|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Penal Policy Papers |
Last Updated: 22 September 2020
Report on Combating and Preventing Maori Crime
HEI
WHAKARURUTANGA MO TE AO
Peter Doone
Crime Prevention Unit
Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet
25 September 2000
MIHI
|
|
Tuiä i runga
Tuiä i raro
Tuiä i te here tangata
Ka rongo te pö
Ka rongo te ao
Ka pö, ka ao, ka awatea
Tihei Mauriora!
Ngä mate o ia marae, o ia marae
Haere ki tua i o Paerau, Moe mai rä
Tätou te hunga ora e tau nei
E ngä mana, e ngä reo,
E rau Rangitira mä
Tënä koutou tënä koutou tënä tätou katoa
The intertwining of tangible and intangible elements
Destined for the collective purpose of People
The emergence from darkness and unknowing
A shaping sense of clarity and understanding
From darkness, to light, to an awakening
Tis the spark and essence of life!
To remember and bid farewell to our forebears
Their journey beyond Paerau, Rest peacefully
For us of the living to give thanks for opportunities such as this
Esteemed orators, voices of the people and leaders
I greet you, Greetings to us all
Whakatauäkï
He aha te mea nui o te Ao
He Tangata, He Tangata, He Tangata
Proverb
"What are the most precious things in the world?
Tis Men, Tis Women, Tis Children"
Acknowledgements
I want to express my gratitude and acknowledge the many people who have supported me and provided valuable input and advice to the project. I am indebted to you and hope I have been able to adequately reflect your contributions in my final report. This project has been a fascinating and rewarding journey for me and I am hopeful it will provide a pathway ahead for both Mäori and non-Mäori in the pursuit of improving safety, both in the home and the community. In particular, I would like to thank those who are pioneering a new partnership between Government services and Mäori, and making a significant contribution to the types of projects outlined in this report.
Members of the Police Mäori Focus Forum:
Mr Tui Adams
Rev Maurice Gray
Ms Wendy Heath-King
Mr Apirana
Mahuika
Mrs June Mariu
Mr Pona Matenga
Mr Mita Mohi
Mr Kara
Puketapu
Mr Pita Sharples
Mr Toko Te Kani
Mr Andy Sarich Te Whare Kauri
The Project Steering Committee:
Mark Prebble, Chief Executive, Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet
Ngätata Love, Chief Executive, Te Puni Kökiri
Rob
Robinson, Commissioner of Police
Colin Keating, Chief Executive, Ministry of
Justice
Bronwyn Somerville, Director, Crime Prevention Unit
The growing Police Iwi Liaison team, especially:
Superintendent Pieri Munro
Senior Constable Paddy Whiu
Superintendent
Clint Rickards
Senior Constable Wayne Panapa
Sergeant Tania Eden
Senior
Constable Ricky Tuterangiwhiu
Mr Matu Te Pou
Sergeant Wally Haumaha
The Police Youth at Risk Project Leaders, teams and volunteers at:
Mt Roskill Police Community Approach Project
Turn Your Life Around
Project, Avondale
Operation New Direction, Dunedin
Te Taurikura,
Kaikohe
Mangere Youth At Risk Project
Taiohi Toa Project, East
Hamilton
Tïmatanga Hou, Gisborne
Project Pegasus, New
Brighton
Glen Innes Police Community Approach
Te Aranui, Tauranga
J
Team, Wainuiomata
One to One, Nelson
Rangiora Waimakariri Community Youth
Worker Project
The staff and volunteers of:
Tracker Programme, Kaitaia
He Tohu Rangatira, Kaikohe
Te Arawa Journey,
Rotorua
Ngä Moemoeä a Te Rangatahi, Auckland
and Pam Oliver, who
evaluated these projects.
The staff and volunteers at Te Whänau Äwhina, Hoani Waititi Marae, Waitakere
The Police staff in the Commissioner's Office who support the project centrally:
Superintendent Gavin McFadyen
Mrs Tessa Watson
Inspector John van der
Heyden
Bronwyn Somerville, Director of the Crime Prevention Unit and her team
Mark Byers, Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and his Executive Team
Donna Hall, Ngäti Rangiteaorere o Mokoia Island
The many officials from:
Te Puni Kökiri
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Social
Policy
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services
Ministry of Youth
Affairs
Gabrielle Maxwell of Victoria University
Kim Workman of Kim Workman and Associates Limited
Nö reira ë rau rangatira mä,
Ë kore ë taea te kupu I äku nei mihi nui ki a koutou
Nä te Atua koutou ë manaaki
I ngä wä katoa.
Näku iti nei, nä
Peter Doone
Terms of Reference
|
|
1. Identifying and describing major issues regarding, and indicators of, appropriate responsiveness to Mäori, which may reduce Mäori offending.
2. Evaluating policies, practices and research, which impact on the responsiveness of Police and Criminal Justice agencies to Mäori.
3. Developing a range of options for action for approval by the Steering Committee (a subgroup of Justice Sector Chief Executives chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) by 31 May 2000.
4. Identifying promising initiatives that are most likely to produce a decrease in Mäori offending.
5. Identifying and recommending (for Justice Sector Ministers) achievable strategic goals for improving responsiveness to Mäori, and practical courses of action for implementation by justice sector agencies.
Executive Summary
This project looks at the "Closing the Gaps" data in relation to Mäori crime and the degree to which Criminal Justice agencies are responsive to Mäori. The project has drawn on relevant research internationally and in New Zealand, and has surveyed a selection of intervention programmes in the Criminal Justice area. It has also consulted with many who deliver these services. The project has not purported to be a comprehensive survey either of the programmes currently operating or of the academic literature. It has had a strong practical focus. It has identified consistent themes in the literature and experience, and used those to develop recommendations on practical courses of action that can be taken now to reduce Mäori crime and improve the responsiveness of the relevant agencies.
The project is focused on prevention rather than enforcement and has concentrated on the "middle" and "upper" group of offenders: who are over eight with a high, but not the highest risk profile of becoming serious recidivist offenders. Offender programmes for the most serious recidivists, early intervention programmes, enforcement and sentencing practices have been excluded, as many aspects of these are specialist in nature and the time frame for this project precluded effective analysis of them. Nothing in this paper should be read as in any way derogating from the important contributions made by them these programmes in crime prevention and public safety. (Chapter 4)
Criminal Justice data shows that Mäori are over-represented at every stage of the Criminal Justice process. In 1998 they were 3.3 times more likely to be apprehended for a criminal offence than non-Mäori. They were more likely to be prosecuted, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to be sentenced to imprisonment. The result was that Mäori made up 14% of the general population and 51% of the prison population. These gaps are widening, not narrowing. (Chapter 5)
There is a gap between the general population’s attitude to the Police, and the attitude of Mäori. A 1999 survey showed that 48% of Mäori had trust and confidence in the Police, compared to 61% of the general population. That is a gap of 13%. The equivalent gap in 1997 was 22%. Mäori levels of trust and confidence have risen, over a period when the Police implemented substantial Mäori responsiveness initiatives, but there is clearly more to do. Furthermore, Mäori perceptions towards the Criminal Justice system as a whole are negative, particularly in relation to its perceived responsiveness and relevance to Mäori. (Chapter 5)
Recommendation 1
As an overall goal, Government Criminal Justice agencies need to take urgent action, to reduce Mäori offending rates through:
The Need For An Integrated Approach Across The Sectors
The research and practical experience highlighted in this paper clearly illustrates the need for a holistic and co-ordinated approach to combating and preventing Mäori crime. While some progress has been made in recent years towards this goal, there is still significant fragmentation of approach, effort and resources. The strategic framework for Preventing Mäori Crime outlined in this report is illustrative of the degree of integration required to maximise results. It is an emerging framework, and further work and consultation is required to refine it. (Chapter 7)
Recommendation 2
Government agencies across the justice and social policy sectors should continue to develop an integrated strategy framework on crime reduction, with a focus on underlying risk factors and crime prevention, rather than only criminal justice responses. A focus is also required on building consistency and co-operation between the agencies.
Improving Responsiveness In Government Agencies
An integrated, cross-sectoral approach to reducing criminal offending is a relatively recent development in New Zealand. Some steps have been taken to develop an integrated framework strategy to guide crime prevention work across the justice and social policy sectors. The starting point for the strategy is a level of responsiveness to Mäori, which should underpin all relevant policy areas and the operation of the justice sector agencies. (Chapter 7)
Several justice sector agencies have begun work on substantial Mäori Responsiveness Strategies. The aim of such strategies is to improve relationships, perceptions and attitudes between the agencies and the Mäori population. The Police and the Department of Corrections are the most advanced in this work. There would be benefit in bringing this work together to develop a consistent Mäori responsiveness strategic framework for the sector, within which individual departments can complete their own strategies. Drawing on the work to date, this report includes a "Good Practice Guide to Reduce Mäori Offending" Mäori Responsiveness Strategy. (Chapter 8)
Effective Mäori responsiveness is an essential prerequisite for the capability of departments to deliver services to Mäori and in particular to deliver effective crime prevention programmes to Mäori. This work therefore needs to be given priority.
Recommendation 3
Justice sector chief executives, including the Commissioner of Police, should finalise departmental Mäori Responsiveness Strategies based on the model proposed in this report and submit implementation plans to Ministers as a matter of urgency.
This report approaches Mäori crime from three perspectives. First, based on the research and experience outlined, it supports Government's "Closing the Gaps" approach as a medium to long-term strategy (5-10 years) which will reduce Mäori crime and victimisation by providing better protection against key risk factors contributing to crime. Second, this report supports the view that Criminal Justice sector departments, including the Police, need to be more responsive to Mäori culture and values and that such responsiveness will improve the effectiveness of current and developing strategies and services in reducing crime and victimisation over the medium term (3-5 years). Third, the report supports significant expansion of successful crime prevention projects to achieve reductions in Mäori crime over the short and medium term (1-5 years).
There is now a substantial body of consistent and contemporary research, internationally and in New Zealand, on the risk factors associated with criminality. The research clearly demonstrates that ethnicity is not a risk factor for criminal behaviour. There is no basis for any belief that being Mäori in itself causes criminal behaviour. However, Mäori are over-represented in the risk factors that contribute to criminal behaviour. (Chapter 6)
The main risk factors are:
The presence of risk factors should not be regarded as in any way excusing criminal behaviour. People who commit crime must be accountable for their actions. Risk factors are, however, relevant in assessing the best way to ensure such acts are not repeated.
The use of Mäori cultural values in crime prevention programmes is successful in reducing offending by Mäori, because it:
This project has reviewed the operation of over 20 crime prevention programmes, funded by the Government, and which have been running for 2-3 years. There are also other programmes being evaluated by other "Closing the Gaps" projects. Some are general programmes and some have been established with a Mäori focus. To date, programme evaluation has been reasonably systematic, but could be more uniform and more comprehensive. There are others which are being evaluated by other Gaps projects. However, the evaluation data from all of these programmes is broadly consistent. It is also consistent with the international and domestic research surveyed. In essence, it shows that programmes of this kind do reduce the risk factors associated with criminality. The reduction in offending after these programmes ranges from 35% to 94%. (Chapter 9)
Based on the common elements of these programmes, and the general body of research, this report proposes a Good Practice Guide for Programmes to Reduce Mäori Crime. The key elements of the model are:
The Guide also has wider application. The research and experience outlined in this paper supports the view that programmes that focus on the risks factors which contribute to crime are successful for both Mäori and non-Mäori. The focus on Mäori cultural values is to make such programmes more effective for Mäori participants. Similar programmes tailored to other cultures should be equally effective.
Programmes consistent with the recommended Guide can be implemented within the existing Criminal Justice system.
There are still significant gaps in Criminal Justice data and in the evaluation of crime prevention programmes. These gaps need to be rectified if programmes are to be developed and funded on a more systematic basis and on a larger scale.
Better data will enable more informed policy and funding decisions to be taken, including more robust cost effectiveness analyses of these programmes. (Chapter 10)
Recommendation 4
Government agencies should ensure that there is sound data on which to base future decisions on the establishment and funding of programmes. In particular:
The indicative results of these programmes in terms of reduced offending are good. But to date the programmes have been small-scale stand-alone exercises, with inadequate funding and support. The Government should move to support programmes of this kind in a systematic and comprehensive fashion, bringing together the work of the many agencies in this field. That includes better support for the programmes that currently exist, and the establishment of more programmes. (Chapter 11)
It would be possible to use existing sociological data to ensure that programmes were established in a targeted way in the areas that need them most. Indicative modelling suggests that running a significant number of programmes over a number of years could have a significant impact on the long term crime rate and on the overall gaps data for Mäori.
Recommendation 5
Government agencies should adopt the crime prevention programme model for Mäori outlined in Chapter 11, Figure 3 as the basis for programme development and implementation across the sector, and continue to develop it in light of experience and the further evaluation and research proposed in this report. In accordance with the model, crime prevention programmes should focus on addressing the key risk factors, and should incorporate the use of Mäori cultural values as a major focus, as this is likely to improve effectiveness.
Recommendation 6
The government should, through the "Closing the Gaps" programme, complete preparatory work required to support implementation of crime prevention programmes (based on the draft Good Practice Guide For Programmes To Reduce Mäori Crime) in a systematic and comprehensive fashion. In particular, work is needed as a matter of priority on:
Recommendation 7
The work required under Recommendations 5 and 6 should be co-ordinated by officials led by the Ministry of Justice, and completed in time to form the basis of funding and implementation decisions as part of the 2001-2002 budget round.
It is vitally important that initiatives to reduce Mäori crime are developed in close consultation with Mäori and that Mäori should play a leading role in their development and implementation. The proposals in this report have been developed with the support of specialist expertise and advice on Mäori cultural values, beliefs and principles. They have also been discussed with a range of people including Mäori leaders, community representatives and Government officials. The timeframe for this report has, however, limited the extent of consultation possible, and wider consultation with Mäori and officials is needed.
The report contains recommendations for the completion of preliminary work undertaken by the project and there is no reason why this work should not continue during consultation, providing that substantive implementation decisions await the results of that consultation.
Recommendation 8
That Police and Justice officials in consultation Te Puni Kökiri, further consult with Mäori on the key proposals in this report.
SCOPE
|
Background
The Objective Issues Outside The Scope Of This Report Addressing Mäori Crime |
The Government's "Closing the Gaps" programme is designed to analyse the factors underlying the gaps between Mäori and non-Mäori across a wide variety of economic, social, health, education and criminal justice areas.
This project, which is part of that programme, looks specifically at the gaps relevant to Mäori crime and examines the degree to which the Police and criminal justice agencies are appropriately responsive to Mäori, within the context of the Government's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Most significantly, this report recommends the implementation of practical programmes which that can achieve significant and sustainable reductions in Mäori crime, and improvements in justice sector responsiveness to Mäori.
It should be noted that this report is not an academic research paper. It is a practical document which that draws on a wide range of background research findings and examines in an empirical way a number of current crime prevention and Mäori responsiveness initiatives. In drawing its conclusions, the report utilises this information, the writer's own experience and the results of consultation with a range of practitioners and representatives of the Mäori community, both locally and nationally.
The overall "Closing the Gaps" programme and associated work comprises a variety of inter-related projects, many of which have a bearing on this report. Where appropriate, these linkages are acknowledged. The key other reports which need to be considered with this report are:
The objective of this report is to deliver recommendations on practical courses of action to reduce Mäori crime and to improve responsiveness to Mäori across the justice sector. To achieve this objective, this report focuses on the following areas:
Issues Outside The Scope Of This Report
The timeframe (six months) for this project has necessarily excluded from its scope any detailed consideration of:
Nevertheless, the focus on prevention and the recommendations in this report have significant potential to reduce offending by Mäori in the short and medium term.
Early intervention programmes are the subject of other work in the "Closing the Gaps" programme. This project has noted that a number of early intervention programmes have been shown to reduce the likelihood of offending, and their value as part of an overall strategy to reduce Mäori offending is undoubted. The key initiatives are:
Addressing Mäori Crime
This report is written in the context of increasing public concern about the apparent high level of violence by Mäori both in the home and the community. It is also written in an environment of disparate views among wider society on the way forward in addressing economic and social disparities which appear in part to be ethnically based. Many of these issues were crystallised in public debate during the recent shooting incident in Waitara and a series of recent tragic deaths and serious injuries inflicted on children within Mäori families. It recognises that there are historical and deep-seated issues underlying the above incidents which will require to be addressed by a wide range of social and economic policies.
Therefore, this report approaches Mäori crime from three perspectives:
The report also recognises that initiatives arising from many other Criminal Justice initiatives being developed within the "Closing the Gaps" work programme will also contribute to reducing Mäori crime over the next 5 years, and that the initiatives recommended in this report need to be integrated with the wider "Closing the Gaps" programme.
"Closing The Gaps" - Relevant Data
|
Maori Over-Represented In Key Crime Statistics
Criminal Justice System Not Working Adequately For Maori Trust And Confidence In Police Is Lower For Maori Than The General Population Conclusions |
Mäori Over-Represented In Key Crime Statistics
Mäori are significantly over represented in apprehension, prosecution and conviction statistics. Appendix A contains selected Police and Justice data showing widening disparities between Mäori and non-Mäori in the Criminal Justice system. In summary, this data shows that in 1998 Mäori (aged 17 and over) were:
Criminal Justice System Not Working Adequately For Mäori
Mäori feel alienated from Police and criminal justice agencies. A 1998 joint Te Puni Kökiri and Ministry of Justice study found:
"Responses of the Criminal Justice system to offending were perceived as unhelpful for many offenders and victims, Mäori offenders in particular. By not effectively dealing with crime, the Criminal Justice system may actually contribute to re-offending. Some contributing factors noted include:
More recently, a Mäori lawyer described the situation as follows:
"It is the relationship between law and the community where particular attention is needed because something has gone wrong with the way in which Mäori perceive the law. Mäori have little concept of the NZ legal system belonging to them. They read about Her Majesty's Judges, Queen's Counsel, British justice and the laws of England. Little wonder that there is no sense of ownership by Mäori in the system. [We] must turn this attitude around so Mäori have a stake in the legal system and like other people, can appreciate and claim ownership of it."[2]
Overall, the Criminal Justice system is not responsive to Mäori, although some components of it work better than others.
A key reason for this lack of responsiveness is that many of the people within the organisations that comprise New Zealand’s criminal justice system lack knowledge of and sensitivity to Mäori values, culture, history and beliefs.
Another reason is that many Mäori neither respect, nor obey the law. This has at least three negative results. Government agencies see more Mäori in a negative capacity, thus reinforcing stereotypes. High offending rates sets a poor example to wider Mäori, especially young Mäori, and lessens the restraint element of the law. These factors in turn tend to perpetuate and widen the gaps still further.
In the context of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and given that the system needs to effectively and fairly administer justice to all New Zealanders, this lack of responsiveness means the Criminal Justice system is performing inadequately for Mäori. This lessens the effectiveness of Justice system programmes and initiatives which that aim to reduce crime and victimisation. More responsive government agencies, together with better strategies, have the potential to play an important role in combating and reducing Mäori crime.
Trust And Confidence In Police Is Lower For Maori Than The General Population
As Appendix B illustrates, trust and confidence in Police is lower for Mäori than for the general population, although the gap in perceptions is closing. In 1997, only 36% of Mäori expressed "full" or "quite a lot" of trust and confidence in Police, compared to 58% of all groups. By 1999, this gap had narrowed, with 48% of Mäori expressing "full" or "quite a lot" of trust and confidence in Police compared with 61% of all groups. Nevertheless, a significant problem remains, and Police and Mäori must work towards resolving it.
There is no specific data about the level of satisfaction with Mäori of services delivered by Police, except a general comment in a 1995 survey[3] which recorded:
"Overall Mäori have a less positive view of Police than the other two groups (European and Pacific Island) having less trust and confidence in Police, seeing them as less approachable, and being less satisfied with their services."
Many Police and Mäori hold negative perceptions of each other. (See 8.7-8.9.) The problem becomes self-perpetuating. Mäori commit more crime, which fuels a negative perception within Police. That perception affects the relationship between Police and Mäori, and therefore the attitude of Mäori to the wider Justice sector. In turn, Mäori engage less and services to them are less effective. Mäori continue offending at rates higher than non-Mäori.
This process has continued for many decades and it can be argued that a fundamentally different approach is required to break this cycle.
As this report discusses notes, mainstream criminal justice interventions to reduce crime are not particularly effective in reducing re-offending. But however, the targeted crime prevention programmes are producing good results. More effective steps must be taken to reduce offending by Mäori.
In addition criminal justice agencies, including the Police, must work to improve their responsiveness to Mäori and to overcome any negative perceptions that may inhibit that responsiveness. Work has begun on effective Mäori responsiveness strategies in Police and other agencies, but it is not yet fully developed or implemented.
A complementary approach by Mäori is also required with improved respect for and compliance with the law. Building bridges and reducing negative attitudes is a two-way process.
Recommendation 1
As an overall goal, Government Criminal Justice agencies need to take urgent action, to reduce Mäori offending rates through:
Crime and Criminality - Key Research Findings
|
Risk Factors Contributing To Criminality
Family Violence Ethnicity Not A Contributing Factor To Crime Cultural Orientation Conclusions |
There is a considerable body of knowledge indicating that young people who are exposed to certain risk factors are more likely to commit crime than peers who do not have such factors. It is important to note that these risk factors do not cause crime; rather, they are correlated with it. However, building protective factors against such risk factors, and/or actively intervening to reduce or eliminate them, is likely to reduce the likelihood of offending or re-offending by these people.
The presence of some or many of these risk factors should not be seen as in any way excusing or justifying criminal behaviour. Not only should offenders be accountable for their crimes, but there is also emerging evidence that such accountability has a positive impact in reducing future criminal behaviour, if accompanied by other interventions. Nothing in this paper should be interpreted as reducing the role or need for effective enforcement of the law including custodial sentences where the interests of public safety so require.
Risk Factors Contributing To Criminality
While there are a number of candidate risk factor lists among the research, they are remarkably similar. A recent Ministry of Youth Affairs report[4] researched and summarised these risk factors, and assessed the effectiveness of potential crime prevention initiatives. The report identifies key risk factors for offending as:
The report concludes that the presence of multiple risk factors increases the risk of later criminal offending, and recommends early intervention across risk factors as a key strategy in reducing those risks.
On the other hand, mainstream interventions to reduce crime have not proved particularly successful in reducing crime.
A report recently undertaken by Child Youth and Family Service[5] takes a similar approach to the Ministry of Youth Affairs study (refer previous footnote) and focuses on risk and strength factors for children who offend or re-offend. While the framework outlined in this report differs in detail it is substantially the same as that outlined in Appendix C and 6.3 above. As such, it has not been repeated here, but the value of the work is acknowledged.
Family violence is a very significant risk issue in the context of criminality. Not only is it abhorrent because it is violent, such violence has additional serious consequences. As highlighted above, it is a risk factor correlated with later criminal offending. It also aggravates other risk factors. Programmes to reduce family violence should therefore receive high priority in the context of crime prevention.
Research also highlights and confirms previous findings that relatively few individuals commit a high proportion of crime. The Ministry of Youth Affairs Report supports research which concludes:
Ethnicity Not A Contributing Factor To Crime
In the context of a paper on reducing Mäori crime, the question arises whether simply being Mäori is in any way a causative or predisposing factor in criminality. However, no evidence has been found to support such a contention. A wide range of inter-related socio-economic factors, in particular lack of educational achievement, unemployment, poor health, low socio-economic status, a dysfunctional family and a negative peer environment, are key risk factors for criminality. There is no reason to believe being Mäori causes criminal behaviour; clearly, criminal behaviour is associated with risk factors other than ethnicity. However, Mäori are over-represented in the risk factors that contribute to criminal behaviour. Hence Mäori are over-represented in crime statistics.
This is not to say, however, that cultural orientation associated with ethnicity is an irrelevant factor. There is a wide body of opinion which supports the view that the colonisation of Mäori has led to significant alienation of Mäori from their traditional culture and whänau, Hapü and Iwi environment. This in turn has contributed to the over-representation of Mäori in the risk factors which that are correlated with criminality.
There is increasing evidence and opinion to support the proposition that crime prevention programmes based on Mäori cultural values, including core Mäori conflict resolution principles and practices, contribute significantly to the success of those programmes by:
This view supports work within the Department of Corrections (1999) which identified four cultural factors which may increase the risk of offending by Mäori. These are:
In summary, cultural alienation aggravates underlying risk factors leading to criminal behaviour. However, there is no evidence that being Mäori is in any way a causative factor in crime. Nevertheless, cultural awareness and knowledge can be a significant factor in reducing the impact of those risks.
A recent Ministry of Youth Affairs study on reducing offending by indigenous and ethnic minority youth examined the literature surrounding cultural components of crime prevention programmes for indigenous youth. Their findings were inconclusive but the study did comment: "These [cultural] components may have significant benefits when combined with strategies that specifically target the reduction of problem behaviours. This is an area in need of more detailed research."[6]
Conclusions
There is now a substantial body of consistent and contemporary research in New Zealand and internationally on the risk factors associated with criminality. The research clearly demonstrates that ethnicity is not a risk factor for criminal behaviour. There is no basis for any belief that being Mäori in itself causes criminal behaviour. But Mäori are over-represented in the risk factors that contribute to criminal behaviour. Cultural alienation may be a contributing factor. It has also been reasonably well demonstrated that crime prevention programmes which that use Mäori cultural values in order to address these risk factors are successful.
Analytical Framework for Combating and Preventing Maori Crime
|
Conclusion
|
The above analysis indicates that crime and criminality are the result of factors much wider than the traditional narrow focus of the Criminal Justice system.
This wider approach is a relatively recent development in New Zealand. Inter-departmental work across the sector in the early 1990s identified the need to target individuals and families at risk through early intervention. The establishment of the Crime Prevention Unit in 1993 and the New Zealand Crime Prevention Strategy in 1994 focused the sector on the need for a more proactive, inter-agency approach targeted at reducing the risk of offending and re-offending. A number of pilot crime prevention projects have been implemented pursuant to this approach. The impact of some of these is examined later in this report.
The Government’s "Closing the Gaps" programme recognises that gaps between Mäori and non-Mäori in crime and wider health, education and socio-economic achievements are inter-related. It also requires departments to take action in an integrated way across sectors, recognising that this in turn is a more effective strategy to close the gaps.
While these developments are a step in the right direction, investment and effort across departments are still primarily focused on responding to crime and the legal framework surrounding criminal offending, rather than underlying risk factors and crime prevention.
More recently, the justice and social policy sectors have developed a draft strategy framework to guide the development of more and better crime prevention solutions for Mäori. The framework focuses on Mäori youth crime prevention, but has wider applicability to Mäori adult offending and even, with minor modification, to crime prevention generally.
The framework is based on a number of assumptions supported by research and Good Practice Guide, and highlighted in the New Zealand Crime Prevention Strategy produced in 1994. It is also consistent with the approach taken in the "Closing the Gaps" policy. An overview of this framework is shown as Figure 1 on the previous page.
In summary, the strategy framework acknowledges:
An appropriate strategy framework is being discussed.
Conclusion
A more integrated, cross-sectoral approach to reducing criminal offending is needed. The draft Strategy Framework for the development of crime prevention solutions for Mäori outlined in this chapter is intended to illustrate how the thinking and efforts of the justice and social policy agencies should develop. Its approach is consistent with the research on risks contributing to criminality, and with the approach taken by Government's "Closing the Gaps" programme.
Recommendation 2
Government agencies across the justice and social policy sectors should continue to develop an integrated strategy framework on crime reduction, with a focus on underlying risk factors and crime prevention, rather than only criminal justice responses. A focus is also required on building consistency and co-operation between the agencies.
Maori Responsiveness in Police and Justice Sector
Background
Responsiveness to Mäori in this context refers to the requirement for government departments to develop the capability and tailor their services to Mäori values and culture within the overall obligations of the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi. This requirement had its origins in the 1980s when successive governments defined policy parameters for Mäori responsiveness for government departments. [Footnote 7]
In addition to these formal requirements, it has become clear that individuals and organisations that do not demonstrate a knowledge of and sensitivity to Mäori culture, protocols and the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, also alienate themselves from many Mäori in the community. This has several and cumulative negative impacts:
Thus, not only is demonstrating appropriate responsiveness to Mäori a formal requirement across Government agencies, doing so will improve the quality and results of services they deliver to Mäori.
Police And Mäori Attitudes Towards One Another
In the late 1980s Police in New Zealand began a more strategic analysis of crime, victimisation and policing than had occurred in previous decades. In the early 1990s, among the issues which arose through research was that Mäori were critical of Police attitudes towards them.
A Te Puni Kökiri audit of Police Mäori responsiveness in 1995 was critical of Police performance on Mäori issues. The 1995 MRL Research Group Survey on Public Attitudes towards Policing previously referred to in footnote 3 supported this view.
In 1997 the NZ Police and Te Puni Kökiri commissioned research from Victoria Link, the commercial arm of Victoria University of Wellington, on Perceptions of Mäori and Police. Two studies were carried out:
In broad terms the studies concluded that many Mäori had significantly negative perceptions of Police and many Police held similar views about Mäori. That a wide perception gulf exists between many in Police and Mäori throughout New Zealand cannot be disputed. Some of the key findings of the reports are listed here to provide some context to these conclusions:
The survey shows that discriminatory language and behaviour are part of the Police occupational culture. This is not surprising, given overseas research on police cultures and the evidence of racist attitudes in the wider New Zealand society.
All groups participating in the Mäori Perceptions of Police Study identified a strong attitude of distrust toward the Police. They believed that a number of variables influenced Police behaviour towards Mäori, which in turn affected their own attitudes. The key variables identified were:
This research and the trends quoted earlier in this report clearly demonstrated an urgent need for Police to improve their knowledge of, attitudes towards and relationships with Mäori.
The issue ought not to be viewed as one-sided. It is a fact that Mäori are significantly over-represented in crime statistics and hold negative views about the law, the Police and the justice system. Strategies to close these gaps must include effort, co-operation, attitude and behaviour change on both sides.
Police Mäori Responsiveness Strategy
In 1995, Police commenced a major programme of work to address its overall effectiveness and efficiency. Part of this programme was a renewed focus on responsiveness to Mäori, offending by Mäori and victimisation of Mäori.
In 1996, Police began to develop a comprehensive Mäori Responsiveness Strategy. Initial work comprised a series of building blocks towards a comprehensive strategy, accompanied by a series of short-term initiatives designed to enhance Police responsiveness pending full strategy development.
Initiatives implemented to date are:
2. internal and external accountabilities have been established for Mäori responsiveness performance;
3. an internal Police infrastructure comprising a National Manager Cultural Affairs and a network of District Iwi Liaison Officers has been established to:
4. a draft plan to build a Police/Mäori Responsiveness Strategy, led by the Police Commissioner, has been developed and consulted on with Iwi;
5. mandated Mäori Responsiveness requirements have been specified and included in Police accountability documents;
6. A national Mäori Focus Forum comprising eminent kaumätua has been established to advise the Police Commissioner on key Police Mäori Responsiveness issues.
7. a number of District initiatives have been implemented with the objective of establishing effective partnerships between Police, Iwi and Hapü and facilitating programmes aimed at reducing Mäori crime.
As noted above, between 1997 and 1999 the percentage of Mäori who had full or quite a lot of trust and confidence in Police increased from 36% to 48%. While this result remains far from acceptable, it does demonstrate that significant progress is being made.
The main elements of the strategy are outlined in Figure 2 on the following page.
Figure 2
The overall approach of the model is to define an appropriate Mäori responsiveness framework within Police and the justice sector, against which all strategies, plans and operational services can be tested and any necessary modifications made. The model is presented in generic terms, as at this level it is appropriate as a framework across the justice sector to guide responsiveness to Mäori strategy development.
The Police Draft Mäori Responsiveness Model
Broad outline:
Foreword
Part One ~ Overview
Strategic Goals / Key Focus Areas
1. Organisation capability to respond to Mäori
2. Leadership/
Management Commitment
3. Partnership relationship with Mäori
4.
Support Mäori capacity and growth
5. Develop specific targeted responses
to Mäori offending, re-offending and road trauma
Guiding Principles for Implementation
Part Two ~ Strategy
1. Organisation capability to respond to Mäori
1.1 Develop a Mäori Responsiveness Strategy
1.2 Develop and Implement a Treaty Framework
1.3 Develop audit for organisational responsiveness to Mäori
2. Leadership / Management Commitment
2.1 Establish external Mäori Advisory Groups in districts
2.2 RTM minimum specifications to be identified in all functional areas
2.3 Build inter-sectoral relationships with key agencies
3. Partnership Relationship with Mäori
3.1 Establish formal relationships with key Mäori stakeholders
3.2 Consult, review and evaluate district plans
4. Support Mäori capacity and growth
4.1 Strengthen Mäori community capability
4.2 Collaborate with other agencies
4.3 Recognise Iwi / Hapü, consult on Article 2 issues
4.4 Build links with Mäori youth
5. Develop specific targeted responses to Mäori offending, re-offending and road trauma
5.1 Identify key strategies across districts
5.2 Consult with External Mäori Advisory Committee
5.3 Implement agreed strategies within district
5.4 Evaluate and review implemented strategies
Appendices
Consultation framework - under development.
Performance evaluation criteria and framework.
Performance Evaluation Criteria and Framework
|
Results (Internal)
Demonstrated knowledge of and commitment to the defined Mäori Cultural
Framework (measured through training achievement).
Improved perceptions of Police towards Mäori.
|
Results (External)
Improved perceptions of Mäori towards Police.
Increased trust and confidence by Mäori in Police.
Increased satisfaction by Mäori with policing services.
|
|
Process (Internal)
Mäori Responsiveness Plans meet established criteria.
Plans implemented to agreed milestones and standards.
Training packages meet required standards.
Training delivery by competent trainers and to required standards.
Mäori responsiveness competencies defined and consulted.
Competencies included in position description and appointment
criteria.
Performance criteria included in performance appraisal process.
Number of Iwi Liaison Officers appointed.
|
Process (External)
Outputs, services and performance measures are designed to include
consideration of Mäori needs and are consistent with the organisation's
defined cultural framework.
Police partnership frameworks are consistent with Mäori responsiveness
design criteria, and are working effectively.
Satisfaction by Mäori on quality of partnerships.
Satisfaction by Mäori Focus Forum with delivery under Responsiveness
Plans.
Police Strategic District and Operational plans are consistent with
Mäori responsiveness strategy and plans.
|
The full draft of the Police Strategy is being submitted separately from this report.
Department Of Corrections Mäori Responsiveness Strategies
The Department of Corrections has an ongoing programme of work towards developing a comprehensive Mäori Responsiveness Strategy both within the department, and between the Department of Corrections and Mäori. Its key elements are:
The Department's strategy is not yet either complete or integrated into a single strategy document. The approach to date has been to design elements which would collectively form a Mäori Responsiveness Strategy and then to integrate the individual pieces of work into the wider departmental strategy and planning documents.
Having reviewed the approaches taken in Police, the former Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Corrections, there are clearly a number of advantages in consolidating these individual streams of work into a comprehensive strategy. This is because:
Overall, the work of the Department of Corrections is consistent with the Mäori Responsiveness Strategic Model outlined in this paper, and it will be a relatively straightforward exercise to package the department's streams of work relevant to Mäori responsiveness into an integrated strategy.
Mäori Responsiveness In The Department For Courts
The timeframe for this project has not enabled anything other than a superficial examination of progress towards the development of a strategy for Mäori responsiveness within the Department for Courts. Currently no such strategy exists, although a project is underway for the development of such a strategy. However, this project is in its early stages and significant further work is required before the department can be said to have defined its strategic approach to the degree required in today's environment.
Key Mäori Responsiveness Issues
In the course of the project a number of Treaty, consultation and framework issues relevant to effective Mäori responsiveness have emerged. These are:
Conclusion
Several departments in the relevant sectors have undertaken work on Mäori responsiveness strategies. Some are more advanced in this than others. This work is important if the attitudinal problems outlined at the start of this chapter are to be addressed. Work on these strategies should be co-ordinated, and based on a single model, but will need to be tailored to fit the needs of the individual organisations.
Recommendation 3
Justice sector chief executives, including the Commissioner of Police,
should finalise departmental Mäori Responsiveness Strategies
based on the
model proposed in this report and submit implementation plans to Ministers as a
matter of urgency.
Footnotes
7.See for example Towards Responsiveness. Objective Setting and Evaluation. Me Penapena. Ngä Whäinga atu me ngä hua e Kitea ana. Prepared by the Responsiveness Unit, State Services Commission from Discussions of the Interdepartmental Committee on Responsiveness. July 1989.
Maori Focused Crime Prevention Projects
Police Pilot Crime Prevention Projects
Background
In 1997, as part of a crime prevention budget package, 14 Police-sponsored programmes targeting "Youth at Risk" of offending or re-offending were funded. The Police were the primary agency delivering the programmes, which were multi-agency and community based in their approach.
Between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1999, 339 young people were admitted to the programmes. Most (92%) were aged between 11 and 17, with the most common age (22%) being 13 years. Some were as young as eight years.
Consistent with criminal justice trends, most participants were Mäori (53%) and male (78%). In some programmes, more than 90% of participants were Mäori.
While many programmes featured components specifically targeted at Mäori, including tikanga, te reo and Mäori arts and crafts, they were not consistent features of the Mäori programmes. Rather, when programme staff saw the need for a specific Mäori focus for a participant, a response to that need was found either within the programme or the wider community.
The programmes involved a co-ordinated effort across three main areas: the family, the school and the community. Some included a mentoring component where adult mentors were matched with at risk youth.
Central to programme design and delivery were the risk factors outlined in Chapter 6 of this report. The most common reasons for referral were negative attitudes and behaviour that had come to the attention of the Police and/or schools. Anti-social behaviour, finding it hard to concentrate and low academic achievement were displayed by the majority of young people coming into the programmes. Not all of the participants had offended but were selected on the basis that they were at risk of offending if no positive action was taken.
A thorough analysis was made of the risk factors affecting each youth, including the wider family circumstances and dynamics. The programmes were designed to significantly reduce and if possible eliminate the underlying problems facing a family, which in turn were leading to the under achieving, anti-social or criminal behaviour of the young person. A wide range of services was provided for both the individual and their family. These included anti-truancy, remedial education, anger management, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, employment, one-on-one counselling, cultural, sport and other recreation programmes.
As such, these programmes were intensive and holistic in their approach, in addition to being relatively long term, with support generally provided for two years and, if needed, on an ongoing basis. The employment status and level of income of those referred were significant in terms of the risk factors highlighted earlier in this report. While this data is not comprehensive, where it is known, 63% of parents/caregivers were not in paid employment and the level of family income was between $10,000 and $30,000 per annum.
The programmes were resourced to a very basic level with one full time Police Youth Aid constable and either one or two community workers. Some administrative assistance was available and reliance was also placed on the community and other agencies for resources and specialist services to respond to problems identified in the programme with participants, including the wider families.
The focus, knowledge and dedication of the project teams are impressive. While frustrated that they cannot do more, the teams are putting in many unpaid hours in order to ensure that the projects provide the maximum assistance to the maximum number of young people.
Despite this, the projects have reached only a relatively small proportion of young people and families who could potentially benefit. The 14 projects had dealt with 339 young people over two years, an average of 24 each. However, some more intensive projects, and ones with less community volunteer support, are dealing with lower numbers.
Among the projects visited, the average caseload was 8-15 families and 15-20 children. Given the significant hours that staff are working and the need for at least the present programme intensity to ensure success, there is limited, if any, scope for increasing the current level of service within present resourcing.
There is a clear need for additional programmes of this type and strong evidence to support the conclusion that such programmes would produce results similar to those outlined below (see paragraph 9.15-9.18). Further, if programmes were designed or modified to be consistent with the Good Practice Guide research and experience outlined in this report, then the results should improve. In some sites visited, project staff estimated that up to another 100 families in their communities could participate in programmes with similar results.
Chapter 11 of this report examines to the extent possible, the potential for expanding the current level of programmes. Further work is however required to reach more precise conclusions.
The programmes have been methodically evaluated against pre-set criteria and their results to date can be described as very encouraging. More systematic assessment against a control group is required before these results can be stated with certainty. The most significant finding relates to offending pre and post programme involvement. Averaging across all programmes there was a 78% decrease in the number of offences/incidents committed by the young people in the programme. Some programmes have reported a decrease of over 90%.
The number of young people offending also dropped from 150 to 83. The most common types of offences committed by participants were burglary and theft and these decreased by 70% and 57% respectively post programme involvement. There is also evidence that offending after referral to a programme was for less serious offences.
The evaluation has not included consideration of two important factors:
Nevertheless, the results indicate a high degree of success so far and have achieved other positive benefits not only for the young people in the programmes but for the wider family as well. These include reduced violence within families, increased employment, decreased truancy and increased school achievement.
A more detailed breakdown of the projects and their results is attached at Appendix D.
Project Structure And Characteristics
To date, five of the 14 projects, namely Mt. Roskill, TYLA, Glen Innes, Mangere and Hamilton (Taiohi Toa), have been visited while the other nine have been examined in detail from documentation, speaking to providers, and previous experience.
While projects were individually designed and bids made for funding on a competitive basis, there is a core of common elements with some differences based on local factors. The core elements include:
Some key differences included:
As observed earlier, some of the projects with a significant Mäori population did not rely in a consistent way on Mäori culture and values or te reo as key components to their programmes. These elements are available and used, but not systematically or as a fundamental part of the programme. Neither was the cultural component an aspect evaluated. It is not known, therefore, to what extent a Mäori cultural component contributed to the success of a programme. This issue and the potential role such components can play in reducing offending requires further research and analysis. Prevailing evidence is, however, that a Mäori focus can significantly enhance the effectiveness of crime prevention programmes for Mäori (refer paragraphs 6.12-6.15).
One of the significant factors noted is the key role played by the schools involved in the projects. Project staff have identified the crucial role which both retention at school and educational achievement play in the overall success of the programmes. Also noted, however, are the significant gaps in capability for many schools, and indeed other agencies that supply services to the projects, to successfully respond to the needs of the young people involved in the programmes.
Crime Prevention Programmes Designed For Mäori
As part of the overall "Closing the Gaps" programme a stock-take is currently underway to identify and analyse programmes with a specific focus on Mäori. This While the stock-take is not yet complete but , this project has identified and examined a number of these programmes and examined them.
Te Whänau Äwhina (Community Managed Restorative Justice Programme) - Hoani Waititi Marae in Waitakere.
This is one of a number of programmes funded by the Crime Prevention Unit. There were three original projects located in Timaru, Rotorua and Waitakere (Hoani Waititi Marae). The Rotorua project faltered for a time and while it is currently active has insufficient history for an accurate evaluation while the Timaru project has a low percentage of Mäori participants. This report therefore focuses on the Te Whänau Äwhina programme which is specifically Mäori in its design and implementation, and has been evaluated.
The programme is broadly based on the principles of restorative justice and the Waitakere District Court refers persons charged with an offence to the programme. The key elements of Te Whänau Äwhina are:
Te Whänau äwhina has been formally evaluated and is both successful and cost effective. In summary the evaluation found:
Those evaluating the project, based on comparisons of costs of conventional court processing and sentences, identified cost savings of $193,000 across 68 cases. This represents a saving of $2,838 for each case. Cost savings in respect of reduced offending and victimisation post this evaluation have not been included in this analysis. Even without taking these savings into account, the programme, in addition to being effective, is very good value for money.
The core team involved in Te Whänau äwhina expressed the following views:
Te Whänau äwhina was one of three similar projects (the other two being Project Turnaround based in Timaru, and Project Second Chance in Rotorua). Project Turnaround was nominated for and won a category of the inaugural International Community Justice Awards in London earlier this year.
Government has recognised the value of these projects by funding a further seven programmes in the 2000-2001 budget, several of which are based on Mäori values and principles.
Mäori Community Initiatives For Youth At Risk
Also part of the 1997 Budget Crime Prevention package was a series of programmes designed specifically for Mäori youth. These were funded through Vote: Welfare and were located in Kaitaia, Kaikohe, Mangere, Pukekohe, Rotorua, and Gisborne.
The programmes have a specific cultural component and are designed to provide rangatahi with a sense of whanaungatanga and Mäoritanga.
Key activities are outdoor experiences, mentoring, building self self-esteem, education, life skills, tikanga, personal development and whänau support. Rangatahi are removed from opportunities for using alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs as well as removing them from risk situations and opportunities to commit offences. Peer support and ongoing mentor support also feature.
In many respects the programmes are similar to the Police Crime Prevention Projects but based specifically on Mäori cultural values and principles.
The schemes have been evaluated with a final report due presented in June 2000. Key programme achievements with rangatahi were found to be:
The evaluation also identified the key success factors underpinning the programmes whichthat in turn function as a guide to good practice. They are:
Programme kaupapa and delivery:
Programme goals and delivery:
Programme organisation and management:
External
Internal
These results, while preliminary, provide further evidence of the benefit of an intensive, holistic approach, that is targeted at key risk factors associated with criminal behaviour and utilising utilises an effective cultural framework. There are sufficient indications of positive results in the programmes analysed above to conclude that expansion of this approach will yield similar success, especially with some additional guidance from the experience of other successful programmes.
Synergy Between Responsiveness To Mäori And Crime Prevention
One of the issues to emerge from this project is whether and to what extent crime prevention initiatives can be successful with Mäori, without such programmes being designed specifically for Mäori and/or which are delivered by people or organisations who are not responsive to Mäori history and culture.
The crime prevention initiatives outlined in this report, both mainstream and those targeted specifically to for Mäori, indicate that programmes which are intensive, holistic, targeted at underlying risk factors and have a relevant cultural component are more likely to be successful in reducing criminal behaviour for both Mäori and non-Mäori. What they do not establish is how much of this success in the case of Mäori is due to the cultural components of the programmes and how much from the generic programme design. The opinions of both programme participants, service providers and wider Mäori and non-Mäori commentators are that the cultural dimension is of significant benefit to the majority of Mäori participants but not to all. In respect of those whom it is said to benefit, the view is that a Mäori cultural dimension has several positive effects. These are:
On the second question, namely whether service providers who are more knowledgeable and responsive to Mäori are more likely to achieve better results from delivering programmes than those who are not, the following observations are made.
The history, culture, values and beliefs of Mäori are significantly different from those of non-Mäori, especially European values and beliefs. Almost all Mäori spoken to in the course of the current research were adamant that effective programmes for Mäori, especially in crime prevention, cannot be successfully delivered unless those involved in service delivery are appropriately skilled and responsive. Those delivering the programmes referred to reinforced this view. While many were not Mäori, their experience was that Mäori young people who came to the programmes and their families had an inherent distrust of government agencies dating back many generations. Programme providers had to work very hard to break through these barriers and establish a sense of trust and willingness to participate and respond. Influential in this trust building were the Mäori dimensions of the programmes and the Mäori people involved in service delivery. These dimensions enabled links to be established to key families and young people at risk. It is likely that without these relationships the young people would have continued in their criminal lifestyles and perpetuated a negative family environment that would impact upon other children of those families, as well as generations to come.
Obviously those who deliver such services need to be appropriately qualified across other competencies. Given this prerequisite, however, it can be said that based on experiences to date, programmes designed from a Mäori perspective and delivered by people and organisations responsive to Mäori are more likely to achieve better results than those which are not. This supports the premise that there is a synergy between the quality of the responsiveness to Mäori of organisations on the one hand, and the success of crime prevention initiatives on the other.
Conclusion
There is now a reasonable number of similar programmes which that have been running for several years and which have been subject to methodical evaluation. The best evidence so far is that these programmes reduce the impact of risk factors in the participants, and reduce the amount of crime these peopleparticipants commit. Reductions have ranged from 30% to 94% over a period of 2-3 years including some post-programme follow-up.
The combination of research and practical experience provides a sound basis to develop a model of good practice for Mäori crime prevention programmes. This report outlines and discusses such a model (refer Chapter 11).
Evaluation of Crime Prevention Programmes
Comprehensive evaluation of crime prevention projects has been a rare commodity both in New Zealand and overseas. Research and empirical observations conducted in the course of this project do not enable any comprehensive cost:effectiveness analysis. The result is that Government lacks a robust basis for assessing the cost:effectiveness of the crime prevention programmes it funds.
This is not to say that these projects are unsuccessful. Increasingly, evaluations are being conducted as part of project planning and review. For the programmes studied as part of this project the results are very encouraging. Significant reductions in offending are occurring, along with reductions in a wide range of risk factors associated with criminal behaviour among young people. What is missing is a framework which that will enable the tracking of longer-term trends in offending and the costs and benefits of options for intervention to reduce such offending.
The evaluation which has been conducted on both the Police and Mäori crime prevention projects studied in this report represents an improvement from previous evaluation attempts. Better evaluation criteria is required to support better decision-making. Of particular importance is data on the extent to which various interventions can be effective. This will guide decisions on prioritisation across various intervention options.
Available Data And Information
Currently, criminal justice offence and offender data is incomplete, both at the youth justice and adult court level. Information on the number and type of offences is available across both systems, but there are significant gaps in offender data which make it impossible to identify the number of individual cases. This information is critical to identifying the costs of processing cases to the criminal justice and youth justice systems.
There are similar deficiencies in the methodology for calculating costs across various dispositions of cases.
Cost/Effectiveness Analysis - Police Pilot Projects
A preliminary analysis has shown that the projects are relatively low cost and achieve good results. Direct costs in the first three years of the programmes were $4.5 million (excluding Police salary costs). Benefits to the Justice system are calculated at $3.75m (see Appendix E).
These figures should be treated with care as both costs and benefits are understated (benefits more so). To date, a detailed cost:effectiveness analysis has not been undertaken. In view of the demonstrated success of the projects and their potential wider application, it is recommended that such work be done as a matter of urgency to provide a more comprehensive basis for Government decision-making.
Nevertheless, while $3,500 annual cost per participant could be viewed as high, it is significantly less than the costs to the Criminal Justice system and victims if they continue to offend. Many of these participants would have become or continued to be persistent offenders but for these programmes.
Direct short term costs and savings to the criminal justice sector should be able to be calculated from available data, but current information will not support detailed assessment of longer term or wider social and economic benefits. These benefits are real, however, and include:
In order to develop a better model and basis for assessing the cost effectiveness of these programmes, the following data and analysis is required:
At best, therefore, while the full costs of the programmes can be calculated, only part of the benefit can be quantified in financial terms.
A significant amount of work would be required to quantify the wider benefits of crime reduction. Such work is not recommended by this project although it may be appropriate within the wider "Closing the Gaps" work. Despite this limitation it is recommended that better cost: effectiveness data be developed in order to provide more complete information upon which investment decisions in relation to crime prevention can be made.
Proposed Cost Effectiveness For Crime Prevention Research Proposal
It is proposed that a proper research project be conducted to produce clear data on cost effectiveness. This research proposal is targeted at the projects which are analysed in this paper. The approach would be relevant to any other project or series of projects which may be undertaken and evaluated relevant to crime prevention.
This proposal is to commission a research project to:
The data required for the research project would be:
From this data, two time series can be constructed, together with an estimated potential reduction in offending and costs. This will enable more robust longer term cost:effectiveness analysis to be undertaken.
A reduction in offending will also give rise to a number of other benefits, only some of which may be quantified. These include:
It has been estimated that the time for this work would be approximately six months and the cost up to $100,000. A selective tender would enable a more precise cost estimate.
The design of this proposal has been discussed with Gabrielle Maxwell, Senior Research Fellow of Victoria University’s Institute of Criminology, who has considerable experience of this type of project. She concurs with this approach.
Conclusion
A comprehensive model and data to assess the cost effectiveness of crime prevention initiatives does not exist at present. Better data on cost effectiveness will be important if programmes of this kind are to become a feature of the Government’s response to Mäori crime.
This project has developed a basic model for assessing cost effectiveness, and has collated available data to illustrate some of the fiscal costs and benefits of current crime prevention projects. Better data and a more comprehensive model will need to be developed to support Government decision -making in this area.
Recommendation 4
Government agencies should ensure that there is sound data on which to base future decisions on the establishment and funding of programmes. In particular:
Developing a Good Practice Guide to Reduce Maori Offending
Some Deficiencies in Current Approaches
Despite some limitations in evaluations, the projects which that have been analysed in this report have been demonstrated to perform better than comparable projects in the past. Accordingly they have a capability to reduce future offending by programme participants. This is primarily due to their design, which is broadly based on good practice research and experience, and also to the expertise, enthusiasm and commitment of programme providers. The projects have also taken evaluation to a higher level than hitherto has been the case. This has provided a much sounder basis for assessing the value of such interventions and will enable better decisions to be made about the extent of future investments in such projects.
Nevertheless, an examination of the design and delivery of the projects has revealed some deficiencies in them.
Individual Programme Design Lacks Some Aspects Of Known Good Practice
While the Police projects are based to an extent on good practice research and experience, and the Mäori projects based on a Mäori cultural approach, neither could be said to represent all of the best features of all programmes. This report has developed a proposed model (Figure 3 below) which includes the best features of the approaches taken by all projects consistent with research and experience. If current and future projects were analysed against this Good Practice Guide and modified to conform with it, then it is believed that overall results would improve from their current level. An example of this potential can be seen by the wide variation in the crime reductions achieved across of the programmes, which vary from a low of 30% to more than 90%. While to some extent this is explained by variations in the characteristics of people entering programmes, individual programme design is also likely to play a significant part in this variation.
Inconsistent And Inadequate Funding For Some Programmes
All of the projects analysed reported significant pressure on resources from two significant factors:
Targeting Of Programmes Requires Improvement
Entry into current programmes is not based on consistent criteria. All of the programmes studied were proactive and offer selection criteria based on risk. In most instances, however, such criteria addressed only some of the relevant risk factors. In addition, selection criteria among programmes lacked consistency. This makes evaluation and comparison between projects very difficult. It is not suggested that all programmes should be targeted identically, because different programmes are required for different needs. However, there is a need for more consistent practice across the board.
All the programmes studied are focused on the need to involve, support and develop the wider whänau together with programme participants. Experience to date has demonstrated that this is a vital factor contributing to successful results. Many of the programme providers have expressed the need to develop this aspect of programmes, as existing resources and approaches are insufficient in many cases to successfully improve the whänau environment. It is a sad fact that many rangatahi who return to a negative whänau environment do not sustain improvements achieved on the programme. This aspect of programme design and development requires prioritising and additional resources.
A Draft Good Practice Guide For Programmes To Reduce Mäori Crime
The guide contained in Figure 3 below is designed to improve the effectiveness of current programmes and to provide guidance to the development of new programmes for implementation. Its major features are:
1.Programme targets.
Note: Excluded from entry should be offenders who are at low risk of offending or re-offending and those at the very high end of serious recidivists, and those at high risk of becoming such serious and persistent offenders. These people require specialist services including mental health and related services which the programmes are not suited to provide.
2. Equal emphasis needs to be placed on development and support for the wider whänau (where necessary) in order to ensure that improvements achieved by participants are sustained beyond the programme. In extreme cases it may be necessary to remove participants from their negative environment (although not necessarily permanently) in order to achieve this. This is a contentious issue, but programme providers and officials have supported this approach.
3. Programme design based on best features of research and practical experience of evaluated programmes. Design based on Mäori cultural values and principles.
4. Sound evaluation practices across the key risk factors contributing to crime. Such evaluation need not be a permanent feature, and after the effectiveness of programmes has been demonstrated, evaluation should be replaced with monitoring and auditing processes.
5. The key features of the good practice guide are contained in Figure 3 following page.
DRAFT GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE FOR PROGRAMMES TO REDUCE MÄORI CRIME
|
Targets
|
Programme Design
|
Programme Delivery
|
Resources
|
Evaluation & Target Results
|
|
1. Age 8+
2. High risk factors
¨ few social ties
¨ antisocial peers
¨ poor whänau attachment
¨ treatment barriers
¨ poor thinking
¨ aggressiveness
¨ antisocial attitudes
¨ school failure
¨ poor job skills
¨ alcohol & drugs
¨ high crime neighbourhood
¨ cultural alienation
3. High risk of offending or re-offending
4. Not the most serious recidivists with special needs
5. Mäori
6. Proactive targeting
7. Screening instrument needed
8. 10-20 young people & whänau at one time
|
1. Tailored to risk factors
2. Intensive interaction with young people (10-20 hours+ / week)
3. Wide range of interventions
¨ working with whänau
¨ school or alternative education
¨ skills training
¨ positive interaction & communication
¨ based on Mäori values and culture
¨ activity based - busy away from negative peers / whänau /
alcohol / drugs
¨ mentors / role models
¨ whänau involvement, agreement & support
¨ structured boundaries & accountability
¨ specialist programmes dealing with
· anger management
· alcohol / drugs
· violence / sexual abuse
4. Flexible time - as long as needed (3 months+)
|
1. Community based
¨ community & government (local & national) resources
2. Focused on building protective factors against criminality (refer
Appendix C)
3. 4 full time staff
¨ team leader
¨ 2x community / youth workers
¨ admin support
4. Supplemented by Government services (Police, CYFS, Health,
Education)
5. Screening / assessment
6. Individual programme based on need for participant & whänau
7. Agreement with whänau & young persons
8. Use community volunteers but financial support for intensive involvement
essential
9. Tight monitoring & control
10. Positive reinforcement (wellness model)
11. Case management approach
12. Staff training & quality monitoring
|
1. Salaries $150,000-$180,000
2. Contract support $50,000-$70,000
3. Programme costs $50,000-$80,000
4. Training, administration & evaluation $20,000-$30,000
5. Other operating -
¨ leases
¨ vehicles
¨ equipment
$30,000-$40,000
Total $300,000-$400,000 approximately. Tender process recommended
|
1. Improved education, attendance & results
2. Improved mental health / sense of well-being
3. Improved self esteem / confidence
4. Improved life skills
5. Improved cultural skills / attachment
6. Retention in programme
7. Reduce / eliminate drug & alcohol dependency
8. Improved anger management
9. Teamwork & co-operation
10. Improved whänau environment / attachment
11. Involvement in alternatives to antisocial activities
12. Improved relationships with others
13. Reduced offending during & post programme
|
Note: This model is also applicable to other ethnic groups with appropriate changes to cultural components.
Figure 3
The actual design of individual programmes should be completed by local service providers in the communities where the programmes will be delivered. The reason for this is that the range of options for delivery within the model is quite wide and needs to be tailored to the needs of the target group within the programme. In this respect it is recommended that a Good Practice guide manual be prepared containing detailed descriptions of options drawn from the programmes which are the subject of this report, and relevant wider initiatives identified by the current stock-take underway within the overall "Closing the Gaps" programme.
The Good Practice Guide outlined above, while providing the core services required to participants, will require supplementary services from mainstream government agencies and specialist service providers. The programmes are not targeted at the most difficult offenders or people at risk, and such specialist service provision should be supplementary and on an identified needs basis, as distinct from an across across-the the-board requirement. Because there are gaps in the capacity of both communities and mainstream government agencies in providing such specialist services, it is critical that this approach is present at this stage in the project’s development.
It is envisaged that successful programme delivery will involve a partnership comprising the following components:
Need For A Risk Assessment Tool On Which To Select Programme Participants
One of the weaknesses identified in the programmes analysed in this report is the lack of consistent criteria for programme participation. All programmes use criteria based on the perceived risk of offending or re-offending. However, the use of a consistent assessment tool, based on the risk factors highlighted in this report, would have a number of advantages, including:
One approach to such risk assessment is work by Child, Youth and Family Services. CYFS’ Towards Well-being contains three screening tools, for: alcohol and drug abuse, psychological distress and the risk of suicide. The tools have the overall objectives of assessing and managing suicidal behaviour and assessing well-being. They assess eight domains:
While this screening tool does not exactly correlate with the criminality risk factors outlined in this report, it is a good example of the type of screening device which would achieve the objective of effective programme targeting and consistent evaluation comparisons. With relatively little work it could be modified to the needs of the Good Practice Guide to Reduce Mäori Offending outlined in this paper. It is important, however, not to omit some of the wider risks from consideration. In particular, suicide risk factors ought to be identified to ensure that suicide prevention can be a feature of a programme where that need has been identified.
Linkages To The Courts And Youth Justice System
The Good Practice Guide for Programmes to Reduce Mäori Crime recommended in this report is applicable for use by the following groups:
The programmes can be applied to offenders or people at risk of offending as part of a case which comes formally into the Court or Youth Justice system, as well as proactively selecting participants in order to prevent them from becoming offenders. In this sense the programmes do and can stand alone, and can be administered separately from the Court and Youth Justice systems. However, an element of supervision would be required for participants who had been referred to a programme by these institutions.
With proper contractual arrangements and administrative, audit and evaluation processes, there does not appear to be any reason why such programmes should not continue to operate independently of any formal government agency. This would ensure that the programmes are able to focus on preventing entry into the Criminal Justice system as well as dealing with people once they have offended.
It is important to emphasise that implementing culturally based crime prevention programmes for Mäori as part of a case process in no way creates a separate justice system for Mäori. Mäori and non-Mäori are equally accountable to the law and questions of guilt or innocence are still determined by the Courts or Youth Justice system within one legal framework. What these programmes offer can be viewed as a component of a sentencing or case management process which is designed to achieve the best results for Mäori by reducing future re-offending.
Potential For Successful Intervention
There is no comprehensive pre-existing work upon which estimates can be made of the potential to replicate the success of the Good Practice Guide. Available data is incomplete and in some instances of poor quality. Significant further work is required to be definitive in this respect, but the analysis below provides a basis for a broad estimate of the extent to which expansion of these programmes can be cost effective. The analysis is based on the following data:
High Risk Communities Where Programmes Could Be Best Located
Two pieces of demographic and risk analysis are available as a basis from which to identify high- risk communities where Good Practice Guide to Reduce Mäori Offending programmes can be based. These are:
Figure 4
Figure 5
The above analysis enables the following preliminary conclusions:
There are some important considerations that must be borne in mind when developing strategies for implementation. A central theme of the Government's "Closing the Gaps" programme is to develop Mäori capacity in order to strengthen the ability of individuals, whänau, Hapü, Iwi, Mäori organisations and Mäori communities to build the strategies, systems, structures and skills that they need to control their own development and achieve their own objectives. This means that the delivery of the programmes identified in this report should be primarily by Mäori supplemented where necessary where skill gaps are identified in Mäori providers. Even in these instances priority should be accorded to developing the skills in the Mäori community to deliver these programmes. There is also merit in having mixed teams of Mäori providers supplemented with staff from Government agencies who could together, based on experience to date, provide a powerful resource base for programme delivery.
The appropriate implementation approach for these programmes ought to involve a capacity assessment in communities where programmes are proposed in order to identify what capacity already exists in terms of both current programmes and potential service providers. Gaps between existing services and provider capability, and the requirements of a more comprehensive programme consistent with the Good Practice Guide should then be identified. Programme design and delivery can then be finalised focusing on filling the identified gaps and providing a comprehensive programme.
Conclusion
The results of the crime prevention programmes already running in New Zealand are good. But the programmes have to date been small- scale stand- alone exercises, with inadequate funding and support. The conclusion of this report is that the Government should now move to support programmes of this kind in a systematic and comprehensive way, bringing together the work of the many agencies in this field. That includes better support for the programmes that currently exist, and the establishment of more programmes. It is also time for their evaluation to be put on a firm scientific footing.
The overall effect of the recommendations made in this report so far would be to move to a coherent set of programmes, based on the proposed Good Practice Guide properly evaluated, and co-ordinated across the various justice and social policy sector agencies. The questions tackled in this last chapter are concerned with the scale and location of the programmes.
In terms of targeting and risk assessment, the conclusion is that it would be possible to use existing sociological data to ensure that programmes were established in a targeted way, in the areas that need them most.
Indicative modelling suggests that running around 60 programmes of the size and type discussed in this report, over say a five year period, could have a significant impact on the long term crime rate and on the overall gaps data for Mäori. Proceeding with the recommendations in this report should be a priority for Government's "Closing the Gaps" programme.
Implementation ought to be consistent with Government's capacity building for Mäori strategies and policies.
Recommendation 5
Government agencies should adopt the crime prevention programme model for Mäori outlined in Chapter 11, Figure 3 as the basis for programme development and implementation across the sector, and continue to develop it in light of experience and the further evaluation and research proposed in this report. In accordance with the model, crime prevention programmes should focus on addressing the key risk factors, and should incorporate the use of Mäori cultural values as a major focus, as this is likely to improve effectiveness.
Recommendation 6
The government should, through the "Closing the Gaps" programme, complete preparatory work required to support implementation of crime prevention programmes (based on the draft Good Practice Guide For Programmes To Reduce Mäori Crime) in a systematic and comprehensive fashion. In particular, work is needed as a matter of priority on:
Recommendation 7
The work required under Recommendations 5 and 6 should be co-ordinated by officials led by the Ministry of Justice, and completed in time to form the basis of funding and implementation decisions as part of the 2001-2002 budget round.
Consultation
It is vitally important that initiatives to reduce Mäori crime are developed in close consultation with Mäori and that Mäori should play a leading role in their development and implementation. The proposals in this report have been developed with the support of specialist expertise and advice on Mäori cultural values, beliefs and principles. They have also been discussed with a range of people including Mäori leaders, community representatives and Government officials. The timeframe for this report has, however, limited the extent of consultation possible, and wider consultation with Mäori and officials is needed
The report contains recommendations for the completion of preliminary work undertaken by the project and there is no reason why this work should not continue during consultation, providing that substantive implementation decisions await the results of that consultation.
Recommendation 8
That Police and Justice officials in consultation with the Department of Mäori Development further consult with Mäori on the key proposals in this report.
Öti rä, e rau rangatira mä
Ka mutu au i konei I runga I tënä whakatauäkï
I möhiotia whänuitia e te motu
Näu te rourou, Näku te rourou,
Ka ora ai te Iwi
Tënä koutou tënä koutou, tënä tätou katoa
Finally, esteemed people and readers
I conclude with an all embracing and very appropriate proverb
That is well versed across the Land
"With the food from your basket
Combined with the food from my basket,
We will together, overcome adversity"
Greetings to one and all.
Appendix A
|
Apprehensions per 1000 pop.
|
|||
|
(non traffic offences)
|
|||
|
Year
|
Mäori
|
non-Mäori
|
Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991
|
118.37
|
38.53
|
3.1
|
|
1992
|
120.18
|
40.04
|
3.0
|
|
1993
|
135.57
|
45.94
|
3.0
|
|
1994
|
144.65
|
47.77
|
3.0
|
|
1995
|
143.81
|
49.88
|
2.9
|
|
1996
|
147.24
|
45.99
|
3.2
|
|
1997
|
146.18
|
44.97
|
3.3
|
|
1998
|
144.83
|
44.41
|
3.3
|
|
Prosecutions per 1000 pop.
|
|||
|
(non traffic offences)
|
|||
|
Year
|
Mäori
|
non-Mäori
|
Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991
|
60.64
|
17.14
|
3.5
|
|
1992
|
61.46
|
17.86
|
3.4
|
|
1993
|
66.73
|
18.83
|
3.5
|
|
1994
|
71.02
|
19.81
|
3.6
|
|
1995
|
71.71
|
20.14
|
3.6
|
|
1996
|
68.88
|
19.18
|
3.6
|
|
1997
|
66.85
|
18.79
|
3.6
|
|
1998
|
68.99
|
19.28
|
3.6
|
|
Convictions per 1000 pop.
|
|||
|
(non traffic offences)
|
|||
|
Year
|
Mäori
|
non-Mäori
|
Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991
|
45.15
|
11.44
|
3.9
|
|
1992
|
45.57
|
11.84
|
3.8
|
|
1993
|
50.98
|
12.95
|
3.9
|
|
1994
|
52.47
|
13.18
|
4.0
|
|
1995
|
50.92
|
12.62
|
4.0
|
|
1996
|
49.34
|
12.05
|
4.1
|
|
1997
|
48.13
|
11.91
|
4.0
|
|
1998
|
50.21
|
12.16
|
4.1
|
|
Apprehensions per 1000 pop.
|
|||
|
(violent offences)
|
|||
|
Year
|
Mäori
|
non-Mäori K89
|
Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1991
|
17.16
|
4.56
|
3.8
|
|
1992
|
18.32
|
5.08
|
3.6
|
|
1993
|
23.70
|
6.63
|
3.6
|
|
1994
|
28.54
|
7.97
|
3.6
|
|
1995
|
28.58
|
7.51
|
3.8
|
|
1996
|
27.29
|
7.67
|
3.6
|
|
1997
|
27.31
|
7.55
|
3.6
|
|
1998
|
27.50
|
7.40
|
3.7
|
|
Custodial Sentences
|
|||
|
Year
|
Mäori
|
non-Mäori
|
Ratio
|
|
|
%
|
%
|
|
|
1991
|
15.30
|
11.30
|
1.4
|
|
1992
|
15.50
|
11.60
|
1.3
|
|
1993
|
15.20
|
11.00
|
1.4
|
|
1994
|
13.90
|
10.10
|
1.4
|
|
1995
|
13.90
|
9.90
|
1.4
|
|
1996
|
15.10
|
10.20
|
1.5
|
|
1997
|
15.70
|
10.80
|
1.5
|
|
1998
|
15.30
|
10.50
|
1.5
|
Appendix B
Appendix C
Key risk and protective factors associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour
Extensive research from several countries (see footnote for references) shows there are various factors associated with childhood, family and school life, life events and community context which can increase the risk of an individual committing or experiencing crime, as well as protect against it. The Table below summarises these key risk and protective factors associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour, and the likelihood of developing alcohol and drug problems (which can increase the risk of committing or experiencing crime). It is important to note, however, that these are risk factors and are NOT predictors of behaviour.
Table : Risk and protective factors associated with anti-social and criminal behaviour, and alcohol/drug problems
|
Childhood
|
Risk factors
|
Protective factors
|
|
|
|
|
Family
|
|
|
|
Youth/ school
|
|
|
|
Life events
|
|
|
|
Community
context
|
|
|
Footnotes
1. Table draws on research from Pathways to Prevention, National Crime Prevention, Australia, Young People and Crime, UK Home Office 1995, the National Crime Prevention Council - Canada and the US Centre for Substance Abuse Prevention
Appendix D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programme
|
Incidents/
|
No. of
|
Average
|
Incidents/
|
No. of
|
Average
|
% Reduction
|
% Reduction
|
|
|
Offences pre
|
Offenders
|
Offences/
|
Offences
|
Offenders
|
Offences/
|
Incidents/
|
in No. of
|
|
|
Programme
|
|
Incidents
|
Post programme
|
|
Incidents
|
Offences
|
Offenders
|
|
Kaikohe
|
33
|
12
|
2.8
|
20
|
9
|
2.2
|
39%
|
25%
|
|
Glen Innes
|
176
|
9
|
19.6
|
10
|
4
|
2.5
|
94%
|
56%
|
|
Mt. Roskill
|
67
|
8
|
8.4
|
22
|
5
|
4.4
|
67%
|
38%
|
|
TYLA
|
22
|
11
|
2.0
|
11
|
9
|
1.2
|
50%
|
18%
|
|
Mangere
|
56
|
10
|
5.6
|
22
|
6
|
3.7
|
61%
|
40%
|
|
Hamilton
|
46
|
8
|
5.8
|
9
|
4
|
2.3
|
80%
|
50%
|
|
Tauranga
|
346
|
11
|
31.5
|
78
|
10
|
7.8
|
77%
|
9%
|
|
Gisborne
|
51
|
9
|
5.7
|
16
|
6
|
2.7
|
69%
|
33%
|
|
Wainuiomata
|
72
|
9
|
8.0
|
6
|
4
|
1.5
|
92%
|
56%
|
|
Nelson
|
90
|
12
|
7.5
|
6
|
4
|
1.5
|
93%
|
67%
|
|
New Brighton
|
373
|
11
|
33.9
|
82
|
9
|
9.1
|
78%
|
18%
|
|
Rangiora
|
110
|
15
|
7.3
|
35
|
6
|
5.8
|
68%
|
60%
|
|
Dunedin
|
62
|
25
|
2.5
|
16
|
7
|
2.3
|
74%
|
72%
|
|
(New Directions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total/Average %
|
1504
|
150
|
10
|
333
|
83
|
4
|
78%
|
45%
|
|
Distinct cases (estimated)
|
|
430
|
(Note 1)
|
|
90
|
(Note 2)
|
|
|
|
|
Note 1
Based on prior criminal justice research showing average of 3.5 offences
per case
case - further work required for more definative data Source: Anlysis of Police statistics in relation to offenders in the 10-16 year age group conducted by Mary Schollum (Police)1999 |
|
Note 2
Number of offences per case reduced based on reduction of offences per
offender from 10 to 4
|
|
||||
Appendix E
Police Youth at Risk Projects - Estimated Fiscal Costs and Savings
Fiscal costs of providing Youth at Risk (YAR) programme to 1000 participants
The three year cost of providing Youth at Risk Programmes has been $4,504,309 for 430 participants to date, which is an annual average of $3,492 per person, or $3.5 million per 1000 course participants
Participation in Police programmes reduces the propensity of this Youth at Risk group to offend from 1000/1000 to 221/1000
Calculations are based on the reduction in the number of offenders/incidents attributable to the initial 430 cases (ie all participants) to 95/430 after 2 years of operation. Source: NZ Police Youth at Risk Evaluation 1999
Fiscal savings from reduced offending
The reduction in offences/incidents attributable to Youth at Risk following participation in the Police programmes results in savings to the Justice Sector as follows (note calculations based on 1000 individuals)
|
|
|
|
a
|
b
|
|
|
Type of resolution
|
unit cost per case
|
% case resolution
|
Before programme = 1000/1000
|
Participants in Police programme = 221/1000
|
Fiscal saving (a minus b)
|
|
Police Youth Aid
|
$1,133
|
100
|
$1,133,000
|
$250,393
|
$882,607
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
$882,607
|
|
Family Group Conference
|
$1,893
|
8
|
$151,440
|
$33,468
|
$117,972
|
|
Youth Court
|
$4,465
|
8
|
$357,200
|
$78,941
|
$278,259
|
|
Youth Justice Plans
|
$6,438
|
12
|
$772,560
|
$170,736
|
$601,824
|
|
District Court
|
$7,956
|
4
|
$318,240
|
$70,331
|
$247,909
|
|
Community based sentence
|
$9,076
|
6
|
$544,560
|
$120,348
|
$424,212
|
|
Residential placement
|
$23,424
|
5
|
$1,171,200
|
$258,835
|
$912,365
|
|
Custodial sentence - adult
|
$37,106
|
1
|
$371,060
|
$82,004
|
$289,056
|
|
Other - including Diversion
|
not applicable
|
56
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBTOTAL
|
$2,871,597
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
$3,754,204
|
Notes
- all individuals are initially dealt with by Police Youth Aid
- case resolutions (following initial Police Youth Aid) assumed to follow the distribution (ie % of case resolutions) as above, based on Ministry of Justice estimates
- amounts involve fiscal savings and do not include valuations of the significant economic value of benefits achieved through reduced offending, eg costs to victims, and benefits (accruing to the individual and society) of the improved life opportunities for offenders
- all dollar figures are GST inclusive
|
Police Youth at Risk Projects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three year costs based on 1998/1999 actual costs
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1998/1999
|
Three Year Cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaikohe
|
$130,769
|
$392,307
|
|
Glen Innes
|
$138,293
|
$414,879
|
|
Mt. Roskill
|
$179,062
|
$537,186
|
|
TYLA
|
$162,350
|
$487,050
|
|
Mangere
|
$142,681
|
$428,043
|
|
Hamilton
|
$134,629
|
$403,887
|
|
Tauranga
|
$155,700
|
$467,100
|
|
Gisborne
|
$103,695
|
$311,085
|
|
Wainuiomata
|
$88,692
|
$266,076
|
|
Nelson
|
$53,000
|
$159,000
|
|
New Brighton
|
$77,092
|
$231,276
|
|
Rangiora
|
$70,500
|
$211,500
|
|
Dunedin
|
$65,000
|
$195,000
|
|
(New Directions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$1,501,463
|
$4,504,389
|
[1] Perspectives on Responding to
the Over-Representation of Mäori in the Criminal Justice System. The Views
of Mäori Stakeholders.
Justice Sector Policy Group, Ministry of Justice and
the Social Policy Branch, Te Puni Kökiri. 1998 pp
9-10.
[2] Ms Donna Hall, Barrister
& Solicitor, Ngäti Rangiteaorere o Mokoia Island. Aug 2000
[3] Public Attitudes Towards
Policing Survey. June 1995. MRL Research Group
p.22
[4] Tough Is Not Enough -
Getting Smart about Youth Crime. Kaye L. McLaren, Ministry of Youth Affairs.
June 2000. pp 36-37
[5] Risk and
Strength Factors for Children and Young People Who Offend or Re-offend. Lisa
Hema. Draft. Department of Child, Youth and
Family Services. May
2000
[6] Rapua Te Huarahi Tika -
Searching for Solutions. A review of research about effective interventions for
reducing offending by indigenous
and ethnic minority youth. By Debbie Singh and
Clem White. Ministry of Youth Affairs. June 2000. p 57
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/lawreform/NZPenalPP/2000/2.html
