Youth Justice — "collaboration - by definition"

Collaboration for Success Conference 2007

Wanganui, New Zealand 17 October 2007

Judge Andrew Becroft Principal Youth Court Judge for New Zealand
Te Kaiwhakawa Matua o Te Kooti Taiohi o Aotearoa

Contents

Introduction

1. The practical imperative for collaboration:

(a) The case of Bailey Junior Kurariki
(b) 2 recent psychological reports

2. The theoretical imperative for collaboration

3. Youth Justice collaborations

Police
Youth Education
Youth Development
Rubicon programme, Whangarei
Youth Aid — Diversion/Alternative Action — The Hamilton example
Child Abuse Teams
Family Group Conferences
Youth Court Orders: Supervision
Youth Court Orders: Supervision with Activity
Operation of the Youth Court
National Structural Issues
Child Youth and Family — Youth Justice Tool Kit
Christchurch Youth Drug Court
MSD — Inter-agency Plan for Conduct Disorder/Severe Antisocial Behaviour

4. Conclusion

Introduction

New Zealand's system of Youth Justice has three main components:

• Wherever possible, Police diversion and alternative action
• Family Group Conferences (FGCs)
• The Youth Court

Effective collaboration between Police, Child Youth and Family (CYF), Health, Education, and Justice agencies, as well as community organisations, is a vital constituent, and fundamental characteristic of each of these components. Without it, the system would fail to deliver the kind of responses and services which offenders, victims, and their communities need and expect. Further, collaboration is vital at the national level, where government agencies oversee and provide advice to Youth Justice practitioners at the grass roots, and at the policy level[1] which is charged with providing analysis and vision for the whole sector. This paper will focus on the collaboration needed to make the most of Police diversion, FGCs and the Youth Court process, paying particular attention to services for young offenders, and their families and communities.

The paper's main thesis is that, while New Zealand is seen as a world leader in developing a new paradigm for Youth Justice, its track record in collaborating to implement this new paradigm has been very poor. In other words, "poor" collaborative practice lags behind the "revolutionary" theory.

1. The Practical Imperative For Collaboration - (a) The Case Of Bailey Junior Kurariki

On 25 August 2002 one adult and four young people were convicted of various charges in relation to the death of Michael Choy on 13 September 2001. The Ministry of Justice subsequently undertook a review of the dealings over time between the convicted offenders and the Police, Department of Child Youth and Family, and Health and Education Services to consider what improvements could be made in services to those young people and their families[2]. Bailey Junior Kurariki, who was 12 years old at the time of the attack on Michael Choy, and later convicted of his manslaughter, was the youngest of that group.

The Ministry's review produced what was termed "3 key lessons" which each point to opportunities for effective collaboration:

• The underlying causes of Kurariki's behaviour were not addressed, and, following a decision to keep him in the family home, a lack of support for Kurariki's mother meant that she was not equipped to manage him. Underlying causes of offending can be better targeted through the use of risk assessment tools and processes, with training for frontline staff and Police in their proper use. These tools are developed by medical professionals and researchers, and can be ordered by a FGC, or a CYF Youth Justice Co-ordinator. Education and Heath assessment tools are also used to help get a comprehensive understanding of all relevant influences on a young person's offending.

• Kurariki had been excluded from formal education because the schools could not cope with his behaviour. The review concluded that the burden of dealing with Kurariki was too much to place on the shoulders of the schools alone, and that greater assistance should have been available from other social service agencies. The review pointed out that CYF fund a number of community based social service agencies, that should be used by schools to help manage young people with difficult behaviours. To facilitate this, the review recommended directories of community agencies should be compiled at the national or local level and distributed to schools by CYF or Youth Offending Teams.

• Poor communication between Police and CYF meant that full advantage was not taken of the provisions of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 (CYPFA) in relation to the holding of an FGC. A FGC is measure provided for in the CYPFA as a positive early step to holding a young person or a child accountable for their offending. The review identified a need for more training of Police and CYF staff in the use of CYPFA provisions. It also recognised that poor understanding of the CYPFA amongst Police supervisors meant that subordinate officers did not thoroughly record apprehensions of young people, and did not refer these cases to specialist Youth Aid officers. This highlighted inter-agency collaboration issues. Objectives 1.5 and 4.1 of the Police National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006[3] describe Police youth work as traditionally defined on the margins of frontline policing, and commits to increasing the knowledge base, understanding and monitoring of all staff, in relation to Police powers and obligations under the CYPF Act.

(b) Two Recent Psychological Reports: The Lessons They Teach Us

Section 333 of the CYPFA provides for a Youth Court to obtain a medical, psychiatric or psychological report to assist the Court to determine what sort of order or condition should be imposed on a young person, or indeed whether the young person is legally insane, or fit to stand trial. Two such psychological reports, recently encountered in respect of 14 year old young offenders, are illustrative. These reports provided thorough assessments of the psychological health of the two young people in question. The reports also highlighted the diversity of issues, and, by implication the diversity of agencies and groups, which needed to collaborate in providing services to these young people if their offending was to be properly addressed.

A's case: Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; Assault with a stabbing or cutting instrument A's report showed a personal history of witnessing violence in the home, and multiple changes of residence, school, and family group. A drank regularly, was dependent on cannabis, and mildly clinically depressed. He was also prone to anger and violence, had a fascination with knives, and had not responded well to an anger management course. The psychologist pointed out that A's lack of symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder were of particular concern when viewed with his lack of empathy and emotional connection to violent episodes in his life, and should be addressed in therapy. The report writer also advised that A's suicidal tendencies should be closely monitored, given his alcohol use. The report describes A as talking about a culture of violence and substance abuse within his whanau, and living virtually independently with his girlfriend, without the benefit of boundaries set or enforced by his closest parent. The report concluded that:

• A should live away from his mother in a "supportive residential type environment";
• A needs positive male role models and contact with his grandparents;
• A should return to fulltime education;
• A should receive counselling to address his anger and unresolved childhood experiences;
• A needs intensive psychological therapy to create cognitive conflict about his violent behaviours and to enable him to empathise with others;
• A should receive alcohol and drug counselling;
• A needs to learn appropriate self defence techniques; and
• A's self esteem, confidence, and positive cultural identity would benefit from educational, leisure and Maori cultural activities which build on his strengths and interests.

B's case: Robbery; Aggravated wounding

B lives with four brothers and a sister, plus a step father and a step brother in a town described by a social worker as "a cesspool of gangs". His mother works night shifts and sleeps during the day. B has been previously placed in CYF care twice due to his mother and step father's drinking and violence. B's step father used to be a gang member. B's father, a gang member, was murdered when B was 8 years old. B's father was violent towards the family, although B reports that he was "loving and cool". B's 16 year old sister has been hospitalised twice due to heavy drinking sessions with B's twin brother.

B has been hospitalised a number of times for violence-related injuries, and once when he was 3 years old, after swallowing 31 adult neuroleptic prescription tablets. B's school previously reported him as having significant behavioural difficulties. B was in trouble at many of the various Primary Schools he attended, being suspended many times, and finally expelled. He reports responding positively to teachers helping him with his behavioural problems, and to being involved in singing and kapahaka. B reports doing well academically at his current high school. He is involved in sports and cultural groups. Some of his friends get into trouble, but others conform and play sports.

At the time of the report, B was resident at a CYF Youth Justice Residence. B reported drinking socially, but not to excess, and returning to cannabis use while staying at the Residence. B was remorseful, and regretted injuring his victim. B's high school principal reports B as sometimes volatile and violent, although polite in the right company. B's outlook on the future included returning home, and eventually attending university to do music or art.

In B's case, the report concluded that:

• B has a clinical conduct disorder;
• B does not have PTSD, and is not clinically depressed when staying away from home;
• B has witnessed and been subject to violence in the home, has suffered from poor parenting, and demonstrates risk factors for aggressive behaviour;
• B needs strong male role models, and a nurturing environment with firm boundaries and limitations;
• B needs to live somewhere that is violence free, drug and alcohol free, is structured and has good monitoring;
• B needs to go to school fulltime, and have contact with his mother to a limited extent;
• B should have therapy that addresses his own violence, as well as the violence that he has witnessed within the family;
• B should do cultural and leisure activities that build on his strengths and interests, which would help him develop a strong positive sense of self esteem and confidence, and a positive cultural identity.

The web of factors which have contributed to the offending of these young people, and the variety of actions needed to address their offending, and keep them out of Court in the future, are obviously interrelated and interdependent. The two reports, absolutely typical of so many obtained by the Youth Court, strongly imply that strategies to rehabilitate A and B, and to restore them to the communities which have suffered from their offending, cannot ignore the collaborative imperative encompassing:

• Psychologists
• Social workers
• Teachers
• Police
• Sports groups
• Cultural groups
• Victims, or their representatives

Responses to youth offending simply have to be collaborative because the problems faced by young people, and the causes of their offending are not readily compartmentalised or boxed. In the same way that the problems are interrelated and overlap, so must be the responses.

2. The theoretical imperative for collaboration

In Majumbar's review of collaboration among Government agencies in New Zealand[4], he emphasises the concept of agency interdependence — a heightened awareness about common clients that has the potential to kindle a willingness to search for mutually involving and beneficial solutions. In an update of their 2001 study, Matessich et al[5] define collaboration as a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organisations to achieve common goals.

The relationship includes a commitment to mutual relationships and goals; a jointly developed structure and shared responsibility; mutual authority and accountability for success; and sharing of resources and rewards.

At the beginning of his article, Majumbar announces that "Collaboration is a service-related concept, focussing principally on service delivery to individuals, families and community groups."[6] Service is, or should be, a powerful driver in Youth Justice. It is an object and an outcome that exists at the heart of all Youth Justice agencies. While notions of shared responsibility, authority, and accountability are no doubt important, the very existence of the subjects of Youth Justice — young offenders, victims, families and communities — makes service to these individuals and groups the main focus of any collaborative endeavours. Any discussion of common goals and shared clients should not lose sight of the fact that the rehabilitation and restoration of the offender, the victim, and the community is the primary focus of the Youth Justice community.

Majumbar provides a review of various New Zealand departmental studies into collaboration, with particular mention of reports produced by the Ministry of Social Development[7], and the State Services Commission[8]. The key message that Majumbar offers is that successful collaborations typically include[9]:

• Close relationships characterised by interdependence, commitment, and mutual understanding, trust and respect;
• Participative decision making;
• Open and frequent communication;
• Complementarity in terms of resources and skills;
• Strong, shared leadership.

Successful Youth Justice collaborations should surely share all these characteristics.

Majumbar goes on to pose a series of questions that he believes remain unanswered by the literature on collaboration in New Zealand. These questions include:

• Does collaboration offer any benefits in technical efficiency or cost effectiveness over other formal agreements when it comes to meeting service delivery goals?
• What types of outcomes is collaboration best suited to achieving?
• Under what circumstances is it best to chose collaboration as a strategy?
• Can agencies ever choose not to collaborate?

There appear to be no studies that directly address the difference between the technical efficiency and cost effectiveness of collaboration, and any other method of service delivery for Youth Justice. Any unwillingness to collaborate between Youth Justice agencies, or community providers, would be detrimental to the developing fabric of Youth Justice collaboration, and also to the young people and communities it is meant to serve. While refusing to collaborate altogether is obviously not to be encouraged, there is a continuum of collaborative involvements that recognises varying degrees of commitment and interdependence. The following diagram represents this continuum[10].

Networking to integration — Collaboration continuum model

As for Majumbar's last two questions, the next section of this paper attempts to answer these questions as they relate specifically to Youth Justice.

3. Youth Justice collaborations

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 provides the legislative framework for agencies and community groups to collaborate to achieve various outcomes in Youth Justice and Family Law. Some examples of collaboration founded on the 1989 Act are examined below:

Police

New Zealand Police show a considerable commitment to the language and practice of collaboration. In his message at the front of the National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006 (NYPP), the Minister of Police George Hawkins says "The National Youth Policing Plan places significant emphasis on interagency co-operation, communication, and interaction. It also works to align youth policing strategies with the strategic direction of other Youth Justice partners." The Minister's message also talks about responding to, and working with, "significant communities" to reduce crime and increase community safety. The NYPP looks back to the National Youth Offending Strategy (April 2002) produced by the Ministerial Taskforce on Youth Offending and highlights the development of local Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and the nationally convened Youth Justice Leadership Group (YJLG). The NYPP states that, in the Police's view, "a commitment to working across agencies at strategic and operational levels"[11] is an important aspect of both the YOTs and the YJLG.

Practically, Police Youth Services work collaboratively on 4 fronts:

(a) Youth Education Service;

(b) Youth Development;

(c) Youth Aid;

(d) Child Abuse.

Youth Education

Police work in schools and other learning environments to deliver programmes that increase "a child's awareness of the law and understanding of the consequences of infringing the law, including how people are victimised"[12]. Police partner with other agencies to develop programmes and resources, including cyber-bullying, and drug education[13].

Youth Development

Youth Development is an umbrella term for a range of Police programmes. Sworn and non-sworn Police staff work to support young offenders and their families. Youth Development programmes can involve local schools, Youth workers, community education providers, drug and alcohol counsellors, and social workers. They provide wrap around services designed to stop cycles of family victimisation, offending, and re-offending. Police lead the Youth Development teams, and manage external contracts, and relationships with community providers[14].

Youth Development programmes can involve the full range of providers needed to wrap around a young offender, and address as many of the risk factors for their offending as possible. Regular meetings are planned with the young person, their family and provider agencies. The personal progress of the young people in the programme is regularly monitored, and the young person is held accountable to a contract which outlines their obligations to the programme. Some individual intervention programmes can last for up to 24 months.

Youth Development Co-ordinators are responsible for maintaining links between all agencies and providers involved in the case management of a young person, and the Co-ordinator monitors the performance of the agency, and makes sure it is aware of its obligations to the client. Coordinators also work closely with local schools, and can be allowed free access to conduct spot checks on client young people.

Youth Development sometimes includes Early Intervention programmes aimed at 10 — 14 year olds with histories of minor offending or behavioural problems.

Rubicon programme, Whangarei

The Rubicon programme in Whangarei is a support service charitable trust which targets under 18 year olds with cannabis problems, who would otherwise be in danger of being excluded from school. The programme was developed by Police and a child psychologist in Whangarei, is run by a Child Youth and Family manager, and is funded by the Ministry of Health. Young people with cannabis problems are offered a "last chance" by opting into the programme, and thereby, hopefully, staying out of Court. As well as changing their behaviour at school and accepting drug education and counselling, participants in the programme are invited to sign a contract with Police which commits them to reducing the THC levels in their blood over a certain period. During this period, young people on the programme agree to regular and random testing. Ex Police Youth Constable in Whangarei, Anne Marie Fitchett[15], reports that the Rubicon programme has a 90% success rate, and is now used by its young clients as a reason given to peers for not using cannabis - "because I'm on the programme".

Youth Aid — Diversion/Alternative Action — The Hamilton example

Police Youth Aid officers deal with the bulk of young offender apprehensions by diverting them away from the formal Court process. This gives practical effect to the directive contained in s208(a) of the CYPFA. Youth Aid officers work with community groups and families to provide interventions and 'alternative actions' that strive to keep young offenders out of Court, while ensuring that they are held accountable for their offending at the same time[16]. In Hamilton, for example, Police Youth Aid have partnered with Taiohi Toa Charitable Trust to develop an alternative action project that has a dramatic impact on the number and quality of alternative actions carried out in the Hamilton area[17].

Taiohi Toa provide funding for the role of an Alternative Action Co-ordinator. This person takes referrals from Hamilton Police Youth Aid, and works to prepare and engage the young offender and their family with the Alternative Action process. The Co-ordinator also provides monitoring and support to enable the young offender and their family to complete the Alternative Action plan. The Co-ordinator is also in a good position to make referrals to other agencies, as he develops a deeper understanding of the young person's needs. The Co-ordinator and a Police Youth Services team member also plan and supervise community work days, which are designed to provide young offenders whose Alternative Action plan includes community work, with specific tasks that benefit the community and deliver some measure of punishment as well. Before the introduction of the Alternative Action co-ordinator, the non-completion of community work was one of the major factors behind the poor completion rate of Alternative Action plans. The increase in completion rates by young offenders following the introduction of a fulltime Alternative Action Co-ordinator was almost total[18]. Co-ordinators are also involved in re-engaging young people with school and other education opportunities.

Hamilton Police Youth Aid officers use risks and needs assessment screening tools to provide a useful background picture of a young persons chances of re-offending. The use of these screening tools has meant a significant increase in the number of young offenders referred to external providers such as youth services or mental health agencies.

Hamilton's Alternative Action Project and the funding of an Alternative Action Co-ordinator has had a number of other positive impacts:

• Police Youth Aid officers have more time to work proactively with offenders, as well as other agencies;

• The use of Alternative Action plans has increased, with a corresponding decrease in Family Group Conferences, and Youth Court appearances (both of which are seen as more serious options).

Child Abuse Teams

Specialist Police teams work closely, through a linked protocol and Memoranda of Understanding, with Child Youth and Family Serious Abuse teams. This means that ongoing protection of children is central to the investigation of any alleged offending[19].

Family Group Conferences

A Family Group Conference (FGC) is a legislatively mandated[20] forum for collaborative decision making. It provides the opportunity for the offender's family, the Police, the victim, and the community to hold the offender accountable, and to go on to develop a plan that is intended to rehabilitate the offender, and restore the offender, the community and the victim. FGCs are encouraged, taking the legislation into account, to creatively explore solutions for rehabilitation and restoration, and agree on a plan for the young person that can be presented to the Youth Court, which will usually accept a well thought out plan with few modifications.

Youth Court Orders: Supervision

Supervision orders[21] are fifth in the hierarchy of Youth Court orders. Young people may be placed under the supervision of Child, Youth and Family for a period of up to 6 months, during which time they will be required to comply with a set of standard and discretionary conditions, that are designed to specifically relate to their offending and personal circumstances. Supervision orders can be ordered by the Court following a recommendation from a Family Group Conference, and involve Child, Youth and Family monitoring the young person, approving employment activities, and supervising any medical treatment, counselling, or therapy. Effective supervision plans will absolutely depend on a collaborative approach, where community based programmes and initiatives will be accessed to target young offenders' criminogenic needs

Youth Court Orders: Supervision with Activity

Supervision with Activity[22] is the third most serious order available to the Youth Court, and also, by statute[23], a true alternative to Supervision with Residence (the Youth Court's only custodial order) for some offenders. It involves the young person undertaking a specified programme or activity for up to 3 months, and 24 hours a day 7 days a week if necessary, followed by up to 3 months supervision. The legislation deliberately envisages collaboration between the Court, Child Youth and Family, and community providers to produce a programme, approved by the Court, for the young person, targeted at making them face up to their offending, and addressing the damage caused to their own lives, as well as those of their victims and communities.

In a recent issue of Court In The Act[24], ex chief Child Youth and Family Social Worker Mike Doolan described Supervision with Activity as intensive management of a young person in the community by providing opportunities for the young person to engage in meaningful activities which would be sufficiently structured to give the Court confidence that opportunities for further re-offending would be significantly reduced, and the interests of the community would be sufficiently protected[25].

Unfortunately, the use of Supervision with Activity as a true alternative to Supervision with Residence has been in decline for a number of years to the point where it is virtually extinct in some areas. Mike Doolan attributes this decline to, amongst other things:

• a disconnection between the development of the policy, and the implementation of it at an operational level;
• too much optimism that family groups could provide core programme activities without support; due to

The history of Supervision with Activity is a valuable lesson, if we needed one, that good collaboration will not just happen by itself, even if it is prescribed by an Act of Parliament.

Operation of the Youth Court

Recent Youth Offending statistics from the Ministry of Justice[26] show that Police apprehension rates for most types of youth crime are dropping. Unfortunately, this is not true for serious violent offending. Apprehensions for serious violent offences have been increasing since 2004 in all cohorts of the population except 10 — 13 years olds. Young people aged 14 — 16 are not immune from this trend, and publicity about so-called 'rising rates of youth crime' often focuses on serious violent offenders, without mentioning other types of offending, and without putting the youth crime statistics in context.

An increase in serious youth crime means an increase in the business of the Youth Court. 29% of young people apprehended by Police in 2006 went on to be charged in the Youth Court[27]. These young people represent the full range of risk factors for offending: antisocial histories and attitudes, impulsive and aggressive personalities, poor parental supervision, problems with attendance and achievement at school or work, and substance abuse[28]. From our front row seat in the grandstand of Youth Justice, it is obvious that no one agency can shoulder the burden of addressing these risk factors, and thereby reducing the more serious end of youth offending[29]alone.

The structure of a Youth Court sitting, as opposed to the layout of an adult court, presents a picture that is more 'round table' than hierarchical. In practice, discussions, outside of defended fact hearings, are less adversarial and more collaborative. Many Youth Court sittings act as case management conferences where a Judge asks for the input of Police, CYF, the offender, and the offender's family.

Youth Court Judges, in particular Judge Carolyn Henwood, pioneered regular inter-agency meetings, where representatives from Police, CYF, Youth Advocates, as well as community groups met to discuss issues related to the operation of their local Court.

National Structural Issues

As a result of the Government's 2002 Youth Offending Strategy[30], the structure of the management of Youth Justice in New Zealand was redesigned.

Part of this redesign involved the establishment of regional Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). These YOTs are made up of representatives from Police, CYF, and the health and education sectors, and were set up to enhance collaboration between these agencies in the short term. The YOTs were tasked with co-ordinating service delivery to youth offenders, and facilitating a coordinated approach with other Youth Justice providers, such as the Court and community groups. Once this basic YOT model had become established, it became apparent that good relationships with key community groups were needed to get the most out of the structure. Some YOTs began to reach out to tangata whenua, local Councils, Youth Advocates, and community providers.

The most successful YOTs have extended the mandate of collaboration and opened up their membership to other agencies and community groups with an interest in Youth Justice. These successful YOTs have demonstrated the advantages and gains that derive from effective collaboration. I was dismayed recently to be present at a meeting of one particular YOT, which was asked by two local groups involved in providing drug and alcohol, and sex offender services, to admit them as members of the Team. The YOT in question turned down this request on the grounds that the Youth Offending Strategy did not allow it, and there would be a risk that these new members would only attend sporadically. In my view, this decision was short sighted, counter productive, and displayed a misunderstanding of the Youth Offending Strategy. I am bound to say that this sends a negative message about collaboration at a time when other areas of the sector are embracing it and achieving good results[31].

Funding for a specific co-ordinator is also vital to support the effectiveness of the collaborative structure. Paid co-ordinators are not currently provided for. Hamilton YOT's Melanie Atkinson[32]has written that[33]

From our experience in this project I, and most of he members of the YOT, formed a view that collaborations need to be staffed. There is significant value in having someone to co-ordinate and oversee the development of collaboration and this view is also supported by research.

Many collaborative initiatives, including YOTs, have been created with the expectation that group members will carry out the organisational tasks required to develop and sustain collaboration in addition to their current workload. It is my view that such an expectation is unrealistic and creates significant capacity issues as barriers to success.

My observation of other YOTs around New Zealand suggest that providing relevant technical assistance enables a group to work more strategically and effectively. Such assistance may include problem identification, facilitating planning, and developing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Much of the input to YOTs has focussed on youth justice issues, such as causes of crime, risk factors, legislation, and effective interventions. While this is important, the process of collaboration must also receive attention. There has perhaps been an assumption that collaboration will just happen but the literature suggests that this is not always the case.

Membership of the Hamilton YOT includes:

Dr Melanie Atkinson has spoken about the benefits of extending participation beyond the four government agencies. She says[34]:

• Maori membership is critical if the YOT is wanting to address offending by Maori Youth;
• The four government agencies no longer reflect a fragmented system;
• The planning process benefits from a comprehensive perspective;
• Value in building networks and sharing information;
• Project planning and implementation is improved with a larger pool of people to draw on.

A well functioning YOT takes the lead in its local area by providing a collaboration focussed on 'whole-of-system' issues, while, at the same time, encouraging other specialised collaborations looking at specific areas of practice and service delivery.

Child Youth and Family - Youth Justice Toolkit

Child Youth and Family have recently published a toolkit on Youth Justice interagency collaboration for their Youth Justice Managers[35]. The introduction to the toolkit makes the point that "collaboration involves time and effort and a range of skills", and must reflect regional concerns and issues. It implies that Youth Justice Managers will take a lead the collaboration process in their local areas. As well as mentioning government agencies, the toolkit recognises that service delivery and planning input is required from Maori agencies, District Health Boards, schools, Primary Health Organisations, and other agencies. The toolkit also encourages Youth Justice Managers to involve themselves in existing Youth Justice collaborations, and actively engage with the right partners.

Christchurch Youth Drug Court

The Youth Drug Court began as a pilot in 2002, with the aim of early identification of young offenders with drug and alcohol problems, reducing time delays in service delivery to these young people, facilitating effective interagency co-ordination, and monitoring these young people through their treatment. The Court targets young offenders with moderate to severe drug dependencies. In a recent speech, the Court's first Judge, Judge John Walker, spoke about the need to address the underlying causes of youth offending, and warned that no one agency or community group, or family can deal with the problem on their own[36]. Judge Walker commented that debate about which particular government or community sector should take responsibility for the problem of underlying causes of youth offending is paralysing. He said the problem "will only respond to a multidisciplinary, interagency, whole of community attack and nothing less will do." The Judge praised the approach of the Liverpool Community Justice Centre in the UK, which groups all relevant health, justice, housing, and employment agencies under the same roof, and makes their personnel available to Youth Court judges, as well as offenders, victims, and the community as a whole. He said "In the criminal justice arena working collaboratively simply has to be best practice and recognised as such. Courts can provide the rallying point."

Ministry of Social Development — Inter-agency Plan for Conduct Disorder/Severe Antisocial Behaviour 2007 — 2012

The Ministry of Social Development has recently released this Plan which recognises that "[c]onduct problems are the single most important predictor of later chronic antisocial behaviour problems" and typically lead on to youth offending, family violence, and serious adult crime[37]. The plan admits that existing Government efforts to provide services to severely conduct disordered children "have evolved in a somewhat ad hoc and isolated manner within agencies" and there is widespread support for Government to[38]:

• Review overall levels of services and age related targetting,
• Improve the alignment of services with best practice,
• Clarify respective roles and responsibilities of key agencies,
• Identify ways in which a wide range of services can be integrated for individual clients.

Action Area One of the Plan announces that the Ministry will assume responsibility for, amongst other things, ongoing leadership and co-ordination of the plan, including[39]:

• An inter-agency working group (with Health, Education, Justice)
• A national level inter-agency governance group (MSD, Health, Education, Justice)
• Experts Group (leading researchers and practitioners with backgrounds in mental health, education, developmental psychology, and criminal justice).

4. Conclusion

Collaboration to achieve results in Youth Justice is mandated by the legislation, dictated by the needs of the young people who are subjects of the system, and promoted by researchers, politicians, policy makers, and practitioners. But collaboration will not happen by itself, and valuable collaboration will not happen without commitment from funders, and participants. From my front row seat in the grandstand of Youth Justice, I can see that the 'conditioning window' for players in collaborative Youth Justice in New Zealand is now over, and all players need to step up and work as a team to reduce re-offending, and refocus young lives.

The well known African proverb — "it takes a village to raise a child" represents a lesson that a community of interests is the best for young people — the community cares the most, it is there for the long term, it is the most impacted, and it has the most stake in the outcome.

Footnotes

1 Western, Lynch & Ogilvie Eds Understanding Youth Crime, Ashgate, 2005, 20.

2 Ministry of Justice Youth Justice an Social Sector Service Delivery to the Children and Young People Convicted in relation to the Death of Michael Choy, http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2003/choy-report/index.html.

3 New Zealand Police, National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006, http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/youth-policing-plan/youth-policing-plan.pdf. 30, 34.

4 Majumdar Collaboration Amongst Government Agencies with Special Reference to NZ Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Issue 27 March 2006, 185.

5 Mattessich, Murray-Close, Monsey, Collaboration: What Makes It Work 2^ Edition, Wilder Foundation, Minnesota, 2004, 4.

6 Majumdar Collaboration Amongst Government Agencies with Special Reference to NZ Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Issue 27 March 2006, 184.

7 Ministry of Social Development (2003) Mosaics: Whakaahua Papariki: Key Findings and Good Practice Guide for Regional Co-ordination and Integration Service Delivery, Ministry of Social Development, Wellington.

8 State Services Commission and Ministry of Social Development (2003) Review of the Centre Integrated Service Delivery: Regional Co-ordination: Final Workstream Report. www.ssc.govtnz/roc-isd-final-workstream-report State Services Commission (2001) Report of the Advisory Group on the Review of the Centre. www.ssc.govt.nz /roc

9 Majumdar Collaboration Amongst Government Agencies with Special Reference to NZ Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Issue 27 March 2006, 195.

10 J Howarth and T Morrison Collaboration, integration and change in children's services: Critical issues and key ingredients, Child Abuse and Neglect 31 (2007) 55 — 69 in Youth Justice Interagency Collaboration: Tool Kit for Youth Justice Managers, Child Youth and Family, 2007.

11 New Zealand Police, National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006, http://www.police.govt.nz/resources /2005/youth-policing-plan/youth-policing-plan.pdf. 13.

12 New Zealand Police, National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006, http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/youth-policing-plan/youth-policing-plan.pdf, 14.

13 New Zealand Police, National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006, http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/youth-policing-plan/youth-policing-plan.pdf, 15.

14 New Zealand Police, Programme Descriptions of Seven New Police Youth Development Programmes, http://www.police.govt.nz/service/evaluation/new-youth-programmes-2002.pdf, August 2002.

15 Now working at Police National Headquarters. See also http://www.cmdhb.org.nz/Counties/About_CMDHB/Planning/Youth-Health-Plan/attachments/drugfree-contract.pdf.

16 New Zealand Police, National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006, http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/youth-policing-plan/youth-policing-plan.pdf, 16.

17 Ministry ofJustice Youth Offending Teams e-flash 20 Hamilton Alternative Action Project, http://justicedev/youth-justice/e-flash/e-flash%2020.pdf

18 Ministry of Justice Youth Offending Teams e-flash 20 Hamilton Alternative Action Project, http: //justicedev/youth-justice/e-flash/e-flash%2020.pdf, 3,4.

19 New Zealand Police, National Youth Policing Plan 2005 — 2006, http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/youth-policing-plan/youth-policing-plan.pdf, 16.

20 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 ss247 — 263.

21 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 ss283(k).

22 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 ss283(m).

23 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 ss289.

24 A newsletter published by the Office of the Principal Youth Court Judge.

25 Mike Doolan, Supevision with Activity — as it was first envisaged, Court in the Act #30, Office of the Principal Youth Court Judge, July 2007, http://www.justice.govt.nz/youth/media/court-in-the-act-30.pdf, 7.

26 Jin Chong, Youth Statistics in NZ: 1992 - 2006, Ministry of Justice, August 2007.

27 Jin Chong, Youth Statistics in NZ: 1992 - 2006, Ministry of Justice, August 2007, 14.

28 Kaye L McLaren Tough is Not Enough — Getting Smart About Youth Crime, Ministry of Youth Affairs, June 2000, 23.

29 Young persons apprehended but not charged in the Youth Court were dealt with by Police diversion or alternative action, or by Family Group Conference.

30 Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Development Youth Offending Strategy — Te Haonga, April 2002.

31 Ministry ofJustice e-flash #20 Hamilton Alternative Action Project, http://www.courts.govt.nz/youth-justice/e-flash/e-flash%2020.pdf

32 Paid co-ordinator for the Hamilton YOT 2002 — 2005. Currently National Co-ordinator for Police Youth Development.

33 Unpublished Research from Atkinson, M. (2006) Interagency collaboration in youth justice: creating change through action research. D.Phil thesis, Waikato University, Hamilton.

34 Melanie Atkinson and Lance Tebbutt Youth Offending Teams: The Nuts and Bolts of Achieving Outcomes Powerpoint presentation.

35 Youth Justice Managers are new roles in CYF. They lead CYF Youth Justice Teams, playing a prominent role in managing relationships with internal and external stakeholders.

36 Judge John Walker, address to the ALAC Conference 4 May 2007, in Court In The Act #29, http://www.justice.govt.n2/youth/media/court-in-the-act-29.pdf, 1.

37 Ministry of Social Development Inter-agency plan for Conduct Disorder/Severe Antisocial Behaviour 2007 — 2012 Wellington September 2007, 1.

38 Ministry of Social Development Inter-agency plan for Conduct Disorder/Severe Antisocial Behaviour 2007 — 2012 Wellington September 2007, 6.

39 Ministry of Social Development Inter-agency plan for Conduct Disorder/Severe Antisocial Behaviour 2007 — 2012 Wellington September 2007, 31.