CAPÍTULO V 5 CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES
13) Considera que los contenidos propuestos en la reforma curricular para el área de entorno natural y social son:
Having addressed the 12 objectives of the YCLP, the evidence indicates that, while there were changes to the program over time, the broad foundational objectives were fulfilled. The following section outlines the six major aspects that changed within the YCLP over the implementation period:
147
Increased confidence and credibility: The implementation of the YCLP took considerable
time and depended, in part, on the expectations placed on the program by the external stakeholders, particularly the magistrates. As a consequence, some of the original referral criteria changed as did the profile of the young adult participants on the program. Initially, the program was established for those who had committed low-level offences and had minimal offending behaviour with this later broadened to include young adults who had committed more serious offences and who presented with multiple and much more complex welfare issues than were originally anticipated. These changes occurred in response to:
o
an increase in the magistrates’ confidence that the program processes were reliable;o
the reports that, in providing high-quality and vital information from a pre-sentence perspective, were informative and helpful for the sentencing process;o
attendance by the case managers at all sentencing appearances which made it easy for the magistrates to obtain clarity about the report content as well as additional verbal information if required; ando
the ability to maximise the young adults’ access to a structured program that could deliver the anticipated outcomes, with the magistrates lacking alternative referral pathways for young adults at the point of pre-sentence.Furthermore, the case managers acquired increased confidence in managing more complex young adults presenting with multiple problems and issues. This overall broadening of the YCLP led to a number of unintended aspects that included:
o
the need to increase the number of case managers from two to three as additional funding became available, in response to growing demand through the magistrates’ increased confidence in the program’s benefits;o
staffing remaining constant over the duration of the program which was instrumental in reinforcing the stability and reliability of the program for the courts; ando
the increased number of magistrates and courts making referrals. The YCLP was established for the Sunshine and Werribee Magistrates’ Courts. However, the reputation of its benefits spread to other courts, including Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, the County Court and Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court, as a result of the same defence lawyers presenting in the different courts and the rotation of magistrates after their three-year term.148
Over time, impacts on referrals created fluctuations in the number of young adult participants in the program. While caseloads did not fall below 15 per case manager at any time, there were periods when the three case managers were holding up to and in excess of 30 cases. These referral fluctuations were due to the magistrates’ awareness of the program and this required ongoing presentations and constant reminders that the program existed. The following factors contributed to the fluctuations:
Forced attrition of magistrates: the magistrates typically served three-year tenures at a specific Magistrates’ Court and were then rotated to work at another court, which resulted in a loss of support and knowledge about the YCLP;
Natural attrition of magistrates: some magistrates retired or resigned;
Inclination of magistrates: not all magistrates had empathy for or understanding about the specific needs of young adults, with these magistrates tending to use sentencing disposals intended only for adults that were unhelpful (fines) and punitive (community corrections orders [CCOs]);
Court processes: some magistrates did not want to adjourn or defer cases or did not want to ‘part hear’ cases (where another magistrate would complete the case at a later date) and would instead deal with the matter there and then;
Client choice: the young adult preferred to have their case dealt with swiftly and requested to proceed to sentencing (often in the absence of legal representation) without knowing about or being able to take the opportunity of participating in the program;
Client not adequately informed or represented: in the current climate of reduced legal aid funding, the young adult did not have the court process explained to them and was not encouraged to (or could not afford to) have legal representation and therefore missed out on the opportunity of being referred to the YCLP; and
Defence lawyers’ lack of awareness: some duty lawyers and new defence lawyers were not aware of the YCLP and may not have encouraged the magistrates to consider the YCLP in their pre-sentence representations for young adults.
Increased complexity of presenting issues: The young adults presented with issues of greater than expected complexity and demonstrable vulnerability in terms of mental ill- health, entrenched substance addictions and behavioural problems. This often meant that the case managers had to extend their support and relationship building to include the young adult’s family members, romantic partner and children as they would be instrumental in reinforcing structures that had been put in place for the young adult outside of the program interventions.
149
Increased severity and quantity of presenting offences: While the program was initially established for young adults who had committed low-level offences, as previously stated, this subsequently changed and more young adults were referred with very serious offences of violence, dangerous driving, robbery and drug offences, as well as lengthy offending histories, with this not originally intended nor anticipated.
Efficiencies created: A number of efficiencies were created for the Magistrates’ Court in
terms of processing the young adults’ cases:
1. Cases were ‘stood down’ (part-heard in the morning and held over to the afternoon to be finalised) to enable the young adults to undergo a psycho-social assessment. 2. Defence lawyers and barristers often pre-empted a referral to the program by
requesting a psycho-social assessment to be carried out ahead of the young adult’s court appearance.
3. Young adults on the YCLP recommended to their friends that they recommend the program to their lawyers as it had helped them in the court process.
4. Case managers developed stronger and more reliable relationships with representatives from the broad range of both internal and external services that needed to be accessed for/by the young adults. This created efficiencies in referral processes, improved the case management process, opened up lines of communication between workers, and created stronger and more reliable relationships between services and greater levels of support between workers. In addition, regular secondary consultation meetings were set up, particularly in relation to mental health and drug and alcohol services rather than making time-consuming paper-based referrals that may have proved inappropriate. Overall, this mechanism reduced bureaucracy, but it also encouraged face-to-face contact that created higher levels of trust, reciprocity and openness between individual workers and, therefore, between services. It was evident that ‘organisational capital’ was being generated through these ongoing interactions.
5. Over time, young adults with similar cases or profiles were referred to the YCLP and the case managers’ familiarity with these similarities created efficiencies and savings in time and money. The magistrates came to know the case managers through regular presentations, court appearances and work lunches thus improving and strengthening relationships with the YCLP staff and enabling the magistrates to see the services and facility to which they were referring the young adults.
150
Assessments in police cells for young adults on remand: Another significant shift in practice emerged due to the pressure and overcrowding in police cells where young adults were held when arrested and remanded. The case managers were requested to carry out psycho-social assessments in prison cells before the magistrates would consider bail and, even though the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) could carry out this role, the YCLP was the preferred referral point specifically for young adults. This strengthened the relationship with the local police and provided a positive foundation for the work between the case manager and the young adults who were relieved that they had been released. The experience of being locked up for even a short period, particularly for first-time offenders, was sufficient enough to encourage them to comply with the YCLP, as they then had an indication of what they could be facing if they refused. The psycho-social assessment was adjusted to incorporate these changes, to discard redundant information and to refine other information as greater familiarity with the needs of the young adults informed higher levels of complex practice. A few of the magistrates emphasised the importance of carrying out the YCLP psycho-social assessments in the police cells for the following reasons: “[It e]nables the court to have [a] better overview of young people quicker, thus providing a sound basis for bail when none previously existed” (Mag.4) and “[t]his is a fabulous initiative” (Mag.5).
Changes to court processes that affected the YCLP: The introduction of judicial monitoring by the magistrates into the YCLP process (usually reserved for CISP cases) to give them a higher level of control over the progress made by the young adults generated additional work for the case managers, as they were expected to provide more interim and update reports to the courts. However, therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), in this respect, revealed itself as a meaningful asset to the YCLP and indicated that the program was being integrated into the court process, with a greater level of accountability. Furthermore, the YCLP interventions were listed as a condition of bail, and if the young adult failed to attend, they were effectively in breach of their bail conditions. This apparent coercive measure undertaken by the magistrates was to increase compliance with and attendance at the YCLP, but was in conflict with the voluntary and choice aspect of the program. A trend began to emerge among the magistrates who were unconvinced that a community corrections order (CCO) would provide the same benefits and outcomes for young adults as the YCLP, with this leading to the program being listed as a condition on court orders. Changes in legislation had restricted the magistrates’ sentencing options and they attempted to tie the benefits of the pre-sentence program into continuing in the sentenced order, with this highlighted in the following views of the case managers:
151
The changes in the Sentencing Act in regard to the abolishment of suspended sentences have affected the program in that magistrates are now moving straight into sentenc[ing] without a deferral period as the outcome is inevitable (dependent on the seriousness of their offending) as they have limited room to move on the sentencing scale—either [community] corrections order or prison and, increasingly, magistrates are combining both as part of the disposition e.g., short terms of imprisonment followed by a [community corrections order] CCO upon exit from prison with the YCLP as a condition when they exit (CM.2).
Due to CCOs being the only real sentencing disposition left, a large number of YCLP clients are being sentenced to CCOs and, increasingly, it is also a condition of their CCO that they continue to engage with the YCLP as part of their order. This is not only confusing for the young person but it is also a strain on resources when the client still requires a high level of support which is not offered through [Community] Corrections and the relationship is already established between the young person and the case manager. [Community] Corrections comes from a different framework which impacts [on] their ability to engage the young person and more often the young person will breach their order due to non-attendance or compliance issues for a range of reasons which [Community] Corrections does not understand. [Community] Corrections also relies heavily on the relationship already built between the young person and case manager in instances where they are trying to locate the young person, reminding [them] of appointments and [giving] encouragement to comply with the conditions of the order. It is frustrating as [Community] Corrections need to look at the way they conduct [Community] corrections orders when dealing with 18–25 year olds and whether it should be tailored and more age-specific (CM.3).
These changes impacted on the case managers and added to their workload as they were often expected to carry out the therapeutic work for which Community Correctional Services (Community Corrections or CCS) received funding but which they were unable to do as their caseloads were reportedly too high (50–70 per worker). The case manager’s quotation below provides an insight into this dilemma:
The magistrates often ask us to continue the work we have done with a client who has been placed on [Community] Corrections. In many cases, they are overly reliant on this and [Community] Corrections do not have to do their own work because we do it for them, as we have a better relationship with the young adults (CM.1).
These changes also impacted on the magistrates in their treatment of young adults. In relation to Victorian Legal Aid funding cuts, the magistrates expressed the following:
[the impact was] [e]normous: Legal Aid apply strict criteria to (non-)representation. Young
adults see this as another rejection and see they have very few options and there are more unrepresented young people facing the courts (Mag.1).
Probably less young people are now legally represented, so something like YCLP is even more important (Mag.4).
Often young people are left to appear in court on their own (Mag.5).
Moreover, changes in sentencing legislation restricted the sentencing disposals that magistrates had available for young adults, as expressed in the following statements:
Removing the ability to suspend a term of imprisonment will have enormous impact on the young. It supposes a term of imprisonment wholly suspended will be replaced by a
152
community corrections order that presupposes they are able to undertake such an order (physically and/or mentally); otherwise the options are very limited (Mag.1).
Changes, such as mandatory programs with requirements to pay large sums of money or licences will be suspended/disqualified indefinitely, are a serious problem (Mag.5).