Principios para aumentar el grado de innovación

6.3.1 Overview

Service administrators and service providers consistently stated that offenders do not receive adequate information regarding the process that they are required to go through.

A central register would be beneficial in monitoring and tracking offenders. Some providers suggested that even when offenders are given the necessary information (at court or by mail), they are often in an emotional state and do not realise the importance of the pamphlet and discard it. They also do not seem to comprehend the importance of reporting for their first assessment in a timely manner.

On the contrary, magistrates believe that all offenders do receive the information from the courts but are not responsible enough to do what is required, or are not truthful when asked if they received the information.

Many agencies and magistrates believe that a central register would be beneficial and it was suggested that either VicRoads or the courts would be best placed to be responsible for maintaining this register.

6.3.2 Stakeholder Comments Service Administrators

It was believed that many offenders throw out the information pertaining to the process required for re- licensing as they are angry at losing their licence.

The majority of service administrators indicated that offenders do not start the process of rehabilitation soon enough after they are convicted of a drink driving offence. There is a widespread belief amongst service administrators that there is difficulty with getting the message to offenders that they need to start the process immediately after sentencing. Service administrators commented that since many offenders are transient, many do not update their mailing details with VicRoads and do not receive mailed information. This issue is also related to the recommendation by some service administrators that there is a need for a central record system to track an offender’s progress.

All service administrators commented about the difficulty of ensuring offenders have information regarding the process of the licence restoration process including completing an education course and assessment. One service administrator stated that “offenders change address or leave court quickly so they never receive notification of the licence restoration process”.

A couple of service administrators mentioned the need for a central register to monitor offender progress and also record the number of times an offender visits an agency, completion of education courses, complete the process correctly and meet all requirements.

Some comments were made about the need for a mentoring role and who should take that mentoring role, either the agency or Community Correctional Services.

All service administrators indicated that offenders may ‘shop around’ to get a more favourable assessment and no-one would know as there is no way of ascertaining if offenders have enrolled with any other agency (or multiple agencies).

The need to get feedback about the demographic trends of clients was also raised by a couple of service administrators.

Probation was an issue raised by a few service administrators and one service administrator suggested that the advantage of having the offender on probation is maintaining contact to ensure they are going through the process correctly.

“I like the idea of linking the treatment with supervision. I think that gets the message to them that the two aren’t separate…The licenser and the CCO aren’t separate…The two are joined, because at the moment it seems like the two are separate. You are seeing a CCO and that is part of your punishment, but you go somewhere else in order to get your licence back”.

One person mentioned possible disadvantages of probation, “If offenders are on probation, they can breach the order by having an unpaid fine, so they can’t get their licence back, they can’t work, and so the cycle goes on”.

Magistrates

Many magistrates firmly believed that offenders do get the information from the court when they attend and it is “nonsense” that they say they don’t get the information.

The idea of the development of a register database that would track and monitor offenders throughout the process from detection of a drink driving offence to re-licensing, was brought up with magistrates in discussion. Many magistrates thought that it would be a “good idea” as it would potentially stop the ‘shopping around’ by offenders, with one magistrate stating that there needs to be a “better tracking system as it is imperfect”.

One magistrate suggested that offenders need to be followed-up after they get their licence back as they potentially “go back to their own ways”.

However, one magistrate stated that a database to track and monitor offenders is “ridiculous” as resources could “be better used in other areas such as subsidising interlocks”.

Another magistrate thought that this would be “too expensive and not cost effective”. One magistrate went on to say that “we are going to have a crisis in jailable offences because offenders can’t afford the interlock costs”.

Service Providers

Nine agencies thought that the development of a register of offenders to track and monitor offenders throughout the process of their charge, conviction, program course attendance and re-licensing, could resolve some of the problems such as ‘shopping around’ of offenders; offenders not completing the program; offenders registering with more than one agency; offenders not returning to court; offenders not having the assessments.

Agencies were divided about the statement ‘offenders don’t report for treatment when referred’ as well as the statement ‘applications for re-licensing between assessments are so frequent it has become a farce’. The Courts were considered by a third of respondents (36%) as being the most suitable to be responsible for setting up and maintaining a register, followed by DHS (14%).

Agencies considered that the best way to access information from a register of offenders would be email (29%). Comments included: ‘the courts should be responsible for follow-up’; ‘had a recent case whereby a register would have been useful’ and ‘a register would not be relevant in rural areas’.

6.3.3 Priority Issues

The majority of stakeholders identified that the record keeping of offenders requires improvement and is a priority for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the drink drive program in Victoria. Recent research from the U.S. that examined problems in the Driving While Influenced system suggests that there is a need to develop, improve and evaluate record systems to promote integration and coordinate the needed data-sharing capabilities among government bodies to ensure timely access to appropriate, accurate and current information (Robertson & Simpson, 2003). Collaboration between the courts and rehabilitation institutions is believed to help maximise the benefits of sentencing, tracking and monitoring, and treatment of recidivist offenders (Century Council, 1999). With stakeholders requiring similar information on which to base decisions, the need to locate and access progress is a priority issue.