Youth Justice Begins at Infancy (or Earlier!)
(Edited transcript of a speech delivered at 7.30 am, Wednesday 9 April 2003 at a Parliamentary breakfast).
By Judge Andrew Becroft, Principal Youth Court Judge

Introduction

My theme today is that youth justice begins at infancy, or earlier! Everything I see in the Youth Court day by day, points inexorably towards early, comprehensive, effective and co-ordinated early intervention…

Outline

By way of outline, I want to let you know what I'm speaking about today. It would be so easy for me to go straight to early intervention and say why is it important. But from my perspective, I guess I need to "argue backwards", starting with what I see in the Youth Court.

1. I want to talk very briefly about what is the real picture about youth offending.

2. Secondly to talk about serious young offenders, that small group with which the Youth Court deals day by day.

3. To comment as to what the Youth Court can do, and what it can't; because we can make a difference and we do make a difference but we're hamstrung at the moment by a lack of rehabilitative interventions.

4. And then, in view of those observations, I want to talk about the case for early intervention.

5. And finally what might an articulate, thoughtful, 0-5 year old ask about the state of our early intervention in New Zealand?

The Real Picture About Youth Offending: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

What is the real picture about Youth Offending?

Let me read out two newspaper headlines I recently came across:

"There are a number of children running about the streets of Dunedin without the control of parents. If the government does not take them in hand they will become members of the criminal class. Youth offending is out of control."

And the second headline

"There is a definite relationship between the increase in the number of children on the streets and the increase in juvenile crime."

The first statement is from the Otago Daily Times 1884. The second statement in 1886! It needs to be said that every generation compares today's young people with previous golden ages. Everyone says to me "Judge, no one has had it as tough as we've had it." But you see every generation says that.

We have poor centralised statistics. In a sense we're boxing blind when it comes to working with young people. We need far better information, far better data giving us information as to what's working, where its working, what regions are doing well, what aren't.

Those statistics that we have are much debated, frequently distorted and, might I gently observe, even more frequently distorted in election years. Selective statistics mislead and while I welcome debate on youth offending that debate has to be informed and it has to be a debate based on accurate statistics.

I guess the starting point is this and I can illustrate it in this way. Even with the TV cameras here, how many of you here would be prepared to admit that you did something at least once before the age of 17 that broke the law - hands up. Recent research has said that 95% of people will answer that question yes and the other 5% are liars. All young people do something, at least once, that breaks the law. Few, however, come to police notice.

1. When we're talking about statistics the first point to make, is that youth offending has remained a stable 22% of total offending for the last 12 years. In any debate about youth crime and early intervention, it needs to be emphasised that youth crime is increasing no faster than total crime.

2. The second thing to say is that in the last 5 years there have only been relatively small increases in offending by under 17 year olds. Again you might accuse me of selective use of statistics, and that is true, because if you took the last 12 years, there have been some very significant increases. For reasons we're not quite sure, between 1989 and 1995, there were some enormous increases in most areas of youth offending. But in the last five years its been relatively stable, a factor that surprises many people. Amongst the black spots, and we've had some tragic and traumatic events that have rightly shocked the nation, the overall position is of relative stability.

3. A small percentage is serious:
- 60% property of $100 or less
- 20% shoplifting
- 24% (up to 33%?) committed between 9am and 4pm
- 9% is violent offending

That third statistic is an interesting, if not damning indictment on parts of our education system. If we could keep all young people at school, youth offending might arguably reduce by up to one third.

4. We need to say too, that 76% of youth offending is resolved by the Police; it doesn't even come to Court. It's a stunning statistic. It's a largely unknown and unremarked upon fact of our youth justice system. We lead the world. Our Police Youth Aid officers, up and down the country, with creative, community based alternative action diversionary programmes, make a remarkable contribution that frankly stuns overseas visitors to New Zealand.

5. 8% is dealt with before a charge is laid, by way of a pre-charge Family Group Conference.

6. Less than 20% comes to the Youth Court.

7. Numbers in Youth Court have dropped over the last two years and continue to drop not at exponential rates, but there are slow and significant declines. There were 6,900 in 2001, with some repeat offenders.

8. Family Group Conference's have remained very stable over the last 12 years - about 6,000 a year.

9. There are enormous regional variations. You cannot say this is the position for New Zealand. What's happening in Taranaki is different from what's happening in Kaikohe which is different from what's happening in Invercargill which is different from what's happening in Blenheim.

10. A fundamental question is, is violent offending increasing? The answer is that there were significant increases in the first six years of the last decade but only slightly since. And again a factor that will surprise many, is that apprehensions for violent offending for 10-13 year olds have dropped since 1997.

11. There are two questions we cannot answer. The statistics don't tell us but there is a concern over these two issues:-
- Is the age at which under 17 year olds start to commit violent offences decreasing?
- Has the type of violence changed?

If you speak to the front line Youth Justice professionals they will say what a 17 year old used to do with a piece of "4 by 2", a 14 year old does with a imitation firearm. Their clear view is that violence is starting at an earlier age and it is more profound.

So, that's just a very brief snapshot - important when we talk about early intervention - as to what is actually happening.

Serious Young Offenders

A particular issue that we face in the Youth Court is what many people call "serious young offenders". I can explain it in this way. A sort of a "80/20 rule"

80% of offenders commit 20% of offences. The literature refers to them as "persisters" or "adolescent limited". Their offending is often part of the normal maturation process. For those young people, good interventions can work and they do work in New Zealand.

But there are 20% of offenders who can commit up to 80% of offences; actually 5-15% of young offenders commit any where between 50-75% of offences. The literature refers to them in different ways: "pesisters", "life course offenders", "early on-set offenders", "serious young offenders". They will be a small group, in every town and city in New Zealand. If you put in a room the people who work with families in Wanganui or Kaikohe or Invercargill, you put health in one corner, education in one corner, CYFS in one corner, Police Youth Aid in one corner (and they are all too often in different corners to start with) and you ask them who are the 20 or so names that you deal with most often they would all invariably come up with the same names, (and we've done that exercise), because they're all working with the same people. They have a hugely disproportionate affect on their peers. They are a huge drain on resources. They are the people that the Youth Court work with daily. It would be interesting to ask for you to talk very briefly to yourselves and take a break, why not do that for 30 seconds, what do you think are some of the characteristics of the serious offenders that we see in the Youth Court. While you have a sip of your orange and spread your second croissant, just talk very briefly, what do you think are the characteristics - talk to your next door neighbour.

Alright, let me suggest six. These are, I guess, anecdotal. They are not the result of any scientific survey. They are what I've seen over eighteen months. Others might have a different list.

1. The most obvious is that 85% are male.

2. The second is that many have no adult male role model or a good adult role model and come from disadvantaged, even dysfunctional families. 14,15 and 16 year old boys seek out role models like "heat seeking missiles". Its either the leader of the Mongrel Mob or it's a sports coach or its dad. But an overwhelming majority of young boys who I see in the Youth Court have lost contact with their father. That message is often received by audiences in various ways. I'm not making a judgment about people who separate because usually separated dads have a wonderful input into the lives of their children. Neither am I saying that all solo mum's breed criminals, because it's a lot to do with parenting styles and involving adult male role models in the lives of their boys. But what I am saying is that I'm dealing in the Youth Court, as are the 42 Youth Court Judges around the country, with boys for whom their dad is simply not there, never has been, gone, vanished and disappeared. When you ask them about their dads as I sometimes do, the tears will stream down their eyes or their anger will rise up. Its an awfully common characteristic.

3. Up to 80% are not "engaged" with school. I say not engaged with school because most, technically aren't truants, because they're not enrolled at a school to be a truant from.

4. Up to 75-80% have a drug/alcohol addiction. If you ask Secondary School Principals, drug abuse (and we have an avalanche of methamphetamine abuse about to hit New Zealand), if you ask Secondary School Principals they would say it's a hushed up problem. We don't want it advertised to our community that its in our school and that its happening here, but it is, and can you help? I deal with young offenders who say that at the age of 8 or 9 or 10 and uncle or friend introduced them to cannabis. Its an extraordinarily hard addiction to shake during the crucial, physiological vulnerable, teenage years.

5. Many have psychological or psychiatric issues.

6. At least 50% of young offenders are Maori and in some Youth Courts around the country, up to 90% of offenders appearing are Maori. And it is a deeply troubling and rightly perplexing statistic. It is often said that we have used a "one size fits all" template. But there's a real challenge on our hands as to how we deal creatively and differently with Maori young offenders.

That snapshot that I've painted for you, has recently been confirmed in a clear and statistically reliable way by the Auckland Forensic Youth Service who deal with young offenders. All of these young people have a psychiatric problem but this is their assessment of whom they dealt with, in 2000-2001.
- 80-85% Male
- Maori & Pacific Island over-represented
- 70% use cannabis; 60% use alcohol
- 50% lived in 3 different placements
- 30-40% Care and Protection history
- 20% involved in gangs
- 70% unemployed or not attending school
(40% Reached 3rd form, 32% reached 4th form)
- History of offending: 5 - 10 offences

So it's a pretty similar picture. And just to reassure you it is also a western world phenomenon, and this is the picture in England and Wales.
- 83% male
- 70% from single parent families
- 41% regularly truanting
- 60% have special educational needs
- Over 50% use cannabis
- 75% smoke and drink
- 75% considered impulsive
- 25% at risk of harm as a result of their own behaviour (9% at risk of suicide)

I've often thought how do I encapsulate, what is the challenge for those of us working with serious young offenders. Put somewhat bluntly, its this:

"How to influence aggressive, impulsive, truanting teenage boys (disproportionately Maori) in the grip of alcohol and/or drug addictions, and who have borderline personality disorders from dysfunctional families with anti social peers?"

Welcome to our world. That is the world of the Youth Court. That is what we deal with daily. You know primary school teachers say by the age of 5 or 6 they can identify these young boys especially by using good risk assessment tools. They are the boys who are socially disruptive, antisocial, have few friends, are aggressive, into property offending by 7 or 8, violent offending by 8 or 9, an enormous handful, almost impossible to deal with. I spoke yesterday in Rotorua to a joint Police Youth Aid and CYFS training session. There the Police had taken away a group of 15 of the most at risk, troublesome young 6-10 year olds, taken them away for a week, into the bush, with the emphasis on teaching them to read and write better.

And we know if you read all the newspaper headlines, if you read the profiles of almost every serious adult offender, that is the profile you read about. I can do no better than quote from the Herald of a few years ago. I won't name the offender that's being talked about, out of respect to him but the article asked what turned that offender into a murderer, and I just quote from the Herald:

"…abandoned by his father as a child, a loner, a drifter, he certainly fits the profile of serious killers and rapists. …born in Auckland, …grew up in suburban Auckland, the youngest of two boys, was 3 when his father moved to Australia where his father remarried and had another son. The young boy's feelings of abandonment turned into devastation when he learned that his father had called the new baby the same first name as him. At 8 he was caught committing his first burglary. He attended intermediate, was an average college student, dropped out quickly, lived on the streets developed a liking for drugs, particularly cannabis and appeared regularly in the Youth Court for burglary and theft."

I readily concede that not everybody who fits this profile becomes a serious young offender. We are strong in the Youth Court of emphasising personal responsibility: choices are involved, but on the other hand for so many of the young offenders that I see there is almost a tragic inevitability about their offending.

What the Youth Court can do (and what it can't).

People ask just what can the Youth Court do? Well, we do hold serious young offenders to account, and we do respond to what they do. Our family group conferencing system, I can't help but observe, is the jewel in the Crown of our system. Its often misunderstood. It is a profoundly effective way of involving wider family and victims and the community in positive accountability.

But I need to say there is real difficulty in meeting the needs and responding to the causes of young offending, and that we are hampered by a critical lack of rehabilitative services. We have only two youth residential drug and alcohol facilities in the country and there has been, and I say this with respect, a paralysing debate for the last 10 years about what we should do, but so little action. We have very limited youth forensic and mental heath services, and again there is a paralysing debate as to the extent to which District and Regional Health Boards have a responsibility themselves, if funding permits to provide a service. Some do; some don't. There's only one serious sex offender unit in New Zealand, - residential with 12 beds. If you speak to the experts who work in that field, they will say that every single young boy that we have dealt with has been abused as a child, every single one that they deal with. And we have inadequate insufficient alternative education programmes. I know there's a debate about whether you want a parallel system to mainstream education - but there are two parallel systems now, those who are at school and those who aren't. Education is an extremely effective entry point into a young person's life. School shouldn't bear the burden alone, but we waste massive opportunities at the school stage. Keeping young people at school is a hugely protective factor against risk.

This slide of the leaning tower of Pisa illustrates the challenge: "Mediocrity: it takes a lot less time and most people won't notice the difference until its too late." If we're serious about youth offending (and therefore future adult offending), we would devote far more resources towards "serious young offenders". We've got pop gun resources when a cannon is needed. And with the understandable clamour for tougher sentences, and Courts will respond to the new legislation, we also desperately need responses that will reduce future youth offending. I firmly believe the Youth Court can make a difference. It is effective. It is really the community's last best chance. We can make a difference but we need far more help.

The Case for Early Intervention

With all that in mind and looking at that snap shot overview, all that I see day by day paints an absolutely powerful, overwhelming case for better, more comprehensive, early intervention. Now I don't speak as an expert on early intervention. If you ask my 7 and 6 year olds, and I've also got a 2 year old, they would say their dad has a lot to learn. I was at church recently in fact and a parenting seminar was advertised. My 7 year old said "What's that for dad?", I said "that's to make me into a better father, I guess". He said, with the wide eyed devotion of a 7 year old son, you don't need to go Dad, your fine. My 6 year old daughter who most would say has a far more acute sense of judgment said, "Dad its urgent, urgent, you've got to go." So I can only speak as someone in the front row of the grandstands regarding early intervention. I guess I see the results of our failure regarding early intervention. And that's what I guess entitles me now, in the time that's left, to make the case for early intervention. One reason is good common sense. Early intervention has an ancient pedigree.

"Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man (or woman)"
St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491 -1557)

Another reason which would appeal to the MP's here, is that it is a sound cost benefit step to take. One year in prison costs $54,020. One five-year prison sentence avoided, is at least a quarter of a million dollars saved downstream. What would a quarter of a million dollars could do for early intervention? If you asked some of the programmes that are involved in early intervention, for whom I have enormous regard, what they could do with a quarter of a million dollars!

If we were genuinely serious about reducing youth offending we would start much earlier. The research conclusions are overwhelming and frankly the issue is no longer if it should take place and why it should take place. Its how we do it and when we do it. Its not for me to quote all the research. In the last 10 years there's been an enormous step forward in our research regarding early intervention. Two quotations speak for themselves and are representative.

"In recent years, there has been a great deal of research into the way human beings develop, especially in the first five years of life…

There has been a rediscovery in the policy world , of the role of early childhood as a lifelong determinant of health, well being and competence…

Recent insights from neurobiology, developmental psychology, and longitudinal studies of children give credibility to notions long held as common sense…"
Clyde Hertzman "The Case for an Early Childhood Development Strategy", 2000

In other words, Ignatius Loyola was right.

"The better the care and stimulation a child receives, the greater the benefit for the national economy as well as the child.

The world is finally recognising that children's rights to education, growth and development - physical, cognitive, social, emotional and moral - cannot be met without a comprehensive approach to serving their needs from birth"
Carol Bellamy, UN Children's Fund, 1999

Early intervention is a key plank in the Youth Justice offending strategy released last year as part of the Ministerial Taskforce on Youth Offending which I was part of towards the latter months of its deliberations. Up and down the country, ordinary New Zealanders would challenge us by saying where is the vision - it is so easy to respond to an offender who's 15 or 20 now-but where is the vision and the foresight to intervene earlier and comprehensively where the results may not be seen for 10 or 20 years. Ordinary New Zealanders are challenging us and there are those in this room who are in a position to respond.

I could give you just one example of the benefits of early intervention.

An example -
Low income mothers visited by nurses at home versus those with no formal visits - 15 years later
- less child abuse and neglect
- fewer problems with alcohol and drugs
- fewer arrests by police
Olds and others, 1999, Journal American Medical Association

Can I suggest seven important principles regarding early intervention. Many of you here would be far better equipped than me to make these points. It is not my specialist field, but the list seems pretty clear and most of it is not rocket science.

1. The earlier the better

What could be simpler than that? You know there is a significant number of young women offenders in the Youth Court and many male offenders who come as parents already and they are 14,15 and 16. That's why I say at infancy or earlier. There's an enormous job to be done with the teenage young people that we deal with to talk about responsible sex, pregnancy, the responsibilities of having children. It's soul destroying to see a 16 year old boy who is the father of three.

2. An holistic, family centred approach is best -
"...counter-productive to isolate children from their living and learning environments...early intervention initiatives must offer support across the major systems of influence in a child's life..."

Again, absolutely self evident: building a family, working with families.

3. Multi-component approaches, over prolonged periods of time, are likely to be more effective than single faceted, "one shot", approaches
(NB. One programme doesn't have to do it all: co-ordinated range of programmes)

The third factor that's suggested, but is a bit of a mouth full. That doesn't mean that one programme has to do it all. Good co-ordination between several programmes will have the same effect.

4. But, reducing one risk factor is likely to reduce others as well

Having said that the research also says that reducing one risk factor is likely to reduce others as well. If you take education, early childhood education has been demonstrably proved to have an enormous reduction in other risk factors because educational success is a great protective factor against risk.

5. Programmes designed to:
- reduce risk of child abuse and neglect
- combat "child poverty"
will be particularly important

Those two areas, child abuse and neglect, and child poverty, all the international literature says will be particularly important.

6. Targeting a particular disadvantaged group is effective

Targeting a particular disadvantaged group is effective. It may be a neighbourhood it may be people with particular characteristics. It must avoid the stigmatisation of individuals.

7. Ongoing, repetitive effort is required

There is no single inoculation. Those involved in this field tell me that its hard work, its on-going, its repetitive and effort is required.

So I guess that's the challenge, that's what we ought to be doing. Well as I said as I sit in the front row of the grandstands, seeing 14,15 and 16 year olds and I hear about 10, 11, 12 and 13 year olds who have been dealt with effectively in the Family Court as child offenders (and no one ever much seems to know that the fact that the Family Court does a wonderful job and has a huge array of resources to work with child offenders), I see these issues inherited, given to us, and I am implored: "Judge fix them, solve them",

What might a 0-5 year old say?

But what might an articulate 0-5 year old say, or what might the Littlies Lobby or any of the groups working with that age group say on their behalf.

1. The first thing they'd ask I think, and some of these questions are rhetorical, "is there an overarching national policy for early intervention?" Clearly articulated, cross party, and cross government department. If there is one, I haven't been able to find it, and it has not been clearly publicised and articulated in the community. We have at least four or five different Government departments involved in excellent initiatives but I wonder at times is there national co-ordination? Is there a national vision under which these policies operate?

2. Is there an adequate, (single?) funding source for early intervention work?

3. Is there a co-ordinated, comprehensive, national delivery of early intervention?

4. Will the many excellent advocacy & operational groups work together? There is a particular challenge for the Littlies Lobby. It should not become another advocacy or pressure group, of which there are many excellent groups already in existence. It needs to become a co-ordinating, facilitating umbrella organisation to advance the cause for early intervention.

In summary…

There is room for cautious optimism about youth offending rates. But there is real concern about a small group of serious young offenders (1,000 -3,000) who may be becoming more violent at an earlier age. The Youth Court needs more rehabilitative interventions to address the needs of those serious young offenders. But the real first step must be comprehensive, effective, early intervention.

Conclusion

The challenge is, what will you do? Can I leave you with the story of Esther probably 2,500 years old. She was a young Jewish woman who in very remarkable circumstances became the wife of the king of Persia. During her reign, the Persian Prime Minister hatched a plot to execute all the Jewish exiles in Persia and to confiscate their assets. Esther's uncle Mordecai came to her and said "Esther, perhaps it is for a time such as this that you were made queen". We read about that story in the book of Esther in the Old Testament. Esther was able to intervene. She made a difference. The Jewish people were saved.

Without wishing to be too emotive, could it be that those of you here, the Parliamentarians and those involved with early intervention, have been appointed to your positions exactly at a time such as this to ensure that a strategic comprehensive early intervention policy is formulated and implemented. I urge you on behalf of a future generation of New Zealanders, to take up that challenge.