In Australia, juvenile offender rates are almost double the rate for adults (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2008; see appendix 1). Young offenders are most likely to commit offences because of non-conformity and acting against social control, opting for a method of 'self control.' In the eyes of authorities and the general public, this is fracturing social bonds in Australian society (Western, Lynch & Ogilvie, 2003). Other theorists have tried to explain youth crime in Australia as a reflection of a much deeper struggle over economic resources (Omaji, 2003). Authorities have attempted to address this offender rate and possible underlying causes through various federal, state, and local policies. This essay will review a local plan, the Coffs Harbour City Council (CHCC) crime prevention and safety plan 2008- 2011 [CHCCSP]. The document’s purpose is to help police and local councils develop a coordinated response to community concerns and reduce incidence and fear of crime in the council’s area. While this document is supposed to take all age demographics into consideration, it seems to be primarily focused on the ages 12-25 years. The document also makes several assumptions about youth crime. The document does address key issues, such as the lack of access to public space for young people, early intervention strategies and mentoring. However, there are concerns about the role of police in public spaces and the lack of consideration regarding youth workers and legal advice. This document has made some attempt in discussing youth crime and has some really good options in relation to young people, but it also has some flaws which will be discussed in this essay.
The crime prevention and safety plan was tabled by CHCC in March of 2008 and it developed upon a previous plan, which expired in 2001. The main purpose for the plan was to create a sense of safety amongst community members and to develop an action plan to combat crime. It seems to be primarily focused on crimes committed by young people, aged 12-25. The document outlines its future strategies. It details research, planning and prevention rather than punishment for young people. This plan is set to be reviewed frequently, to see if the local council and other stakeholders are meeting the proposed goals. Some goals of this plan indicate that strategies, such as mentoring programs, need to be established for offenders and those at risk of offending. Other specific strategies include: developing partnerships between council and organizations; introducing education programs focused on problems of underage drinking; developing safe places for young people to ‘hang’ on Friday and Saturday nights rather than attending beach parties; organizing inexpensive activities to foster engagement; offering ‘get skilled’ workshops, which target at risk youth and are run by police and juvenile justice department; and raising awareness that supplying alcohol to underage drinkers is illegal. These are proactive strategies developed by the council and local stakeholders. However, a concern regarding this document’s strategies is the lack of solid age limits to define who these strategies are aimed at. According to Hudson (1997), it is important to define age limits as it helps to easily and specifically adapt the program for a particular targeted group. The CHCCSP defines youth crime as crimes committed by young people aged 12-25. This conflicts with the Young offenders Act 1997 (NSW) (see Appendix 3). The document describes youth crime problems as malicious damage caused by young people; violence amongst young people; public nuisances. In addition, it describes beach parties as a major problem because the large gatherings of young people (up to 500 people) include a large percentage of intoxicated underage drinkers. The document details that beachside residents in communities such as Sawtell, Park Peach, and The Jetty are often abused when walking past these gatherings. The document also suggests that a great deal of crime is committed when youth are walking from the beach back into the CBD. The document represents the majority of youth crime as being caused by: boredom, lack of affordable youth activities, and the lack of affordable transport to and from the city of a late night/early morning. These are some of the premises for youth crimes being committed and the explanations offered by CHCC to why youth crime exists in the local area.
The document’s assumptions about youth crime relate to its focus that young people are committing crime due to being excluded from society and public space, by not having safe affordable or engaging places to hang out. According to Malone (2002), there are not many public spaces available to young people because of political views and media spin. Omaji (2003) further explains that media bias can filter quickly through the public sphere and dominate ideology. White (1998) stresses the importance of making public space more accessible to young people; he lists ways that public space can be managed better to benefit both young people and the wider community. These include communicating directly with young people, while being non-judgmental, establishing links with young people, having an attitude of conciliation, and dealing with rule breaking fairly. The other assumption this documents makes is that if we identify those people who are most likely to commit crime, successful intervention will make it less likely that they would commit crime. The plan breaks the early intervention programs down into two categories. One program is for young people in general (for example, education workshops in schools around alcohol) and preventive programs for those who are at risk of offending (for example, the ‘get skilled’ program). Studies in Europe have shown that prevention seems to be more effective than imprisonment (Blyth & Soloman, 2009). These proactive strategies are based on assumptions that prevention is more effective. The assumptions about youth crime, made by the document, have resulted in three strong approaches.
Three key strengths of this document are its consideration of the availability of public space for young people; its promotion of early intervention strategies; and its focus on peer mentoring.
A major strength of this document is its consideration of the lack of public space available for young people. It takes into account barriers that may prevent young people from accessing public space such as money, transport and general scrutiny from the public and it identifies ways to address this issue. It is valuable that this document takes into account the lack of public space available to young people, because providing access to public space can encourage young people to express themselves, to socialise with peers, to be engaged within the community space, without much cost to the young person (White, 1990). However, there are barriers to giving young people access to public space. This is evident in Pearson’s (1983) study into hooliganism, which shows it is easy to create a moral panic about young people as deviant and engaging in activities that are perceived as wrong or socially unacceptable, in areas of public space, which are aside for young people. A recent example of this is on the southside of the Coffs Coast a news article about a skate park (Mixed views on skate park , 2010; see appendix 2). Views like this, make it difficult to create public space for youth because they can trigger heavy political scrutiny on the use of public space (Pearson, 1983). In response to this the document does recommend educating the general population about public space, what it means and what they can expect from young people in designated spaces. While giving access to public space is a good start, the literature suggests that combining access to public space with other strategies, such as early intervention programs, would increase the effectiveness and the benefits provided by access to public space (White, 1990).
The second major strength of the policy document developed by CHCC is that it has a focus on early intervention strategies. The document splits the early intervention programs into two categories. It recommends education programs for young people in schools, such as raising awareness about the effects of alcohol and drugs. It also targets programs at young people at risk of offending (for example the ‘get skilled’ program, which links young people with opportunities for education, drug rehabilitation, and training). Early intervention with young people has shown to be effective to some extent in reducing youth crime (Cunneen & White , 2011). In Norway, there is evidence that early intervention appears to be working. However, the United Nations Human Rights Commission has warned that intervention strategies need to fit the specific crimes and that one intervention strategy is not appropriate for all contexts, such as in Norway (Wolf, 2004). Some of the intervention strategies involve one on one mentoring.
Another strength is the significant focus on mentoring young people who are at risk of offending or who have committed an offence. The CHCCSP includes agencies, such as PCYC, Juvenile Justice and Tafe outreach support, to refer identified young people to a mentoring program. This mentoring program would be established and operated by an independent body. The projected outcomes are to lower the number of young people participating in crime. Researchers have reported that one on one mentoring is generally effective with young people, who have or are at risk of entering the youth justice system (Flaxman , 1988). A key feature of mentoring is that a mentoring program requires significant planning (Dubois, Hollway, Valentine & Cooper, 2002). It is evident from the CHCCSP, that considerable planning has been undertaken in relation to their mentoring program. American research, suggests that people who participated in a similar program, experienced positive outcomes, including reduction of antisocial activities, an improvement in grades and engagement with school, better outcomes with building trusting relationships and were more open in seeking emotional support (Bilchik, 1997).
While there are several strengths within this document, there are also some flaws, which require consideration. These include: the scope and definition of young people; the unclear role of police in public spaces for young people; the lack of consideration regarding youth workers and improving access to legal advice for young people. These aspects are currently undermining a largely strong plan. Addressing these concerns could enhance the usefulness of this plan in preventing crime on the Coffs Coast.
The definition of young people in this document differs from that of the NSW legislation. There needs to be awareness that youth or young person is a recent construct; children throughout history have been treated as adults. Definitions, such as youth and young people, have existed for around 150 years (Skelton & Valentine, 1998). Unfortunately, constructs of young people can be distorted, factual information can be misinterpreted, and characteristics wrongly attributed to certain age demographics. Further still, this generic construct of young people can also lead media outlets to portray the wrong demographic as having the issue (Jewkes & Letherby, 2002). Consequently, an age bracket that ranges in 13 years difference is in conflict with data analysts, who suggest narrowing the focus to obtain precise information (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The Coffs Harbour city council crime prevention plan’s definition of young people seems to be too broad and may have attributed to some flawed data within this plan. This could have contributed to an inaccurate reflection of youth crime in the Coffs Harbour area. The document could be improved by including more specific definitions of young people and the methodology used for collecting the data.
Another key flaw within the CHCCSP is the strategy to place more police in young person related public space. The issue is not that the police are located within public space, but that it is unclear what the role is of the police in these public spaces. It is difficult to speculate on reasons for the absence of this information. However, research suggests that in general young people do not have a good relationship with police. White & Alder (1994) conducted a longitudinal study considering whether young people knew their rights when dealing with police. The sample was taken from young people at schools, youth centers, and public spaces. The results, based on interviewing the sample of young people, indicated that 80% said that they had been in contact with the police before; 33% admitted to being ‘roughed up’ by police; 28% stated their rights were not read to them; 21% said they were allowed to make a phone call; and 70% were abused or sworn at by police. Furthermore police have significant powers over young people in public spaces (Law enforcement powers Act 2002 (NSW); see Appendix 3).
The final weakness is that the policy does not make any provisions about youth workers or access to legal advice for young people. Youth workers’ involvement with young people can be vitally important because youth workers complement youth justice frameworks. Their preventative, rather than dentition, focus can be extremely beneficial for young people (Muncie, Hughes & McLaughlin, 2002). Youth workers’ roles can include: assisting young people to comply with court orders, assisting young people to connect with other related services, maintaining records of program attendance, and providing assistance in the case planning processes. (Youth workers your career in the department of communities: youth justice service center QLD, 2010) .To have a complete framework for a strong youth justice policy, in addition to youth workers, access to legal services for young people should be provided. If a young person is in conflict with the law, legal professionals, such as solicitors, can offer legal advice whereas youth workers can only provide legal information(Youth Advocay Center,
2010).This would also reduce the financial barrier to young people avoiding detention, if there was access to free legal advice.
The CHCCSP provides a solid plan to address youth crime. Particularly, because of its focus on accessible public spaces for young people, early interventions to prevent youth crime, and one on one mentoring within the community. However, there are three aspects which should be considered to make the plan more effective and equitable for young people. Firstly, the definition of ‘young people’ needs to be more specific, to match current legislation and reduce negative constructs. Secondly, the role of police needs to be clarified within the document, especially in relation to public spaces. Finally, the document should make provision for access to youth workers and free legal advice for all young people.
Appendix 1
Juvenile offender rates have generally been twice as high as adult ones.
The offender rate of juveniles decreased from 1996–97 to 2003–04, from 3,965 to 3,023 per 100,000 per year. It increased in 2005–06, and again in 2006–07, to 3,532 per 100,000.
The adult offender rate peaked in 2000–01, at 2,100 per 100,000. In 2006–07, it was 1,492 per 100,000, the lowest rate recorded.
(Australian Instuite of Criminology, 2008)
Appendix
2
Mixed
views on Skate Park
8th June 2010 Coffs Coast Advocate
Residents near
the new skate park at Nambucca Heads are not happy.
IT has won a huge thumbs
up from the town’s youth but the Nambucca Heads skate park is
proving far from a hit with its immediate neighbours.
Just a year after it was
opened, the park has been described by the Meadow Crescent residents
that overlook it as a haven of bad behaviour.
They expressed their
ongoing concerns at last week’s meeting at the Nambucca Shire Council in response to a council-conducted audit which they claim
painted a picture which is far rosier than reality.
Long term resident Jim
Teasel said the lack of adult supervision at the park had forced some
neighbours to capture the antics of unruly youth on film and video as
proof of the behaviour.
“I’ve tried to
reason with the kids that go to the skate park about bad language and
using the bushes as a toilet but I’ve been abused,” Mr Teasel
said.
“It wasn’t my
retirement plan to be involved in the surveillance of a skate park
but the problems there are real.”
Mr Teasel said he was
confused and disappointed with the audit report summary which did not
allude to anything but minor issues attached to the park.
“Why weren’t the
residents involved in the review when people I know that aren’t at
the park after hours or on weekends were?” he asked.
Mark Novicky said the
audit was little more than a band-aid that allowed council to pass
the buck.
“The park is poorly
cared for and poorly supervised,” Mr Novicky said.
“Council had other
options at the time but now must admit it made the wrong decision to
put the skate park opposite a quiet residential area,” he said.
Defence of the park and
its users came via local skater Daniel Duong who said it was proving
a big hit with local kids.
“On weekends and after
school it is often full,” Mr Duong said.
“It is a great place
for kids to gather and develop their skating skills and to meet and
interact with youth workers,” he said.
“I know nothing about
drinking, drug use or vandalism down there and believe the
troublemakers are not skaters.”
That opinion was
reiterated yesterday by all five skaters at the park.
“This is the best
thing that’s happened for young people in this town,” Jack Grant
said.
“There are no lights
so we can’t use the park when it gets dark and in all the time I’ve
been coming here, I’ve never heard from any upset residents,” he
said.
On Thursday night
Councillor Brian Finlayson doubted that a council recommendation to
install a rubbish bin and replace existing signage about acceptable
behaviour with larger and more effective signs would prove effective.
“I do not believe the
problems are being caused by legitimate skaters and this
recommendation will do nothing to help the residents,” he said.
In moving a motion for
council rangers to bring forward a report on attendances and
discipline issues at the park, Cr Mike Moran lamented its impact on
the neighbourhood.
“From the word go,
council turned a blind eye to this issue and left residents swinging
in the wind,” Cr Moran said.“Going on what we’ve heard, I’d
have to say these people aren’t living in Nambucca Head
the are living in hell
Appendix
3
Young offenders Act 1997 (NSW)
1(4) a
person who is of or over the age of 10 years and under the age of 18
years.
Law enforcement powers Act 2002 (NSW)
(3)87
Has the power to disperse groups
(14)197
Give Directions generally in relation to public space
References
Australian
Institute of Criminology (2008), from
http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/current%20series/facts/1- 20/2008/4%20selected%20offender%20profiles.aspx
Bilchik,
S. (1997). Mentoring A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy.
Juvenile Justice Bulliten
Blyth,
M., & Soloman, E. (2009). Prevention
and youth crime: is early intervention working.
Bristol Policy Press
Crime
Prevention & Safety Plan 2008 - 2011.
(2008).Coffs Harbour Retrieved from
http://nswcommunities.org.au/uploads/Crime-Prevention- Safety-Plan-2008-2011.pdf.
Cunneen,
C., & White, R. (2011). Juvenile
Justice: Youth and Crime in Australia.
Sydeny: Oxford University Press.
DuBois,
D. L., Holloway, B. E., Jeffrey C. Valentine, & Cooper, H.
(2002). Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs for Youth: A
Meta-Analytic Review. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2).
Flaxman,
E. (1988). Understanding the Mentoring Process between Adolescents
and Adults. Youth Society
Hudson,
S. D. (1997). Helping Youth Grow, The
Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 68(4).
Jewkes,
Y., & Letherby, G. (2002). Criminology:
a reader. Thousand Oaks:
Californa Sage.
Law
enforcement powers Act 2002 Retrieved
from
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/leara2002451/.
Malone,
K. (2002). Street life: youth, culture and competing uses of public
space. Environment and
Urbanization, 14(157).
Mixed
views on skate park (2010).
Coffs Coast Advocate
Muncie,
J., Hughes, G., & McLaughlin, E. (2002). Youth
justice: critical readings.
Thousand oaks: Californa Sage.
Omaji,
P. (2003 ). Responding to
youth crime: towards radical criminal justice partnerships.
Marrikville NSW: Hawkins Press
Person,
G. (1983). Hooligan: A
history of respectable fears.
London Macmillan.
Raudenbush,
S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical
linear models: Applications and data analysis methods for advanced
qualitative techniques in the social sciences.
Thousand Oaks: Californa Sage.
Skelton,
T., & Valentine, G. (1998). Cool
places: geographies of youth cultures.
London: Routledge.
Western,
J. S., Lynch, M., & Ogilvie, E. (2003). Understanding
youth crime: an Australian study.
Burlington Usa: Ashgate.
White,
R. (1998). Public Spaces for
Young People: A Guide to Creative Projects and Positive Strategies.
Canberra Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
White,
R. (1990). No space of their
own: young people and social control in Australia Melbourne
Cambridge unviristy press
White,
R., & Alder, C. (1994). The
police and young people in Australia Melbourne
Cambridge Unviristy Press.
Wolf,
M. (2004). Youth policy in Norway: report by the international team
of experts Strasbourg
Cedex: Council of Europe.
Youth
Advocacy Centre Inc (2010).
Laying Down the criminal law: hand book for youth workers
Young
offenders Act 1997 (Nsw).
Retrieved from
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/yoa1997181/
Your
Department of Communities career as a youth worker in a youth justice
service centre Qld. (2010)
