Media Statement - Principal Youth Court Judge: Youth Justice - The Real Picture

November 2004

Headlines such as "the youth justice system is failing" or "youth crime out of control" are often a knee jerk reaction to a particularly appalling instance of youth offending which has rightly shocked the nation. Alternatively, they may be triggered by victim dissatisfaction where the system has miscarried - as occasionally it does.

But these headlines are factually incorrect. Recent statistics actually permit cautious optimism. Youth offending (14-16 year olds) and child offending (10-13 year olds), has stabilised in the last five to eight years. It has increased no more quickly than total offending and, for the last 14 years, has remained constantly at about 22% of overall offending.

Of total youth offending, only a small percentage constitutes serious offending. And, the great majority of youth crimes are carried out by a small group of "hard core" offenders, who number less than 15% of total youth offenders.

None of these encouraging statistics are the stuff of headlines. But they do refute the popular misconception that youth offending is out of control. It may surprise the public to learn that New Zealand is actually seen as an international leader in its response to youth crime.

An example of a distorted picture of youth offending is recent media comment on the Ministry of Social Development Report, "Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice", which was released in February of this year. The headline "Youth Justice System is Failing" was remarkable given the generally favourable observations made about the system by the Report. Much was made by the media of the statistic that two-thirds of young criminals dealt with by Family Group Conferences (FGCs) re-offend. Yet here is what the Report writer, Dr Maxwell, said in a subsequent interview on National Radio:

"Two-thirds re-offending is a peculiar way of putting it. 33% did not re-offend at all; 22% only re-offended in a very minor way. So over half of them did not continue to get involved in serious crime and that's a pretty good outcome for a relatively serious group of offenders."

As Dr Maxwell also emphasised, only the most serious offenders (between 16 -24%) are dealt with by FGCs. Media analysis of the Report should have made it clear that the statistics quoted related only to that small percentage of offenders and not to youth offending as a whole.

In fact, three-quarters of youth offending is dealt with very successfully by Police Youth Aid community diversion without charges being laid and does not go to Court. As Dr Maxwell observed, of the small group studied in the report, over half didn't re-offend or offended in only a minor way in the critical first two years after their Conference.

One quarter of those studied did seriously re-offend within two years. We are speaking here about a very small group - about 5% - who are "hard core" offenders. It is certainly no counsel for complacency -; all offending is unacceptable - but Dr Maxwell, when she was asked what was an "acceptable" re-offending rate, said: "we could feel comfortable with this (rate) compared to what New Zealand has had in the past and compared to what we've seen for similar levels of re-offending in Australia".

The 5% of "hard core" offenders share the following characteristics:

• 85% are male

• 70-80% have a drug and/or alcohol addiction (usually cannabis)

• 70% are not at school - many are not even enrolled at a secondary school

• Most come from backgrounds of disadvantage and lack positive male role models; many have a history of abuse and neglect

• A number report having had psychological or psychiatric difficulties, and some display little remorse, let alone victim empathy

• About 50% are Maori; in some Youth Courts the Maori appearance rate is 90%. This figure is a particular challenge

This group poses a serious problem in every Western country and is a challenge for any youth justice system. However, to suggest that the system is failing because this small group continues to re-offend, is absurd. No youth justice system yet, has been able to totally eliminate re-offending.

These offenders must be held accountable. The Youth Court does not shrink from that task. Top end penalties include 3 months in a secure youth residence followed by 6 months intensive supervision as well as transfer to the District or High Court for a prison sentence.

There are no quick fix solutions. There is good evidence to suggest that some of these young people have effectively been "hard-wired" for a life of crime by the age of 2. Truly, youth justice begins at conception.

Nevertheless, while offenders are young there is hope for real change. As the 2002 Ministerial Taskforce "Youth Offending Strategy" makes clear, the key lies in a two-fold approach.

First, there needs to be a comprehensive, nationwide early intervention policy which recognises and responds to the needs of children as young as pre-schoolers, who can be identified as struggling. Second, we need programmes for young offenders which work. The world-wide "gold standard" involves a "multi-systemic family therapy" approach using a range of experts working with an offender's whole family. Pilot programmes in Auckland and Christchurch are already showing encouraging results. The Youth Drug Court is also proving a valuable initiative.

The lynch-pin of our Youth Justice System is the Family Group Conference - a revolutionary step in youth justice which involves parents, wider families and communities in a young person’s care, reflects New Zealand's cultural diversity and draws heavily on Maori values. Australia, the United Kingdom and parts of Asia, South Africa and Canada have adopted it.

The recent Report concludes that the FGC process works well although could be better practised. Research shows that, following a Family Group Conference, most young people develop positive goals and achieve better success in education, employment and relationships.

The headlines don't do justice to the real issues of youth offending. The system isn’t "failing" - New Zealanders can be reassured that our response to the issues is an effective one. It is a demanding task. It involves holding offenders to account, implementing programmes to steer them away from a life of crime, and also responding to the needs of victims. There is always room for improvement but we should acknowledge the considerable successes.