It was noted in the previous Section that the program does not have an overall system of comprehensive monitoring. While basic case flow data are now collected and reported by AGD, most departments involved tend to collect their own information, for their own program management purposes. At the time of the implementation reviews the Judicial Commission database, which was designed primarily for use by Court Registry staff, was not being used widely by other YDC staff. On the whole those interviewed failed to see a clear purpose for it from their perspective. They had either not had occasion to use it, or it had not provided them with any benefit.
Table 4.3: Sentences imposed by the YDC on participants during pilot period
Program Status
Sentence Graduation Self termination Termination by Court
The lack of central monitoring was generally not seen by program workers on the ground as creating any particular problems and it was felt that the program was fairly successful in self-monitoring and self-regulation. Regular meetings occur between the JART and the Court Team, between the JART members and the JJOs, between the case managers and JJOs, and between the different case managers. This process is overseen by the YDC Evaluation and Monitoring Committee.
The monitoring of participants’ progress on the program is helped by the generally strong communication between members of staff and different departments. There is frequent communication about individual participants, whose progress is also monitored through the reports presented to the court at report back sessions. The Court was felt to be an important source of information about participant progress, but some concern was voiced that there was too much reliance on verbal information about progress. This may disadvantage those members of the YDC team who are not able to attend court regularly. Results of urinalysis, for example, are sometimes discussed verbally, but the results not recorded consistently in progress reports.
Consistency and accuracy of reporting was raised as an issue. One stakeholder expressed concern that there was no overriding authority for what gets recorded in the court reports. It was suggested that in order to avoid inconsistencies, such as in recording of breaches of bail, there should be a formal finding that is agreed to by the Court Team and the JART and recorded.
Some stakeholders argued for greater use of case studies of young people’s experiences on the program to provide a qualitative assessment of their progress. This was considered to be useful in highlighting how different members of the YDC team perceived different events in individuals’ progress, but also as a useful potential tool for looking at what worked and what did not from the young person’s perspective.
While the present system may work reasonably well in a pilot scheme with the numbers of participants involved, there are likely to be some difficulties for effective monitoring if the program is extended or expanded in the future. It also creates considerable difficulties for the evaluation process, as the sources and nature of information on participants are complex and diffuse.
One possibility is that an intranet could be established for YDC staff to keep them informed about participants’ progress and whereabouts, and also as a central source of information about policies and practice guidelines, along with induction material for new members of staff.
Interagency co-operation
Nearly all stakeholders were positive about the improving definition and clarity of roles within the program. This seemed to have come about naturally over time, as staff became more used to working together and communication improved. By the time of the second review, initial difficulties in understanding other staff members’
roles seemed, on the whole, to have been overcome. The Court Team, in particular, was felt to be operating as a coherent body.9
The interagency model continues to be one of the main strengths of the program and it is through this approach that young people can be provided with a holistic response to their needs. On the other hand, some stakeholders expressed concern about the number of different agencies, departments and individuals that are involved in the participants' lives, which was felt to create additional pressures for the young person at what is already a difficult time. Also, with so many different individuals and organisations involved, effective communication and sharing of information is vital.
A strong message from the staff interviews was that the dispersed physical locations of different members of the YDC team is detrimental to the operations of the program.
Most stakeholders argued strongly for case managers to be located in the same building as JJOs and the JART team, as daily contact is often needed. The level of communication necessary was not felt to be achievable by phone contact alone.
Another benefit of co-location would be that participants would find it easier to contact members of staff. One case manager, however, pointed out that the
9 It should be noted, however, that the legal issues review raised some concerns about potential erosion of defendants' legal rights in a non-adversarial team setting. These are discussed below in Section 6.
geographical spread of casework organisations would make it difficult for some individuals to travel to one central location. The time and travel implications would need to be borne in mind.
A further difficulty arises from the different organisational cultures and approaches of the casework organisations involved. One suggestion for improving communication and fostering a coherent approach was that YDC case managers should all work under the same manager, but this idea was not welcomed by all those interviewed. An alternative is the case managers should all meet regularly and receive the same clinical supervision and guidelines.
The high staff turnover (particularly among case managers) referred to earlier was also identified as an operational problem in the early phase of the program, causing disruption when young people had built up productive relationships with the workers.
It is not clear whether the turnover of case managers within the YDC has been higher than in similar programs, but it does seem to have impacted negatively on client relationships. Staff retention, and addressing any problems that tend to produce high turnover, would be important if the program were to be extended to other areas.
Program management
There has also been a view that the program has suffered from not having an overarching, non-department-specific manager. The current management structure was described by one individual as ‘a pyramid with its head cut off’. While there is a manager for the JART, which is primarily an operational body, and the magistrates play a key role in the Court Team, there is no single person who is able to provide an overview of the entire program. A number of stakeholders were strongly of the opinion that a central coordinating role needs to be fulfilled beyond that exercised by the Evaluation and Monitoring Committee. It was felt that such a position would provide the opportunity for consistent overall monitoring of the program, which is at the present time fractured due to the different agencies involved.
Some of these concerns have been addressed through the development of the JART/Court Team meetings and the more active role taken by the YDC Chief Magistrate. The former, in particular, is serving as a useful forum for team members to raise concerns and share ideas.
Most stakeholders interviewed for the reviews felt that the policies and procedures manual, which was then still in the process of being developed, would be a useful tool, particularly for new staff familiarising themselves with the workings of the program. Some frustration was expressed that it had taken more than 18 months for such a document to be produced and several interviewees remarked that the manual would have been more useful if available at an earlier stage. There was also a view from case managers that they should have been more involved in the consultation process for the manual, as they are working closely with young people on the ground and have ideas about which procedures need formalising to avoid confusion and to increase communication. While the development of a manual was discussed at length prior to the program being launched, it was decided by the interagency steering committee at the time that, as the YDC program was unlike any existing program, the manual should be developed only when program direction and working practices had been established.
One of the areas that was suggested as potentially benefiting from policy or good practice guidelines was information sharing between different agencies and departments. It appears that current practice can sometimes be arbitrary, and there is some perception that departments and individuals can be possessive of information and reluctant to share it. At present, for example, it appears that case managers do not routinely get to see medical reports on their clients. This was a source of some concern as the casework organisations pay for some health-related services out of their budgets. Because the program relies so much on collaboration and information sharing between different individuals and organisations, there is a need to standardise procedures. It may be that in some instances there are genuine privacy concerns, but these need to be identified in guidelines.
Other areas identified as needing better guidelines include the parameters for legitimate expenditure on participants from brokerage funds. Inconsistent approaches to use of these funds has caused some friction in the past, including divisions created between participants when some saw other individuals receiving items not available to them.