examine the fol Christine Coumarelos NSW Bureau Crime Stats. lowing: Stephen Cumines NSW Judicial Commission • gender differences • family and/or co-resident dynamics Simon Eyland NSW Dept Corr Services • motivation to successfully complete case plan • drug and/or alcohol issues Kyleigh Heggie NSW Dept Corr Services • history of offending behaviour • attitude and behaviour while on a HD Order Ivan Potas NSW Judicial Commission
Between April 97 and December 97 the Parole Board Julie Stubbs NSW Institute of Criminology revoked 26 Home Detainees Orders. The graph illus , trates the breakdown of revocation numbers and the Ken Studerus NSW Dept Corr Services reasons why these revocations were recommended. This study will also examine the rates of Appeal against The Committee will be convening bi-annually and will official revocation. Since the commencement of the oversee the final official research findings and report. Scheme there have been a number of Appeals lodged
NSW Home Detention Scheme Reasons for Revocation
Fail activity plan 30.8% Drug Use ... 23.1% ' .
Tamper with equipment I , " 7.7%
Non-assocation Alcohol use 3. 8% 19.2% F ail to stay at home 15.4%
consolidated reports - April 1997 to December 1997
5 , I
- - --.~-==
indings. il 8. Research on Net-Widening
One of the major aspects of this study will be examining the possible impact of the Home Detention legislation in net-widening the criminal justice system. Netwidening refers t 0 the possible expansion of the level and intensity of sentencing procedures thereby increasing the level of control and influence of the criminal justice system over individuals that would not normally incur formal sanctions .. The net is said to widen if there is no evidence that reducations in other parts of the system.The current Home Detention legislation has certain 'in built' mechanisms that are aimed at minimizing net-widening potential. The Department of Corrective Services will be working in collaboration with the NSW Judicial Commission on this particular section of the research study. At a recent Research Steering Committee meeting, members spent considerable time exploring possible research methodology which could be used to measure net-widening. At present, the methodology has not been finalized but is likely to include the following elements:
• Sentencing data from the JIRS Data Base
• Sentencing Scenario Exercises for Magistrates and Judges
• Sentence pattern-matching statistical analysis
• Interviews with relevant professionals
If you wish to be placed on the Home Detention Review Mailing List please contact our Research Unit for details.
For more information concerning the review of the Home Detention Scheme, please contact:
Kyleigh Heggie Project Research Officer Research and Statistics Unit, NSW Dept of Corrective Services G.P.O Box 31, Sydney NSW 2001 TEL: (02) 9289 1078 FAX: (02) 9289 1590
6
orne Detention Research Stud
What is Home Detention? 1.2 Interviews conducted
lme Detention legislation allows certain offenders serving with Home Detainees and 'ull time custodial sentence of 18 months or less the their families. ,ortunity to serve their sentence while remaining within community. Offenders on the scheme are closely moni- The research study is continuing to focus on the valu 3d by the Home Detention Unit within the NSW Proba- able interviews conducted with Home Detainees and 1 and Parole Service. their families. The interview groups are as follows: • Home Detainees successfully completing 1. Update on Research orders • Revoked Home Detainees Since this research project commenced in September 1997, • Familiy and Friends of Home Detainees a number of interesting findings have emerged from both These interviews form pivitol reference pOints within the the Home Detention Information Data Base and the program evaluation of the Scheme. So far, the key extensive interviews conducted. The following sections will pOints of the interviews with families are as follows: detail some of the more important findings.
1.1 Interviews Since September 1997, the following interviews have taken place: 53 Home Detainees 21 Family members/co-residents of Home Detainee 13 Judicial Officers 8 Legal Representatives 7 Representatives from Corrective Services Representatives from other Govt. Depts Representatives from international Home Detention Schemes. qepresentatives from community organizations embers of the Academic Community 1e Detention Officers
1 1.3 Experiences on Home (b) Managing as a Parent Detention Parental responsibility is an everyday reality for many people. However, there are some unique (a) Support Networks problems associated with parental responsibility Throughout the interviews it has become apparent that whilst completing Home Detention. Supervising most detainees rely on a strong network of social and Officers include conditions in HDOs to assist professional support throughout the duration of a Home parenting needs. These conditions include escorts to Detention Order. One detainee commented: and from school and emerency provisions in case of accidents. While offenders view these provisions as
U I know that without the support of my family and best essential other problems have arisen when dealing friend, I would have been out that door... I remember one with everyday life with their chidren. One detaineE" time screaming down the phone to my mum to come and explained: help me deal with the kids. I was going crazy, no drugs, no drink, no time out, the kids were mucking up... Anyway, " I have three kids, 7,5, and 2 years. The younger one mum came over and sorted everyone out, including me. are easy to manage, but the 7 year old is a handful. Sh. Mum said she didn't mind, she said she was glad to help, knows I can't leave the house, so when we have a fight, because in the past when I was using drugs, I would never she just runs off down the road, knowing I can't chase ask for help and things would her. Luckily we live in a cul-de always get a lot worse, I would sac and she knows all the end up in trouble." " I've been hanging out for a drink... It's a hard lesson learning neighbours. I just do the ring to cope with things without at around then and someone The reliance of single parents a/ways brings her home. H she least a 'joint'. II on social networks is not a ever ran off past the cul-de-sac, new social phenomenon. The I would have to risk being fact that these offenders choose to cultivate support breached and run after her. There's really no choice, is networks is seen by them as a positive step in there?" successfully living within the community. The contrast (c) Drug and Alcohol Issues between full time custody and a Home Detention Between 65% and 75% of offenders placed on sentence is never more apparent then in this comment Home Detention have identified drug or alcohol from a Home Detainee: problems. Many detainees interviewed agreed tt remaining drug and alcohol free was one ('
," You know what gaol is like, each man for themselves. You hardest aspects of completing an Orde, spend a/l your time finding ways to survive, to minimise the detainee commented: damage and you spend your nights crying and missing your " I've been hanging out for a drink..• It's f kids. Out here on home detention you know where your kids leaming to cope with things without at .. are, you know they are O.K and you leam to understand that There's been many a night where I've b people will help if you ask them" but / don't think it's really worth it in .' caught once, on a urine test, I got Officer, I got a waming letter. •. that and it's never happened again. "
2 ]
Cd) Family Conflict within the family. It is important to note that It has been confirmed from the interviews conducted that families reported that one of the most frustrating there are a number of aspects of a Home Detention Order things about Home Detention is the fact that the which have the potential to increase stress and conflict same issues that trigger healthy family within a family or household environment. These include: communication and understanding can also trigger conflict.
For example, one detainee commented:
" The best thing about home detention is being with the kids all the time, the worst thing about home detention is being with the kids all the time. "
Another detainee commented on the difficulty of maintaining a healthy relationship:
" I'm so grateful not to be in gaol, but to tell the truth, sometimes the walls just close in and the last thing you want to do is sit down and have a cup of tea with the missus. That's when I think I'll go mad if I don't get out this house... I then feel really guilty and I think about all she has done for me. "
Despite these illustrated dilemmas, most
As one detainee explained: detainees interviewed agree that the key improvements they have found in
" The worst thing about home detention is when the phone communication and relationships include: rings at night. We have it by the bed, but the kids are light sleepers and they nearly always wake up. I then have to spend forever to get them back to sleep and whammo, the bloody phone rings again. "
Another detainee stated:
" It got to the stage that no-one else in the house would answer the phone and when the phone would ring everyone would just look at me , like it was my only job and I would be forever running back to the phone. " One detainee explained: The difficulties of maintaining a healthy family life while on Home Detention are illustrated by the comment of one " I found the program a lot better than going to detainee: prison. It was great to be able to not be taken away from my daughter.. · We didn't lose the bond .. It's really hard to explain to your kids that you can't take between us." them down to the local pool even in this weather, because of home detention. They get upset and don't understand. My man Another stated: then has to go with them without me and I end up sulking at home until they get back. " " I'm from a large family. We are used to seeing each other all the time at B.B. Q, football etc... Since Cd) Communication and Relationships I've been on Home Detention the family have been coming around to my place on Sundays for a family B.B.Q and get together. I'm really grateful to them for doing that. It helps me to get through the Order Many detainees and their families have spoken about the without cracking up". influence of Home Detention in facilitating communication 3
}, (e) Activities
One of the most important issues raised during interviews is the need to remain active whilst on a Home Detention Order. All interviewees agree that keeping active is the cornerstone to the successful completion of an order. Home Detention Officers recognise the need for active detainees and ensure that where applicable detainees are either:
• Working • Seeking employment • Attending courses • Performing community services • Addressing offending behaviour through Probation Attendance Centre programs or other approved programs.
As one detainee illustrates:
"The only way to successfully complete a Home Detention Order is to stay active. I didn't have a job, so I did the work on the house and car, attended D &A courses, did the chores like cooking and cleaning, anything to keep myself busy... the officers helped out with Ideas to stay motivated"
Another commented:
" I put an outside bell on the door to the backyard, at my own expense. This meant I could hear if the phone rang and still mow the lawn or do the gardening... you're not tied inside all day. This made it bearable" 2. Update on Breach Occurrences From the period of April 1997 to April 1998, 35 out of 177 Home Detainees revoked their orders. The follow ing graph illustrates the reasons for revocation. Information supplied by NSW Parole Board.
NSW Home Detention Scheme
7
6
5 IIllIICommit new offence IIF ail 10 reside at address Illlifail to stay at home 4 .Fail activity plan EilNon comply with orders 3 ElTamper with equip. mFail Non Assoc. Order DilAlcohol use 2 IillilDrug use
1 o Male Female consolidated reports - April 1997 to April 1998 4 3. Nature of Offence leading to a Home Detention Order The following charts illustrate the differences between the offences committed by male and female offenders which have led to a Home Detention Order. NSW Home Detention Scheme i\Jat (")ffence lea.eli
Driving 51.4% Male Offenders
Non Aggravated Assault 1.4% Fraud 9.5% Against Good Order 10.8%
Drugs Property 12.2% 14.9%
consolidated reports - 1st 100 assessments
NSW Home Detention Scheme
Fraud 42.3%
Female Offenders
Against Good Order 3.8%
Property Drugs 19.2% 23.1%
consolidated reports - 1st 100 assessments
5 4. Research on Netwidening
In July 1998, a Sentencing Scenario Exercise for Magistrates and Judges will commence. This exercise will be conducted as a collaborative venture between the NSW Dept of Corrective Services and the NSW Judicial Commission. The exercise is intended to explore the usage of a number of community based penalty options established by the 1996 Home Detention Act, Periodic Detention and Community Service Orders. This exercise is particularly directed towards measuring the consistency of sentencing and obtaining opinions about the legislation by NSW judicial officers. The findings from this exercise will be examined as part of the official Home Detention Review presented to Parliament in February 1999. The main areas of interest include:
• The use of Home Detention as a true diversionary tool from full time incarceration.
• Examining the potential net-widening by the use of Home Detention legislation in relation to particular offences within both the local and district courts.
• The opinions held by judicial officers in local and district courts concerning the legisation.
• The consistency of sentencing in local and district courts in using community based penalty options.
As of 31.5.98 376 HOO assessments completed. 273 People have been admitted to HDO program. 110 People have successfully completed Orders. 127 People are currently under supervision 47 People have had their Orders revoked.
If you wish to be placed on the Home Detention Review Mailing List please contact our Research Unit for details.
For more information concerning the review of the Home Detention Scheme, please contact:
Kyleigh Heggie Project Research Officer Research and Statistics Unit, NSW Dept of Corrective Services G.P.O Box 31, Sydney NSW 2001 TEL: (61) - 02- 9289 1078 FAX: (61)- 02- 9289 1590
6 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: Utilisation By Courts - February-May 1997
• Within the catchment area for the Home Detention program there are 9 District Courts and 32 Local Courts.
• From the commencement of Home Detention operation on 21 February 1997 until 31 May 1997, 4 District Courts and 15 Local Courts have made 35 offenders subj ect to a Home Detention Order.
• At least 18 other offenders have been referred for assessment of suitability for Home Detention but have been ineligible, unsuitable or - where a Home Detention Order had been granted - had their sentence stayed pending appeal.
• Of the Courts which have used Home Detention, 7 Local Courts and 2 District Courts have used it on more than one occasion. Parramatta and Waverley Local Courts are the usage leaders with 5 and 4 orders respectively plus several additional referrals from each which did not lead to an order.
• Data from past years suggests that many courts are continuing to imprison significant numbers of offenders for short periods without reference to Home Detention.
• Surveys are currently underway to determine the number of eligible offenders being imprisoned by these courts without assessment of suitability for Home Detention. Information from these surveys will be used to inform the ongoing dialogue with the courts intended to promote the widest possible use of Home Detention consistent with the aims of the legislation.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289-1477
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: Offender Profile - February-May 1997
ADMISSIONS:
Thirty-four offenders were placed on Home Detention between 21 February and 31 May. Of these, thirty-two remained under supervision as at the latter date.
HOME DETENTION TERM:
The average aggregate term of the Home Detention Orders for these offenders was 6.35 months. The longest term ordered was twelve months (five offenders) and the shortest was three months (three offenders). The most frequently-imposed term was six months (twelve offenders). Six offenders would be subject to an additional term on parole at the conclusion of their period of Home Detention.
MOST SERIOUS CURRENT OFFENCE:
In more than two-thirds of these cases offenders were before the court for multiple offences or multiple counts. Looking at the most serious offences dealt with, the most numerous category is Driving (ten offenders: one Culpable Drive, three Drink-Drive, six Drive Whilst Disqualified). Other categories were Drug Offences (five offenders: four Supply, one Cultivate); Crimes Against the Person (one Assault, one Threatening); Property Crimes (sixteen offenders: five Break and Enter, two Receiving, nine other Larceny or False Pretence) and one instance of Escape Lawful Custody. It is further noted that the matters for which these offenders were before the court included either a Breach of Recognisance or Breach of CSO in eleven cases.
PRIOR OFFENCES:
Only one of these Home Detention Orders was imposed on a first offender (convicted of Culpable Drive Occasioning Death). In two other instances the offenders may be said to have had a minimal prior offence history. All other offenders had a significant history of prior offences generally consistent with the offences for which they were now before the court. Certain categories of offence were predominant: twenty-one offenders had convictions for driving offences, twenty for offences of a larcenous nature and fourteen for drug offences.
PRIOR PENAL TIES:
Sixteen of these offenders have been committed to full- or part-time confinement. Twelve have been subject to full-time juvenile or adult incarceration and eight have been placed in Periodic Detention. Sixteen have received a Community Service Order and twenty-one have been subject to a supervised recognisance. One offender has received no prior penalty and another five have received no penalty greater than a fine.
- 2 -
AGE:
The age of offenders admitted to Home Detention ranged from nineteen to fifty-one. The average age was thirty.
GENDER:
Twenty-eight males and six females (approximately 18%) have been admitted to Home Detention. The high proportion of females on Home Detention as compared with females in prison bears watching. If this is a result of special efforts to divert women with child-care responsibilities from imprisonment, it is a good result (four of the six women on Home Detention are primary carers). Conversely, if the availability of Home Detention has encouraged sentencers to impose a sentence of imprisonment in circumstances where they previously would not have, these cases may include some "net-widening".
EMPLOYMENT:
Eleven offenders hold full-time employment and another two work part-time. Six offenders (four female, two male) have full-time child-care responsibilities. Two offenders have significant health problems likely to preclude significant employment during the term of their order. Another offender is a full-time student at TAFE.
PROBLEM AREAS AND REFERRALS:
Not surprisingly, twenty-nine of these offenders admit a problem of drug and/or alcohol abuse. The incidence of poly-drug abuse is high and seven of the eighteen offenders who admit to abuse of drugs other than alcohol are methadone recipients. It had been anticipated that use of alcohol or other drugs would constitute a significant proportion of the program infringements noted and that has proved to be the case. The first two revocations of Home Detention Orders were both based on the continuing consumption of alcohol by the offenders concerned. Two other offenders found to be using heroin have been directed to enter in patient treatment (one to a detoxification program, the other to a long-term treatment program) as a condition of continuance on Home Detention. The high incidence of drug and alcohol problems is reflected also in referrals. Substantial use is made of the Probation and Parole Service's Attendance Centres (ten offenders referred) and the Drug and Alcohol Intervention Program (five offenders) where they are available. Fourteen offenders have been referred to other drug and alcohol counselling in lieu of or (occasionally) in addition to the above programs.
Other problem areas noted in significantly smaller numbers are employment (ten offenders), literacy (three), financial management (two), gambling (one) and anger management (one).
The Attendance Centres are providing suitable programs to address these issues with a number of offenders while others are being referred to appropriate community-based agencies.
ACCOMMODATION:
Eighteen offenders reside with parents and three of these have children residing there as well. Five others live with a partner and their children and another four live with a partner alone. three offenders live with only their children and one lives alone. The remaining three share with a flatmate.
- 3 -
SUMMARY:
The picture of the "typical" Home Detention offender outlined above is similar to that seen in the earlier Intensive Community Supervision trial. It appears that it is more commonly the repetitive pattern of offending rather than the seriousness of the instant offence which led the court to impose a custodial sentence. The failure of prior penalties to deter continued criminal behaviour may also have been a factor.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289-1477
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: HOMEDETENTIONREVOCATIONSTOIOJULY97
INTRODUCTION:
If Home Detention is to establish and maintain credibility with Courts and the community as an appropriate alternative to imprisonment in a Correctional Centre, its conditions must be enforced with substantial rigour. On the other hand, the conditions are very onerous and - particularly with offenders with a history of substance abuse - some failures are to be expected. To deal with minor infringements officers are allowed some discretion to respond with sanctions short of application for revocation. The exercise of this discretion is guided by consultation with other team members and by limits established in internal program guidelines. This paper provides details of the management of the first six home detainees whose orders have been revoked by the Parole Board and some analysis of their significance.
REVOCATIONS: a. Offender R.c. was placed on a Home Detention Order for a period of 6 months on 9 April 1997 for property offences. Due to his history of alcohol and other drug abuse, breath and urine testing were a significant feature of his supervision regime together with referral to a substance abuse counsellor. A breath test on 16 April indicated the presence of a low-level of blood alcohol. The offender was reminded that any consumption of alcohol was a breach of his Home Detention conditions and was given a formal warning. Several subsequent tests revealed no alcohol use until 22 April when - on the occasion of his late return from a permitted absence - he was again tested for alcohol and found to have a blood-alcohol reading of 0.16. A breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 23 April, the Board considered it, revoked the Home Detention Order, and ordered a warrant to issue on 1 May. The supervising officer passed warrant details to local police and the offender was then taken into custody on 2 May to serve the balance of his term. b . Offender P.K. was placed on a Home Detention Order for a period of four months on 8 April 1997 for drink-driving offences. At the time of assessment the offender's long standing alcohol addiction was noted. The offender's self-detox, participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and clear breath testing during the assessment process, however, supported a recommendation of suitability for Home Detention. After initial progress the offender had a serious relapse on 28 April. On that date, during response to an electronic monitoring alarm at 3.30 a.m. the offender was found at home but, when tested, registered a blood alcohol level of .148. The supervising officer visited the offender's home later the same day to warn him of the possible consequences of his actions and endeavour to get him on trade Further restrictions were placed on the offender and he was directed to undertake community service work.
- 2 -
Although the offender was nominally compliant at that time the supervising officer returned to the offender's home at 9.30 p.m. that night and found that Mr. K. had a blood alcohol reading of .242 and had removed his electronic monitoring equipment. When confronted, the offender indicated that he was not prepared to address his drinking problem. The following morning, the offender left his residence without permission and has not returned. A breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 29 April. The Board considered it on 1 May, revoked the Home Detention Order and ordered the issue of the warrant. The warrant was in the hands of police on 2nd May but - despite continuing close liaison by the supervising officer - they have been unable to apprehend the offender as yet. c. Offender S.C. was placed on a Home Detention Order for a period of six months on 16 April 1997 for property offences. These offences also constituted beaches of a parole order (then due to expire on 4 June 1997) and a recognizance imposed earlier at Hornsby Local Court. The Parole Board considered revocation but elected not to return her to custody in light of her then compliance with Home Detention. Hornsby Local Court, on 14 May 1997, elected to impose a sentence of seven months in respect of the breach of recognizance and directed that it be served on Home Detention. Although this offender was on methadone, undergoing counselling and making apparent progress in some regards, her co-operation with electronic monitoring was a source of concern. On at least three occasions alarms were generated by the electronic monitoring system when it was unable to complete a call to the offender's 'phone. In each of these instances it was determined that the 'phone was off the hoole Despite protestations that these instances were inadvertent or caused by someone else, the offender was twice formally warned of the consequences of failure to comply with the conditions of Home Detention. On 7 June 1997 the offender was breath-tested and returned a positive reading. Following the offender's initial denial that she had consumed any alcohol, another breath-tester was brought to the site and a second test administered, again with a positive result. Following consultation within the Home Detention team, it was determined that these breaches should be referred to the Parole Board. A report was presented to the Board on 11 June. It was considered on 12 June, at which time the Board revoked the order and directed issuance of a warrant. Home Detention staff liaised with local police to arrange execution of the warrant on 13 June and accompanied police when the offender was taken into custody. d. Offender R.F. commenced a four-month Home Detention order for property offences and breach of CSO on 7 April 1997. She had a lengthy history of heroin and alcohol abuse and, although on methadone for some six years, she had continued to drink and use heroin off and on. Her drug and alcohol problems were a significant factor in her lengthy criminal history and the resulting penalties (including probation, CSO and imprisonment).
Despite her problems, Ms. F. had maintained custody of her three children (aged 15, 11 and 5). While she was on Home Detention progress was noted in that she refrained from alcohol use (as evidenced by frequent breath-testing) and participated in a developmental group at the Pendle Hill Attendance Centre and continued in counselling at her methadone clinic.
- 3 -
Although she apparently co-operated with Home Detention in other respects, Ms. F. was unable to refrain from use of heroin. Early indications of possible use led to a formal warning of the consequences of further illicit drug use. Upon receipt of analysis of a urine sample taken on 14 June 1997 indicating continued use, a breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 20 June. The Board revoked the offender's order on 26 June and the warrant was in the hands of Merrylands Police by the afternoon of the following day. By arrangement with the police the offender surrendered herself at Merrylands Police Station on 1 July 1997 after arranging for interim care of her children. Home Detention officers maintained close liaison with the offender and the police in the interval between the issue of the warrant and the offender's surrender to police.
e. Offender M.G. was placed on Home Detention for three months on 19 May 1997 for the offence of Goods in Custody. This sentence occurred as a result of call-up for breach of a recognizance earlier granted in relation to this offence.
This 19 year old offender had a significant prior record of drug and property offences associated with a four year poly drug use history. He had previously been committed to Community Service and Periodic Detention as well as a supervised recognizance.
Despite initial denials of current drug use, early drug testing showed that the offender had been using cannabis and heroin. He was directed to enter an inpatient detox unit on 11 June. He completed a five day program and was offered an opportunity to enter a six week residential drug program at Morisett Hospital but declined. The offender was warned that he would be tested regularly for drugs and a positive report could lead to revocation. He was further advised that, should he find that he was unable to resist a return to drugs with his own resources, help could be made available if he contacted his supervising officer.
A urine test result returned to the Home Detention team on 1 July, stated that a sample taken on 20 June indicated further use of cannabis and heroin as well as methyl amphetamine.
A breach report submitted to the Parole Board on 1 July was considered on 3 July. The Board revoked the Home Detention Order and directed a warrant to issue. Close liaison by Home Detention staff with the Cessnock Police, insured that the offender was apprehended on the warrant on the afternoon of 4 July. f. Offender J.R. was admitted to Home Detention on 20 March 1997 for a period of four months following convictions for Steal Motor Vehicle (x2), Drive Manner Dangerous and Possess Implement to Enter Vehicle.
This offender progressed satisfactorily through the first three months of supervision. Since mid-June, however, there have been several incidents of failure to provide full co-operation with electronic monitoring and one instance of indicated cannabis use. A formal warning was made on 1 July.
- 4 -
On the evening of 5 July 1997, the electronic monitoring system was unable to establish contact with the offender's horne. A horne visit at 11 :30PM revealed that the phone handset was displaced and the offender was absent. The offender resumed contact at 2:00AM on 6 July and admitted having left horne at about 11 :OOPM without permission or excuse to go out with friends.
A breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 7 July and the Board revoked the Horne Detention Order on 8 July and directed the issuance of a warrant. Horne Detention staff established liaison with local Police to expedite execution of the warrant. On 10 July, a Horne Detention Officer arranged to accompany the offender as he turned himself in.
ANALYSIS:
None of these offenders is considered to have presented a serious risk to the community despite their breaches. None are known to have committed further offences against other persons while under supervision. The six offenders revoked all had histories of substantial substance abuse and drink or drug use was the primary factor in the revocation of four offenders and a contributing factor in the others. Only one offender committed a serious breach of curfew although another absconded after being breached for refusal to refrain from drink.
From the perspective of the offenders revocation is clearly a personal failure. These personal failures, however, do not indicate program failure. The aim of the program is to direct offenders from custody to Horne Detention as a more cost-effective way of depriving them of their liberty for the term specified by the Court. These 6 offenders were sentenced to terms totalling 29 months. Prior to their revocations they had collectively served approximately 12 months. Even with these offenders, therefore, the program has achieved a partial success.
None of these offenders was breached precipitately or for trivial manners. When detainees were caught deviating from the rules efforts were made to bring them back into line before continued infringements led to an application for revocation. Such applications have been handled expeditiously by the Parole Board (an average of 3 days from submission of a report to the Board's decision to revoke). Close liaison with local Police is insuring that warrants are being dealt with quickly. In all but one case the warrants issued by the Board have been executed within a few days of issue.
CONCLUSION:
The breach and revocation procedures specified in the Horne Detention Act are working as intended and proving effective.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289-1477
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: UTILISATION BY COURTS FEBRUARY - OCTOBER 1997
• To 31 October 1997 the 9 District Courts and 32 Local Courts within the Home Detention catchment area have referred 155 offenders for assessment. Of these, 108 were admitted to Home Detention supervision.
• All District Courts in the area, bar Gosford and East Maitland, have referred at least 1 case for Home Detention assessment. Whilst Sydney District Court has referred 10 cases, none of the other District Courts has referred more than 3.
• Assessments have been received from 24 Local Courts, a significant increase from the 15 Courts which had made referrals to the end of May 1997. Referrals have been made on more than one occasion by 20 of these Courts.
• Parramatta remains the most frequent user of this option with 21 referrals resulting in 14 Home Detention Orders (HDOs). Gosford has referred 12 cases (6 HDOs) closely followed by Wyong and Waverley with 11 referrals each (8 and 6 HDOs respectively). Another 5 Courts (Woy Woy, East Maitland, Cessnock, Balmain and Bankstown) account for 33 referrals and 25 HDOs.
• A number of Local Courts which have historically imprisoned significant numbers of offenders have made limited or no referrals for Home Detention assessment: Wollongong (2), Penrith (2), Blacktown (1), Newcastle (1), Fairfield (0) and Belmont (0).
• The substantial disparity in usage rates between Courts of similar size and sentencing pattern merits further study. It will be important to determine whether low usage rates are attributable to lack of familiarity, lack of acceptability of certain aspects of Home Detention or some other cause.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289-1477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: ASSESSMENT RESULTS - OTHER THAN HOME DETENTION
Approximately one third of offenders referred for assessment of suitability do not come under Home Detention supervision. This paper explores what happens to these offenders and why. It is based on a group of 46 offenders considered by the Courts from February through October 1997.
OFFENDERS ASSESSED AS SUITABLE:
Despite being assessed as suitable, 9 offenders referred for assessment did not come under Home Detention supervision. Home Detention Orders were made in respect of 2 of these but did not come into operation as the offenders were in custody on other matters throughout the period of their order. Another offender failed to appear on the scheduled return date and a warrant of commitment was issued. Home Detention was granted to 6 other offenders who nevertheless appealed against their sentences on severity grounds and were bailed. Some of these may yet come under Home Detention supervision at the conclusion of the appeal process.
INELIGIBLE OFFENDERS:
Although extensive efforts were made to insure that Courts were aware of the eligibility criteria in order to minimise unwarranted referrals, 6 offenders were referred for assessment who were found to be ineligible due to the nature of their current offence (3 offenders) or the nature of their prior offence history (3 offenders). It is assumed that the Courts applied the eligibility criteria themselves to exclude a significant number of other offenders in both categories.
Consent of the offender is a prerequisite for a Home Detention Order and 4 offenders were ineligible due to their refusal to consent. Such refusal - in the face of sentences of up to 6 months imprisonment - is testimony to the perceived rigorousness of Home Detention.
- 2 -
UNSUITABLE OFFENDERS:
Probation and Parole Officers assessed 27 offenders as unsuitable for Home Detention. In 5 cases officers cited risk of harm to others or concerns about violence as the basis for their recommendation. The most common (17 offenders) reason for unsuitability was insufficient motivation, generally manifested by a lack of co-operation with the demands of the assessment process and a reluctance to face problem areas. Lack of suitable accommodation was the stumbling block for 3 offenders. Another offender was unwilling to give up employment in ajob where he could not properly be monitored and 1 committed a fresh offence while undergoing the assessment process.
DISPOSITION OF INELIGIBLE OR UNSUITABLE OFFENDERS:
Faced with the reports of ineligibility or unsuitability in the above cases, the Courts proceeded as specified in the Act. In 3 cases where offenders failed to appear the Courts issued warrants. Where the offenders were before the Court the original sentence of imprisonment was confirmed in all cases.
CONCLUSION:
Although a significant proportion of assessments did not result in entry into the Home Detention Program the figures above do not cause concerns about the application of the assessment process. Considering only those found to be unsuitable, the proportion of all assessments falls from just under one third to approximately one sixth.
It is further noted that the majority ofthose considered unsuitable were deemed so due to insufficient motivation. In most such cases the offenders - while expressing nominal consent to the conditions of Home Detention - demonstrated during the assessment period an unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities for personal change the Program would have afforded. Many of these cases - as with those who refused consent - may be seen as testimony to the demanding nature of the Program.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289-1477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: HOME DETENTION REVOCATIONS 11 JULY TO 10 NOVEMBER 1997
INTRODUCTION:
An earlier paper reported on revocations to 10 July 1997. This paper describes the circumstances surrounding subsequent breaches and examines trends becoming evident.
REVOCATIONS: a. Offender P .H. was admitted to Home Detention on 26 March 1997 for a period of 6 months following a conviction for Receiving.
This offender progressed satisfactorily through the first three months of supervision. On 5 July 1997, the detainee was admitted to Mt Druitt Hospital suffering from a respiratory condition. Electronic monitoring was disconnected and monitoring was carried out by way of visits and telephone calls to the hospital, until his discharge on 10 July 1997.
On or about 10 July 1997, the offender allowed his telephone to be disconnected due to the non payment of the telephone account, effectively removing himself from electronic monitoring. Despite frequent directions from Home Detention Officers and several opportunities to rectify the situation, his telephone remained disconnected. A breach report was tendered to the Parole Board on 16 July 1997, followed by an update on 17 July 1997. The Parole Board allowed P.H. time to reconnect the telephone however, when that had not occurred by 25 July 1997, the Board revoked his Home Detention Order and directed the issuance of a warrant. Home Detention Officers established liaison with local Police on 1 August, 3 August, 15 August and 24 August 1997 to expedite the execution of the warrant.
The offender was also contacted by Home Detention Officers on 27 July, 9 July and 24 August 1997 and encouraged to surrender himself. To date the offender has not been arrested.
INFORMATION &LIBRARY SERVICES NSW DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES
2
b. Offender G.B. was admitted to Home Detention on 20 June 1997 for a period of six months following convictions for Receiving (x 5).
The offender was issued two formal "warning letters". The first letter was issued on 14 July 1997 in respect of his failure to comply with electronic and face-to-face monitoring requirements. The second letter was issued on 31 July 1997 for the use of illegal drugs as evidenced by urinalysis reports. As a consequence, G.B. was directed to attend the William Booth Institute to assess his need for further drug counselling and rehabilitation. He attended on 1 August 1997, as directed and as a result, the offender was admitted to the Royal Prince Alfred detoxification unit on 5 August 1997. Over the next 5 days noticeable improvements in both the offender's physical well-being and attitude towards discontinuing illegal drug use were observed. During his stay at the detoxification unit the offender was visited daily by Home Detention Officers. However on 11 August 1997, he was directed by hospital staff to leave as a result of suspected drug use on facility premises.
A urine specimen obtained on 12 August 1997 would later confirm this suspicion. In response to an electronic monitoring violation code, a home visit conducted on 14 August 1997, confirmed the offender's absence without approval. A breach report was tendered to the Parole Board on 15 August 1997. The Board revoked the offender's Home Detention Order on 20 August 1997, and directed the issuance of a warrant. The warrant number and other relevant information to expedite the offender's arrest was given to local Police on 22 August 1997 and 26 August 1997. The offender is well known to the local Police.
Although initial efforts to apprehend him were unsuccessful, he was returned to custody on 17 October 1997. c. Offender R.C. was placed on the Home Detention Program on 9 April 1997. He was sentenced to one 3 month Home Detention Order from that date and three cumulative Home Detention Orders, the longest being three months.
At its meeting of 1 May 1997 the Parole Board revoked the original Home Detention Order and the offender served the balance in prison. He was released to serve the remaining orders on the Home Detention Program on 18 July 1997.
On 28 August 1997 R.C. was formally warned for consuming alcohol, failing to comply with electronic monitoring and failing to attend a Drug and Alcohol course. At approximately lam on Saturday, 30 August 1997, a Home Detention Officer attended the offender's home in response to his non compliance with the electronic monitoring system. A breathanalysis test returned a positive reading.
3
On 1 September 1997 a report recommending the revocation ofR.C's orders was submitted to the Parole Board. The Board revoked the offender's orders on 2 September 1997 and directed the issuance of a warrant. Home Detention Officers established liaison with local Police on that same day, which led to the offender being taken into custody at 8am on 3 September 1997. d. Offender A.I. was placed on the Home Detention program on 12 May 1997 for a period of 6 months following convictions for Drive whilst Disqualified and Mid range PCA.
A.!' s initial response to the Home Detention program was considered to be very compliant.
After an unapproved absence and consumption of alcohol in August, A.I. was given a formal warning that any further breach of his Home Detention Order could result in the revocation of his order.
On 3 September 1997, the offender was allowed to attend Beresfield Police Station to collect his son after his son had been arrested and charged with a domestic violence related offence. However, the home detainee also attended the victim's residence to collect his son's belongings without prior approval from his Home Detention Officer. Further, during his visit to the victim's residence, he allegedly verbally threatened some people who were present at the home.
A breach report was tendered to the Parole Board on 8 September 1997. The Board revoked the offender's Home Detention Order on 9 September 1997, and the offender was arrested on 10 September 1997. e. Offender lC. was placed on the Home Detention program on 23 April 1997 for a period of twelve months following convictions for Take and Drive Conveyance, Goods in Custody, and Break, Enter and Steal x 2.
lC. has a history of illicit drug use. After being placed on the program the offender tested positive to unprescribed methadone on 2 June 1997, heroin on 7 June 1997, and 11 June 1997. The offender stated that the substances were provided by his girlfriend and an acquaintance. He was warned and directed to address his drug problem by entering the Odyssey House Program. He completed the six week assessment stage.
The offender's association with his girlfriend continued to pose problems due to her continued drug involvement. Further, the offender's mother informed the Home Detention Officer that she had observed the girlfriend injecting herself while in the company of the offender. lC. later admitted that she had been using an illicit drug. The offender was verbally directed not to associate himself with his girlfriend. Despite that verbal direction, lC. allowed her to visit his home that same evening. He was warned again regarding possible
4
breach action and a formal written direction was given to him on 27 August 1997, not to associate with his girlfriend.
On 7 September 1997, the offender was observed by the Home Detention Officer to be in the company of his girlfriend. Further enquiries revealed other occasions where this had occurred. A breach report was tendered to the Parole Board on 12 September 1997. The Board revoked the offender's Home Detention Order on 15 September 1997 and directed issuance of a warrant. The Home Detention Officer liaised with local Police to arrange execution of the warrant and accompanied Police when the offender was taken into custody on 17 September 1997.
f. N.C. was placed on the Home Detention Program at Gosford Local Court on 28 August 1997 for a period of nine months (additional three months) with five cumulative Home Detention Orders of three months each following convictions for Receiving Stolen Property, Goods in Custody, Stealing, False Pretences x 2 and Breach of Recognizance.
The offender continued to deny illicit drug use whilst on the program, despite having tested positive on two occasions.
N.C. had previous commitments to complete 200 hours community service work and four months periodic detention imposed at Woy Woy Local Court on 19 May 1997.
N.C's behaviour at the community service agency was considered to be unsatisfactory and he was dismissed by the supervisor on 11 September 1997. He did not return home as required and later tried to conceal the situation from his Home Detention Officer.
N.C. had repeatedly breached curfew requirements despite frequent warnings.
Application to cancel the Periodic Detention Order due to failure to attend, was listed for hearing at Ryde Local Court on 10 October 1997.
A breach report recommending the revocation of the Home Detention Orders was tendered to the Parole Board on 16 September 1997. The Board revoked the orders on 18 September 1997 and directed issuance of a warrant. The Home Detention Officer liaised closely with both Police and the Periodic Detention Centre Prison Officers in order to arrange the execution of the warrant on Saturday, 20 September 1997 whilst the offender was in periodic detention custody. g. C.D. was placed on the Home Detention Program at Wyong Local Court on 26 May 1997 for a period of eight months and three months to be served cumulatively, following convictions for Knowingly Contravene Domestic Violence Order and Assault.
5
C.D. was directed to attend a Domestic Violence Intervention Program conducted by Relationships Australia. He commenced that Program on 19 August 1997 and attended each week for two hours. Enquiries with the Convenor of that program, revealed that the offender had been punctual and co-operative.
Urinalysis results received on 10 June 1997, 13 June 1997 and 13 August 1997, showed the presence of cannabis metabolite. After the result of the 13 June 1997, C.D. was directed to attend for counselling, which he commenced on 15 July 1997. Home Detention Officers maintained contact with his Doctor and were informed that the offender appeared to be gaining some benefit from counselling and medication to assist him in avoiding the use of cannabis.
C.D. was breathalysed on 11 August 1997 and returned a positive reading for alcohol consumption. On that occasion he was given a formal warning. Subsequently he was breathalysed on several occasions, each time returning a negative reading. However, on 8 September 1997 he again returned a positive reading. Given the nature of his offences and the importance of maintaining the credibility of the program, a breach report was tendered to the Parole Board on 10 September 1997. The Parole Board revoked the offender's eight month order on 18 September 1997, (the other order had expired), and directed issuance of a warrant.
The Home Detention Officer liaised closely with both Police and the offender which resulted in the offender voluntarily surrendering himself to Police on 22 September 1997.
This offender elected to exercise his right to appear before the Parole Board for review of their revocation decision. The supervising Probation and Parole Officer also appeared on this occasion. On 31 October 1997 the Board rescinded its earlier revocation and directed that C.D. be returned to HD supervision for the balance of the order. h. AM. was placed on the Home Detention program at Balmain Local Court on 7 May 1997 following the conviction of Breach of Community Service Order. On 14 May 1997, AM. again was placed on two, six month Home Detention Orders at the same Court for the offences of High Range PCA and Drive Manner Dangerous. These offences predate the original order. These orders were accumulative to the order issued on 7 May 1997. AM. completed the first order on 6 August 1997.
On 9 July 1997, AM. was given a warning letter due to a serious breach of the program. He failed to respond to electronic monitoring, had been on an unauthorised absence from home, and consumed alcohol.
6
On 17 September 1997, A.M. returned a positive reading on the Alcolmeter. Although initially he denied consuming any alcohol, he later admitted that he had consumed two cans of beer.
A.M. had been attending a three week full time scaffolding course at T AFE, as well as educational programs at the Annandale Attendance Centre each Thursday evening, both arranged by the Home Detention Officer.
A breach report recommending the revocation of the Home Detention Orders was tendered to the Parole Board on 18 September 1997. The Board revoked the orders on 22 September 1997, and directed issuance of a warrant. The offender was arrested on 24 September 1997.
1. C.M. was placed on the Home Detention Program at Waverley Local Court on 9 July 1997, for a period of six months following the conviction Drive whilst Licence Disqualified.
C.M. recently moved from Guildford to reside with his parents at Sans Souci following domestic disputes with his defacto wife. Other than warnings he had received regarding his properly responding to the monitoring equipment, he was considered to have been maldng reasonable progress. He had commenced work with his father and had been attending educational programs at the Liverpool Attendance Centre.
On 21 September 1997, C.M. was absent from his home without authorisation for approximately 12 hours and on the following day, 22 September 1997, he temporarily disabled the monitoring equipment.
A breach report recommending the revocation of the Home Detention Order was tendered to the Parole Board on 23 September 1997. The Board revoked the order on 25 September 1997, and directed issuance of a warrant. The offender was arrested on the same day.
J. P.N. was placed on the Home Detention Program at Parramatta Local Court on 7 August 1997 for a period of six months following convictions for Drive Whilst Disqualified x 2 and Drive Mid Range PCA.
On 19 September 1997, P.N. was issued a written formal warning following two breaches of curfew. The warning specified his working hours and included the instruction that any further hours, would require approval from his Home Detention officer. He was also instructed that he was not allowed to leave his workplace during working hours.
On 4 October 1997, he sought and was given approval to work. However, a visit by a Home Detention officer to the employment site at 11.30am, revealed that P.N. had left his place of employment without permission from his supervisor, or Home Detention officer. He did not return home until approximately 5.30pm. When interviewed at home, he stated that he and his
7
supervisor had to attend to work away from his usual workplace. His supervisor who was at home all day, had earlier stated that the detainee had been expected to remain at the workplace.
P.N. was also breathalyzed and returned a positive reading for alcohol consumption. A breach report recommending the revocation of the Home Detention Orders was tendered to the Parole Board on 7 October 1997. The Parole Board revoked the orders on the same day and directed issuance of a warrant. k. W.l was placed on Home Detention at Parramatta Local Court on 24 September 1997 for a period of four months with respect to conviction for Drive Whilst Disqualified (x 2).
On the afternoon of 3 October 1997, the offender's supervising officer attended the offender's home in response to an electronic monitoring alarm. The offender's unauthorised absence was confirmed and the offender's mother advised that her son had taken her car and driven off without permission to an unknown destination.
The offender admitted that he had been absent without authorisation and that he had driven whilst disqualified. The offender was closely monitored through 4 and 5 October 1997 (Saturday and Sunday) and the supervising officer attended Wentworthville Police Station on 6 October 1997, making a statement with regard to W.J. driving whilst disqualified on 3 October 1997. The offender's mother has also made a statement and it is expected that he will be charged with this new offence.
Due to the public holiday a report could not be placed before the Parole Board before 7 October 1997. The Board revoked the Home Detention Order on that date and issued a warrant for the offender's arrest. As a result of the close liaison already established with police in this case, the warrant was executed on the date of its issue. l. lB. was placed on Home Detention at Swansea Local Court on 26 June 1997 for a period of six months with respect to charges of Break Enter and Steal, Break and Enter, Unlawfully Carried in Conveyance, Steal Conveyance, Possess Implements to Enter a Conveyance and Breach ofCSO.
On 12 September 1997 subj ect' s supervising officer discovered that he was absent without permission from the full-time TAFE course he had been approved to attend. When contact was established later in the day, it was determined that he had spent the day at his mother's in response to a family crisis. The offender had not contacted his officer to seek permission to respond to this emergency. He was counselled again as to his obligations to the program and warned of the possible consequences of such failures.
8
On the evening of 14 September 1997, an electronic monitoring alarm indicated the offender might be absent. Telephone contact with his partner confirmed the absence (reportedly to get baby formula from the shop). The offender returned home within ten minutes of the alarm. He had again failed to seek permission for this absence. As a sanction for this breach he was instructed to perform twenty-five hours of community work.
After a further unauthorised absence on 3 October 1997, a decision was made to apply to the Parole Board for revocation. The Board considered this matter on 13 October 1997 and revoked the order. A warrant was issued and the offender surrendered himself to Mt Druitt Police in company with his supervising officer on the afternoon of 15 October 1997. m. N.K. was placed on Home Detention at North Sydney Local Court on 16 September 1997 for a period of 6 months with respect to charges of Stealing, Drive Manner Dangerous and Assault Police.
Although deemed suitable it was considered that this offender was at high risk of continued drug use. He was, therefore, strictly warned of the consequences of such use and a stringent monitoring plan was put in place.
Urine samples taken from the offender on 18 and 28 September 1997 (2 and 12 days respectively after commencement of the order), were positive for Heroin. Return of these results was delayed until early October, due to high workloads at Oliver Latham Laboratory.
In the meantime, on 25 September 1997, N.K. was charged with new offences of "Goods in Custody" and "Receiving" as a result of evidence found by police in a shed on the offender's premises during execution of a search warrant. The offender is contesting these charges.
A breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 14 October 1997 and the order was revoked on 16 October 1997. The warrant was issued on 17 October 1997 and executed on 20 October 1997.
Proceedings in this matter were somewhat delayed by the offender's contention that he was seeking leave to appeal against the original sentence of 6 months to be served by way of Home Detention. Despite his claim that leave had been granted and the original order stayed, consultation with the Court and the Board revealed that the order had not been stayed and that the revocation and warrant were to take effect.
Mr. K. continued to pursue his appeal. It was heard on 12 November 1997 and the original sentence overturned. Rather than immediately impose a new sentence, the Judge released the offender on a 3 month Griffith remand.
9
n. M.A. was sentenced to four months imprisonment to be served by way of Home Detention on 28 July 1997 at Cessnock Local Court with respect to charges of Assault and Contravene ADVO.
This offender's criminal history has been associated with a pattern of "binge" drinking which was the primary focus of his case management. During the assessment process, arrangements were made for his participation in programs dealing with alcohol abuse and anger management. During the first month of supervision he tested positive for alcohol on one occasion and was admitted to a detoxification program followed up by a two week outpatient drug and alcohol education program.
After a second positive test for alcohol in September 1997 he was admitted to a six week residential drug and alcohol program at Morisset Hospital. He was to have completed this program on 31 October 1997. On 30 October 1997, M.A. was given leave from the above program to arrange accommodation for his release. On his return to the hospital that night, he was breath tested and returned a positive reading.
A breach report was forwarded to the Parole Board on 3 November 1997. The Board considered the matter on 6 November 1997 and revoked the Home Detention Order. A warrant was issued the same day.
Coincidentally, the Home Detention Program was advised by the Police Service that M.A. was arrested on 6 November 1997 at Singleton charged with HPCA. Close liaison with Police and the Parole Board insured that the Parole Board's warrant was executed expeditiously and M.A. has remained in custody following the Singleton arrest. o. Offender L.C. was placed on two consecutive four month Home Detention Orders at North Sydney Local Court on 20 May 1997 with respect to charges of Possess Prohibited Drug, Supply Prohibited Drug, Receiving, Goods in Custody and Escape Lawful Custody.
This offender had a long history of illicit drug use and was on methadone. During her HD supervision she completed this Service's Drug and Alcohol Intervention Program as well as attending individual Drug and Alcohol counselling through the Department of Health. She was also subject to regular urine testing by her methadone clinic and this Service. Drug tests taken prior to October raised concerns that she might be supplementing her methadone but she proffered an explanation attributing this to a pain medication she was taking. Given the benefit of the doubt at that time, she tested positive again on 8 October 1997. When laboratory results on this test were received the offender was presented with a formal warning on 18 October 1997.
10
Urine specimens taken on 16 and 23 October 1997 subsequently also tested positive, in this case for amphetamine. The offender initially denied any use of illicit drugs but ultimately admitted to having illegally purchased a quantity of methadone which she believed might have contained the amphetamine.
In view of the offender's persistence in supplementing her prescribed methadone with other drug taking, a breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 4 November 1997. The Board revoked her order on 6 November 1997 and directed that a warrant be issued. Supervising officers of the Home Detention Program maintained close contact with Police until the warrant was executed on 10 November 1997. p. Ms. C.H. was placed on a three-month Home Detention Order on 4 September 1997 with respect to a breach of a recognizance imposed following an earlier conviction for stealing. This offender had a lengthy history of conviction for relatively minor offences and had previously been exposed to the full gamut of penalty options. She was still subject to a term of Periodic Detention at the time home detention was ordered.
This woman of limited education was responsible, with her defacto, for their three young children. Her child-care responsibilities and her earlier failures to complete referrals to Attendance Centre programs left only limited scope for rehabilitative efforts during her home detention term.
In early October, Ms. H. tested positive for amphetamines. Upon her admission of the drug use she was warned of the possible consequences of further breach. No further instances of drug use were noted.
Throughout October several instances occurred which called into question the offender's co-operation with the requirements of electronic monitoring but did not clearly establish a breach of conditions.
On 12 October 1997 the offender was permitted to pick up her children from her father's home. She returned home late without reasonable excuse and this was deemed to be a breach. This breach was the subject of a formal warning letter which also canvassed concerns regarding her co-operation with electronic monitoring.
Another instance of late return from an authorised absence (to attend the Emu Plains P.D.C.) occurred on 25 October 1997. It was noted, however, that trains in that area were subject to significant delays on that day and no further action was taken at this time.
On 30 October 1997 an electronic monitoring alarm occurred at 2.30 a.m. When contact could not be established by 'phone, the supervising officer visited her home and discovered that the 'phone had been left "off the hook".
11
The above incidents were the basis for a request for revocation submitted to the Parole Board on 3 November 1997. The Board revoked on 6 November (with effect from 12 October) and a warrant was issued. Close liaison was maintained with police until her warrant was executed on 14 November. During her service of the balance of her term her defacto will provide care for the children.
DISCUSSION:
A total of 114 people have been placed under Home Detention supervision to date. Of these, 21 detainees have been revoked. In a single case (C.D.) the Parole Board has rescinded its revocation on review and reinstated the offender on Home Detention after a short period in custody. Another offender (N.K.), after learning of his impending revocation, commenced appeal proceedings against the sentence in respect of which Home Detention was imposed. The appeal was heard after revocation had occurred and he was taken into custody. The sentence of imprisonment was set aside and he was released on a Griffith remand pending further consideration of sentence. This decision necessarily voided the Home Detention Order and the Board's revocation decision.
The most common reason for revocation was use of alcohol or other drugs. This was the primary reason in 10 cases and a contributing factor in 7 others. Curfew breaches were cited as the primary reason for revocation for 10 offenders with drug or alcohol use identified as a secondary factor in 6 cases. Another offender was revoked due to a failure to maintain telephone service and 1 offender was revoked for failure to cease association with a girlfriend who was actively using drugs and enticing him to support and/or share her addiction.
No offenders were revoked for conviction for new offences, but 3 were charged with fresh matters during the course of their supervision.
Of these, 1 was charged with DWD on information supplied by the supervising officer and the offender's mother, 1 was charged with HPCA on the day the Parole Board was considering a request for revocation citing other breaches and the third, was charged with GIC following execution of a search of his premises shortly after his Home Detention supervision commenced. Another offender was observed driving while his licence was cancelled on the day his supervision expired. As no time remained on his sentence, no revocation action was initiated but the matter was reported to Police.
Although offenders whose Home Detention Orders have been revoked do not appear to have been a significant threat to the community, it is important to the credibility of the program that warrants issued by the Parole Board be acted on promptly. Close liaison with the Police Service has led to the arrest of offenders within a few days of revocation in most cases. There are at present only 2 such warrants still outstanding, 1 dating from 25 July and the other from 7 October 1997.
12
These offenders have often served a significant portion of their sentence before revocation. As their liability on revocation is only for the balance of their term some degree of diversion has occurred despite their ultimate return to full-time custody. In addition to the potential cost-savings this may achieve, these offenders have often taken significant steps to deal with deeply entrenched problems.
CONCLUSION:
The relatively high rate of revocation for breaches of program conditions, combined with the low rate of re-offending while in the program, reflects the close monitoring of offenders on Home Detention. Given the high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse and other problems among offenders sentenced to imprisonment, it is not surprising that a significant number of detainees have difficulty complying fully with the conditions of their order.
As Home Detention, to a much higher degree than imprisonment, depends on the ongoing choice by offenders themselves to abide by the rules of the program, the incidence of revocations highlights the significance of successful completion of a Home Detention Order.
For additional infonnation about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, NSW., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289 1477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: OFFENDERPROFILET0170CTOBER1997
ADMISSIONS:
The number of offenders who have been admitted to Home Detention between 21 February and 17 October 1997 is 102. Of these, 17 have successfully completed their term, 18 have been revoked and 67 are still under supervision.
HDTERM:
The average aggregate term of Home Detention for these offenders was 6.2 months. The terms varied from 2 months (1 offender) to 12 months (13 offenders). The next common term was 6 months (35 offenders). An additional term was imposed on 15 offenders.
CURRENT OFFENCES:
A significant majority of all offenders (65 of 102) admitted to Home Detention were before the Court for multiple charges. This characteristic was even more pronounced (16 of 18) among offenders who had been revoked.
Considering only the most serious offence, the most numerous category is Theft (49 offenders: 12 Breaking and Entering, 12 Fraud, 4 Unlawful Possession, 8 Larceny of Motor Vehicle, 13 Other Larceny). Other categories were: Driving (32 offenders: 3 Cause Death or Injury by Driving, 14 PCA, 1 Refuse Breath Test, and 14 Drive While Disqualified or Cancelled); Robbery (1 offender); Against the Person (4 offenders: 2 Assault, 1 Affray, 1 Use Telecommunications to Menace); Drugs (10 Offenders: 9 Supply/Cultivate/Manufacture Prohibited Drug; 1 Possession); Breach AVO (4 offenders) and single instances of Escape Lawful Custody and Use Fabricated Evidence. For 28 of these offenders one or more of the matters before the Court at the time Home Detention was imposed was a breach of recognizance or breach of a Community Service Order.
PRIOR OFFENCES:
Contrary to past experience in the Intensive Community Supervision (ICS) trial which preceded Home Detention, a significant number (13) of these offenders appear to have no
- 2 - prior convictions. It was further noted that 7 of the 13 were female offenders. This raises some concern that the availability of Horne Detention may invite an escalation to a sentence of imprisonment in lieu of other community-based options. This concern is somewhat offset by the fact that 8 of the 13 were dealt with for more serious offences before the District Court.
Another 11 offenders appear to be relative newcomers to the criminal justice system. The remainder had a significant history of prior offending generally consistent with the offences for which they were now before the Court. Representation across the main offence categories noted was: Theft - 50 offenders; Driving - 51; Drugs - 39; Against Person - 18 and Property Damage - 15. Offenders who have been revoked (17) had a substantially higher incidence of prior records for Drugs (15 offenders) and Theft (15 offenders).
PRIOR PENAL TIES:
While 24 offenders have been admitted to Horne Detention having experienced no penalty more serious than a fine or unsupervised recognizance, nearly half (49) had experienced full or part-time incarceration. Over a third (36) had served a period of full-time confinement while 28 had been subject to Periodic Detention. Community Service Orders and supervised recognizances have been experienced by 49 and 55 respectively.
The 17 offenders who have been revoked experienced each of the above penalties at a significantly higher rate than the group as a whole.
Offenders admitted to Horne Detention ranged in age from 18 to 66. The average age was 31. Average age appears to be creeping up from that experienced in the ICS trial (26 - 27). It may be significant that the group of first offenders mentioned above has a notably higher average age (36) than the group as a whole.
GENDER:
To date, 81 males and 21 females have been admitted to Horne Detention. The proportion of females admitted has increased slightly (21 % versus 18%) since our survey of admissions up to May 1997. Both figures represent a higher proportion of female offenders than reported in the evaluation ofICS (16%). In comparison, approximately 5% of offenders serving terms of full-time custodial confinement are female. These significant differences emphasise the necessity to differentiate between men and women when assessing the diversionary or net widening impact of Horne Detention.
- 3 -
ETHNICITY:
The ethnic mix of offenders on Home Detention reflects the diversity of our society. A significant proportion (17%) of detainees are migrants or the children of migrants from non English speaking countries or from countries with significantly different cultural backgrounds. Numbers from anyone of these groups were not significant.
The number of Aboriginal offenders admitted (3 male and 3 female) is significant. The representation of Aboriginal males (3.7%) and Aboriginal females (14%) among the male and female detainee populations is well below their representation in the respective inmate population (17% and 27%). This suggests that increased efforts must be made to encourage Courts to give adequate consideration to Home Detention as an alternative when sentencing Aboriginal offenders.
EMPLOYMENT:
Over one third of detainees have held full-time (33) or part-time (5) jobs. In some instances the practical difficulties in monitoring offenders in their regular form of employment has made it necessary for them to change jobs or adjust their work practice. In one case an offender faced with a 3-month term, could not readily make such adjustment and elected to take 3 months leave without pay.
Primary child care responsibilities occupied 19 offenders of whom 2 were male. Another 2 male offenders received a carer's pension in respect to aged parents.
One offender was engaged in full-time TAFE studies. Another is a full-time housewife whose children are grown. Six offenders were on sickness benefits and the balance (35) were unemployed.
It is noteworthy that offenders whose orders were revoked, had a much higher proportion (13 of 18) of their number unemployed.
PROBLEM AREAS:
The maj ority of these detainees have a history of abuse of alcohol (44 offenders ) and/or other drugs (41). Of the latter group, 17 offenders were on methadone. There is a high incidence of poly-drug abuse and only 32 offenders have no reported history of drug or alcohol problems. It is not surprising given the strict monitoring of the "no drink - no drugs" conditions of Home Detention, that all but 5 of the Home Detention revocations to date have involved consumption of either alcohol or drugs. It is further noted that 17 of the 18 offenders revoked, had acknowledged a history of substance abuse.
Employment was the next most prevalent problem area (32 offenders unemployed) while relatively small numbers of offenders acknowledged problems with literacy/basic education, financial management, gambling and mental or physical health.
- 4 -
ACCOMMODATION:
Parents provided accommodation for 34 of these offenders. Another 43 resided with a partner and 28 of these also had children in the home. There were also 12 sole parents living with their children and 13 offenders living by themselves or with unrelated flatmates.
SUMMARY:
The picture presented of the "typical" home detainee remains substantially similar to that presented by offenders on ICS, but some differences are apparent. Detainees are often older, are more likely to be female, and are less likely to have a significant prior offence history. In part these differences may flow from the introduction of Home Detention at the District Court level where the seriousness of matters before the Court may more frequently lead to imprisonment of first offenders. These trends will be monitored closely to determine whether there are implications for the diversionary aim of Home Detention.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, NSW., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289 1477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: COMPLETIONS TO 30 NOVEMBER 1997
INTRODUCTION:
To date 31 offenders have served a term of Home Detention without revocation. This paper examines salient features of this group and some notable outcomes.
This group includes 2 offenders whose Home Detention term ended prematurely in circumstances that did not constitute a breach of their order. One offender who had served one month of a three month term, was imprisoned on charges pre-dating his Home Detention Order. Another offender tragically died, an apparent suicide, when he had only 4 weeks remaining of a 5 month term.
In this same period a total of 125 offenders have been admitted to Home Detention. Of these, another 22 have been revoked and the balance are currently under supervision.
CHARACTERISTICS:
Profile details of this group of 31 offenders were examined to see if they were consistent with the details of the Home Detention group as a whole (see HD FACT SHEET: Offender Profile to 17 October 1997) and with details of offenders revoked. Details of age, gender and ethnicity and accommodation were not significantly different. Other areas of comparison are outlined below.
Offending Pattern
The details of current and prior offending for the members of this group are broadly similar to those of all detainees. The only significant contrast noted was in the proportion of each group having a "most serious offence" in the "Theft" category: 35% for offenders completing their term vs. 48% for all detainees. This contrast is even more marked with those who have been revoked (35% vs. 62%). Several other significant differences are noted when comparison is limited to detainees who have been revoked. Those detainees were substantially more likely than offenders completing the program to: a) have been charged with multiple counts or multiple offences (91 % vs. 58%) b) have prior drug convictions (77% vs. 45%) c) have prior theft convictions (82% vs. 42%) d) have been committed to either full-time imprisonment or Periodic Detention (68% vs. 52%)
2
Employment
Offenders completing the program were much more likely to have been employed than detainees as a whole. Only 32% of detainees entering the program have been employed but 58% (18) of the 31 offenders considered in this report were employed at the outset and a further 2 gained full-time employment during the course of supervision. Another member of this group, employed as a spray painter under New Start, upgraded his skills by completing a T AFE Course in panel beating.
The contrast in the area of employment is again more marked in comparison to those revoked. Only 3 of22 (14%) of those revoked were employed at the outset and 1 of these lost her part-time job due to erratic performance.
Drug and Alcohol Abuse
This is by far the most common issue among all home detainees with 69% reporting a problem in this area. This is about equally split between alcohol and other drugs but there is a high incidence of poly-drug abuse. The group completing Home Detention includes 78% having a current or past D&A problem but among those revoked this grows to over 90%. It does not appear that those completing were any more likely than those revoked to have participated in a program addressing their D&A problems.
Positive Achievements
During their period of Home Detention supervision, 20 of these offenders maintained or gained employment. The 2 gaining employment are both noteworthy. The first is a 36 year old male sole parent. After a lengthy history of drug abuse and criminal involvement, he is now stable on methadone. When he came on Home Detention he and his three children were supported by a pension. He sought and obtained a job as well as attending D&A Counselling during his supervision. Another offender entered the program with literacy and job skill deficits and a history of cannabis use. He completed short programs at an Attendance Centre to improve his ability to resist drug use and to build his literacy. Through a local employment program he completed an introduction to computers and a fork lift operators course. The qualification obtained through the latter led to a full-time job.
Many of these offenders used the opportunity provided by Home Detention to address significant issues in their lives. A wide range of community based resources were utilised by the 17 detainees engaged in a counselling or educational program. Attendance Centre or other Probation and Parole programs were used by 10 of these offenders. While the problem area addressed was most frequently substance abuse, other offenders sought help with job skills deficits, literacy and psychological problems.
3
Home Detention enabled 7 of these offenders to continue their parental responsibilities. These responsibilities were shared by 4 male offenders with a partner, but 2 female and 1 male detainee were sole parents. The ability of one detainee to remain available for parenting duties was of particular benefit when a daughter from a prior relationship was allegedly sexually assaulted by his ex-wife's boyfriend. The offender was able to bring this child to live with him and his current partner.
The benefits to health from enforced sobriety have been noted by a number of detainees. In one case an offender, whose liver function had tested at a highly unacceptable and dangerous level shortly before entering the program, had dramatically improved by the expiry of the order. This tangible result motivated this individual to continue counselling and abstaining from alcohol even after his obligation was complete.
CONCLUSION:
The characteristics of the offenders considered here are broadly similar to the overall profile of home detainees. Some significant differences appear in comparisons between those who have completed the program and those who have been revoked. These differences may ultimately contribute to improved assessment of suitability and a clearer focus for case management practice.
Home Detention has been structured to promote positive change while it constrains the liberty of those under supervision. The data outlined here suggest that this objective is being actively pursued.
For further information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289-1477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: OFFENDER PROFILE 21 FEBRUARY 1997 - 20 FEBRUARY 1998
INTRODUCTION:
This paper describes characteristics of offenders admitted to the Home Detention Program during its first year of operations. Data previously published in profiles compiled in May and October 1997 is incorporated. Similar data was collected during the evaluation of the Intensive Community Supervision (ICS) trial (a precursor to Home Detention) and comparisons are made where relevant.
ADMISSIONS:
The number of offenders admitted to Home Detention between 21 February 1997 and 20 February 1998 is 177. Of that number, 56 successfully completed their term, 34 were revoked, 87 were still under supervision and 1 offender died before his term of supervision was complete.
HDTERM:
The average aggregate term of Home Detention for these offenders was 6.1 months. The terms varied from 2 months (2 offenders) to 12 months (23 offenders). The most common term imposed was 6 months (56 offenders). An additional term was imposed on 31 offenders. The average Home Detention term has remained stable through all three surveys. At approximately 6 months it is consistent with experience during the ICS trial and with the average custodial sentences imposed by Local Courts.
CURRENT OFFENCES:
A significant majority of all offenders (110 of 177) admitted to Home Detention were before the Court for multiple charges. This characteristic was even more pronounced (30 of 34) among offenders whose Home Detention Order had been revoked.
Considering only the most serious offence, the most numerous category is Theft (76 offenders: 16 Breaking and Entering, 28 Fraud, 6 Unlawful Possession, 8 Larceny of Motor Vehicle, 2 Possess Implements to Enter Motor Vehicle, 16 Other Larceny). Other categories were: Driving (69 offenders: 9 Cause Death or Injury by Driving, 28 PCA, 1 Refuse Breath Test, 2 Drive Manner Dangerous, and 29 Drive While Disqualified or Cancelled); Robbery (1 offender); Against the Person (5 offenders: 3 Assault, 1 Affray,
- 2 -
1 Use Telecommunications to Menace); Drugs (20 Offenders: 18 Supply!Cultivate! Manufacture Prohibited Drug; 2 Possession); Breach AVO (4 offenders) and single instances of Escape Lawful Custody and Use Fabricated Evidence. For 39 of these offenders one or more of the matters before the Court at the time Home Detention was imposed was a breach of recognizance, breach of a Community Service Order or cancellation of a Periodic Detention Order.
PRIOR OFFENCES:
Contrary to past experience in the Intensive Community Supervision (ICS) trial which preceded Home Detention, a significant number (23) of these offenders appear to have no prior convictions. It was further noted that 13 of the 23 were female offenders. This raises some concern that the availability of Home Detention may invite an escalation to a sentence of imprisonment in lieu of other community-based options. This concern is somewhat offset by the fact that 13 of the 23 were dealt with for more serious offences or on appeal before the District Court.
Another 17 offenders appear to be relative newcomers to the criminal justice system. The remainder had a significant history of prior offending generally consistent with the offences for which they were now before the Court. Representation across the most significant offence categories noted was: Theft - 90 offenders; Driving - 97; Drugs - 69 and Against Person - 38. Offenders who have been revoked (34) had a substantially higher incidence of prior records for Drugs (23 offenders), Theft (28 offenders) and Against Person (14 offenders).
PRIOR PENAL TIES:
While 40 offenders were admitted to Home Detention having experienced no penalty more serious than a fine or unsupervised recognizance, nearly half (84) had experienced full or part time incarceration. One third (59) had served a period of full-time confinement while 48 had been subject to Periodic Detention. Community Service Orders and supervised recognizances have been experienced by 81 and 101 respectively.
The 34 offenders revoked experienced each of the above penalties at a significantly higher rate than the group as a whole.
Offenders admitted to Home Detention ranged in age from 18 to 66. The average age was 31. Average age of offenders on Home Detention has been consistently higher than experienced in the ICS trial (26 - 27). This difference would in part be explained by the extension of Home Detention to District Courts in which the average age of offenders dealt with is somewhat higher than in the Local Courts to which ICS was limited.
- 3-
GENDER:
To date, 139 males and 38 females have been admitted to Home Detention. The proportion of females admitted has remained steady at (21 %) since our survey of admissions up to October 1997. This is a higher proportion of female offenders than reported in the evaluation ofICS (16%). In comparison, approximately 5.5% of offenders serving terms of full-time custodial confinement are female. When, however, consideration is limited to inmates who would have been eligible for Home Detention, the female proportion increases to 7.7%. The still significant difference between female representation on Home Detention and in inmate populations emphasises the necessity to differentiate between men and women when assessing the diversionary or net-widening impact of Home Detention.
ETHNICITY:
The ethnic mix of offenders on Home Detention continues to reflect the diversity of our society. A significant proportion (14%) of detainees are migrants or the children of migrants from non-English speaking countries or from countries with significantly different cultural backgrounds. Numbers from anyone of these groups were not significant.
The number of Aboriginal offenders admitted (7 male and 5 female) is significant. The representation of Aboriginal males (5%) and Aboriginal females (13%) among the male and female detainee populations is well below their representation in the respective inmate population (14% and 17.2%). Reasons for this anomaly are not entirely clear. Some difference is expected as a greater proportion of the Aboriginal inmate population comes from outside the Home Detention catchment area than is true of the general inmate population (50% vs. 30%). It is also noted that a greater proportion (35% vs. 28%) of Aboriginal inmates are imprisoned for offences excluded from Home Detention.
EMPLOYMENT:
Over one third of detainees have held full-time (52) or part-time (10) jobs. In some instances the practical difficulties in monitoring offenders in their regular form of employment has made it necessary for them to change jobs or adjust their work practice. In one case an offender faced with a 3-month term, could not readily make such adjustment and elected to take 3 months leave without pay.
Primary child care responsibilities occupied 33 offenders of whom 6 were male. Another 2 male offenders received a carer's pension in respect to aged parents.
One offender was engaged in full-time TAFE studies. Another is a full-time housewife whose children are grown. Fourteen offenders were on sickness or disability benefits, one was on Workers' Compensation and 2 were receiving the Age Pension. The balance (66) were unemployed.
It is noteworthy that offenders whose orders were revoked, had a much higher proportion (19 of 34) of their number unemployed.
- 4-
PROBLEM AREAS:
The majority (128 offenders) of these detainees have a history of abuse of alcohol (73 offenders) and/or other drugs (77). Of the latter group, 25 offenders were on methadone. There is a high incidence of poly-drug abuse and only 49 offenders have no reported history of drug or alcohol problems. It is not surprising given the strict monitoring of the "no drink - no drugs" conditions of Home Detention, that all 24 of 34 Home Detention revocations to date have involved consumption of either alcohol or drugs. It is further noted that 31 of the 34 offenders revoked, had acknowledged a history of substance abuse.
Employment was the next most prevalent problem area (66 offenders unemployed) while relatively small numbers of offenders acknowledged problems with literacylbasic education, financial management, gambling and mental or physical health.
This pattern has remained constant through all three Home Detention profiles compiled and is consistent with experience in the ICS trial.
ACCOMMODATION:
Parents provided accommodation for 57 of these offenders. Another 67 resided with a partner and 40 of these also had children in the home. There were also 22 sole parents living with their children and 29 offenders living by themselves, with relatives or with unrelated flatmates. One offender resided at an inpatient rehabilitation program while on the program.
SUMMARY:
The picture presented of the "typical" home detainee has changed little over the three surveys and remains substantially similar to that presented by offenders on ICS, but some differences are apparent. Detainees are often older, are more likely to be female, and are less likely to have a significant prior offence history. In part these differences may flow from the introduction of Home Detention at the District Court level where the seriousness of matters before the Court may more frequently lead to imprisonment of first offenders. These trends will be monitored closely to determine whether there are implications for the diversionary aim of Home Detention. Other Fact Sheets will examine the characteristics of female and Aboriginal detainees in more detail and will look at significant features of detainees who have been revoked, or who have successfully completed their term.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, NSW., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289 1477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: UTILISATION BY COURTS FEBRUARY 1997 - FEBRUARY 1998
INTRODUCTION
To 20 February 1998,9 District Courts and 34 Local Courts within the Horne Detention (HD) catchment area have referred 246 offenders for assessment. Ofthese, 177 (72%) have corne under supervision on a Horne Detention Order (HDO). The attached table shows Total Persons Assessed, Number of Persons placed on HD, Number of Assessments Not Leading to HDO and Percentage of assessments leading to an HDO for each Court. For comparison purposes the right-hand column gives an estimate of the number of eligible offenders likely to have been dealt with by each Court based on review of 1996 Court statistics. The projections for cost effectiveness of HD are based on diversion of 15 to 20% of eligible offenders. Several Courts already appear to be diverting offenders at the targetted rates but substantially greater use of this option by most Courts is required ifHD is to be a cost-effective option.
DISTRICT COURTS
All District Courts in the area, bar Gosford, have referred at least 1 case for HD assessment. Sydney District Court has referred 16 cases, Wollongong 8 and Penrith 5. These Courts appear to be using this option at about the targetted rate. More referrals would have been expected from Campbelltown and Parramatta.
District Courts have imposed HDOs on 35 offenders. In 8 cases the orders were made in respect of matters heard on appeal from sentences imposed by Local Courts. In another 5 cases the HDO was imposed in respect of the balance of a term of imprisonment to be served following cancellation of a Periodic Detention Order.
In those 22 cases where District Courts imposed a HDO when first dealing with a matter, the most serious offences were as follows:
• Drugs (supply, cultivate, manufacture): 8 offenders • Culpable Driving (Occasioning Death or Grievous Bodily Harm): 7 offenders • Fraud: 5 offenders • Robbery: 1 offender • Break, Enter and Robbery: 1 offender
-2-
(Distribution of offenders by most serious offence type for all detainees may be seen for comparative purposes in the "FACT SHEET: Offender Profile 21 February 1997 to 20 February 1998").
The proportion of females (40%) among offenders receiving HDOs at the District Court level is markedly higher than the proportion of females among all detainees (21 %). This difference is even more marked if one considers only the female proportion (45%) among detainees where the District Court imposed HD as part of the original sentence in the matter.
LOCAL COURTS
Assessments have been received from 26 Local Courts. Referrals have been made on more than one occasion by 23 of these Courts.
Parramatta Local Court has been one of the most regular users of HD since the Act came into force. This may, in part, be explained by the experience of that Court as a participant in the Intensive Community Service trial which preceded HD. Although Parramatta has referred the most offenders to HD, the Courts on the Central Coast appear to be making the greatest use of this option in proportion to their past history of imprisonment.
A number of Local Courts which have historically imprisoned significant numbers of offenders have made limited or no referrals for HD assessment. The table highlights those Courts which might have been expected to make greater use of this option by showing actual usage together with an estimate from sentencing records of the numbers of offenders meeting the basic eligibility criteria for HD who were imprisoned during 1996.
CONCLUSION
The substantial disparity in usage rates between Courts of similar size and sentencing pattern merits further study. It will be important to determine whether low usage rates are attributable to lack of familiarity, lack of acceptability of certain aspects of HD or some other cause. A substantial increase in the number of cases referred in March 1998 following publication of an article on HD in the February Law Society Journal, suggests that lack of familiarity is at least part of the problem.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone: (02) 9289-1477
HOME DETENTION Assessments for Courts 21 February 1997 to 20 February 1998
No. of %of Estimate of Eligible Total persons No. of persons DISTRICT COURTS Assessments not Assessments offenders based on Assessed placed on HO leading to HOO leading to HOO 1996 Court Statistics
Sydney 16 14 2 87 71 Wollongong 8 8 0 100 14 Penrith 5 4 1 80 14 Parramatta 3 3 0 100 26 Newcastle 3 2 1 67 14 Campbelltown 2 2 0 100 31 r---- Liverpool 2 1 1 50 12 Gosford 0 0 0 - 6 East Maitland 1 1 0 100 4
LOCAL COURTS
Parramatta 37 27 10 73 280 -- Wyong 19 13 6 68 48 Gosford 19 12 7 63 56 WoyWoy 11 7 4 64 22 Campbelltown 11 6 5 54 182 Liverpool 11 6 5 54 142 Bankstown 10 8 2 80 54 Waverley 10 6 4 60 137 Downing Centre 10 5 5 50 108 Sutherland 9 7 2 78 176 Cessnock 7 6 1 86 49 Burwood 7 4 3 57 295 Newcastle 6 6 0 100 137 '------Maitland 6 5 1 83 65 ------Penrith 6 5 1 83 142 ------Balmain 5 5 0 100 49 -- 11 North Sydney 4 3 1 75 -_._------Wollongong 4 1 3 25 100 ------Newtown 3 3 0 100 46 Camden 3 1 2 33 17 Ryde 2 2 0 100 31 ._---- Raymond Terrace 2 1 1 50 38 Hornsby 1 1 0 100 102 .-r------.------Belmont 1 100 76 1 0 ._------Blacktown 1 1 0 100 209 Wallsend 1 0 1 0 50 Central 0 0 0 0 302 Fairfield 0 0 0 0 209 Kogarah 0 0 0 0 38 Manly 0 0 0 0 49 Redfern 0 0 0 0 26 St. James 0 0 0 0 2 Port Kembla 0 0 0 7 0 ------Kurri Kurri 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 246 177 69 72 3449
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: ASSESSMENT RESULTS - OTHER THAN HOME DETENTION
Approximately 28% of offenders referred for assessment of suitability do not come under Home Detention (HD) supervision. This paper explores what happens to these offenders and why. It is based on a group of 69 offenders considered by the Courts from February 1997 through February 1998.
OFFENDERS ASSESSED AS SUITABLE
Despite being assessed as suitable 11 offenders referred for assessment have not come under HD supervision. Home Detention Orders (HDOs) were made in respect of2 of these but did not come into operation as the offenders were in custody on other matters throughout the period of their order. Another offender failed to appear on the scheduled return date and a warrant of commitment was issued. In another instance the Judge considering the matter after an offender was assessed as suitable, nevertheless declined to grant a HDO.
HD was granted to 8 offenders who nevertheless appealed against their sentences on severity grounds and were bailed. One of these has since been placed on HD for a reduced term by the appellate Court. In three other cases the Court has substituted non-custodial penalties (Periodic Detention, a recognizance and a $500 fine). The remaining four have not been finalised and may yet come under HD supervision at the conclusion of the appeal process.
INELIGIBLE OFFENDERS
Although extensive efforts were made to insure that Courts were aware of the eligibility criteria in order to minimise unwarranted referrals, 11 offenders were referred for assessment who were found to be ineligible due to the nature of their current offence (6 offenders) or the nature of their prior offence history (5 offenders). It is assumed that the Courts applied the eligibility criteria themselves to exclude a significant number of other offenders in both categories.
Consent of the offender is a prerequisite for a HDO and 6 offenders were ineligible due to their refusal to consent. Such refusal - in the face of sentences of up to 6 months imprisonment - is testimony to the perceived rigorousness ofHD.
-2-
UNSUITABLE OFFENDERS
Probation and Parole Officers assessed 41 offenders as unsuitable for HD. In 8 cases officers cited risk of harm to others or concerns about violence as the basis for their recommendation. The most common (19 offenders) reason for unsuitability was insufficient motivation, generally manifested by a lack of co-operation with the demands of the assessment process and a reluctance to face problem areas. Inability or unwillingness to arrange suitable domestic arrangements was the stumbling block for 9 offenders. Another offender was unwilling to give up employment in a job where he could not properly be monitored and 2 committed fresh offences while undergoing the assessment process. Failure to adequately address a long-standing drug problem made 1 offender unsuitable and another absconded during the assessment process.
The further evaluation of HD will attempt to identify any characteristics which may be related to a determination of unsuitability. Initial analysis based on gender and offence type has revealed no significant difference. Females comprise 17% of those assessed as unsuitable compared with 21 % of those admitted to Horne Detention. Likewise, Theft (56%) and Driving (27%) convictions predominated among offenders deemed unsuitable as they did among offenders admitted (43% and 39% respectively).
DISPOSITION OF INELIGIBLE OR UNSUITABLE OFFENDERS
Faced with the reports of ineligibility or unsuitability in the above cases, the Courts proceeded as specified in the Act. In 3 cases where offenders failed to appear the Courts issued warrants. Where the offenders were before the Court the original sentence of imprisonment was confirmed in all cases.
CONCLUSION
Although a significant proportion of assessments did not result in entry into the HD Program the figures above do not cause concerns about the application of the assessment process. Considering only those found to be unsuitable, the proportion of all assessments falls from 28% to 16%.
It is further noted that the largest group of those considered unsuitable were deemed so due to insufficient motivation. In most such cases the offenders - while expressing nominal consent to the conditions of Horne Detention - demonstrated during the assessment period an unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities for personal change the Program would have afforded. Many of these cases - as with those who refused consent or refused to make required adjustments to their lifestyle - may be seen as testimony to the demanding nature of the Program.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, NSW., 2000. Telephone (02) 92891477.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: HOME DETENTION REVOCATIONS 11 NOVEMBER 1997 TO 20 FEBRUARY 1998
INTRODUCTION:
Together with earlier Fact Sheets dealing with Home Detention revocations to 10 July 1997 and 10 November 1997, this paper gives brief details of all detainees revoked during the first full year of Home Detention operations. It provides in addition, some discussion of overall trends and considers what interim conclusions may be derived from experience to date.
REVOCATIONS: a. Ms S.1.T. was placed on a four month Home Detention Order on 29 August 1997 at Sydney District Court on appeal with regard to a conviction for Larceny. The order was backdated to 21 July 1997 to allow credit for time served in custody. The order was to expire on 20 November 1997.
The offender is a young Aboriginal woman with small children. She has a lengthy history of shoplifting and cannabis use. Family members helped with child care responsibilities during her time in custody and while she was working during her Home Detention supervision.
Concerns about the offender's co-operation with electronic monitoring and possible cannabis use led to a formal warning being issued on 24 October 1997 that further breaches would lead to a recommendation that her Home Detention Order be revoked.
On the morning of 15 November 1997 an alarm was raised by the electronic monitoring system. A home visit failed to elicit a response. Contact with family members shed no light on her whereabouts but raised concerns about her safety. A cousin visiting her premises earlier had been unable to get a response but noticed a gas jet burning on the stove. Given these concerns and in consultation with the family, Police and Fire Brigade assistance was called for. Entry was gained with their assistance but the offender was not found. While in the premises the supervising officer noted a "bong" and several bottles of beer.
2
Subsequently contact was not renewed with Ms T until 8: 10 PM that day when she paged the supervising officer. In the subsequent phone conversation the offender gave no valid explanation for her absence.
A breach report seeking revocation of the Horne Detention Order was submitted on 17 November 1997. The Parole Board revoked the order on 18 November 1997, but declined to issue a warrant in view of the limited time left to serve. b. Mr lA.P. was placed on a three month Horne Detention Order at Woy Woy Local Court on 16 September 1997 for breach of an Apprehended Violence Order.
The offender is an Aboriginal male who had broken off his relationship with the former partner who had obtained the order in question. Problems of alcohol and cannabis use were identified and he had also agreed to attend a mens' group dealing with domestic violence issues.
A curfew violation was noted on 2 October 1997 and made the subject of a warning letter. In November 1997 single instances of cannabis and alcohol use were recorded and a final warning was issued. On 1 December 1997 he was several hours late returning home from work without acceptable explanation. A breach report was submitted to the Parole Board on 2 December 1997. The Board considered the matter on 3 December 1997, revoked the Home Detention Order with effect from 2 October 1997 and directed the issue of a warrant. The supervising officer liaised with local Police who executed the warrant at 8:30 PM on the day of revocation. c. Offender TT was placed on Horne Detention for six months at Wyong Local Court on 13 November 1997 with respect to conviction for Stealing (x17), Obtain Benefit By Deception (x6) and Possess Implement Capable of Entering a Conveyance.
On 5 and 7 December 1997, the offender absented himself from his horne for short periods without prior approval. T.T was warned on both occasions of the consequences of breaching his order, and was advised after the second occurrence that further sanctions were under consideration. On 13 December 1997, T.T. was absent when his supervising officer made a home visit at 1 :45 PM. Although he arrived back home within 10 minutes, he had not sought permission for this absence. On the evening of the same day an electronic monitoring alarm indicated the offender was not at home. This was confirmed by the offender's father. Efforts to contact TT continued without success through Sunday 14 December 1997.
A report was submitted to the Parole Board on 15 December 1997 recommending revocation. On 18 December 1997 the Parole Board considered the matter, revoked the Home Detention Order and directed that a
3
warrant be issued. Supervising officers maintained liaison with the local Police and the offender's family until the warrant was executed on 25 December 1997.
d. Offender A.M.P. was committed to Horne Detention for 6 months on 11 December 1997 by Gosford Local Court with respect to a conviction for HPCA. He was, on the same occasion placed on a 4 year recognizance with Probation and Parole supervision with respect to a related charge of DWD. This 31 year old offender has had a history of alcohol abuse and had agreed to participation in AA meetings as part of his Horne Detention Program.
On 15 December 1997 he returned horne late from work without prior contact with his supervising officers and was given a verbal warning. At 2: 10 AM on 24 December 1997, his supervising officer visited the offender's horne in response to an electronic monitoring alarm. Although he was at horne at the time of this visit, the offender gave a positive reading when breath-tested for alcohol. A further electronic alarm occurred on the evening of the 24th. The supervising officer again responded to the residence at 10:30 PM and found no one at horne. The offender did not resume contact until 8:58 AM on Christmas morning and could give no satisfactory explanation for his absence from the horne or his failure to contact his supervising officer.
The matter was referred to the Parole Board on 29 December 1997 with a recommendation that the Order be revoked. The Board convened by tele-conference on 30 December 1997 and revoked the order. A warrant was issued the same day and forwarded by courier to the NSW Police Service for expedited entry on their computer system. Following revocation the supervising officer liaised with local Police and subject was taken into custody on the morning of 31 December 1997. e. Offender P.C.M. was committed to Horne Detention with respect to a minimum term of 9 months following conviction for Larceny MV (x 2) and DWD on 20 October 1997 at Liverpool District Court. This sentence also had an additional term of 3 months. This 19 year old offender was in full-time employment. Although he had a history of drink related driving offences, he was not assessed as having a present problem of alcohol abuse.
In the early days of his supervision some problems had been experienced with this offender's response to electronic monitoring. As there was some ambiguity in the instructions he was given the benefit of the doubt.
On 28 December 1997 the supervising officer sought to inspect the offender's electronic monitoring tag and found that it was not being worn. When presented by the offender it was obvious that the strap had been cut. The offender's tag was re-fitted with a replacement strap to allow continued monitoring pending revocation action.
4
As with the preceding case, this was reported to the Parole Board which revoked the order via tele-conference on 30 December 1997. Subject was apprehended on 31 December 1997.
f. Offender B.A.W. was placed on Home Detention for a period of 6 months on 13 October 1997 at Wyong Local Court in respect of convictions for Refuse Breath Test, Contravene AVO, Assault (x 2) and Assault Police. This 34 year old offender has been reluctant to accept that he has a problem with alcohol associated with his pattern of offending. He has also been resistant to some of the restrictions placed on him in the Home Detention Program. He was the subject of a briefing note dated 19 November 1997 concerning constraints placed on his employment. This note followed enquiries to the Minister's office made through his parliamentary representative.
On two occasions prior to Christmas, Mr. W. had tested positive for alcohol. Despite this he continued to deny that he had a problem controlling his drinking. He was formally warned of the consequences of further breaches of his Home Detention conditions.
On 28 December 1997, Mr. W. was involved in a domestic dispute with his current partner. This came to light due to facial injuries sustained by the offender requiring overnight hospitalisation. Hospital staff reported the offender seemed to have been drinking and, when interviewed, the offender admitted to having consumed alcohol.
The above breach was reported to the Parole Board which revoked the order on 30 December 1997. Mr W. was apprehended on the ensuing warrant on 31 December 1997. g. Offender J.M. was placed on Home Detention at Liverpool Local Court on 24 December 1997 with respect to an aggregate sentence of six -months imprisonment to-date from 1 December 1997 for Take and Drive Conveyance, Possess Implements and Assault Police. Subject was remanded in custody during the Home Detention assessment period.
This 19-year-old offender was not known to have had a juvenile offending history but had been subject to Periodic Detention and Probation Supervision as an adult with respect to convictions for property and driving offences.
On 5 January 1998 an electronic monitoring alarm was received at 11:45 PM. Telephone contact with the offender's family confirmed that he had left the home. Further conversation with family members during a visit to the residence shortly after midnight revealed that the offender had left home at 9:00 PM and had not indicated where he was going.
The supervising officer submitted a report to the Parole Board recommending revocation of the Home Detention Order. As the Board was not scheduled to
5
convene again until 13 January 1998, the Board secretary was contacted and a request was made that the Board convene a meeting by tele-conferencing to expedite consideration of this matter. This occurred on 9 January 1998 and subject's order was revoked.
In the meantime, on the afternoon of 6 January 1998, J.M. was arrested and charged with a fresh offence of shoplifting. The supervising officer advised the arresting Police of the pendency of revocation proceedings. The offender was held in custody and appeared at Liverpool Local Court on 7 January 1998. The supervising officer also attended and liaised with the Police Prosecutor. Bail was refused and the matter was adjourned until 14 January 1998. The warrant issued following revocation of his Home Detention Order was served on him in custody.
h. Offender G.M. was placed on Home Detention for three months on 26 November 1997 at Liverpool Local Court with respect to convictions for Stealing and Dispose of Stolen Property.
This 23 year old offender had a long-standing history of drug abuse which had not previously been addressed. Attendance at drug and alcohol counselling was a central feature of his case management plan.
As a result of several instances of late return from authorised absences the offender was formally warned of the consequences of a further breach on 29 December 1997.
On 31 December 1997 he again was late returning without adequate excuse. When interviewed he further admitted having used drugs on two occasions. Results received 2 January 1998 of a drug test on a urine sample given on 18 December 1997, confirmed a third instance of drug use.
A breach report seeking revocation was submitted to the Parole Board on 6 January 1998. The Board revoked the Home Detention Order and issued a warrant on 10 January 1998 and the offender was arrested on the evening of the same day.
1. Offender M.A. was placed on Home Detention for four months on 1 December 1997 at Parramatta Local Court with respect to a breach of a recognizance and a further conviction for shoplifting.
This 25 year old offender remained in custody on remand during the Home Detention assessment period. Due to his long-standing and as yet unresolved problem of drug abuse (primarily heroin), he was unwelcome in his parental home. It was considered that the only appropriate basis for his entry on Home Detention would be admission to a residential drug treatment facility. He was accepted at Odyssey House for their assessment phase upon release from custody and he remained there until 17th January 1998 when he was asked to leave for not complying with the requirements of the program. As subject's drug problems remain unresolved, he is still unwelcome in his parents' home
6
and he has no suitable alternative accommodation, a report was submitted to the Parole Board on 19 January 1998 recommending revocation. The Board directed revocation of the Home Detention Order and issuance of a warrant on 20 January 1998. Liaison with offender's parents revealed that he had left their home and his whereabouts are unknown.
J. Offender P.P.K. was placed on Home Detention for a period of six months on 19 November 1997 at Wyong Local Court with respect to convictions for Drive Manner Dangerous and Drive Whilst Disqualified (x 2).
During her period of Home Detention this offender resided with her defacto partner and their 12 month old child. On two occasions (27 November and 8 December 1997) Ms. K. was the victim of abuse by her partner. In each instance she responded by leaving the shared accommodation. She reconciled some four days after the first incident and, as this instance did not raise issues of possible physical harm, no action was taken by the supervising officer. The second occasion, however, was alleged to have comprised a blow to her face which loosened a tooth. After again leaving the shared residence in professed fear for her own safety, the offender arranged alternative accommodation. (As she is subject to epileptic seizures she found a place adjacent to the residence of an aunt).
In view of the potential risk of further harm, it was determined that it would be inappropriate for the partner to again reside with the offender while she was on Home Detention. Accordingly, she was given a direction, which she accepted, to limit her contact with her former partner to that associated with child access.
On 22 December 1997 it was learned that Ms. K. and her partner had renewed their relationship to include overnight stays. Despite a further direction to the offender to ask her partner to leave, the partner was still on the premises during a home visit on the same night. On this occasion, apparently under the influence of alcohol, he was aggressive and abusive to the Home Detention Officer and prevented her entrance to the premises.
In an effort to resolve the situation the leader of the Maitland Home Detention Team interviewed the offender and partner and canvassed the concerns raised for the safety of both Ms. K. and the Home Detention Officers. An agreement was reached to allow a limited degree of regular contact between them subject to agreement by the partner to refrain from alcohol while there and to attend a program of relationship counselling. It was further agreed that the situation would again be reviewed at the end of January 1998.
On 19 January 1998 it was ascertained that Ms. K's partner was present outside the terms of the agreement. Ms. K. at that time also stated that she was unwilling to comply with the terms of the agreement and would not ask her partner to leave.
7
In the face of the offender's refusal to accept any reasonable direction in this matter and the continuing concerns for her safety, a report was submitted to the Parole Board on 22 January 1998 recommending revocation of her Home Detention Order. The Board revoked the order the same day and directed that a warrant be issued. The supervising officer liaised with local Police who placed her under arrest on 23 January 1998. Arrangements had in the meantime been made for care of her child by relatives.
k. Offender C. W.B. was placed on Home Detention for five months on 16 October 1997 at Bankstown Local Court with respect to a conviction for DWD.
This 31 year old offender had maintained steady employment and complied with the terms of his Home Detention Order without significant incident until the afternoon of 14 February 1998 when he was stopped by Police while operating a motor vehicle. As well as being charged with a fresh offence of DWD, he was charged with a variety of additional charges stemming from his presentation of a driver's licence in another name. Bail was refused and, during a subsequent hearing at Central Local Court on 15 February 1998, the offender sought to flee from the dock. A Corrections Officer was injured in the course of apprehending and subduing him.
The individual has had a history of manic depressive illness and information about this condition was passed to custodial officers by the supervising Home Detention Officer immediately after they were notified of his arrest.
A report was submitted to the Parole Board on 16 February 1998 recommending revocation. The Board revoked his Home Detention Order on 17 February 1998 and the warrant was lodged with custodial authorities.
1. Offender R.O.H. was placed on Home Detention at Bankstown Local Court on 8 October 1997 for six months, with respect to a conviction for DWD and a Breach of Recognizance (original offence PCA).
Subject had been warned on two occasions concerning failure to comply with curfew schedules and had been directed to undertake community service work as a sanction, after the second instance of non-compliance. On 12 February 1998, Mr H. was forty-five minutes late returning home from work. When visited at home at 11 :50 PM shortly after his return, the offender stated that he had stayed late to socialise with workmates. A breath test indicated consumption of alcohol and the offender admitted having consumed two beers.
A breach report was submitted on 16 February 1998. The Parole Board considered this on the following day, and directed that subject's Home Detention Order be revoked. A warrant was issued and Mr. H. was taken into custody on the evening of 17 February 1998.
8
m. Offender M.R.M. was placed on Home Detention on 23 December 1997 at Newcastle Local Court for a term of six months with respect to offences of DWD (x 2) and HPCA.
Subject complied satisfactorily until 17 February 1998, when he was found to have absented himself from an approved attendance at T AFE. During a subsequent home visit, he admitted having consumed alcohol and became verbally aggressive. As his supervising officer was leaving the premises the offender followed shouting aggressively. As the officer stood by his vehicle, the offender picked up a plastic chair and struck the vehicle with it causing minor damage.
During a follow-up visit to the offender's home the next morning, subject informed his officer that he had removed his electronic monitoring equipment but asked to have it reinstated.
The infliction of damage to the Departmental vehicle has been reported to Police and a report was submitted to the Parole Board on 18 February 1998 recommending revocation. The Board acted on this recommendation and revoked his order on 19 February 1998. He was taken into custody on the Board's warrant on the morning of20 February 1998.
DISCUSSION
The revoked detainees reported here are generally similar to those reported in the two earlier Fact Sheets. Use of alcohol or other drugs and breach of curfew (often combined) are the predominant reasons for revocation. In addition to those revoked for the above reasons, the group includes the second detainee revoked for failure to abide by directions regarding association and the first instance of revocation for tampering with electronic monitoring equipment. Also included is the first instance of an offender revoked directly as a result of arrest for a new offence.
There were 34 offenders revoked during the first year compared with 177 admitted to Home Detention. Given the stringent conditions, the rigorous monitoring by supervising officers and the extensive previous offending history of most detainees, this rate of revocation is unsurprising. It is at the low end of the range of breach rates reported by similarly strict overseas programs.
Despite the breaches of program rules leading to revocation, only 6 of these offenders are known to have re-offended during supervision. Further, 4 of these were driving offences (DWD) and in 2 of these instances the offence was discovered by and reported to Police by the supervising officer. The other two new offences were Shoplift and BES. It is also significant that 5 of these 6 new offences occurred coincidentally with or after breaches of program conditions which had or would have led officers to initiate revocation proceedings.
9
The handling of revocations continues to be expeditious. Typically,5 or less days elapse from the decision by supervising officers that revocation will be recommended until the detainee's arrest on the Parole Board's warrant. Only two such warrants are still outstanding.
Some unsurprising statistical differences are appearing between the profiles of revoked detainees and the profile of the group as a whole. Those revoked are more likely to have had a history of substance abuse (91 % vs. 72%) and to have been unemployed (55% vs, 37%). None were first offenders and a greater proportion of this group had experienced each of the major penalty types surveyed (full-time imprisonment, periodic detention, CSO and supervised recognizance). These differences, however, are not so marked as to provide clear indications of success of failure in particular cases.
As part of the overall evaluation of Horne Detention, structured interviews are being conducted with as many revoked detainees as possible. To date 30 have been interviewed. The research officer conducting the interviews has an extensive background as a welfare officer and a prison psychologist in NSW and the UK. The broad areas covered are the processes of Horne Detention, impacts on offenders and others, strictness of conditions and monitoring and personal response to the scheme. Detailed findings will be reported in the review of the first 18 months of Horne Detention to be tabled in Parliament in February 1999. Some significant trends in responses can already be noted:
• Most found the electronic monitoring calls a significant disruption to the household.
• Where supervising officers had found it necessary to intrude on personal relationships, detainees resented it even if they understood why it was necessary.
• Detainees had a strong perception that it would be very difficult to re-offend or commit a major breach of their conditions without being caught.
• In marked contrast to most imprisoned offenders, this group expressed a high degree of acceptance of responsibility for their failure on Horne Detention.
• These detainees did not blame their supervising officers for their revocation and they expressed a positive attitude about the program as a whole.
• They felt they had made significant personal gains despite their revocation and most would be prepared to accept Horne Detention again, if offered.
• Many noted that, despite some increased tensions resulting from enforced closeness, they had made major improvements in their interactions with other family members.
10
CONCLUSION
The experience of revocations in the first year of Home Detention confirms the effectiveness of the program in maintaining a rigorously monitored alternative to incarceration in a Correctional Centre. Standards can be seen to be strict without being arbitrary and, when failures occur, they are handled expeditiously. Many of those revoked have served a significant portion of their sentence in the community and often feel a sense of personal accomplishment despite a relapse leading to revocation. These revocations, therefore, do not indicate that Home Detention is not working but, rather, that it is working precisely as intended.
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, N.S.W., 2000. Telephone: (02) 9289-1477
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES PROBATION & PAROLE SERVICE HOME DETENTION PROGRAM
FACT SHEET: COMPLETIONS 21 FEBRUARY 1997 - 20 FEBRUARY 1998
INTRODUCTION:
In the year since the Home Detention Act 1996 came into force, 57 offenders have served a term of Home Detention (HD) without revocation. This paper examines salient features of this group and some notable outcomes.
This group includes 3 offenders whose HD term ended prematurely in circumstances that did not constitute a breach of their order. One offender who had served one month of a three month term, was imprisoned on charges pre-dating his Home Detention Order (HDO). Another offender tragically died, an apparent suicide, when he had only 4 weeks remaining of a 5 month term. A third appealed against a 6 month HD term but did not seek a stay of the order. He had served 2 ~ months of the term, when his appeal was successful and fines were imposed in lieu of the original sentence.
In this same period a total of 177 offenders have been admitted to HD. Of these, another 33 have been revoked. Another offender had his order revoked but this decision was rescinded by the Parole Board after review and he is included among the 57 offenders who have now completed their term. At the end of the year 87 offenders remained under supervision.
CHARACTERISTICS:
Profile details of this group of 57 offenders were examined to see if they were consistent with the details of the HD group as a whole (see HD FACT SHEET: Offender Profile to 17 October 1997) and with details of offenders revoked. Details of age, gender and ethnicity, employment and accommodation were not significantly different. Other areas of comparison are outlined below.
Offending Pattern
The details of current and prior offending for the members of this group are broadly similar to those of all detainees. Several significant differences are noted when comparison is limited to detainees who have been revoked. Those detainees were substantially more likely than offenders completing the program to have: a) been placed on HD for an offence in the "theft" category (53% vs. 42%) b) been charged with multiple counts or multiple offences (88% vs. 67%) c) prior drug convictions (65% vs. 42%) d) prior theft convictions (82% vs. 49%) e) been committed to either full-time imprisonment or Periodic Detention (62% vs. 47%)
- 2 -
Drug and Alcohol Abuse
This is by far the most common issue among all home detainees with 72% reporting a history of problems in this area. This is about equally split between alcohol and other drugs but there is a high incidence of poly-drug abuse. The group completing HD includes 68% having a current or past D&A problem but among those revoked this grows to over 90%.
Positive Achievements
During the term of their HDOs, 8 of these offenders obtained significant employment. Their earnings, together with those of the 20 members of the group who were employed from the commencement of their HD term, contributed to a lessening of Social Security expenditure, increases in available family income and the maintenance of tax revenues.
Abstinence from alcohol and other drugs has also had a marked impact on family financial circumstances. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the ability of detainees to make a significantly greater contribution can have a positive impact on their self esteem and relations with other family members.
Many of these offenders used the opportunity provided by HD to address significant issues in their lives. A wide range of community based resources were utilised by the 33 detainees engaged in a counselling or educational program. Attendance Centre or other Probation and Parole programs were used by 13 of these offenders. While the problem area addressed was most frequently substance abuse, (27 offenders) other offenders sought help with job skills deficits, literacy and psychological problems. Many offenders have benefited from multiple referrals and detainees as a group have gained a reputation with program providers for regular attendance and active participation. For those offenders not referred to external programs, the frequent contacts with their supervising officer provided an alternative source of counselling and support.
HD enabled 20 of these offenders to continue their parental responsibilities. These responsibilities were shared by 9 offenders with a partner or other family member, but 9 female and 2 male detainees were sole parents. The ability of one detainee to remain available for parenting duties was of particular benefit when a daughter from a prior relationship was allegedly sexually assaulted by his ex-wife's boyfriend. The offender was able to bring this child to live with him and his current partner. In addition, HD permitted another offender to maintain his role as carer for an ailing parent and another to care for her teenage son who was paralysed in an accident shortly after she commenced HD.
The benefits to health from enforced sobriety have been noted by a number of detainees. In one case an offender, whose liver function had tested at a highly unacceptable and dangerous level shortly before entering the program, had dramatically improved by the expiry of the order. This tangible result motivated this individual to continue counselling and abstaining from alcohol even after his obligation was complete.
- 3 -
CONCLUSION:
The characteristics of the offenders considered here are broadly similar to the overall profile of home detainees. They are, for the most part, people with significant sociological problems which have contributed to a recurring pattern of conflict with the law. Their achievement in completing terms of HD supervision confirms that many offenders who would otherwise be confined in a Correctional Centre, can be effectively managed in the community.
INFORMATION &LIBRARY SERVICES NSW DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES
For additional information about Home Detention contact Ken Studerus, Director Home Detention, Level 7, Roden Cutler House, 24 Campbell Street, Sydney, NSW., 2000. Telephone (02) 9289 1477.