18 September 2018
Imprisonment and recidivism inquiry Queensland Productivity Commission PO Box 12112 George St, Brisbane 4003
Dear Sir/Madam
Imprisonment and recidivism
The Balanced Justice Project is a campaign which aims to enhance the safety of all Queenslanders by promoting understanding of criminal justice policies that are effective, evidence-based and human rights compliant.
Balanced Justice involves a number of community groups, which work together to develop resources that promote community understanding around evidence-based, effective and human rights compliant criminal justice policies.
We attach eleven factsheets which discuss specific opportunities to improve Queensland’s criminal justice system, and to make our community safer.
In November 2014, Balanced Justice commissioned UQ economists Associate Professor Jacqueline Robinson and Dr Alexandra Bratanova to undertake an economic analysis of potential Queensland budget savings. We attach their report, which estimated redirecting funds from detention centres and other costly responses to criminal offending towards early intervention services could save the Queensland budget up to $263m to 2030.
We hope that these resources will be helpful for the Queensland Productivity Commission’s inquiry into imprisonment and recidivism in Queensland. We would be happy to discuss the content of these materials with the Commission, and I can be contacted on .
Yours sincerely,
James Farrell OAM Balanced Justice
www.balancedjustice.org
Crime statistics – the real picture
Although crime statistics can help to provide a police (i.e. fear of retribution or fear of giving picture of the current situation regarding crime, it is evidence), it is important to note that despite the important to understand the limitation of crime name, crime victim surveys are not surveys of statistics when interpreting them. victims of crime. Crime victim surveys are representative sample surveys of a defined Crime statistic sources population (usually the adult population) which can be used to obtain estimates of the prevalence of Information about crime trends in Australia comes certain types of crimes in the population and from two main sources – police statistics and crime estimates of the proportions of victims reporting victim surveys. these crimes to the police.4 As crime victim surveys measure both reported and unreported crimes, Police statistics count all the incidents recorded as these surveys have the potential to give a more crimes by the police during the year in each state accurate picture of the true prevalence of crime and territory. These statistics are generally than police statistics.5 However, in order for crime reported as incidence measures, that is, a count of victim surveys to accurately reflect the true crime reported crimes, usually presented as a rate situation, the sample surveys must be truly between the number of crimes and the number of representative of the population. people in the general population.1 National figures on a selection of important crimes are published by Is crime increasing? the Australian Bureau of Statistics in an annual report. Queensland Police statistics show that in Major crime victim surveys are conducted by the Queensland, between 2000 and 2011: Australian Bureau of Statistics and these surveys homicide rate fell by 56% ask people aged 15 years and over whether they assault rate fell by 10% have experienced particular crimes over the past 12 robbery rate fell by 39% months. Crime survey results are usually based on sexual assault rate fell by 31% prevalence measures, that is, the number of crime drug offence rate fell by 1%.6 victims, usually expressed as a percentage of people or households that experienced the crime, National crime statistics show that between 2000 regardless of the number of times victimised.2 and 2009, the national homicide rate fell by 39 per cent, the national robbery rate fell by 55 per cent, Reliability of crime statistics the national motor vehicle theft rate fell by 62 per cent and all forms of other theft fell by 39 per cent.7 The greatest weakness of police statistics is that not all crimes are reported to or recorded by the Crime victim surveys also show a decrease in police. There are only a few types of crimes where assault, robbery, break-in and malicious property virtually all the offences are reported to or damage rates between 2008-09 and 2011-12.8 discovered by police (e.g. motor vehicle theft, homicide).3 This means that the police statistics Therefore, considering the above, crime rates produced may not reflect the true crime situation. appear to be on the decline. While the anonymity associated with crime victim surveys helps to avoid some of the problems associated with the underreporting of crimes to
www.balancedjustice.org
Public perception assumptions about what is happening across the state. Despite the reality that crime rates are falling, it is a Therefore, to ensure that the community is properly commonly held view amongst Australians that crime informed, we believe that a crime statistics agency, is on the rise.9 The reason for this view can likely which is independent of police and government, be attributed to distorted, misrepresented or should be established in Queensland. This exaggerated facts on crime in the media and by agency’s role would be to monitor crime statistics politicians and the police.10 and crime recording practices, publish regular Although there are various ways that the media reports on crime trends, provide statistical abuse crime statistics, a common method is the information to the community and provide selective reporting of data. This usually involves independent advice to the government. comparing a period where the recorded crime rate is unusually low with a period where the crime rate is unusually high, resulting in a completely distorted References view on the ‘trend’ in crime rates.11 An obvious 1 Henderson, M,’ Australia Crime Trends’ (2012) 24(1) Legaldate 2 at 2. motivation for the manipulation of crime statistics is 2 As above. the increased public attention which such 3 Weatherburn, D, ‘Uses and Abuses of Crime Statistics’ (2011) November sensationalised statistics attract. (No. 153) Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice 1 at 3. 4 Politicians and police also engage in the selective As above at 2. 5 As above at 3. use of data, selective reporting of the facts and 6 Queensland Police Service, Reported Offence Rates July 1997 to June misleading commentary, in order to manipulate 2012, published at < crime statistics in a way which best suits their http://www.police.qld.gov.au/services/reportsPublications/> (28 March objectives. 12 Reasons for doing so may include the 2013). downplaying of certain statistics, or the bolstering of 7 Weatherburn, D, ‘Uses and Abuses of Crime Statistics’ (2011) November support for a proposed legislative reform. (No. 153) Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice 1 at 1. 8 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2011-12, Balanced Justice view published at < http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4530.0/> (28 March 2013); Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime Victimisation, Unlike New South Wales, Western Australia and Australia, 2008-09, published at South Australia, Queensland does not have an
www.balancedjustice.org
Detention and bail for children
Detention as a last resort The United Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules for the Whatever the reason, what is important is that any Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules) interventions will help to foster a young person’s 6 which outline the importance of nations establishing a desistance from crime. It has been found that the more set of laws, rules and provisions specifically applicable restrictive and intensive an intervention, the greater its to child offenders and with the administration of juvenile negative impact, with juvenile detention being found to (youth) justice being designed to meet the varying have the strongest criminogenic effect – that is, needs of child offenders, while protecting their basic increasing their involvement with crime rather than their 7 rights.1 The Beijing Rules and Article 37(b) of the United ability to desist and the younger a child is when first Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) detained, the more likely that they will come back into 8 also require that in juvenile justice, detention pending custody. trial must only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. Whenever Removal of principle of detention possible, detention pending trial should be replaced by as a last resort alternative measures, such as close supervision, The Queensland Government is currently reviewing the intensive care or placement with a family or in an youth justice system and has suggested that detention educational setting or home. 2 as a last resort could be removed as a principle for both Research supports this approach in relation to that adult and child offenders. children, namely that the criminal justice system should Firstly, this would place Queensland clearly in breach of recognise their inexperience and immaturity.3 Early international commitments. adolescence through to early adulthood is a peak period for brain development and consequently a period of Further, it would also risk criminalising young people by increased risk.4 Children, due to the continuing involving them in the detention system earlier than is development of the frontal lobes that does not culminate necessary. By using the most significant punishment until the early to mid-twenties, exhibit behavioural and early, the court has effectively played its “trump card” emotional deficits compared to adults. They have less and there is nowhere else to go after this other than to capacity for forward planning, delaying gratification and keep locking the young person up for longer and longer. for regulating impulse. Impulsivity is a commonly Since detention has not been shown to be effective in observed element in juvenile offending and raises preventing re-offending and is expensive to run (it costs questions as to the culpability of juveniles in relation to the Australian taxpayer approximately $237,980 per 5 criminal behaviour. year to imprison one young person), removal of the Minor offending by many young people may therefore principle of detention as a last resort would not seem to be the result of testing the boundaries of acceptable be of any benefit to the community, either in terms of behaviour through this developmental period. safety or cost effectiveness. Young people, particularly Alternatively, early brain development and socio- young women, completing a detention sentence have emotional and cognitive development can be severely also been identified at greater risk of homelessness on affected by inadequate or harmful parenting. While the release – which puts them at further risk of offending. majority of abused and neglected children do not offend, a significant number of children who do offend have had abusive, neglectful or inadequate parenting.
www.balancedjustice.org
Increasing remand of children in Reasons for not remanding children in particular in custody in Australia custody include: it is at odds with the presumption of innocence Since 2004, the number of juveniles in detention in (children held in remand report feeling isolated and Australia has been increasing.9 This is concerning for frustrated by the experience of being denied bail several reasons including: and held on remand; they feel as if they have the widespread use of remand in custody is already been found guilty12); inconsistent with the principle of detention as a last for those young people engaged in school or work, resort for juveniles it disrupts that and risks disengagement, again only a small proportion of young people remanded increasing the risk of re-offending; in custody are convicted and sentenced to a it may expose young people to negative custodial order influences13 - detention centres have been periods of detention represent missed opportunities described as ‘Universities of Crime’ where young to intervene in juveniles’ lives with constructive and people may know more about offending when they appropriate treatment.10 come out than when they went in. Queensland has a particularly poor record with over Breach of bail 70% of young people in detention on remand – about the highest in the country. The law relating to bail is slightly amended for children (10-16 year olds: in Queensland, a child is a person who Bail in Queensland has not yet turned 17 years for the criminal law.14). If any person fails to attend court or breaches a condition One way in which a person who is charged with an of their bail, then they can be arrested and brought back offence is brought before the court is by arrest and to court. This breach of bail or bail condition is a further charge. A decision is then made about whether the offence for adults which means that the court can person will be released into the community or kept in impose a fine or imprisonment for that breach but it is custody until their matter is dealt with by the court. If not an offence for children and so they cannot be they are released then this may be with or without bail. sentenced for this. In either case, however, the court The purpose of bail is to ensure the attendance at court can then decide not to grant bail again but order the of a person charged with a criminal offence while adult or child to remain in custody until their case is recognising international human right principles of the dealt with. right to liberty and presumption of innocence that The Queensland Government is reviewing the youth underpin the justice system. Further, given that bail is justice system and has suggested changes in relation to not to be used as a punitive measure, the objects should bail which would treat a child offender the same an adult reflect the fact that a person who has not been offender in that breach of bail would become an offence. convicted of an offence should not be imprisoned unless As noted above, this is contrary to accepted there is a good reason to do so11. international norms and does not take account of the Where bail is granted, the police or court may impose inexperience and immaturity of young people. conditions to ensure that while on release the person It is important to note that there is no evidence that will not: monitoring, arresting and detaining young people for commit an offence; or breaches of their bail condition reduces re-offending endanger anyone’s safety or welfare; or among juvenile offenders. 15 The more likely outcome of interfere with a witness or otherwise obstruct the a’ breach offence’ is the further criminalisation of the court matter. child and an increased likelihood of the child being
www.balancedjustice.org placed in custody, thereby further entrenching the child without any other support being provided to the young in the criminal justice system. person. Even if the young person does not contact their friends, it is likely their friends will try to contact them Young repeat offenders often face a number of and a breach is likely to occur. challenges in their lives which put them at greater risk of (re-) offending. By virtue of their youth and that the law Care needs to be taken to ensure that any bail generally (aside from the criminal law) does not conditions imposed are reasonable and are directly recognise that children are independent before the age relevant to the purposes of ensuring that the young of 18, there are many influences which affect their lives person attends court on the specified day and protecting and life situations over which they have no control and the community. 16 Charging young people with what can make no choices. might be termed “technical breaches” can create problems in the longer term to no-one’s benefit – as this An example of this is the issue of where a young person example from New South Wales shows: lives. Young people under 18 have difficulties in being able to rent in their own right. Sometimes the family In NSW a young girl was arrested for breaching a bail home is not a safe or viable place for the young person condition which required her to be home by 9.00 p.m. to be or the family relationships are in disarray and this She was arrested as she was making her way home may lead them to leave. Their access to a legitimate when the train pulled in at five minutes past nine. She income is also significantly reduced compared to an 18 spent at least a month in custody, even though when year old and therefore being able to pay rent and other convicted she did not receive a custodial sentence for life necessities, including food and travel, becomes the shoplifting charge. The young girl gave up her problematic. schooling after these events.17 If a young person is out of home for whatever reason and has no money, then involvement in offending Balanced Justice view behaviour becomes a potential consequence. This could be as simple as evading a fare on public transport. Available statistics and research suggest that detention They do not have the life skills or experience to know of a juvenile is generally ineffective as a deterrent to where they should go to seek help and often assume their re-offending.18 Therefore if the goal is to support that no-one would be interested in helping them anyway. young people and to reduce repeat offending, options which are likely to result in the increased detention of Similarly, even if a young person is on bail and at home, children are inappropriate. if the family is not able to support them adequately in terms, for example, of ensuring that they meet any bail The focus should instead be on: conditions or making sure they have the resources to addressing the issues that put children at risk of get to court, then they have limited ability or capacity to becoming offenders to start with, particularly repeat manage that situation and may well find themselves in offenders; and breach of bail. This is a particular concern for children diverting young people coming into contact with the on care and protection orders who are overrepresented criminal justice system as soon as possible. in the youth justice system.
Some bail conditions are particularly onerous for young people and can “set them up to fail”. To tell a young person they cannot associate with any of their friends, for example, or not to go to a certain place where young people meet is unrealistic. Young people are social beings and to isolate them for maybe weeks at a time is going to invite a breach of the condition – certainly
www.balancedjustice.org
277 References
www.balancedjustice.org
Indigenous overrepresentation in prisons
When the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths Factors that contribute to in Custody delivered its final report in 1991, it concluded that the high rate of Aboriginal deaths in Indigenous Overrepresentation prison stemmed from Aboriginal overrepresentation in Prison in prison.1 The reason for this overrepresentation was a combination of Aboriginal disadvantage, Disadvantage substance abuse and institutional bias in the criminal justice system.2 As identified in the Royal Commission report, one of the biggest factors contributing to The Royal Commission looked in detail at the overrepresentation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Islander people in prison is disadvantage. People communities and made recommendations about who are or have been in prison are typically from reducing and eliminating disadvantage.3 Following highly disadvantaged backgrounds and Aboriginal the Royal Commission report, Commonwealth, and Torres Strait Islander people are the most State and Territory Governments made a concerted disadvantaged group in Australia. effort to reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people imprisonment,4 yet their As a consequence of years of systemic racism and collective efforts have not met with much success.5 colonisation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are now plagued with high The Queensland Government published a response unemployment, lack of job prospects, lack of document outlining their intention to tackle each of economic or business opportunity, low incomes, the recommendations which were obligatory for dependence on government pensions and them to address.6 The growing police arrests, allowances, low home ownership, inability to prison population numbers and lack of application accumulate capital, greater school drop-out rates, of discretionary powers by police and courts is proof lower post school qualifications, and lower life of systemic failures by government agencies. This expectancy.9 coupled with a failure to fund sufficient secondary and tertiary service providers to deal with offending To gauge how this has all come about one must behaviours and put in place diversions from custody look at the detrimental impact laws have had upon is proof of little or no regard to not only the Royal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Commission’s recommendations but also the what were the requirements for social and Queensland Governments own response in 1992. economic inclusion in the Australian social landscape under those laws. For want of a better Statistics released in 2012 revealed that despite term this country’s legal system has been premised comprising only 2.5% of the Australian population, upon White Race Privilege.10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders constitute just over a quarter (27% or 7,982) of the total prison Substance abuse population.7 Furthermore, Aboriginal and Torres Substance abuse is another key contributing factor, Strait Islander youth account for approximately 50% with issues of substance abuse featuring of incarcerated children. 8 prominently in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.11
www.balancedjustice.org
As a response to the devastating effects of Mental health colonialism, including dispossession, and illness and death resulting from disease and confrontation, Another much overlooked factor is mental health alcohol has become somewhat of a panacea for within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s pain, communities and the relationship of mental health with many using it as a means of escape and problems with the social and economic solace.12 circumstances of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.18 An Aboriginal community worker commenting on the connection between drug and alcohol abuse A report published in the Medical Journal of and the high crimes rates in the Wilcannia Australia about the mental health of Indigenous community stated:13 Australians in Queensland prisons found that approximately 73% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait “Drug and alcohol use is one of the biggest factors. Islander men and 86% of Aboriginal and Torres I think there are lots of reasons for that. People Strait Islander women in prison had a mental drink to forget things, whether it’s sexual assault or disorder (i.e. depressive, anxiety, psychotic or domestic violence in their home. The only way they substance misuse disorders).19 This is compared are ever going to change drug and alcohol abuse is with 20% of the wider Australian community.20 to have counsellors living in the community, on the ground, for the people. Mental health is a huge These results highlight the critical mental health issue.” needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, particularly those who are incarcerated. The harmful effects of alcohol on the lives of Unfortunately, the National Indigenous Drug and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are Alcohol Committee recently reported on the lack of readily apparent, with Indigenous Australians opportunities that exist for Indigenous people to experiencing health and social problems resulting access appropriate treatment for mental disorders from alcohol use at a rate disproportionate to non- in custody.21 This means that mental health Indigenous Australians.14 The links between problems are likely to remain untreated and substance abuse and Aboriginal and Torres Strait continue to affect the individual on their return back Islander violence, suicide, offending and into the community; potentially placing these incarceration are widely recognised.15 Drug and individuals at greater risk of re-incarceration.22 alcohol abuse has also been shown to increase the risk of child neglect and abuse which in turn Racial bias increases the risk of juvenile involvement in crime,16 While the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths and a significant increase in the number of in Custody placed most of its emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children disadvantage and substance abuse in Aboriginal removed by State authorities from their families. communities as the principal reasons for Aboriginal The Bridges and Barriers report published by the overrepresentation in prison, it also highlighted a National Indigenous Drug and Alcohol Committee number of areas where, in its opinion, institutional acknowledged the critical need for new strategies to bias in the criminal justice system also played a address alcohol and other drug misuse to role.23 These areas included bias against significantly reduce the overrepresentation of Aboriginal offenders in the willingness of police to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in employ alternatives to arrest, lack of community- the prison system. 17 based alternatives to prison in rural communities,
www.balancedjustice.org inadequate funding of Aboriginal legal aid and the limited availability of non-custodial excessively punitive sentencing.24 sentencing options; the limited availability of rehabilitative However, there is disagreement as to whether programs; and institution bias in the criminal justice system a judicial and political perception of the continues to be a factor contributing to need for ‘tougher’ penalties. overrepresentation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in prisons. It has been stated by What needs to be done? some that whilst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were historically subject to Although it is important that the criminal justice discriminatory treatment by police and courts, there system does not operate in a manner which is is little evidence that racial bias in policing or the inherently discriminatory towards Aboriginal and courts currently plays a significant role in shaping Torres Strait Islander people, preventing this alone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander will not solve the problem of Indigenous 25 overrepresentation in prison. overrepresentation in prisons. Underlying factors which result in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander A 2007 study on this topic held that racial bias is not people coming into contact with the criminal justice the cause of overrepresentation in prison and that system must also be addressed. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants are more often sent to prison because they commit Therefore, while this has been said before, if the more serious offences, acquire longer criminal overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait records, and more frequently breach non-custodial Islander people in prison is to be reduced, the 26 sanctions. Consequently, it is suggested that the following must occur: focus should be on problems of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander substance abuse and the disadvantage experienced by economic disadvantage, rather than the workings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander the criminal justice system.27 people needs to end; drug and alcohol abuse by Aboriginal and While it continues to be debated whether explicit Torres Strait Islander people must be forms of racial bias exist in the criminal justice reduced (therefore, the reasons behind system, the reality is that the following changes substance abuse in Aboriginal and Torres have contributed to the increased use of Strait Islander communities must be imprisonment, which has particularly impacted on addressed); and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:28 the mental health needs of Aboriginal and lack of discretionary powers by police Torres Strait Islander people must also be officers; addressed (with adequate support being reinstatement of the Community made both within the community and Development Employment Programs; prisons). changes in sentencing law and practice; restrictions on judicial discretion; Justice Reinvestment changes to bail eligibility; There is a growing recognition of the pressing need changes in administrative procedures and to try new initiatives such as justice reinvestment.29 practices; Justice reinvestment refers to diverting funds that changes in parole and post-release would ordinarily be spent on keeping individuals in surveillance; prisons to communities with high rates of offending
www.balancedjustice.org and incarceration, giving those communities the capacity to invest in programs and services that prison’ (2010) 45(4) Australian Journal of Social Issues address the underlying causes of crime, thereby 559-576 at 560 reducing criminal behaviour and the rate of re- 3 Johnston 1991, Volumes 2 & 4 cited in Cronin, D, offending.30 The emphasis of justice reinvestment ‘Indigenous disadvantage, Indigenous governance and is on empowering the community, with the idea the notion of a treaty in Australia: An Indigenous being that the community dictates how the money perspective’ in Treaty: Let’s get it right! Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 2003 at 152 should be spent.31 4 Snowball, L and Weatherburn, D, ‘Indigenous overrepresentation in prison: The role of offender Addressing the symptoms of endemic criminal characteristics’ (September 2006) No. 99 Crime and behaviour is a far more suitable approach to dealing Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and with the effect of crime. A youth program in Logan Justice NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research at 1 City, Queensland, known as the Friday night Live at 5 As above Yugambeh (F.L.Y.) program, commenced 6 years 6 Queensland Government, Royal Commission into ago targeting at risk youth to divert them from Aboriginal Deaths in Custody : Queensland Government criminal behaviour. The result was an approximate response to the Royal Commission, 1992, Queensland. Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and drop in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth Islander Affairs, Published Brisbane, Qld : Dept. of crime by 17%. Unfortunately, the F.L.Y. program Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, has been unsuccessful in attracting government 1992. ISBN 072425191X funds as the precursor for being eligible for funding 7 Hudson, S, ‘Panacea to Prison? Justice Reinvestment was that the program had to be dealing with known in Indigenous Communities’ (2013) Centre for offenders. Independent Studies, Policy Monograph at 3 8 House of Representatives Standing Committee on [For more information on Justice Reinvestment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Doing see the Balanced Justice factsheet “Is Justice Time— Time for Doing: Indigenous Youth in the Criminal Justice System (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Reinvestment a good idea for Australia?”] June 2011) cited in in Hudson, S, ‘Panacea to Prison? Justice Reinvestment in Indigenous Communities’ (2013) The contributing factors identified above need to be Centre for Independent Studies, Policy Monograph at 5 tackled at the local community level, with genuine 9 Cronin, D, ‘Indigenous disadvantage, Indigenous involvement by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance and the notion of a treaty in Australia: An Indigenous perspective’ in Treaty: Let’s get it right! community members in key decision making. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, 2003 at 152; Adopting the justice reinvestment approach may be Weatherburn, D and Holmes, J, ‘Re-thinking Indigenous a way of ensuring that this occurs. overrepresentation in prison’ (2010) 45(4) Australian Journal of Social Issues 559-576 at 568 10 Hart, Victor G. and Thompson, Lester J. and Stedman, Terry (2008) The Indigenous Experience of Australian References Civil Society: Making Sense of Historic and 1 Commonwealth of Australia 1991 cited in Snowball, L Contemporary Institutions. Social Alternatives 27(1):pp. and Weatherburn, D, ‘Indigenous overrepresentation in 52-57. 11 prison: The role of offender characteristics’ (September Weatherburn, D and Holmes, J, ‘Re-thinking 2006) No. 99 Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Indigenous overrepresentation in prison’ (2010) 45(4) Issues in Crime and Justice, NSW Bureau of Crime Australian Journal of Social Issues 559-576 at 565-566 12 Statistics and Research at 1 Wilson, M et al, ‘The harmful use of alcohol amongst 2 Snowball, L and Weatherburn, D, ‘Does racial bias in Indigenous Australians’ (May 2010) No. 4 Australian sentencing contribute to Indigenous overrepresentation Indigenous Heath Reviews at 7 in prison?’ (2007) 40(3) The Australian Journal of
www.balancedjustice.org
others? A pilot study’ 43 Australian & New Zealand in sentencing contribute to Indigenous Journal of Criminology 301 at 309 overrepresentation in prison?’ (2007) 40(3) The 14 Wilson, M et al, ‘The harmful use of alcohol amongst Australian Journal of Criminology 272-290 at 286 Indigenous Australians’ (May 2010) No. 4 Australian 26 Snowball, L and Weatherburn, D, ‘Does racial bias in Indigenous Heath Reviews at 1 sentencing contribute to Indigenous overrepresentation
www.balancedjustice.org
Is Justice Reinvestment a good idea for Australia?
What is Justice Reinvestment? investments in education, job training, health, parole support, housing or rehabilitation.6
Justice reinvestment is relatively new concept and is an approach to dealing with over-imprisonment. Justice United States and Justice reinvestment refers to diverting funds that would ordinarily be spent on keeping individuals in prisons to Reintervention communities with high rates of offending and incarceration, giving those communities the capacity to In the US, one in every 100 adults is incarcerated and 7 invest in programs and services that address the two-thirds of released prisoners return to jail. This costs 8 underlying causes of crime, thereby reducing criminal the US more than US$60 billion per year. As a result, behaviour and the rate of re-offending.1 Justice the concept of justice reinvestment has proven popular reinvestment focuses on both existing criminal in the US. So far, 16 US states have signed up with the behaviour and reducing the number of people entering Council of State Governments Justice Centre to the criminal justice system in the first place.2 investigate or apply justice reinvestment in their jurisdiction, with another five states pursuing justice reinvestment independently or through non-profit organisations.9 How Justice Reinvestment works The justice reinvestment programs have been notably The main stages of justice reinvestment are as follows:3 successful throughout the US. The 2004 justice 1. ‘Justice mapping’: analysing data provided by state reinvestment pilot in Connecticut resulted in the and local agencies relating to crime, then to using that cancellation of a contract to build a new prison, realising data to map specific neighbourhoods that are home to savings of US$30 million.10 So far, US$13 million of large numbers of people under the supervision of the these savings have been reinvested into community- criminal justice system. based crime prevention initiatives, including funding the 2. Collecting information about services in the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to community and developing ‘practical, data-driven support community-based programming and resourcing policies’ that reduce spending on corrections to reinvest community-led planning processes to develop in other services likely to improve public safety and neighbourhood programs to improve outcomes for reduce crime. residents.11 Reinvested funds have also been 3. Redirecting funds from corrective services and channelled into revamping probation and parole, implementing the policies to reduce offending. focusing on reducing technical violations and increasing 4. Evaluating the effectiveness and impact of the transitional support for probation violators who would policies on rates of incarceration, recidivism and criminal otherwise have been re-incarcerated.12 Justice behaviour, to ensure effective implementation. reinvestment efforts in Texas resulted in $1.5 billion in construction savings and $340 million in annual averted The emphasis of justice reinvestment is on empowering operations costs.13 the community. The idea is that the community dictates how the money should be spent.4 It is about taking a local approach to dealing with a local problem.
The types of justice reinvestment programs adopted will vary according to the needs of particular areas. The causes of crime are complex and may also be location specific, so programs need to be tailored accordingly.5 However, justice reinvestment programs may include
www.balancedjustice.org
Why is Justice Reinvestment disruption to Indigenous communities where the Indigenous person played an important needed in Australia? social, cultural and family role, leaving family and community members to try and fill the Financial costs void;21 and loss of employment and income, exacerbation As at 30 June 2012, there were 29,383 of debt issues, possible loss of housing, prisoners (sentenced and unsentenced) in potentially affecting the incarcerated person’s Australian prisons —a national imprisonment ability to reintegrate back into society when rate of 168 prisoners per 100,000 adults, an released.22 14 increase of 1% from the previous year. The latest figures available show that in 2011– People in prison are disproportionately affected by drug 12, national expenditure on prisons totalled and alcohol problems, intellectual disability, illiteracy and $2.4 billion.15 This is a cost of $305 per innumeracy, low educational attainment, and prisoner, per day or $111,325 per prisoner per unemployment.23 In relation to Indigenous Australians, year (in Queensland, during this same period, factors linked to increasing the risk of their involvement the cost of incarceration was $318.50 per in crime includes, substance abuse, overcrowded living prisoner per day or $116,252.50 per prisoner, environments, unemployment and poverty.24 Without per year).16 addressing these factors, disadvantaged individuals will continue to commit crimes. Justice reinvestment is an Twenty years ago there were 2259 people in prison opportunity to address the underlying factors which may in Queensland (QCS Annual report 1993/4), now cause someone to commit a crime and to break the there are over 6000. If we were to reduce the cycle. prison population to the level of 1993, we would save $446 581 931 per year. That's four hundred Criticisms of Justice Reinvestment and forty six million that could be invested in crime prevention. Criticisms of justice reinvestment include: Australia’s penal system is quite different to Overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians the US, the concepts of justice reinvestment in prisons may not work in practice in Australia; 25 the concept of justice reinvestment is vague; it Despite comprising only 2.5% of the Australian does not have a clear definition and means population, Aboriginal and Torres Strait different things to different people;26 and Islanders constitute just over a quarter (27% or justice reinvestment could be used as a cover 7,982) of the total prison population.17 for cost cutting.27 Indigenous youth account for approximately 50% of the total population of children’s Balanced Justice view prisons.18 There is a very high rate of recidivism in the The traditional punitive approaches to law and order Indigenous prison population—75% of have not worked and the emergence of the justice Indigenous prisoners have a history of prior reinvestment concept is the perfect opportunity for imprisonment compared to 50% of non- Australia to trial a new approach to preventing crime. Indigenous prisoners.19
Regardless of the jurisdiction, it is an accepted fact that Social costs socioeconomic factors play a critical role in whether a person commits a crime. As justice reinvestment is The cost of imprisoning an individual extends beyond about working with communities to address the financial costs. The effects of imprisonment include: underlying factors which cause crime, the fact that disruption and damage to the lives of every Australia’s penal system differs to other jurisdictions member of the family, particularly where a should not detract from the potential success of this parent is imprisoned;20
www.balancedjustice.org
approach. Furthermore, the lack of definition of justice reinvestment will allow it to be adopted and tailored by a 12 Brown, D, Schwartz, M and Boseley, L, ‘The Promise of community in a way that best suits their needs. Justice Reinvestment’ (2012) Social Science Research Network at p 2
www.balancedjustice.org
24 Weatherburn, D, Snowball, L and Hunter, B, ‘The economic and social factors underpinning Indigenous contact with the justice system: Results from the 2002 NATSISS survey,’ (2006) 104 Crime and Justice Bulletin cited in Law Council of Australia, ‘Value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia’ (March 2013) at p 15
This factsheet was produced on 30 May 2013
This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes only. It does not represent the views of organisations involved in the Balanced Justice Project.
www.balancedjustice.org
Mandatory sentencing
Mandatory sentencing is harsh and of reoffending. Evidence shows that therapeutic approaches to sentencing, such as community and treatment-based unfair and does not reduce crime orders, can substantially reduce reoffending rates compared with prison.9 Mandatory sentencing is being introduced for more offences in Queensland, despite overwhelming evidence from Kevin Cook, a homeless man, was sentenced to 12 months Australia and overseas demonstrating that it fails to reduce in prison under the Northern Territory’s three strike laws in the crime rate, leads to harsh and unfair sentences and 1999. His crime? Stealing a towel from a clothes line.10 disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other marginalized groups. Mandatory sentencing leads to harsh Most jurisdictions in Australia already have some form of and unfair sentences mandatory sentencing. In the Northern Territory, assaults causing harm carry mandatory prison sentences,1 and in Mandatory sentencing means a one size fits all approach to Western Australia, “third strike” burglars face a minimum of the culpability of the person who has committed the crime, 12 months’ imprisonment. In NSW, there are presumptive instead of matching the sentence to how serious the crime minimum sentences for certain offences,2 while the was. This leads inevitably to harsh and unfair sentences. Commonwealth has mandatory sentences in some circumstances. Increasingly, the Queensland government is Mandatory sentencing shifts introducing mandatory sentencing to more and varied offences, including: discretion from the courts to police and prosecutors murder;3 certain child sex offences;4 Instead of judges having discretion to impose the appropriate evading police;5 sentence, mandatory sentencing encourages judges, graffiti;6 prosecutors and juries to circumvent mandatory sentencing possession, supply or trafficking of unregistered when they consider the result unjust. In some circumstances firearms;7 when someoneis faced with a mandatory penalty, juries have driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (three refused to convict. Furthermore, prosecutors have times in five years).8 deliberately charged people with lesser offences than the conduct would warrant to avoid the imposition of a While mandatory sentencing may appear a superficially mandatory sentence. Victims groups have opposed attractive option to reduce crime and provide consistency mandatory sentencing because it discourages pleas of guilty. and certainty in sentencing, evidence-based research shows In effect, this shifts sentencing discretion from an that it simply doesn’t work. appropriately trained and paid judicial officer to police and prosecutors who decide – behind closed doors – whether or Mandatory sentencing fails to not a charge that carries a mandatory sentence should be consider an offender’s circumstances brought against someone.11
Mandatory sentencing means a one size fits all approach which doesn’t properly consider the circumstances of the offender. Giving judges and magistrates discretion maximises the chances of finding a sentence which will address the causes of the offending and reduce the chance
www.balancedjustice.org
Mandatory sentencing Mandatory sentencing violates human disproportionately affects rights marginalised communities Mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia have been examined by three of the In Western Australia and the Northern Territory, mandatory United Nations committees – on civil and political rights, the sentencing laws disproportionately affected Aboriginal rights of the child and against racial discrimination. Each offenders, particularly young people from remote areas.12 concluded that the laws violated Australia’s international In the United States, far from leading to more consistent human rights obligations.18 sentencing, mandatory minimum sentences for drug cases widened the gap between sentences imposed for black and Balanced Justice view Hispanic people and white people charged with similar crimes.13 The Balanced Justice view is that mandatory sentencing should be taken off the agenda. Sentencing reform should Mandatory sentencing does not focus on promoting the court discretion so that judges can tailor the punishment to fit the crime and make orders (such reduce crime as drug and alcohol treatment) that maximise the chances of preventing reoffending. In the Northern Territory, property crime increased during the mandatory sentencing regime, and decreased once it was repealed. Advisory Commissions and Committees in the
United States, UK and Canada have all rejected the notion References that mandatory sentencing acts as a deterrent to crime.14 1 s 78BA, Sentencing Act 2008 (NT). A similar scheme was proposed by the Liberal Party in the recent Tasmamian State This is hardly surprising, since research demonstrates that Election: http://tasliberal.com.au/news/mandatory-sentencing-for- assaults-against-police-and-emergency-service-workers the perceived risk of being caught is a much greater 2 The presumptive minimum sentences relate only to the non- deterrent than the fear of punishment when caught.15 parole period for certain offences 3 S 305 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) In 2008, Victoria’s Sentencing Advisory Council, an 4 S 161E Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) independent statutory body, conducted a review of that 5 S 754 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) state’s mandatory minimum sentence for driving while 6 S 9 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) 7 disqualified, and found that the mandatory sentencing Ss 50, 50B and 65 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) 8 S 79 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 scheme: (Qld) 9 In Victoria, people released from prison are twice as likely to was NOT effective in protecting the community; return to corrective services within two years of ending their did NOT lead to sentences that rehabilitated peopleor sentence as those with a sentence involving community correction: prevented them from reoffending; Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2010, C.11-C.12. See also Lulham, Weatherburn and Bartels, ‘The resulted in penalties which are disproportionately high; Recidivism of offenders given suspended sentences: a comparison and with full-time imprisonment’ Comtemporary Issues in Crime and caused strain on the criminal justice system.16 Justice no 136, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistic and Research, 4 10 Barlow, ‘Back to the Future in the Northern Territory: the Return Based on this evidence, the Victorian Government abolished of Mandatory Imprisonment for First Offenders’ (2009) 33 Criminal Law Journal 231, 234 the mandatory prison sentence for this offence in 2010.17 11 See eg Morgan, ‘Why we should not have mandatory penalties’, (2001) 23 Adelaide Law Review 141, 144 12 Sallmann,.’Mandatory sentencing: a bird’s-eye view’ (2005) 14(4) Journal of Judicial Administration 177, 189-90; Sheldon & Gowans, Dollars Without Sense: A Review of the NT’s Mandatory
www.balancedjustice.org
Sentencing Laws, (1999) North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service 13 United States Sentencing Commission, Fifteen Years of Guideline Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform (2004), xv 14 Sallman, above n 6, 187 15 Morgan, above n 5, 149; D Ritchie, "Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence", Sentencing Advisory Council (Vie), April 2011, 2 16 Sentencing Advisory Council, Driving While Disqualified or Suspended: Report (April 2009), viii 17 s 28, Sentencing Amendment Act 2010 (Qld) 18 Pritchard, ‘International Perspectives on Mandatory Sentencing’ (2001) 7(2) Australian Journal of Human Rights 51
www.balancedjustice.org
‘Naming and shaming’ young offenders
Laws preventing the identification of contact will be shortly lived and relatively minor and they will “grow out” of offending from late adolescence. Many will young people never come to court, their offending being addressed by a police caution. A significant proportion of those brought to In most parts of Australia there are laws that prevent people court will appear once, maybe twice. There can be no publishing information which might identify a child involved in sensible reason to name these offenders. court proceedings.1 It is generally understood that because of the very fact that children and young people are young, The group of repeat offenders is very small. These young they make poor decisions or choices because of their lack of people tend to have low socioeconomic status, low experience and, with appropriate guidance and support, they educational attainment, significant physical and mental can make better choices and change their behaviour – health needs, substance abuse and a history of childhood rehabilitation. This is more likely to happen with children and abuse and neglect. Young people in detention in young people than adults.2 Queensland have reported experiencing multiple social and health problems during the previous year. Most often these We know that offending behaviour in relation to young problems related to school (69%), peers (62%), family people must be considered in the context of child and youth (50%), and drugs or alcohol (43%). It is unclear how naming development. Early adolescence through to early adulthood such young people could be useful. is a peak period for brain development and consequently a period of increased risk in decision making and behaviour. Publicly identifying a child offender has the potential to jeopardise the rehabilitation of that child. 7 It may give them In Queensland information identifying young people aged 10- a bad name which they cannot rid themselves of – 16 years3 charged with offences cannot be published unless irrespective of whether they are trying to “turn over a new the Court allows this4 and it may only do so in very specific leaf” - so that people exclude them and make assumptions circumstances: about how they will behave in the future. This can affect, for the child is sentenced for an offence for which, if the example, their job prospects and ability to positively engage 8 child was an adult, the maximum sentence would be life with their community generally. Inability to get a job or imprisonment; otherwise be involved in positive activities is a risk factor for further offending, which does not make the community safer the offence involved the violence against another or reduce crime. Consequently, it is widely recognised that person; and young people who offend should not be stigmatised and the court considers the offence to be particularly labelled by publicly naming them.9 dreadful (heinous).5 Research has shown significant detrimental effects resulting When deciding whether to allow identifying information about from young people being labelled as ‘delinquent’ or a child to be published, the Court must consider: ‘criminal’.10 These detrimental effects can continue far the need to protect the community; beyond the time when the information about the young the safety or wellbeing of a person other than the child; person is first published, particularly in a world where it can 11 the impact on the child’s rehabilitation; and be published online. 6 any other relevant matter. There is also very little evidence to demonstrate that the naming of young people prevents re-offending which could Why are these protections so be the only real justification for taking such action .12 Recent important? research conducted in the Northern Territory (the only jurisdiction in Australia where the naming of child offenders Most young people who come into contact with the police is permitted) presents evidence that ‘naming and shaming’ before 18 will not go on to be “career criminals” – their can have the opposite effect with child offenders, with children acting as though they need to live up to their The UNCRC was ratified by Australia in December 1990: tarnished reputations.13 Children and young people are consequently, any federal, state or territory legislation, policy unlikely to understand the consequences that may result or practice that is inconsistent with the UNCRC places from being publicly named for criminal offending.14 Some Australia in breach of its international obligations and could children may even welcome the publicity as a ‘badge of have consequences at the international level.22 In addition, honour’ and value the immediate gratification of belonging to the Beijing Rules represent internationally accepted an ‘outside group’, cementing the anti-social behaviour minimum standards, and although these are not necessarily rather than helping the child move away from such binding on Australia at international law, failure by Australia behaviour.15 to adhere to these rules may result in international scrutiny.23 In Britain, since 2003, local authorities and police have been Balanced Justice view permitted to ‘name and shame’ children who have been place on an ‘anti-social behaviour order’ (ASB Order).16 As Naming and shaming young people involved in the justice a result, personal details of young offenders, such as their system is likely to undermine their chances of rehabilitation. portraits, names and the requirements of their ASB Order It ignores fundamental, widely accepted principles contained have been published.17 The rationales behind this approach in international law, and the evidence which shows that it can appear to be: actually lead to increased levels of offending.
deterring the young person from further antisocial The existing protections in the Youth Justice Act 1992 behaviour through public humiliation; provide an appropriate balance of holding offenders to increased community control by involving citizens in the account for their actions, while protecting vulnerable young surveillance of the offender; and people and encouraging rehabilitation. These laws should reassuring citizens that something is “being done” about not be changed. young people, none of which focus on preventing crime.18
The United Kingdom Government has now announced it will abandon ASB Orders as they have been found to be ineffective in addressing the behaviour complained of and actually contribute to the criminalising of young people19 - not least because the high breach rate of ASB Orders has led to a sharp increase in prison sentences for antisocial behaviour offences. Imprisonment is very costly and generally does not prevent re-offending.
International obligations to protect the interests of children
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the UNCRC) and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice 1985 (the Beijing Rules) refer specifically to a young person’s right to privacy at all stages of juvenile justice proceedings.20 Rule 8.1 of the Beijing Rules notes that this is ‘in order to avoid harm being caused to her or him by undue publicity or by the process of labelling’.21
19 ‘Asbos to be abolished under new government plans’, Channel 4 References News, 7 February 2011 < http://www.channel4.com/news/asbos- 1 Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Particular Privacy Issues to-be-abolished-under-new-government-plans> (3 April 2013); Affecting Children and Young People – Identification in criminal Theresa May (Home Secretary), ‘Moving beyond the ASBO’ matters and in court records’, Australian Privacy Law and speech delivered at the Coin Street Community Centre (28 July Practice (ALRC Report 108) (2008) (Vol.3) at 2321 published at 2010), cited in Crofts, T and Witzleb, N, ‘”Naming and shaming”
9 Crofts, T and Witzleb, N, ‘”Naming and shaming” in Western This factsheet was produced on 3 April 2013 Australia: Prohibited behaviour orders, publicity and decline of youth anonymity’ (2011) 35 Criminal Law Journal 34 at 34 10 ‘Particular Privacy Issues Affecting Children and Young People – This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes only. It does not represent the views of organisations involved in the Identification in criminal matters and in court records’, Australian Balanced Justice Project. Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108) (2008) (Vol.3) at 2320
The removal of court-ordered parole
Court-ordered parole is currently under scrutiny by committed was not a serious violent offence or the Queensland Government, with the Attorney- sexual offence.4 General flagging the possible removal of court- ordered parole.1 The Attorney-General has stated In relation to other offences (i.e. sentences of more that the potential removal of court-ordered parole than 3 years which are not for a serious violent arises from community concern about crimes offence or sexual offence and sentences for serious committed by people on parole.2 Unfortunately, the violent or sexual offences), court-ordered parole is proposal to scrap court-ordered parole appears to not available. In relation to these offences, the be based on populist misconceptions (i.e. that the court is only able to fix a date that the person is scrapping of court-ordered parole will prevent (Jill) eligible for parole (as opposed to fixing a parole ‘Meagher-type crimes’3) with the Attorney-General release date), which means that the offender will failing to provide any hard evidence to show that need to apply to the parole board for parole at the 5 court-ordered parole is not working. date specified by the court. What is court-ordered parole? What if the parole board considers a person granted Parole is the only option for an offender’s early release from custody. The Corrective Services Act court-ordered parole to be a risk 2006 (Qld) provides that persons sentenced to to society? terms in prison will be released to parole at either a date fixed by the sentencing court (court-ordered The Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) contains a parole) or when approved by a parole board. ‘safeguard’ provision which allows a parole board to amend, suspend or cancel a parole order, including In relation to court-ordered parole, the court has a court-ordered parole order, if the board discretion in fixing the date that the person should reasonably believes that the person subject to the be released on parole. For example, a court may order poses: fix the parole release date to be: a serious risk of harm to someone else; or on the same date of sentencing; or an unacceptable risk of committing an during the period of imprisonment; or 6 offence. on the last day of the sentence. Furthermore, if a parole board cancels a person’s When can court-ordered parole court-ordered parole order, any application for a be granted? subsequent grant of parole during that person’s same period of imprisonment must be to a parole 7 The type of parole that a person is eligible to be board. released on is determined by the length of sentence Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) has and the type of offence. implemented a strict regime when supervising The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) only people on parole in the community, including those allows the court to grant court-ordered parole where on court-ordered parole.8 This includes ongoing the sentence is three years or less and the offence assessment, planning, close monitoring and appropriate responses to any change in risk levels.9
www.balancedjustice.org
Why is court-ordered parole In 2011-12, there were 3195 people on court- ordered parole orders in Queensland,14 important? demonstrating that these orders are an important sentencing tool. QCS has confirmed that court- Australia currently has a strong judge-centred ordered parole is its most successful supervision approach to sentencing. While legislation creates order.15 In 2012-13, 72% of court-ordered parole offences and prescribes maximum penalties, the orders in Queensland were successfully completed judiciary, for the most part,10 remains able to without cancellation or reconviction.16 exercise its discretion within these boundaries.11 QCS has reported that most common reason that The discretion enjoyed by judicial officers is an offender has their parole suspended is because extremely important as it enables sentences Probation and Parole assess that there is an imposed to be tailored to the particular facts of the unacceptable risk of further offending.17 This can case and to the individual before them.12 This be because Probation and Parole are alerted that discretion is an important part of judicial the person on parole has been charged with an independence. offence or because there has been an increase in As outlined above, the law currently allows the court risk factors associated with the individual’s (for certain offences) to determine a person’s offending pathway (e.g. the offender losing their job suitability for court-ordered parole. The court’s or their accommodation or a separation from their 18 discretion is already limited by legislation which partner or support person). prescribes that court-ordered parole can only be In 2012, only 58% of court-ordered parole granted in relation to relatively minor offences. cancellations were the result of re-offending with a Judicial discretion, and consequently judicial subsequent new prison offence recorded.19 independence, should not be further curtailed Therefore, it appears that many people who fail on through the complete removal of court-ordered parole do so because they have breached the parole. technical conditions of their parole orders and not 20 People in prison who are sentenced to serve less because they have committed a criminal offence. than two years are not eligible for criminogenic Where a criminal offence has been committed, programs. If court ordered parolees were sent to often these offences may be of a minor nature. prison it would be largely for warehousing rather Increase in prison populations than rehabilitation. Court-ordered parole was introduced to address the What will happen if court- over-representation of short-sentenced, low-risk ordered parole is abolished? prisoners in QCS facilities.21 Prior to the introduction of court ordered parole, prisoner Loss of a valuable sentencing option numbers were forecast to grow.22 However, the introduction of this type of order helped to stabilise Courts need to have a wide range of sentencing growth in prisoner numbers from 2006 until options available to them in order to promote the recently, with the average daily number of prisoners interests of individualised justice.13 Courts must be serving sentences of three years or less able to impose sentences that align with both the declining from approximately 2,300 in July 2006 nature of the offence and the individual (prior to the introduction of court-ordered parole), to circumstances of the case. a low of just over 1,800 in January 2011.23
www.balancedjustice.org
QCS has reported that approximately 40% of For a suggested approach to breaking the cycle of persons who receive court-ordered parole orders offending, see Balanced Justice Fact Sheet titled ‘Is are paroled straight from court.24 In 2012, it was justice reinvestment a good idea for Australia’. found that 80% of people released straight from court to court-ordered parole successfully completed their order. 25
Court ordered-parole has notably reversed the growth in short sentence prisoners, delaying the References need to invest in prison infrastructure.26 1 Norton, F, Ryan, B and Howells, M (1 August 2013) ‘Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie orders review into Qld’s sentencing laws’ www.balancedjustice.org Annual_Report_2011- 2012/files/DCS_Annual%20REPORT%202011- 2012%20complete.pdf> (22 August 2013) 15 Court ordered parole in Queensland, Research Paper (No. 4) June 2013, Queensland Corrective Services at p 1 This factsheet was produced on 29 August 2013 This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes only. It does not represent the views of organisations involved in the Balanced Justice Project. www.balancedjustice.org Tougher sentences – what the community wants? Public opinion on sentencing A constant message in the media is that courts are too Before the sentence was imposed, jurors were asked: ‘soft on crime’, they let offenders ‘walk free’ and fail to - to indicate the sentence that they thought the protect the public.1 As a vast majority of the public form offender should receive; their opinions in relation to the criminal court system - to answer questions about crime and based on information presented in the media, it is no sentencing trends; and surprise that a majority of the public also think that the - to give their views on sentencing severity and courts are too lenient on people who have committed whether judges were in touch with public crimes.2 opinion. International research regarding public opinion on crime After the sentence was imposed, jurors were asked and justice has reached a number of consistent questions such as their view on the appropriateness of conclusions:3 the sentence imposed, and whether their original the public thinks that sentences are too lenient; opinions on sentencing had changed. people tend to think about violent and repeat offenders when reporting that sentencing is too In relation to questioning about current sentencing lenient; practices across all offence types (violence, property, drug and sex offences), the majority of jurors responded people have very little accurate knowledge of that sentences were too lenient. This was most crime and the criminal justice system; pronounced for sex and violence offences. the mass media is the primary source of information on crime and justice issues; However, when jurors were asked to indicate which when people are given more information, their sentence they thought the offender should receive, 52 levels of punitiveness drop dramatically; and percent of jurors selected a more lenient sentence than despite apparent punitiveness, the public the sentence actually imposed by the judge and only 44 favours increasing the use of alternatives to percent were more severe than the judge. imprisonment. Furthermore, it was found that there was a high overall Recent study4 level of satisfaction in relation to the sentence imposed In a recent Australian study, for a period of two years by the judge, with 90 percent of jurors considering the (2007-2009), jurors from all criminal trials in Tasmania sentence imposed to be either very appropriate or fairly were involved in the sentencing of cases they had appropriate. deliberated on. Each jury returning a guilty verdict was invited by the judge to participate in the study by This study suggests when individuals are presented with remaining in court to listen to the sentencing accurate and complete information, they are less likely submissions. to be as punitive. Northern Territory –72% increase (from 480 prisoners per 100,000 adult population to 826 Therefore, it appears that the public’s critical view of the prisoners per 100,000 adult population); courts, and their punitive stance towards sentencing, Western Australia –37% increase (from 195 to ultimately stems from a lack of knowledge regarding the 267 prisoners per 100,000 adults); crime situation and the workings of the criminal justice Queensland –6% decrease (from 168 to 159 system. prisoners per 100,000 adults); Why is public opinion so New South Wales –1% decrease (from 172 to 171 prisoners per 100,000 adults). important? Therefore, on average across Australia, over the past 10 The public’s concern with rising crime rates and years the imprisonment rate increased, demonstrating dissatisfaction with sentencing has been used by that the courts are not being as lenient as the public Western governments over the past two decades as a may think. justification of a hard-line approach and ‘tough-on-crime’ The increase in imprisonment rates is the likely political rhetoric.5 Legislation is often introduced and combination of factors including the:10 justified by politicians with reference to public opinion.6 Furthermore, while public opinion is not a legally passing of new laws; recognised factor for consideration during the increasing maximum and minimum sentences; determination of sentencing, it appears that judges reduction in the use of remission, parole and make assessments of public opinion, with comments other alternatives to prison; and such as ‘community expectation’ and ‘community increasing use of the criminal law to prosecute sentiments’ routinely appear in sentencing. 7 For these offences. reasons, it is extremely important that the opinion held by the public in relation to crime and sentencing reflects Given that the increased use of imprisonment has the actual situation. continued whilst crime rates have been falling, it has been suggested that it is politics, rather than crime, The reality of sentencing which is increasing these imprisonment rates.11 At 30 June 2012, all states and territories, with the [See Balanced Justice factsheet ‘Crime Statistics – exception of New South Wales and Queensland the real picture’ for more information on decreasing recorded increased imprisonment rates compared to crime rates.] 2002.8 Balanced Justice view As public opinion can influence political agendas and ultimately legislation, it is crucial that the public is adequately informed. The disbanding of the Sentencing Advisory Council of Queensland in 2012 was a step backwards for Queensland , as the state no longer has an independent body to keep the public informed about sentencing in Northern Territory and Western Australia saw the Queensland. The Council had been responsible for the: biggest increases, while Queensland and New South Wales saw slight decreases: 9 provision of information to the community to enhance knowledge and understanding of Universitatsverlag Dr. N. Brockenmeyer, Bochum, 2011 at matters relating to sentencing; 184 11 Kury, H and Shea, E (eds), Punitivity International publication of information relating to Developments: Vol. 1 Punitiveness a Global Phenomenon, sentencing; Universitatsverlag Dr. N. Brockenmeyer, Bochum, 2011 at research of matters relating to sentencing; and 185 publication of the research results. This factsheet was produced on 27 May 2013 If the public are to be properly educated about This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes only. sentencing in Queensland, there needs to be an It does not represent the views of organisations involved in the Balanced Justice Project. independent and reliable source responsible for collating and disseminating information about sentencing and sentencing related matters. References 1 Warner, K and Davis, J, ‘Using jurors to explore public attitudes to sentencing’ (2012) 52 British Journal of Criminology 93 at 93 2 Roberts et al, ‘A country not divided: a comparison of public punitiveness and confidence in sentencing across Australia’ (2011) 44(3) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 370 at 371 3 Gelb, K, ‘Myths and misconceptions: Public opinion versus public judgment about sentencing’ (2006), Sentencing Advisory Council at v Admissibility of findings of guilt Young people test the In Queensland, less than 6 per cent of young people appearing before the Childrens Court are boundaries convicted. Childrens Court judges understand that recording a conviction will have a serious impact on Young people’s offending behaviour must be the young person’s future, affecting their considered in the context of child and youth employment prospects, chances of reoffending, and development; early adolescence through to early any future sentencing considerations if they do adulthood is a peak period for brain development come back into the justice system. and consequently a period of increased risk.1 It is the sentencing Childrens Court judge that is Minor offending by young people may result from best placed to make this judgement, with all of the testing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour as relevant, contemporary information in front of them. they adjust to their emerging responsibilities and To allow judges to use a small part of this changing position in society, or perhaps the information (the sentencing outcome) in the future culmination of a history of deprivation and is unfair and dangerous. disadvantage.2 Whatever the reason, it is important to recognise that young people make mistakes The ‘juvenile penalty’ while they are growing up, and they should be subject to a system of criminal justice that A 2004 study showed that sentencing of juveniles recognises their inexperience and immaturity.3 transferred to adult courts in Pennsylvania have been found to be more severe, a result of a Young people’s offending is considerable ‘juvenile penalty’.9 The same report episodic suggests that a person’s juvenile record overshadows other traditional sentencing Most juvenile crime is episodic and transitory, with considerations, like the severity of the offence and young people predominantly ‘growing out’ of history in adult courts. This study also suggests that offending behaviour over time through a maturation juveniles transferred to adult courts are intended to process.4 Most young people who come into be punished the same way as adults, but actually contact with the police before 18 will not go on to be receive more severe treatment than comparable “career criminals” – their contact will be shortly lived adult offenders. This evidence shows that juveniles and relatively minor and they will “grow out” of in adult courts are disproportionately punished, offending from late adolescence.5 The majority of despite the historical acceptance that young people these young people have one or two contacts with ‘are still developing and warrant different the criminal justice system and do not reoffend.6 treatment’.10 Many will never come to court, their offending being addressed by a police caution.7 A significant proportion of those brought to court will appear once, maybe twice.8 Children’s Courts focus on rehabilitation www.balancedjustice.org Past behaviour doesn’t prove Adult courts should not consider the findings of guilt of young people in the youth justice system, but anything today should consider the facts before the court and the actions of adults in determining guilt and sentencing There are a number of laws across Australia that offenders. limit the use of a person’s past history in court cases, to ensure that a person is judged on the facts of the specific incident that led to their charges. Evidence shows that both magistrates and References 1 AIHW Young Australians: their health and wellbeing 2011 juries are more likely to convict in cases where the Chapter 25, Young people and crime (AIHW 2011) previous convictions are similar in nature to the 2 Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Seen and heard: priority current offence,11 suggesting that past actions may for children in the legal process (1997) Report 84 at 251 Allowing adult courts access to young people’s This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes records with the Childrens Court, without all of the only. It does not represent the views of organisations information that was available to the Court at that involved in the Balanced Justice Project. time, will likely lead to harsh and unfair punishments and undermine the rehabilitative strategies put in place by the Childrens Court. www.balancedjustice.org Busting the myths – the facts about addressing youth offending – Part 1 Young people’s behaviour has concerned adults from very earliest only about 1.4% of the total population of 10-16 year old times: Queenslanders appeared in court. Our youth now love luxury. They show disrespect for their Young people are already dealt with seriously elders….they contradict their parents, chatter before company, It is often said that young people only get a “slap on the wrist” yet 1 gobble up dainties at the table and tyrannise their teachers . children as young as 10 years of age can be (and are) held Fear of crime is a strong a motivator in the community. It is often accountable for breaking the criminal law. In reality, the sentences a reaction to media reports which tend to focus on the worst of for young offenders are very similar to those imposed on adults: it is crimes- and particularly those involving young people - as being generally the length of the term which is different. most “newsworthy”. Sweeping generalisations are made about Child6 Adult7 young people and offending – the regular reference to a “youth Reprimand Absolute or Conditional crime wave” – but without any supporting evidence. Discharge There is a public perception that children are responsible for a Good Behaviour Bond Recognisances substantial proportion of crime committed in the community. This Fine Fine perception is often reported in the media and is frequently Probation Order Probation Order supported by police statement2. It was found that the statistics Community Service Order Community Service Order did not support these perceptions. Conditional Release Order Suspended Sentence Intensive Supervision Order Intensive Correction Misinformation means that there is a lack of understanding of the Detention Imprisonment true level, causes and impact of youth offending which in turn Detention up to life – will most Imprisonment - indefinite means that public money is not used effectively and likely be transferred to adult jail efficiently as it is diverted to the wrong activities or responses. So, the stated object of reducing crime is undermined Generally, a Magistrate can sentence a child to up to 1 year in from the beginning. detention and a Judge up to 5 years8. For offences for which an adult can be imprisoned for 14 years or more, children can also be The facts - there is no crime wave. detained for significant periods of time, for example9: Crime generally is decreasing Child Adult Crime rates [in Queensland] over the last ten years or so have Robbery in company with 10 years or largely been on a downward trend. While politicians may make violence legitimate points about spikes in specific locations or particular types Life* if: there was of offence, the chances of Queenslanders becoming victims of Arson violence against a Life crime has been decreasing when population is taken into account3. person and The number of youth offenders is decreasing Court considers particularly heinous Queensland’s Youth Justice System covers young people aged 10- Grievous bodily harm 16 years alleged to have broken the law (for all other States and 7 years 14 years Territories it covers 10-17 year olds). Receiving stolen goods *Life in Queensland means the whole of one’s life In the 2011-12 financial year: Once a person reaches 17 in Queensland, they are dealt with in an The Magistrates Court dealt with 5,840 young defendants and adult court and go to an adult prison10 – even though they cannot vote the higher courts 358 or buy alcohol or cigarettes. Queensland is only place in Australia There was an overall decrease of 6.9% in the number of where this happens and is contrary to Australia’s international young people whose cases were dealt with by the courts commitment. (following a decrease of 8.6% in the number of young people coming in 2010-11 compared with 2009-10)4. References Most young people are not offending 1 Socrates, Greek Philosopher 470-399 BC There are around 420,000 10-16 year olds in Queensland5. The 2 Criminal Justice Commission (1992) Youth, Crime and Justice in number of 10-16 year olds in contact with the court system is small Queensland and is not increasing proportionate to the population – in 2011-12 3 Queensland Police Service data: Brisbane Times: 2 March 2012 4 Childrens Court of Queensland Annual Report for 2011-12 5 Queensland Government Statistician 6 Youth Justice Act 1992 This factsheet was produced on 29 May 2013 7 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 8 This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes only. Youth Justice Act 1992 9 Youth Justice Act 1992 (child); Criminal Code (adult) It does not represent the views of organisations involved in the Balanced Justice Project. 10 Youth Justice Act 1992 www.balancedjustice.org Busting the myths – the facts about addressing youth offending – Part 2 What we know (in Australia)9 and studies have indicated that youth detention is a pathway to adult offending as 30% of adult offenders were 10-16 year olds are the minority of offenders in contact with the first incarcerated in the youth system.10 criminal law. In 2011/12, only 4.25% of offenders who appeared before the courts were youth offenders.1 Offending peaks at around 18 or 19 years of age. Addressing offending behaviour Property offences are the most commonly committed offences For the community to be and feel safe, and to spend our money by 10–17 year olds in Queensland. The rate of property usefully, we need to address the causes of crime. offences committed by young people has been in decline, For the majority of those who come to the attention of the police falling 21.6% over the past decade. Offences against the or courts and who do not become persistent offenders, the person remain considerably lower in prevalence than property current sentencing regime is clearly sufficient. offences and have remained relatively stable over the last decade.2 The President of the Queensland Children’s Court has noted: The statistics seem to demonstrate that there are a small Offending behaviour in relation to young people must be number of persistent offenders who are charged with multiple considered in the context of child and youth development. Early offences. adolescence through to early adulthood is a peak period for brain development and consequently a period of increased The small group of repeat offenders tends to have low risk.3 socioeconomic status, low educational attainment, significant physical and mental health needs, substance abuse and a Most young people who come into contact with the police history of childhood abuse and neglect.11 Young people in before 18 will not go on to be “career criminals” – their contact detention in Queensland have reported experiencing multiple will be shortly lived and relatively minor and they will “grow out” social and health problems during the previous year. Most often of offending from late adolescence.4 Many will never come to these problems related to school (69%), peers(62%), family court, their offending being addressed by a police caution (50%), and drugs or alcohol (43%).12 (12,238 cautions were administered in 2011-12). A significant proportion of those brought to court will appear once, maybe Do what has been shown to work twice.5 The Texas (USA) based group Right on Crime: puts forward While there is a concern that there is an increase in offences The Conservative case for reform: Fighting Crime, Prioritizing involving some level of violence, this remains a minority of the Victims, and Protecting Taxpayers13: offences committed by young people Offences against property was the most common offence type among young people aged Cost-effective interventions that leverage the strengths of 10 to 17 years, accounting for 60.1% of all offences in 2010- families and communities to reform troubled youths are critical 11.6 to a successful juvenile justice system. Youths who “slip through the cracks” may remain in the criminal justice system Young people themselves are victims of crime. Statistics show throughout their lives even though some could have been that young people under 18 are at least as likely to be the saved by effective policies during pivotal developmental stages. victims of a crime as a perpetrator. In 2011-12 in Queensland, However, funds should only be spent on programs that are the majority of victims of offences against the person committed supported by evidence, and risk and needs assessment should by youth offenders were aged under 20 years of age (53.3% of be used to ensure that youths who would be most successful in those where age was recorded) and only 6.4% were aged 50 non-residential programs are not placed in costly residential years or over.7 settings. Prison/detention does not prevent offending. Research The “Conservative Solution” includes improved flexibility in consistently shows that prisons are an ineffective in funding, so funds currently used to keep young people in large rehabilitating offenders and preventing re-offending.8 state youth jails can be used for less costly community-based Imprisonment is therefore a poor use of public money, programs which are supported by research. particularly as the building, maintaining and staffing of detention centres or prisons is very costly. It costs the taxpayer Begin early approximately $237,980 per year to imprison one young person www.balancedjustice.org Antisocial behaviour invariably begins during primary school Detention acts as a corrupting influence on these children, years and tends to be associated with exclusion (from school many of whom go on to re-offend. NSW Attorney General, Greg itself, but also within the school) which means the young Smith: 28 Feb 2013 person is not exposed to positive social values and role …or a military style boot camp as these have been clearly 14 models. The research indicates that children and young shown to have no long term effects on repeat offending: 15 people who are not in school are at high risk of delinquency. The traditional boot camp for young offenders was arguably the Diagnose and support those with disabilities least successful sentence in the Western world – it made them Research has also identified that 17% of young people in fitter, faster, but they were still burglars, just harder to catch. detention in Australia had an IQ of less than 70 and that this is Judge Andrew Becroft, New Zealand, 2009. particularly an issue for Indigenous young people. Young people with intellectual disability are at a significantly higher risk of re-offending. A 2005 NSW study also found 88% of young References 1 people in custody reported symptoms consistent with mild, Criminal Courts Queensland: 2011–12: Government Statistician, 16 Queensland Treasury & Trade moderate or severe psychiatric disorders. 2 Commission for Children and Young People Snapshot 2012 3 Parents are important AIHW Young Australians: their health and wellbeing 2011 Chapter 25, Young people and crime (AIHW 2011) Parents are important in the development of language skills, 4 particularly in the early years. The amount the parent talks to Commission for Children and Young People Snapshot 2011: Children 17 and Young People in Queensland Chapter 7, Criminal Justice System the child and how they talk to them is important. (CCYPCG 2011) and AIHW 2011 5 Language skills are critical in being able to manage socially but AIC (2011) What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders Trends and Issues in crime and criminal justice No 409 (AIC (2011) also in being able to develop literacy skills and therefore are 6 Child Guardian Report: Child Justice System 2010-11 important for longer term success at school. Keeping young 7 Children’s Court Annual Report 2011-12 people at school can prevent and reduce criminal and anti- 8 18 Solonec, T., and W., YOUNG. 2011. Epidemic incarceration and justice social behaviour. reinvestment : it's time for change. INDIGENOUS LAW BULLETIN; 7 (26): 15-21. Early brain development and socio-emotional and cognitive 9 development can be severely affected by inadequate or harmful Vumbaca, G. 2012. ‘Prevention is the only hope for young offenders because cure is failing.’ YAPRAP Youth Issues and Youth Work. parenting.19 Young people who have been abused or neglected 10 Vumbaca, G. 2012. Young People and Violence. National Council for often exhibit reduced social skills, poor school performance, Drugs / justice reinvestment for Aboriginal People 11 impaired language ability, and mental health issues.20 AIHW (2011) 12 While the majority of abused and neglected children do not Commission for Children and Young People Views of young people in detention 2011 offend, a significant number of children who do offend have had 13 http://www.rightoncrime.com/priority-issues/juvenile-justice/ abusive, neglectful or inadequate parenting. 14 AIC (2012) Youth (in)justice: oral language competence in early life and Parental monitoring and limit setting have been linked to risk for engagement in anti-social behaviour in adolescence Trends and Issues in crime and criminal justice No 435 (AIC 2012 No 435) managing antisocial/offending behaviour, substance abuse and 15 21 Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) (2003) What works in reducing sexual risk taking by adolescents. young people’s involvement in crime? A review of current literature on youth crime prevention (for the ACT Government) The most effective approach … 16 AIC (2011) 17 …would be to reduce the likelihood of a child or young person AIC (2012) No 435 18 ever developing anti-social or offending behaviour patterns by: http://www.griffith.edu.au/criminology-law/key-centre-ethics-law- supporting families who are struggling justice-governance/research/prevention-developmental-pathways/the- pathways-to-prevention-project providing parents with support and parenting programs 19 AIHW (2011) from the early years into adolescence 20 AIFS (2011) The Link between child maltreatment and adolescent supporting the development of good oral language and offending Family Matters No.89 21 social skills Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) (2011) What works with responding more appropriately where young people are Adolescents – family connections and involvement in interventions for the victims of abuse and neglect. adolescent problem behaviour Family Matters No.88 For those already in the system, providing therapeutic support, This factsheet was produced on 29 May 2013 developing life skills and receiving an education will be most effective. This factsheet is for information and discussion purposes only. It does not represent the views of organisations involved in the The least effective approach… Balanced Justice Project. … is to put them into a youth detention centre: www.balancedjustice.org Cost effectiveness analysis of a ‘justice reinvestment’ approach to Queensland’s youth justice services Alexandra Bratanova and Jackie Robinson School of Economics on behalf of the Pro Bono Centre TC Beirne School of Law University of Queensland November 2014 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an economic evaluation, using cost-effectiveness analysis, to identify and quantify the possible avoided costs and number of youth diverted from becoming clients of youth justice services if the Queensland government invested in justice reinvestment programs. This report has been prepared on behalf of the Pro Bono Centre within the School of Law at the University of Queensland. The authors were briefed by Balanced Justice , an alliance of community organisations that work to enhance the safety of all Queenslanders by promoting understanding of criminal justice policies that are effective, evidence-based and human rights compliant (http://www.balancedjustice.org/ ). Using ‘cost effectiveness analysis’ methodology, this report examines the cost to the Queensland Government of ‘business as usual’ of detaining, supervising and working intensively with young people that may come into contact with the criminal justice system. Corrective services, youth justice services and community services are examined, and the present value of these costs is estimated as $8.862 billion over the period 2015-2030. That is, the taxpayers of Queensland will pay almost $9 billion over the next fifteen years on a youth justice system that prioritises punitive and criminogenic responses. However, with an upfront investment of $10m over four years and a focus on justice reinvestment (prioritising resources towards supporting 110 at-risk young people) the re-direction of a relatively small amount of expenditure from the justice system can make a substantial difference in the number of young people who obtain family support and who might be diverted from becoming clients of justice services. Specifically, out of 110 children, annually, 7 should avoid offences which would otherwise lead to community based-supervision and one – detention-based supervised 1 person. This estimates that 6 people should avoid imprisonment each year and 15 people should be removed from community correction each year. However, a more optimistic option assumes that community services, represented in the analysis by intensive family support, are 5-10% efficient in the prevention of youth offences and at least 1-2% efficient in the prevention of people from entering corrective services. This option leads to cost savings for the Queensland budget of $263m by 2030 (expressed as a present value). Even if they are only 5-10% effective, redirecting funds from detention centres and other costly responses to criminal offending towards early intervention services could save the Queensland budget up to $263m to 2030. 2. BACKGROUND This report provides an economic evaluation, using cost-effectiveness analysis, to identify and quantify the possible avoided costs and number of youth diverted from becoming clients of youth justice services if the Queensland government invested in justice reinvestment programs. This report is a first step for the integration of economic evaluation into the discussion about justice reinvestment for Queensland. Youth justice reinvestment The Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (Productivity Commission (PC), 2013) described the aim of youth justice services as “to contribute to a reduction in the frequency and severity of youth offending, recognise the rights of victims and promote community safety” (PC, 2013). The Queensland government has demonstrated a commitment to strengthen responses to youth crime (PC, 2013, 8:39). Apart from the trial of ‘early intervention’ youth boot camps in Queensland, for the most part, the current approach to youth justice in Queensland has been to strengthen the response to youth crime by increased penalties rather than preventative measures such as increased family, health and education services to at risk families. An alternative approach is “justice reinvestment” , which involves advancing “fiscally sound, data driven criminal justice policies to break the cycle of recidivism, avert prison expenditure and make communities safer” (PC, 2013). Justice reinvestment would require a change of emphasis for the Queensland state government, from discouraging youth offending by punitive action to tackling youth crime before it eventuates, in its earliest stage or during the transition from youth to young adults, as Homel et al. (2012) 2 assert, “early in the pathway, not necessarily early in life”. This requires identification of at risk youth and provision of appropriate support services to divert them from a pathway to crime. Support services are anticipated to be provided by the communities as community-based initiatives as well as by specially established institutions. The services can include family support, educational support, health and housing support and are anticipated to target identified groups of youth as the literature and research emphasize “the crucial importance of the early years of life and the need to target crime prevention initiatives towards the chronic offending group, as this is likely to result in significant reductions in crime. […] A small group of offenders pose the largest long-term concern for the justice system” (Livingstone et al., 2008, page 360). To encourage the government to invest in justice reinvestment, information needs to be provided about the likely outcomes from the investment. This means information about not only the cost savings or avoided cost of youth justice services but also the number of at risk youth likely to be diverted from crime. This economic evaluation considers policies that seek to divert at risk youth from offending and entering correctional services by providing increased family and community services. No attempt is made in this report to examine the cost effectiveness of funding to specific family and community services. Rather, it estimates the magnitude of the cost savings or avoided costs that might be expected if at risk youth were diverted from entering youth justice services. Outline of report The next section of this report describes the methodology adopted for this evaluation and the steps required. Section 4 details the assumptions underlying the estimates of the costs associated with business as usual or do nothing as well as a number of options to estimate the cost and number of offenders diverted from youth justice services as a result of implementation of a justice reinvestment policy. Section 5 provides the results from the analysis reporting estimates of both the avoided costs and number of young offenders diverted. The final section of this report makes a number of recommendations and points out the limitations of this evaluation. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) CEA, as an economic evaluation technique, is based on a comparison of the costs associated with different decision options when the effect or benefits of an investment decision cannot effectively be estimated in monetary values. It measures how well inputs (usually estimated in monetary 3 values) are converted into outcomes. CEA is frequently used in health economics and studies where health effects are difficult to assign dollar values but where there is a common and measurable outcome. The benefits of crime prevention including those for community and family cannot effectively be estimated in monetary terms but estimates of numbers of young people entering the justice system under different funding regimes are measurable. For this reason, for the purposes of this study, CEA is identified as an appropriate evaluation technique. It will be employed in this analysis to estimate the avoided costs likely to result from justice reinvestment for youth justice services and the number of youth averted from entering youth services. It is important to acknowledge at the outset of this report, that the majority of young people who come into contact with the youth justice system do not become clients of statutory youth justice agencies. This report is concerned with young people who do become clients. Elements of the justice system and justice reinvestment for analysis This study considers several elements of the justice system and associated public expenditure including: - Prisons and community corrections - Youth justice services including: o detention-based youth justice services; o community-based youth justice services; o group conferencing. At the time of this study, no data was available on the costs of the non-government and community based service providers which are likely to play a substantial role in the justice reinvestment system. Therefore intensive family support services which are classified as child protection services are used in this study as a proxy for services which can be provided within a justice reinvestment initiative 3.2 Steps in evaluation A CEA evaluation requires a number of specified steps to be undertaken. In the interests of reasonable brevity, these are described briefly with more detail about the assumptions used to construct the evaluation provided in the appendices. • A first and important step for undertaking an economic evaluation of investment in a project or program is to identify the without project or business as usual (BAU) option. It is against this that estimates can be made of the outcomes from the investment. Considerable detail is 4 provided in the next section to establish the projected expenditure on and numbers of clients requiring justice services if the immediate past trends continue to 2030. • Identification of the project and the objectives of the project to be evaluated require not only a description of the project but also identification of the stated objectives. For a CEA this is important because rather than estimating a monetary value for all of the objectives (benefits) likely to result from the project, CEA identifies one objective for which a monetary value is not required. The Productivity Commission (2013) provides a number of criteria for justice services against which the performance of justice reinvestment could be measured. These include, the amount of justice expenditure saved or avoided, reduced recidivism rates and benefits to local communities. Although the literature on justice reinvestment provides little guidance about the response rate for reduced recidivism and describes the benefits to the community with little provided to assign a monetary value, there is detail about current expenditure and the number of young people accessing youth services. As a result, this study puts forward a number of hypothetical options or scenarios that assume a reduced number of young people identified as at risk from entering youth justice services as increased investment is made into family support services. The reduced number of young people entering youth justice services is likely to result in a reduction in the costs associated with these services. These are termed the avoided costs and are calculated as the difference between the costs of the business as usual option and reduced expenditure on youth justice as reduced numbers entering justice services declines. • Anticipated expenditure for the business as usual option (over the estimated 15 year life of the project) as well as avoided cost associated with reduced demand for youth justice services, for the hypothetical options suggested in this study are converted to a present value. For this study, a discount rate of 3.5% has been adopted as this is currently the 10 year cost of capital stipulated by Queensland Treasury when there are substantial social benefits expected to result from the investment. This rate has been included in the sensitivity analysis with the expenditure discounted at 6% and 10%. 4. ASSUMPTIONS FOR POLICY OPTIONS 4.1 Business as usual option Cost effectiveness evaluation requires the BAU option to be estimated in monetary units. This study considers several categories of government expenditure which are anticipated to be affected as a consequence of the implementation of the justice reinvestment program in Queensland. The 5 expenditure categories include police services, youth justice services, corrective services and child protection services. This section of the evaluation report analyses the cost to the budget for the provision of services from these justice services over the last 10-13 years. Identified trends in costs over the last decade associated with the provision of these services are assumed to continue over the next 10-15 years and are the basis for the BAU option. In order to make assumptions about expenditure for the BAU case, numbers of persons using the service are initially estimated, followed by expenditure. The categories of the users of justice services employed in this report are defined according to the literature source. However, it is necessary to acknowledge that estimates of users of justice services can vary substantially due to disparate assumptions underlying data collection procedures and sources used by the authorities. For example, the data on juvenile offenders sourced from the Productivity Commission (2013), differ from the figures reported by the Children’s Court of Queensland. Specifically, whereas the Productivity Commission uses the Youth Justice Pocket Statistics which defines a young offender as a person with one or more than one proven charge in the reference year (regardless of how many individual charges against an offender in the one year, they are counted only once), the Children’s Court of Queensland Annual Report adopts the Australian Bureau of Statistics counting rules where 'the same person in the same court on the same day' is counted once. However, if a defendant appears in court on several dates in any financial year, they are counted more than once" (Youth Justice Pocket Stats 2012-13). In order to maintain consistency for this study, one data source is employed, Youth Justice Pocket Statistics 2012-13, as used by the Productivity Commission (2014), but the definitions used by that source are made explicit in the text. According to the Productivity Commission (2014) corrective services are described as follows: Corrective services implement the correctional sanctions determined by the courts and releasing authorities such as parole boards. … Corrective services include prison custody, periodic detention, and a range of community corrections orders and programs for adult offenders (for example, parole and community work orders). Both public and privately operated correctional facilities are included. (PC 2014) Corrective service assumptions According to ABS (2014), the number of persons in prisons has recently increased. “In 2013, Queensland had the largest increase in prisoner numbers (483 prisoners), followed by Victoria (456 prisoners)... The overall prison population increased 9 per cent (483 prisoners) to 6,076 from 2012”. 6 Although these figures have been interpreted by some experts as the beginning of an upward trend associated with the legislative changes of the Queensland Government, this analysis is unable to acknowledge this as a trend as the 2013 estimates from the ABS are technically not directly comparable to data presented in the graph below, which is based on PC (2014). Moreover, one year of increased number of persons in corrective services does not represent a trend which can reasonably be expected to continue for the next 15 years. For the BAU option no change in the imprisonment rate is anticipated over the project lifetime. The dynamics of the corrective services population and population growth in Queensland over the last 10 years is demonstrated in figure 1. It shows that the number of persons in corrective services has grown, since 2003-4 at approximately the same rate as population growth. Therefore, for the BAU case, the number of offenders in community correction is assumed to increase at the same rate as population growth. 18,000 5,000,000 16,000 4,500,000 14,000 4,000,000 12,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 10,000 2,500,000 8,000 persons 2,000,000 persons 6,000 1,500,000 4,000 1,000,000 2,000 500,000 0 0 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Financial years Average daily prisoner population (all prisons) Average daily community corrections offender population Queensland population Figure 1 Dynamics of average daily population in corrective services and population growth in Queensland Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) Expenditure on corrective services Expenditure on corrective services, for the purpose of this study, is considered only for operational costs. It is acknowledged that any marginal change in the number of offenders is unlikely to affect expenditure associated with capital costs including the user cost of capital (depreciation). 7 According to reports on government services by the Productivity Commission (2014; 2009) expenditure on prisons in Queensland, in real terms, slowly increased over the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 (figure 2); however, expenditure over the last 5 years is indicated to have declined. Consequently, no clear trend is observed in government expenditure on prisons. However, a clear upward trend is observed for real expenditure on the operational costs for community correction services since 2005-06 for both total and per offender expenditure (figures 2 and 3). 80 000 16 15 70 000 14 60 000 13 50 000 12 $ $'000 11 40 000 10 30 000 9 20 000 8 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Financial years Real net recurrent expenditure on community corrections Real net recurrent expenditure, per offender per day Figure 2 Real net expenditure on community corrections in 2003-04 – 2007-08 in Queensland Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) 80 000 16 15 70 000 14 60 000 13 50 000 12 $ $'000 40 000 11 10 30 000 9 20 000 8 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Financial years Real net operating expenditure on community corrections Real net operating expenditure, per offender per day 8 Figure 3 Real net expenditure on community correction Queensland, 2008-09 - 2012-13 Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) The BAU option assumes that real expenditure on prisons remains unchanged over the lifetime of the project. However, real expenditure on community corrective services is anticipated to increase at the same rate as population growth and per offender. Therefore it is assumed that the rate of annual increase in expenditure exceeds population growth by 1.5%. Youth justice services This study considers three elements of the youth justice system: community-based and detention- based supervision and group conferencing. The following section analyses the population and cost statistics for these groups for the BAU option. Number of young people under supervision Over the period 2000-01 – 2004-05 the total number of young people under supervision (detention plus community-based supervision) is shown to have had a downward trend, primarily due to the decreasing number of community-supervised offenders (figure 4). Since 2004-05 the number of young people in community-based supervision shows no clear declining trend. Since 2000-01 the number of young people in detention has been increasing (figure 4). Over the 12 year period the number of people in detention during the year increased from 577 to 894 which is equivalent to an annual growth rate of approximately 3.7%. Overall, the increase in the number in detention based supervision has driven up the total number of youth under supervision over the last 10 years. 9 3,400 850 3,200 800 3,000 750 2,800 700 no no 2,600 650 2,400 600 2,200 550 2,000 500 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Financial years Young people aged 10–17 under community-based supervision during the year Total number of young people under supervision during the year Young people aged 10–17 in detention during the year Figure 4 Young people aged 10–17 under community and detention based supervision during the year Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) For the BAU option the number of young people in detention can be expected to increase over the lifetime of the project. It has been observed that the increase in youth in detention was driven by the Indigenous population, therefore the projections for population growth of Indigenous communities can be used as a proxy for a projected increase in the number of young people under detention supervision in the BAU option. At the same time community based supervision demonstrated a nearly constant number of young people provided by this service over the past 10 years following a period of decline. The decreasing rate of offenders in community supervision is assumed to be compensated by the increase due to population growth. Therefore no change to community-based youth supervision is expected over the lifetime of the project for the BAU option. Expenditure on youth justice services No consistent data is available to observe the dynamics of government expenditure on youth justice services over the reference period in Queensland. However, as per 2012-2013, expenditure on detention based supervision was the main contributor to total expenditure on youth justice services (figure 5). The per person cost of detention supervision was over 11 times higher than for community based supervision (figure 6). 10 For the purposes of this study, is has been assumed that state budget expenditure for detention based supervision will increase at the rate of growth of the Indigenous population. However, the expenditure associated with community-based supervision is assumed to remain constant. $10,508 $57,160 $76,588 Detention-based youth justice services ($'000) Community-based youth justice services ($'000) Group conferencing ($'000) Figure 5 Nominal expenditure on youth justice services in Queensland in 2012-2013 Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) $1,400 $1,302 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $,117 $200 $0 Detention-based youth justice services Community-based youth justice services Figure 6 Cost per young person per day subject to supervision Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) 11 There is no information currently available for the dynamics of youth under youth conferencing. However, group conferencing accounts for a minor proportion of expenditure on youth justice services (figure 5). Therefore, for the purpose of this study, group conferencing is no longer considered. 4.2 Community services: intensive family support The intensive family support service is seen to be a means of early intervention which can potentially benefit the whole family of a child provided by the service. Intensive family support is a means of child protection. According to the Productivity Commission (PC, 2014, Volume F, 15:5) intensive family support services are specialist services that aim to prevent the imminent separation of children from their primary care givers as a result of child protection concerns and to reunify families where separation has already occurred. Intensive family support services may use some or all of the following strategies: assessment and case planning; parent education and skill development; individual and family counselling; anger management; respite and emergency care; practical and financial support; mediation, brokerage and referral services; and training in problem solving. Productivity Commission (Report 2014, Volume F, 15:5) The number of children undergoing intensive family support has been increasing annually over the last 10 years, for both indigenous and non-indigenous categories as reflected in figure 7. 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Indigenous Non-Indigenous All children Figure 7 Number of children aged 0–17 years commencing intensive family support service by Indigenous status Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) 12 The data on the proportion of children in the population provided with intensive family support is not available. However, since intensive family support as a service is generally provided in response to referrals from a child protection organisation, the rate of children in notifications was used to study the trend for intensive family support. The analysis shows that the rate (per 1000 children) of children aged 0-17 years (2009/10-20012/13) or 0-16 (before 2008/09) in notification has been decreasing since 2003 for non-Indigenous children as well as for all children counted together, although steadily increasing for Indigenous children (figure 8). 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Indigenous Non-Indigenous All children Figure 8 Children aged 0-17 years (2009/10-20012/13) or 0-16 (before 2008/09) in notification - rate per 1000 children Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) At the same time government expenditure in Queensland on intensive family support services in real terms (2012-2013 dollars) per child is steadily increasing. Over a 10 year period the real expenditure per child has increased 2.15 times or approximately 8.86% annually. The real recurrent expenditure on intensive family support services is calculated based on the assumption that “the service must average at least 4 hours of service provision per week for a specified short-term period (usually less than six months)”. The real recurrent expenditure per child commencing intensive family support services in Queensland in 2012-2013 was $10 875. For the purpose of this study intensive family support expenditure is assumed to be increasing by 5% annually in the BAU option. 13 Police In all jurisdictions, police have responsibility for administering options for diverting young people who have committed (or allegedly committed) relatively minor offences from further involvement in the youth justice system. Diversionary options include warnings (informal cautions), formal cautions, and infringement notices. Responsibility for administering the diversionary processes available for more serious offences lies with youth justice authorities, courts and in some cases, other agencies. The juvenile diversion rate deviates between 36 and 49% with the two lowest levels reported for the last two years. At the same time it can be assumed that the juvenile diversion rate remains unchanged in the BAU option over the projected period. Police expenditure Although, given the important role of police in the diversion of youth from the justice system, justice reinvestment could in fact result in increased government expenditure on police. However it is not possible to apportion the cost of police services expended on diversion of youth from the justice system. Therefore, expenditure on police has been excluded from this analysis. 3.3 Identification and estimation of the outcomes from justice reinvestment A review of the Pathways to Prevention Project literature goes some way towards establishing a link between the maltreatment of a child and the increased risk of them coming before the courts as youth offenders. Although a little dated, Stewart et al. (2002) examined the effect maltreatment of a child has on juvenile offending by demonstrating a direct link from child maltreatment to juvenile offending. Of the 41,700 children born in Queensland in 1983, it estimated that about 10 per cent (approximately 4,170) had come to the attention of the Department of Families by the time they were 17 years old because of a child protection matter. “About five per cent of those in the cohort [208] had a court appearance for a proven offence” (Stewart et al. 2002, p.1). Stewart et al. concluded that the relationship between maltreatment and the incidence of youth offending “has implications for understanding criminal behaviour as well as implications for child protection initiatives and crime prevention strategies”, (Stewart et al. 2002. p.1). This study was followed by a report by Dennison et al. (2006) who found in their study of children who had been cautioned by police rather than being charged was that “children who have been maltreated and cautioned are more likely to re-offend than those who have not been maltreated 14 highlighting the importance of programs that target risk factors associated with maltreatment early in a child’s life”. This was found to be particularly important for young Indigenous children. Homel et al. (2012); although endorsing the findings of previous studies advocating early intervention as a preventative measure for young offenders, cautions that the early prevention approach aimed specifically at children is “not on its own sufficient for building community prevention capacity within a national framework” (p. 3). They suggest that early prevention needs to be expanded beyond children to young adult crime and that attention should be given also to the problems for young adults including substance abuse. A main point made by the Pathways to Prevention report, (Homel et al. 1999) was “early in the pathway” not necessarily early in life”. For the analysis purposes it has been assumed that the cost reduction for different components of expenditure associated with justice reinvestment options is proportional to the reduction in the number of people in corrective services and youth under supervision respectively. 3.4 Up-front investment Although justice reinvestment will require an initial investment by government agencies, it is expected that the investment will result in cost savings which could be reinvestment in on-going family services. There is limited information available in the literature on which to approximate an initial investment. Hence, it is assumed that an initial investment of $10,000,000 over 5 years after which $1,000,000 per annum is required for family or community support services plus the savings from youth justice services and corrective services. 4. RESULTS FOR JUSTICE REINVESTMENT POLICY OPTIONS The present value (PV) of the costs of the corrective services, youth justice services and intensive family support analyzed in the BAU scenario is $8 862m. PV is calculated as the present value of the estimated cash flow of budget expenses over the reference period (2015-2030). The cash flow is discounted using the assumed discount rate (3.5%). Option 1 – Conservative Option 1 presents a policy alternative of gradual implementation of the justice reinvestment initiative. The results of the project are expected to be realized five years after the start of the initiative in 2015. The required initial investment is assumed to be $10m, which is assumed to be made in equal annual installments over a 4 year period (25% each year from 2015 until 2018). The number of people in corrective services and receiving youth justice supervision is assumed to be decreasing annually at a low rate as a result of the preventative activities by the communities 15 which participate in the justice reinvestment initiative. At the same time the number of families provided with intensive family support is expected to increase. The assumptions for the rate of change of the described parameters are specified in table 1. Table 1 Option 1: Assumptions Option 1 - Conservative Increase (+) / Reduction (-) Year, when Number of people provided by the service in the number of people per Group cost change (2012-2013) annum is first No % realised (2015-2030) Prisons Average daily prisoner population 5849 -6 -0.1% 2020 Community Average daily community corrections corrections offender population 14942 -15 -0.1% 2020 Average daily number of young people subject to detention-based Youth justice supervision 161 -1 -0.6% 2020 services Average daily number of young people subject to community-based supervision 1335 -7 -0.5% 2020 Intensive Number of children aged 0-17 years family support commencing intensive family services support services 3714 110 3.0% 2020 As table 1 demonstrates, the population of prisons is assumed to decrease by only 0.1% annually from 2020. This is equivalent to 6 people per annum diverted from imprisonment and 15 per annum from community correction. This is illustrated in figure 9. 16 27000 26000 25000 24000 23000 22000 21000 20000 19000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Average daily prisoner population and community corrections offender population - BAU Average daily prisoner population and community corrections offender population - Option 1 Figure 9 Average daily prisoner population and community correction offender population in BAU and Option 1 scenarios The number of youth under supervision is expected to decrease by only 0.6% annually for detention-based supervision (1 person a year) and 0.5% annually for community-based supervision (7 people per year) (figure 10). 1700 1500 1300 1100 900 700 500 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Average daily number of young people under supervision - BAU Average daily number of young people under supervision - Option 1 Figure 10 Average daily number of young people under supervision in BAU and Option 1 scenarios 17 At the same time it is assumed that the number of children provided with intensive family support services increases by 110 people annually from 2020 which is nearly 3% annually as demonstrated in figure 11. 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Number of children commencing intensive family support services - BAU Number of children commencing intensive family support services - Option 1 Figure 11 Number of children commencing intensive family support services in BAU and Option 1 scenarios The present value of the expenditure associated with this scenario (Option 1) is $8 902m. This is nearly the same as the present value of the cost for the BAU option ($8 862m). Consequently, a small reduction in the number of people in corrective services and youth justice system can result in a substantial increase in the number of families provided with intensive family support services as well as initial investment into the justice reinvestment system of $10m. In brief, option 1, although suggesting nearly the same expenditure as the BAU option, shows how the re- direction of a relatively small amount of expenditure from the justice system can make a substantial difference in the number of young people who obtain family support and who might be diverted from becoming clients of justice services. However, the analysis demonstrates that for the justice reinvestment initiative to be cost effective, the community services provided as a part of justice reinvestment activities (which are represented in the analysis by intensive family support services), should be capable of reaching a minimal level of effectiveness. Specifically, out of 110 children, annually, 7 should avoid offences which would otherwise lead to community based-supervision and one – detention-based supervised person. This 18 estimates that 6 people should avoid imprisonment each year and 15 people should be removed from community correction each year. It is necessary to acknowledge that intensive family support services are expensive services which require substantial resources. However, initiatives and services which can and should be offered as a part of the justice reinvestment project are likely to imply lower costs per person or family in the longer run. Consequently, more people (families) could be provided with these services within the same budget. Option 2 – Optimistic The effectiveness of the justice reinvestment initiative is dependent on the effectiveness of community-based services and support which are offered to youth and families at risk. At the same time as demonstrated above, the effectiveness of community services should be expected for the justice reinvestment initiative to be cost-effective. The second option assumes that community services represented in the analysis by intensive family support are 5-10% efficient in the prevention of youth offences and at least 1-2% efficient in the prevention of people from entering corrective services. The assumptions are specified in table 2. Table 2 Option1: Assumptions Option 2 – Optimistic Increase (+)/ Number of people provided by the service Reduction (-) in the Year, when Group (2012-2013) number of people per cost change is annum first realised No % (2015-2030) Prisons Average daily prisoner population 5849 -2 -0.03% 2018 Community Average daily community 14942 -4 -0.03% 2018 corrections corrections offender population Average daily number of young people subject to detention-based 161 -10 -6.21% 2016 Youth justice supervision services Average daily number of young people subject to community-based 1335 -20 -1.50% 2016 supervision Intensive Number of children aged 0-17 family support years commencing intensive 3714 200 5.39% 2016 services family support services The assumptions can be interpreted as, out of 200 children or young people who receive intensive family support 10 people (5%) would otherwise offend and be under detention-based supervision and 20 (10%) would be under community-based youth supervision. Furthermore, due to justice 19 reinvestment actions, 2 persons (1%) would avoid imprisonment and 4 (2%) would not serve their sentence in community correction. For this scenario we assume that the results from justice reinvestment are realized for the youth justice system from 2016 and for adult corrective services from 2018. This option, as well as option 1, assumes an initial investment of $10m, which is expected to be made in equal proportion over 5 years. The second option is expected to lead to cost savings for the Queensland budget of $263m by 2030 (expressed as a present value). The cost graph for this option as compared to the BAU scenario is illustrated in figure 12. 780,000,000 760,000,000 740,000,000 720,000,000 700,000,000 680,000,000 660,000,000 640,000,000 620,000,000 600,000,000 580,000,000 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 JR Option 2 Business as usual Figure 12 Cost of option 2 (optimistic) as compared with BAU 4.1 Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis is conducted to test the robustness of the obtained results and their sensitivity to a change in the major assumptions. Discount rate Sensitivity analysis has been undertaken for the discount rate. The analysis demonstrates that application of a discount rate of 6% changes the present value of the cost estimate associated with 20 the BAU scenario from $8 862m to $7,299m. Estimates for Option 1 increase to $7,330m and for Option 2 – to $7,102m. The estimated avoided cost from Option 2 as compared to the BAU scenario decreases to $198m. Consequently, although the discount rate has been increased from 3.5% to 6%, the BAU and Option 1 remain close in cost estimate and Option 2 implies cost savings. This emphasizes the robustness of the obtained results. A discount rate of 10% implies an increase in the difference between the BAU and Option 1 present value of cost estimates. Specifically BAU ($5,545m) outperforms Option 1 ($5,565m) by $20m. However, BAU remains a more expensive alternative when compared to Option 2 with a present value of cost estimate of $5,416 using a 10% discount rate. Initial investment An important assumption of the analysis is the initial investment which is required to ‘kick-start’ justice reinvestment in Queensland. Importantly, a change in the assumed initial investment does not substantially affect the results. The results of the sensitivity analysis are demonstrated in table 3. Table 3 Sensitivity analysis with respect to the change on initial investment assumption Net Present Cost (NPC) for scenarios ($m) Assumed initial investment BAU Option 1 Option 2 $10m 8862 8902 8598 $1m 8862 8894 8590 $5m 8862 8897 8594 $15m 8862 8906 8603 $20m 8862 8911 8607 5.0 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study has not attempted to evaluate where or how money should be specifically invested in family and community services. However, regardless of how or where the investment is made, rigorous on-going monitoring and evaluation is required to measure the impact of reinvestment and the functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole. This is regarded as critical to ensure the projected results and benefits are being realised. Monitoring and evaluation must ensure that the projected savings are being realised and that the reinvestment of funds is having the desired effect on offending and incarceration rates. Although this limits the applicability of this evaluation for policy formation, it does highlight that justice reinvestment should be implemented in an adaptive management framework. This means that justice reinvestment activities should be continuously 21 monitored and that evaluation is required so that adjustments can be made to ensure the on-going effectiveness of the initiative. Elements of on-going monitoring and evaluation identified by the House of Commons Justice Committee are in the nature of adaptive management: Performance measures, including the amount of justice expenditure saved or avoided, recidivism rates and benefits to local communities – reduce numbers of youth using youth justice services Monitoring systems, requiring collation of data across agencies on outcomes Reviewer expertise to analyse how closely the actual impact corresponds to projections Ability to commission changes to delivery of services. The Law Council of Australia noted in its submission to the Senate Inquiry (PC, 2013) that commentators have adopted a cautious approach to justice reinvestment as ‘true correctional savings have been difficult to document and even more problematic to capture’ and that the ‘impact on offending or recidivism from the reinvestment of these savings into community-based crime prevention strategies will take longer to emerge’. Data collection and analysis issues Lack of data on the costs associated with different alternatives to imprisonment or community based services and activities and their potential effectiveness is the major limitation of this study. Therefore the suggested and discussed policy alternatives are only hypothetical. However, they do provide a first step to evaluating, from an economic perspective, the likely effectiveness of justice reinvestment. As data does become available, it is recommended that this analysis is revisited. The problem of lack of data for Australia and the State governments, which is associated with the lack of institutional capacity and formal requirements for data to be collected and analysed, has been raised in the literature. For example, Justice Reinvestment NSW in their submission to the Senate Committee argue that “there remains lack of publicly available peer reviewed data about the costs, availability and effectiveness of alternatives to imprisonment” in Australia (page 19).They also refer to the Washington State Institute of Public Policy as an example of institutional structure undertaking the research on issues including justice reinvestment. Potential flow-on effects of the justice reinvestment initiative The potential benefits of the justice reinvestment initiative are anticipated to exhibit a flow-on effect to other government services resulting in an increase of their quality, cost effectiveness and to contribute to cost savings for the state government. 22 Specifically, potential positive effects and associated cost savings are expected for child protection services provided by the Queensland Government. Child protection and out-of-home services provided to children and families in Queensland demonstrate a steady trend of increasing budget expenditure as well as in the number of children using the services. In 2012-2013 real expenditure on child protection and out-of-home care services reached $719.9M (figure 13). 800 000 5 000 700 000 4 500 600 000 4 000 500 000 3 500 $'000 400 000 3 000 300 000 Number ofchildren 200 000 2 500 100 000 2 000 Real expenditure on child protection and out-of-home care services Number of children admitted to care and protection orders Figure 1213 Child protection in Queensland: real expenditure and number of recipients Source: Productivity Commission (SCRGSP 2014) The activities within justice-reinvestment initiative are likely to be capable of discontinuing or reversing this trend. It will also indirectly imply cost savings for the government. Furthermore, intensive family support as a child protection measure is likely to have a positive effect not only on the child who is directly targeted, but also on other children in the family under consideration. However, this positive effect cannot be estimated and projected given the available data and uncertainty associated with the potential outcomes of community actions and services within the justice reinvestment project. 23 Choice of methodology and interpretation of results This analysis is based on the very limited data which is currently available. It has determined the choice of the methodology for analysis. It implies that the obtained results are estimates based on hypothetical outcomes and should be interpreted with care. Furthermore, it is be recommended that the results are used only as indicative measures. However the report constitutes the first steps toward an economic evaluation of the potential of justice reinvestment in Queensland. The analysis has demonstrated that justice reinvestment has the potential to provide a cost-effective alternative to the existing approach of youth justice services by targeting the youth at risk and concentrating resources on crime prevention activities in the communities in need (at risk). Justice reinvestment can also result in potentially substantial cost savings for the state government regional budget. However, for the initiative to provide cost-effective outcomes, individual activities and community-based services are required to be monitored and provide certain levels of efficiency in terms of crime prevention. REFERENCES Dennison, S., A. Stewart and E. Hurren. 2006. “Police cautioning in Queensland: the impact on juvenile offending pathways”, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice , No 306. Australian Institute of Criminology. Australian Government. Homel, R. and TR. McGee 2013, “Community Approaches to Preventing Crime and Violence: the challenge of building prevention capacity”, http://gcecs.edu.au/wp- content/uploads/2013/08/Community-approaches-to-preventing-crime-and-violence-The-challenge- of-building-prevention-capacity.pdf Justice Reinvestment NSW (2013) Justice Reinvestment Campaign for Aboriginal Young People. Submission to the Senate Inquiry “The value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia”. Retrieved from: http://justicereinvestmentnow.net.au/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/Just-Reinvest-NSW-submission.pdf, 20.10.2014 Livingston, M., A. Stewart, T. Allard and J. Ogilvie. 2008. Understanding Juvenile Offending Trajectories. The Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Criminology Vol. 41, No 3, pp. 345–363 Productivity Commission. 2013. Report on Government Services 2013. Canberra, Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. 2014. Report on Government Services 2014. Canberra, Productivity Commission. Stewart, A. Dennison, S and Waterson, E. 2002. “Pathways from child maltreatment to juvenile offending”, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 241. Australian Institute of Criminology. Australian Government. 24 Appendix Population growth projections The projections for population growth are sourced from ABS for Queensland (2012-2101) and separately for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (2011-2026) (ATSI) 1. Comparison of projections for 2012-2016 show that the expected growth of ATSI population is expected to exceed the overall rate of population growth slightly. At the same time proportion of population under 15 years old is expected to decrease among ATSI Australians from 37.5% to 34.3% between 2011 an в 2026. However, the same rate for total population is predicted to decrease from 19.9% to 19.6%. Therefore, it can be assumed that the youth population is expected to grow with approximately the same rate for total population and ATSI Australians. Given that ATSI population projections are provided by ABS only until 2016, it is proposed that the total population growth projections for Queensland are used for analysis purposes for the reference period: 2014-2030. 7,000,000 300,000 6,000,000 250,000 5,000,000 200,000 4,000,000 150,000 3,000,000 100,000 2,000,000 50,000 1,000,000 0 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Projected population, QLD (Series B) Projected population (ATSI), QLD (Series B) Figure 14 Projected population growth Source: ABS (2014) 1 Among three series of ABS population projections series have been chosen for future analysis as reflecting medium assumptions: “Series B - assumes the total fertility rates (TFR) will decrease to 1.8 babies per woman by 2026 and then remain constant, life expectancy at birth will continue to increase each year until 2061, though at a declining rate (reaching 85.2 years for males and 88.3 years for females), net overseas migration (NOM) will remain constant at 240,000 per year throughout the projection period, and medium interstate migration flows. 25