Responding to ethnic diversity in juvenile justice in Victoria, Australia – an overview of key issues for designing appropriate responses

By Michelle Jeffrey

Introduction

Statistics from a range of criminological publications suggest that particular groups of ethnic minority youth are over-represented within the juvenile justice system in Australia and overseas (see for example, de Haan, 1997; Gatti, Malfatti & Verde, 1997; Hebberecht, 1997; Mukherjee, 1999; Dell & Boe, 2000). Yet little is known about what happens to ethnic minority youth once they are in the juvenile justice system (Mukherjee, 1999), particularly within Australia. It is this question of what happens to ethnic minority young people once they are in the system that this research is concerned with, and it is the state of Victoria in particular which constitutes the focus of the research.

This paper discusses several aspects of a much wider inquiry into ethnicity and juvenile justice. Issues raised in this paper have emerged from current PhD research into juvenile justice and ethnicity.

In this paper I intend to outline four key areas central to the research preliminary findings to date. Firstly a brief outline of the research questions together with a discussion of the subject group, ethnic minority youth will be highlighted. Second, some central and shared issues amongst the ethnically diverse juvenile justice population within Victoria will be raised. Third a number of key cultural complexities evident through interviews with young people and case file analysis will be highlighted. The fourth and final discussion centres on some key issues for consideration when programming for ethnic minority youth.

1. The research

This paper does not address wider issues such as how the system, that is legislation, police and the courts help to determine the rate at which ethnic youth penetrate the system. It is acknowledged that particular determinations at these critical points of contact do impact on the rate at which ethnic youth come into contact with the system however the brevity of this paper does not allow for further discussion.

Key research questions include:

- What is the ethnic composition of juvenile justice populations in Victoria?

- Has this changed in recent years?

- Is diversity specifically identified in juvenile justice policies and programs?

- If yes – How is ethnic diversity defined, accommodated and responded to in the Victorian juvenile justice system?

- What evidence is there to indicate the success/failure of policies/programs designed specifically to address this issue/or specific populations?

- How have ethnic minority youth experienced the Juvenile Justice system in Victoria?

- Are there/what are the particular needs of ethnic minority youth in juvenile justice from the perspective of youth, members of the community, and juvenile justice personnel who have worked with ethnic minority youth?

The Children’s Court

The contemporary Victorian Children’s Court responds to welfare and criminal matters separately. Upon finding a young person guilty of an offence, the criminal division of the Victorian Children’s Court may employ a variety of sentencing dispositions. These options, as set out under The Children and Young Person’s Act s.137, are:

Dismiss without conviction (with/without order undertaking)
Dismiss without conviction (and order accountable undertaking)
Good behaviour bond (without conviction, unsupervised release)
Fine (with/ without conviction)

Community based sentencing options

Probation (with/without conviction for young people aged 10 – 17)
Youth Supervision Order (with/without conviction for young people aged 10 – 17, may include reparation via community work)
Youth attendance Order (with conviction for young people aged 15-18. This is a direct alternative to custody for serious/repeat offenders. Young offenders must attend for up; to ten hours per week, participating in community work and personal development).

Custodial sentences

Youth Residential Order (with conviction, for young people aged 10 – 14)
Youth Training Centre Order (with conviction, for young people aged 15 –21).

The sentencing hierarchy within Victoria (s138 CYPA, 1989) requires the court, where appropriate to impose the least punitive sentence possible. Decisions regarding the nature and level of sentence imposed are not made arbitrarily. Sentencing principles outlining the parameters within which sentencing decisions occur are set out in The Children and Young Person’s Act (1989). In determining sentence, the court is compelled to consider the following.

Intervention should be as least intrusive as possible into the young person’s life
Young people should be diverted away from entering the formal justice system where possible
The community should, where necessary, be protected from young people
Stigma resulting from court decisions should be minimized
Young people should be afforded the same legal right as adults, including rights of appeal and review
The community is entitled to be aware of the services provided for juvenile offenders.

Most young offenders appearing before the Children’s Court plead guilty. Accordingly, a major component of the Children’s Court duties is sentencing (Naffine, 1992).

Incarceration rates:

Victoria has consistently ranked the lowest in incarceration rates for all states and territories. In 1998, 67 young people were incarcerated in Victoria. This represents 13.22 per 100,000 of the relevant population (Carach and Muscat (1999:12). Recent data from juvenile justice suggests this number has increased, in 2005, 105 young people are incarcerated in Victoria (Department of Juvenile Justice, 2005).

There are three types of offence groups under which young people appear within the Criminal division of the Victorian Children’s Court. These offence groups are defined as offence against the person (eg: assault), offence against property (eg: theft) and offence against good order (eg: offensive language). Each of these categories are problematic in terms of how offences can at times be determined by selective criteria. Such difficulties are acknowledged but will not be discussed within the context of this paper.

Ethnic diversity in Juvenile Justice Victoria

The population of Australia is characterised by ethnic diversity and, not surprisingly this ethnic diversity is to some extent mirrored in the population of young people in custody or subject to a community based order. In Victoria for example juvenile justice statistics reveal that during the year 1998, 28 percent of the entire juvenile population were classified as ethnically diverse (Department of Human Services, 2003).

At the point of entry to juvenile justice institutions or community based orders in Victoria some basic demographic information is collected usually by juvenile justice staff in conjunction with the young person as an informant. This information includes the young person’s ethnicity, general demographical information and more recently religion. There is however some evidence to suggest this information is not always recorded accurately. This lack of accuracy seems due mainly to human error. Nevertheless when recorded such information does allows for useful classifications. Dominant ethnic minority groups represented in juvenile justice statistics for example can be classified according to their original geographical area of birth or ancestry as depicted in Table 1 below. Alternatively classification can be made according to individual ethnicity for example, Samoan, Tongan, Maori and Cook Islander.

Table 1

Ethnic minority group	Percentage of total juvenile justice population Victoria, 1998
Asian including Vietnamese and Cambodian	10 %
Islander (including Maori)	4%

In Australia Vietnamese youth constitute just one cohort amongst a diverse range of young people involved in juvenile justice. Although Vietnamese youth are over represented in juvenile justice statistics there is some evidence to suggest their numbers are in decline (Department of Human Service, 2003). For the purpose of this research Vietnamese juvenile offenders are to be viewed as a ‘case study’ for exploring the ways in which ethnic diversity is responded to at a systemic level. Here for example issues such as worker/young person relationship and programming for ethnic diversity are paramount.

A statistical overview of juvenile justice in Victoria demonstrates that ethnic diversity within juvenile justice is fluid.There are a number of anecdotal reasons for this including waves of immigration, age of the young people and the impact of acceptance or perceived acceptance of particular ethnic groups in Australian society. Such changes in terms of the ethnic groups represented and the retreat of easily identifiable dominant groups brings new challenges for policy makers regarding the best way to respond to a shifting ethnically diverse client base.

Whilst the total numbers of young people involved with juvenile justice in Victoria are low in comparison to the numbers in the United States they are nevertheless reflective of Australia’s total population currently estimated at 20 million people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003) and Victoria estimated at 6 million (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003). In Victoria the total juvenile justice population in 1998 was 1595. The representation of minority youth amongst this population do give cause for some concern and requires careful thought as to the most appropriate responses.

The method

The methodology for the research consists of four key components. First, thirty young people subject to juvenile justice intervention including incarceration and community based orders were interviewed. Those subject to a community based order were for the most part undertaking a youth supervision or youth attendance order at the time of interview. Juvenile justice and community based workers were also interviewed. Analysis of sixty case files from past juvenile justice clients was conducted in order to compare and contrast the experiences of ethnic minority youth. Together with this a statistical overview of key relevant statistics regarding juvenile offenders and ethnicity was identified and analysed. Finally an overview of key programs that respond to ethnic diversity and or difference in general was conducted.

2. Some shared issues of ethnic minority youth

Whilst classifying young people according to ethnicity is useful, it is also necessary to acknowledge any differences within ethnic groups and thereby not assume that due to a similar ethnic background these young people constitute a homogenous group. Nonetheless, the research has revealed that because of their minority status there are some issues that seem to be universal both within ethnic groups and across different ethnic groups. This in turn allows for some broadly based comparisons to be made. These comparisons are based largely on how difference is constructed at a community level and also within juvenile justice. The following comments by two Vietnamese youth perhaps best illustrate this point:

Young people want to be accepted as Australians, they fight with their parents and act Australian not Vietnamese…They are too proud to go back to their Vietnamese parents….Maybe in a decade or so I will be accepted by the Australian community as an Australian, like the Greeks and the Italians now are. (Leigh)

And,

He (the worker) picked examples of other bad Vietnamese kids and would tell me about them and say see, like he was telling me that’s what we all were like. (Paul)

Issues of acceptance and belonging are paramount for young people and their social development. This sense of ‘not’ belonging and its associate consequences seem intensified for ethnic minority youth who may, it seems, face social exclusion to the extreme from peers and society in general (Easteal, 1997).

3. Cultural complexities

The research has involved interviews with youth from a range of ethnically diverse backgrounds. Those participating in the research can be broadly classified as Vietnamese, Middle Eastern, Horn of Africa, Islander and Other. Although the young people originate from different cultures their comments concur regarding several key issues. The majority (88 percent) of participants in the research considered it preferable to have key workers from the same ethnic background as themselves. The remaining thought it would make no difference if the worker was from the same ethnic background as themselves or different. There were two consistent reasons cited by young people for preferring workers who shared their ethnic background.

Young people wanted their worker to communicate with their parents
Young people thought a worker who shared their ethnic background would possess a greater understanding of their culture and the implications of their juvenile justice involvement.

However, preliminary discussions with workers from the same ethnic background as the youth they work with, namely Vietnamese youth workers, cited they experienced difficulties unique to working with young people from the same ethnic background. These difficulties can be summarised as follows:

Religious differences can create friction between the worker and the young person’s family. Here for example if a young person from Vietnamese background was Buddist and teamed with a Vietnamese worker from a Christian background it may create some difficulties including problems accessing appropriate ethno-specific services in the community.
Where small communities are concerned within Melbourne Metropolitan regions the young person’s involvement with juvenile justice may become public because the juvenile justice worker might be known to the community.

Nevertheless, embedded within the young peoples’ comments is the notion that where possible, their family needs consideration in any decisions and communication between the young person and juvenile justice workers. Analysis of case file notes appear to offer some support for this. When conducting a forensic psychology assessment and plan for a juvenile justice client one worker cited an inability to communicate with the young person’s parents as the sole reason for not including the parents in the case plan. In general, other case files indicate that language barriers are common difficulties faced by workers when attempting to interact with the young person’s family.

Another finding which emerged from the interviews is the need for workers especially within the environment of a juvenile justice institution to consider the cultural and religious needs of juvenile clients. Here for example requirement for particular food and the ability to celebrate certain rituals and traditions during for example, Chinese New Year and Ramadan became evident. This is particularly so for those young people incarcerated who can experience a sense of isolation which may be compounded by the passing of significant dates.

Interviews with young Muslim youth illustrate this point as the following comments by one youth suggest.

When I was fasting last year, (During Ramadan?) yeah, they promised me they were gunna give me Halal food and that and nothing got there, there was no Halal food. (So what did you eat?) I had to eat food that I’m not supposed to be eating…I had to give up.

(Jack)

It should be acknowledged however that a lack of provisions such as Halal food within juvenile justice institutions is not necessarily a direct indication of neglect of the young person’s religion by the institution. Moreover other factors such as timing cost and approval need to be considered as possible reasons for such omissions. Nonetheless this needs to be explained to the young person in order to avert any further feeling of cultural isolation.

Cultural connectivity however was also revealed through interviews and case analysis as an issue of contention for young people, particularly those youth from a Muslim background. This was most evident where young people attempted to stray from strict religious rules and customs such as wearing religious clothing. Case analysis demonstrates that such public displays of religion and culture can cause embarrassment for the youth and this can create friction between the youth and their parents. Cultural complexities need to be understood with reference to the difficulties faced by ethnic minority youth attempting to embrace two diverse cultures simultaneously.

4. Programming for ethnic minority youth – some key considerations

In recent times a number of programs established specifically for ethnic minority youth seem ostensibly to be gaining some momentum and this allows for some form of loose categorisation of the program responses. Programs that have recently emerged can be categorised according to three broad criteria with a fourth although not specific to ethnic minority youth worthy of mention. It is important to note however that none of the four categories appear to operate exclusively. Nevertheless it is useful to refer to these categories as a way of broadly identifying particular types of responses.

The first category is where programs operate with a diverse ethnic group; here for example all attending young people might be refugees while their country of birth may differ. With regard to Asian young people for example youth born in Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand may constitute the group. The second identifiable type of program seems to operate with workers who originate from a similar geographical ethnic background as the young people attending. Here for example a Vietnamese worker would be employed where all Vietnamese and Cambodian young people are in attendance. The third type of program consists of young people originating from similar geographical ethnic backgrounds and the worker although not from a similar geographical background does share a commonality with the youth, that being an ethnic minority status. Here for example a Vietnamese youth worker may work with a group of young people from Islander and Arabic background. The fourth type of response is where ethnicity is not considered at all.

Programming for ethnic diversity is not necessarily mutually exclusive from programming for other groups of young people involved with juvenile justice and in most instances mixed groups with little consideration to ethnicity seem to operate. Findings from the interviews suggest that where programs in juvenile justice do exist for particular ethnic minority groups they tend to focus on youth categorized as ‘Asian’. However this may also reflect a focus on a dominant minority ethnic group. Programs emerging from community based organizations seem to target Horn of Africa youth and Islander youth. There is some evidence in case files and through interviews that juvenile justice is increasingly accessing these community based agencies. Which of the four response models outlined is best for the young people is a matter of contention.

There is some anecdotal evidence suggesting that due to the shifting ethnic population within juvenile justice in Victoria, programs where the workers themselves are from an ethnic minority background but not necessarily the same as the youth they work with might be a preferred option. However, data from the interviews also demonstrates the benefits for open and clear communication between families, the young person and the youth worker.

However, cultural or ethno-centric issues must not be considered to the exclusion of other youth specific issues such as education, employment, housing and support. Rather these issues need to be viewed with reference to the ethnic minority status of the young person.

Funding considerations

Two fundamental issues worthy of further consideration are first the fluid nature of diversity within juvenile justice and second the cost/benefit of providing specialised approaches to particular young people within juvenile justice.

The ethnic composition of the juvenile justice population in Victoria is fluid. Interviews with workers demonstrate training and outsourcing decisions can be made on the assumption that a particular ethnic minority group will be the next in contact with juvenile justice. This however is problematic; how can it be determined which ethnic groups will necessarily commit which offences and what are the theoretical and practical implications for doing so? The impact of this in terms of designing responses and where funding is allocated can be problematic.

Linked to this, decisions regarding the allocation of resources in terms of programmatic funding and more broadly the employment of specific workers needs to be made according to some form of cost/benefit. During the past 15 years Juvenile Justice has initiated numerous programmatic responses in an attempt to meet the needs of various client groups; most notable here is the Youth Attendance Order program designed specifically for serious and repeat young offenders.

Government agendas and priorities together with a limited allocation of funding makes financial considerations paramount to designing responses within juvenile justice.

Summary

In summary, the ethnic composition of young people within the juvenile justice system in Victoria is fluid and hence requires flexible responses. The adaptability of workers to meet the needs of their diverse client group is critical to the success of any response to this particular diverse cohort. Whilst it might seem ideal to have a range of workers from ethnic backgrounds ready to respond to youth the reality is consideration needs to be given to the financial viability of training and maintaining work levels for workers from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Perhaps more importantly however it is difficult to pre-empt which particular ethnic client groups will constitute the next influx in juvenile justice. Changes in immigration policies together with local factors can and do impact on juvenile justice demographics at any given time.

Interviews for this research revealed the need for workers to communicate with parents and anecdotal evidence from workers suggests that working with young people from the same ethnic background is, at times difficult. Therefore the preferred model suggested in this research is where workers share an ethnic minority status but are able to transpose their skills empathetically across a range of cultures. Where direct communication with parents is necessary employment of translators and engaging directly with relevant community based agencies might also be helpful. Finally, responding appropriately to youth from diverse ethnic minority backgrounds needs to be centred on the needs of the young people themselves.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002) Population, Australian States and Territories. September. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003) Year Book Australia population clock. Canberra; Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs

Cunneen, C., and White, R. (1995) Juvenile Justice An Australian Perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

de Haan, W. (1997) ‘Minorities, Crime, and Criminal Justice in the Netherlands’. In I. H. Marshall (ed) Minorities, Migrants, and Crime Diversity and Similarity Across Europe and the United States. Sage, Thousand Oaks: 198-220.

Dell, C., A. and Boe, R. (2000) An Examination of Aboriginal and Caucasian Women Offender Risk and Needs Factors. Research Branch Correctional Service of Canada. December.

Department of Human Services (2003) Juvenile Justice Data Base Victoria.

Department of Human Services 2005 Juvenile Justice Statisitical Information, Unpublished.

Easteal, P. (1997) ‘Migrant Youth and Juvenile Crime’. In Borowski, A. and O’Connor, I. Juvenile Crime Justice & Corrections. Longman, South Melbourne: 151-166.

Gatti, U., Malfatti, D. and Verde, A. (1997) ‘Minorities, Crime and Criminal Justice in Italy’ In I. H. Marshall (ed) Minorities, Migrants, and Crime Diversity and Similarity Across Europe and the United States. Sage, Thousand Oaks: 110-129.

Hebberecht, P. (1997) ‘Minorities, Crime, and Criminal Justice in Belgium’. In I. H. Marshall (ed) Minorities, Migrants, And Crime Diversity and Similarity Across Europe and the United States. Sage, California: 151-174.

Mukherjee, S. (1999) ‘Ethnicity and Crime’ In Trends and Issues in crime and criminal justice. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. May.117:1-6.

Naffine, N. (1992 ‘Children in the Criminal’s Court: Can there be Rights Without a Remedy? In Alston, P., Parker, S., and Seymour, J. (eds) Children, Rights and the Law. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 76 – 97.