Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015-16...Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16 ii Y epor 201516 If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, please

Youth Parole BoardAnnual Report 2015–16

This page has been left blank for the purpose of double-sided printing.

Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

ii Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, please phone 9096 7507 using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required, or email [email protected]

Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.

© State of Victoria, Department of Health and Human Services August, 2016.

Where the term ‘Aboriginal’ is used it refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Indigenous is retained when it is part of the title of a report, program or quotation.

ISSN: 2201-0491 (print)

ISSN: 2206-7361 (online/pdf)

Available at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-resources/reports-

publications/youth-parole-board-annual-report

(1607004)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-resources/reportspublications/

iii

Hon Jenny Mikakos MP

Minister for Families and Children

Level 22

50 Lonsdale Street

MELBOURNE 3000

Dear Minister

In accordance with the requirements of section 452 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005,

I have pleasure in submitting to you this report on the operations of the Youth Parole Board for

the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 for presentation to Parliament.

The report contains information about:

• the number of persons released on parole by the Board

• the number of persons returned to a youth justice centre or youth residential centre on cancellation of parole

• the operation and activities of the Board and of youth parole officers generally during the 12-month period.

Yours sincerely

His Honour Judge Michael BourkeChairperson

Youth Parole Board

Letter to the Minister

iv Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

v

Letter to the Minister iii

Highlights 2015–2016 vii

The Larry Osborne Scholarship vii

Parole and Custody Forum viii

Operations viii

Board members ix

Youth Parole Board Secretariat xii

Chairperson’s message xiii

Secretary’s report xvi

Introduction 1

Jurisdiction and powers of the Youth Parole Board 1

Dual track system 1

Objectives of parole 1

Functions of the Board 1

Meetings of the Board 3

Visitors 3

Parole orders issued by the Board 4

Table 1: Parole orders issued by the Board 5

Warnings issued by the Board 6

Table 2: Warnings issued by the Board 6

Cancellation of parole 7

Cancellations by the Board for the period 2015–16 7

Table 3: Parole cancellations issued by the Board for 8 Children’s Court and higher court sentences

Table 4: Reasons for parole cancellations issued by the Board 8

Parole plan 9

Table 5: Special conditions imposed by the Board during 2015–16 9

Table 6: Special conditions for parole 10

Parole supervision 11

Transfers 12

Table 7: Transfers issued by the Youth Parole Board 12

Adult Parole Board transfers from prison to youth justice centre (section 471) 12

Young Offenders Transfer Review Group 13

Victim Register 13

Contents

vi Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

Overview 14

Characteristics of young offenders 14

Case planning and reporting to the Board 14

Involvement with Child Protection 15

Young people with disabilities 15

Mental health issues 15

Alcohol and drug services 16

Programs for young people who have sexually offended 17

Young people and family violence 17

Violence prevention programs 17

Responding to the impact of trauma and cumulative harm 18

Therapeutic Operating Model 18

Aboriginal young people 19

Table 8: Number of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young people who received 19 youth residential and youth justice centre orders during 2015–16

Young people from Māori and Pacific Island backgrounds 20

Education services for young people in youth justice centres 20

Employment support services 21

Temporary leave program 22

Post-release support services 22

Accommodation 23

Statistical supplement for the year ended 30 June 2016 24

Table 9: Releases and cancellations 2006–2016 24

Table 10: Number of youth justice centre and youth residential centre orders 25

Table 11: Parole orders issued and parole cancellations by division during 2015–16 25

Table 12: Youth justice centre and youth residential centre orders issued by 26 jurisdiction 2015–16

Table 13: Sentences commenced 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2016 overseen 26 by youth justice

Table 14: Sentences commenced 1 July 2013–June 30 2016 overseen 27 by Youth Justice (individuals)

Table 15: Remand orders commenced 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2016 27

Table 16: Remand orders commenced from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2016* (individuals) 27

Appendix 1: Visitors to the Youth Parole Board meetings during 2015–16 28

vii

The Larry Osborne ScholarshipIn 2011, the Youth Parole Board marked 50 years of operation. To commemorate this, an annual

scholarship was established to encourage innovation and best practice to support young people

subject to the Victorian youth parole system. Dr Larry Osborne, who served on the Youth Parole

Board as an alternate community member for 11 years, proposed the idea of a scholarship in

September 2011 before his unexpected death in November 2011. The scholarship is a fitting tribute

to his valued contribution to the youth parole system.

Applications for the scholarship are open to divisional youth justice staff, staff working in youth

justice centres and staff from the Youth Justice Community Support Service.

Congratulations to Nicolle Dowse and Priscilla Cox from the Bayside Peninsula youth justice team on

their completed project for the 2015 Larry Osborne Youth Parole Board Scholarship on Improving the

Victorian youth justice response to young people with an intellectual disability.

In June 2016, His Honour Judge Michael Bourke, Chairperson of the Youth Parole Board, presented

the 2016–17 Larry Osborne Youth Parole Board Scholarship to Teegan Rolfe, Emma Mitchell and

Bridget McGeoch from the Southern Melbourne youth justice team. Their proposed report on Young

people, gangs and the youth justice system will be presented in June 2017 and is expected to inform

youth justice case practice, policy and program development in relation to this important issue.

A Youth Parole Board Scholarship Steering Group has been established to formally oversee the

acceptance and implementation of any outstanding recommendations of all five completed

scholarship reports.

Highlights 2015–16

From left: His Honour Judge Michael Bourke, Teegan Rolfe, Emma Mitchell and Bridget McGeoch.

viii Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

Parole and Custody ForumOn June 9, 2016 the Youth Parole Board Secretariat hosted a statewide Parole and Custody Forum in

Melbourne, bringing together over 100 key stakeholders and practitioners involved in the Victorian

youth justice system. This included parole officers and representatives from community-based youth

justice teams, custodial workers from Parkville and Malmsbury Youth Justice Precincts and staff from

key funded services including the Youth Justice Community Support Service and the Youth Health

and Rehabilitation Service. The forum provided an important learning and development opportunity

to strengthen collaborative practice across services, reinforce the importance of early parole

planning, as well as a chance to share practice advice on effective interventions and risk assessment

with complex young people in custody and on parole orders. Members of the Youth Parole Board,

including His Honour Judge Michael Bourke and departmental member Andrew Higgs, presented

their reflections on the strengths and challenges that face a contemporary youth parole system in

Victoria. A further forum is planned for 2017.

Operations• In 2015–16 the number of youth residential and youth justice centre orders commenced increased

by 22 per cent compared with the previous year.

• During 2015–16, the Board considered 2,316 matters during 24 scheduled and 43 ad hoc meetings.

• The Board issued 193 parole orders, compared with 196 the previous year.

• The Board gave formal warnings to 17 young people concerning unsatisfactory behaviour in custody or on parole.

• The Board cancelled 85 parole orders; 34 for re-offending and 51 for failure to comply with parole conditions.

• The Youth Parole Board transferred one young adult to prison (in accordance with s. 467 of the Children, Youth and Families Act).

• The Adult Parole Board transferred one young person from prison to a youth justice centre (in accordance with s. 471 of the Children Youth and Families Act).

• There were 93 parole orders successfully completed during 2015–16 (some parole orders issued in 2014–15 remain current).

ix

Board members

Chairperson, His Honour Judge Michael Bourke, Judge of the County

Court of Victoria. Appointed as alternate chairperson on 24 October 2006.

Appointed chairperson on 23 November 2007.

Community member, Ms Deborah Bryant, Regional Manager Neami

National. Appointed as community member on 18 December 2008

to 22 May 2016.

Ms Bryant is a strong advocate for social justice in the areas of mental

health, family violence and sexual assault and is an active member

of several organisations and committees focusing on these issues.

Community member, Ms Helen Dimopoulos, appointed as community

member on 22 December 2011.

Ms Dimopoulos has held management roles at Barwon Youth (now Barwon

Child Youth and Family) for many years with responsibility for a range

of youth services including mentoring, drug and alcohol, education and

community support programs. With expertise as a youth justice worker, she

has also been involved in developing and implementing programs across

regional and rural Victoria with a focus on pre- and post-release support,

early intervention, crime prevention and youth justice group conferencing.

She has been a member of regional and statewide committees focusing on

community safety, education, drug and alcohol and homelessness services.

Departmental member, Mr Victor Gordon, Loddon Area, Department of

Health and Human Services. Appointed as an alternate departmental

member on 11 December 2001 to 8 March 2016.

Mr Gordon was a regional director in the previous Department of Human

Services for many years in both metropolitan and rural regions. He has

a broad knowledge of operational and policy issues across a wide range

of program areas. He also has extensive experience in the area of labour

market and employment access programs for disadvantaged groups.

x Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

Departmental member, Mr Andrew Higgs, Youth Justice Senior Practice

Advisor, North Division, Department of Health and Human Services.

Appointed as departmental member on 19 April 2016.

Mr Higgs commenced with the now Department of Health and Human

Services in 1995. Since that time, he has gained extensive experience

and knowledge in the statutory child protection and youth justice service

systems in case practitioner and manager roles. As a youth justice senior

practice advisor, Mr Higgs has significant experience with case planning

and case management for complex clients and providing practice advice

to youth justice staff.

Alternate chairperson, His Honour Judge Ross Howie, Reserve Judge

of the County Court of Victoria. Appointed as alternate chairperson

on 23 March 2010.

Alternate community member, Ms Carmel Guerra, Chief Executive Officer,

Centre for Multicultural Youth. Appointed as alternate community member

on 3 April 2012.

Ms Guerra is the founder and CEO of the Centre for Multicultural Youth,

a Victorian not-for-profit organisation supporting young people from

migrant and refugee backgrounds to build better lives in Australia. She has

brought a multicultural perspective to many committees, advisory groups

and forums at the Commonwealth, state and community level concerning

alcohol and drugs, mental health, suicide prevention and policing issues.

xi

Alternate community member, Ms Yvonne Luke, retired Aboriginal welfare

worker. Appointed as alternate community member on 9 March 2010.

Ms Luke is an Aboriginal Elder who has worked for many years in

government and non-government organisations to develop and implement

programs and services to assist disadvantaged Aboriginal young

people and their families. She is a former Respected Person/Elder of the

Broadmeadows Koori Court. She received the Robin Clark Memorial Award

in 2003 for her dedication and advocacy for Aboriginal young people.

In 2010 she was placed on the International Women’s Day Honour Roll.

Ms Luke is currently a Director at Baluk Arts, an Aboriginal organisation in

Mornington. In 2015, she was awarded the Frankston Mornington Peninsula

NAIDOC Elder Award.

Alternate departmental member, Mr Rod Carracher, Director, Brimbank

Melton Area, Department of Health and Human Services. Appointed

as alternate departmental member on 18 December 2013. Resigned on

22 March 2016.

Mr Carracher has held several executive, policy and senior management

positions across various programs within the Department of Health and

Human Services for over 20 years. Mr Carracher has extensive expertise

in managing disability and accommodation support services, including

case planning and review for young people with complex and challenging

behaviours and young people with a disability.

Alternate departmental member, Ms Soula Kontomichalos, Manager,

Individual and Family Support, Inner Eastern Melbourne Area, Department

of Health and Human Services. Appointed as alternate departmental

member on 19 April 2016.

Ms Kontomichalos has extensive experience and held management roles in

the Department of Health and Human Services disability services including

client services and residential facilities, particularly within the East Division.

In her current role, Ms Kontomichalos demonstrates leadership and

innovation in addressing the needs of vulnerable children and young

people who traverse the department’s child protection, disability and youth

justice systems. Ms Kontomichalos has responsibility for the community

youth justice service in Inner Eastern Melbourne and is currently driving

the Building Resilience of Children and Young People Initiative in the

East Division.

xii Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

Youth Parole Board Secretariat

Manager Catherine Lane Manager, Operations and Practice, Youth Justice and Disability Forensic Unit

Secretary Sally NortonMelissa Mackie, Acting Secretary 17 September 2015 to 1 November 2015 and 27 April 2016 to 13 May 2016.

Administrative Coordinator Catherine Cusworth

Administrative Assistants Lee Harrison, 1 July 2015 to 25 August 2015

Timothy Solomon, 22 July 2015 to 16 October 2015

Alyssa Moore, 21 December 2015 to 30 June 2016

Tahlia Belcher, 15 February 2016 to 30 June 2016

Vesna Stojanovic, 3 September 2015 to 29 January 2016

Address 10th floor, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, 3000

Telephone 03 9096 7534

Facsimile 03 9096 9148

From left: Tahlia Belcher, Catherine Cusworth, Sally Norton and Alyssa Moore.

xiii

This year the Parole Board lost a total of 26 years’ service when Vic Gordon,

Deb Bryant and Rod Carracher left us.

Rod would not mind being described as the junior partner. Over the three

years his balanced insight was much valued.

Deb Bryant was on the Board for eight years. She brought to the Board her

extensive experience and was (among other attributes) a strong force in

the Board’s developing sense of the relationship between rehabilitation

and recognition of victims. Deb also felt great empathy for the Board’s

clients, usually victims themselves. She will be missed.

Vic Gordon wins the battle for veteran status by a long way. He served on the Board for 15 years. He

is a testament to the sometimes forgotten benefit of experience and broad knowledge acquired over

time. He will also be much missed. Vic also served on the school council of the Parkville College.

Personally I wish to thank all three for their warm, friendly and loyal support.

The Board was ‘light on’ for a period, but new departmental members Andrew Higgs and Soula

Kontomichalos have now been appointed. Their contribution is already appreciated. Our

replacement for Deb as community member is yet to be announced. We look forward to that.

We thank Sally Norton and her staff at the Secretariat, Catherine Cusworth and relatively new

arrivals Alyssa Moore and Tahlia Belcher. Lee Harrison, Tim Solomon and Vesna Stojanovic were

there for parts of the year and we also thank them. The Board sits every fortnight and in some way

considers the situation of up to 120 young people. The agenda usually (really always) runs over

20 pages. There are a significant number of ad hoc decisions and related discussions between

meetings. That this is achieved (and that the meetings run as well as they do) is due to the efficiency

and efforts of Sally and her staff.

It was also good to see Melissa Mackie again, who replaced Sally while on leave.

Part of Sally’s role has been the production and management of the Board’s Victims’ Register. It is

well described in another part of the annual report and I think that it has been a beneficial project.

On my estimate, 20 to 25 per cent of parole conditions imposed in the last two years relate to victim

issues. These conditions can play an important rehabilitative role. Indeed I have long been of the view

that group conferencing would be a positive addition at or before the time of parole. However, that

has not really come to be.

Imposition of conditions related to victims is also a sensitive process. For example, a victim may

wish to remain unidentified. In some circumstances a young person on parole may be unfairly

disadvantaged. Questions of desired access to children may arise. Consultation with police

informants is a significant part of the process. In my view, the response of the police involved has

predominantly been positive and helpful.

Chairperson’s message

xiv Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

Again, there have been important visitors to the Board. These include the Minister for Families and

Children and Minister for Youth Affairs, Jenny Mikakos; Secretary of the Department, Kym Peake;

Executive Director, Human Rights Law Centre, Hugh De Kretser, and Human Rights Centre lawyers,

Ben Schokman and Laura Wilson. We were also visited by Brendan Murray, Executive Principal,

Parkville College and Simon Lenten, Director of Strategy and Service Delivery, Parkville College.

It was an excellent insight into the intensive and flexible education program it provides.

We thank them all for their interest and time.

The old issues remain. Accommodation for young people coming up to parole is still a difficult

problem. This seems to apply particularly to the more complex young people involved with child

protection, or those with an intellectual disability or mental health issues. The proportion of young

people with present or former child protection involvement is very high and perhaps in recent years

growing (now at 45 per cent). Sixty-three per cent have been victims of abuse, trauma or neglect.

The number of Aboriginal young people sentenced to detention has grown, albeit perhaps slightly,

at 16 per cent. The number of Māori Pacific Islander young people has slightly dropped but is

disproportionally high, at 11 per cent.

Other notable increases are the number of young people who are parents (at 12 per cent) and the

disturbing figure of 38 per cent with a family history of parental or sibling imprisonment.

Despite the recent amendments to bail laws in respect of children, remand figures have ultimately

remained high. Young people aged under 18 detained in youth justice centres are mainly on remand.

At the time of writing, this was 80 per cent of clients in this group, with the remaining 20 per cent

serving a custodial sentence. This has problems clear to those involved in the system. Programs for

young people on remand exist but they are necessarily limited. Court delays mean that we have

a tight timeline to plan for and consider parole (after sentence), especially in cases with long pre-

sentence detention and expiry of sentence looming. Consistent with this, custodial progress reports

to the Board show a pattern of unsettled behaviour on remand but improved, more compliant

behaviour after and on sentence.

Another change in the data is an increase in the number of cancellations by the Board and a

perhaps related drop in the number of warnings given to young people on parole. The Board will

turn its mind to possible reasons for this and it may be a suitable topic for discussion at the

upcoming managers forum in early August.

As was well publicised, the Chief Commissioner’s Youth Summit was held on 21 July. A large part of

its focus was on more serious offending by a small but active proportion of young offenders, such as

home invasion and carjacking. To my perception, the mood at the summit was one of considerable

recognition of the underlying causes and risk factors for youth offending (well known to those

involved in our system) and the need to address these.

xv

One consideration that arises for me is the level of engagement our system has with police

involvement in therapeutic or rehabilitation programs in the community; or rather, the question of

the Board’s knowledge or access to it. It is clear to me that there are programs run by police and

engagement between police and youth justice at a local level. I recognise that the question of the

Board’s involvement (for example such programs as parole programs) is not an easy one. For many

young people who have come to the last resort of being sentenced and detained in youth detention,

their relationship with and attitude towards police has become highly negative.

I also raise this as a matter for further discussion or consideration.

Finally I wish to thank all of you who so critically enable and support the youth justice system

(community youth justice managers and workers, Youth Justice Community Support Service staff,

custodial management and staff, disability services and child protection workers and many others).

You have an important, difficult and what must sometimes seem thankless task. I recognise that the

Board often makes high demands of you. In the face of this, you do a very fine job.

Thank you all for another excellent year’s work.

His Honour Judge Michael Bourke

Chairperson

Youth Parole Board

xvi Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

Secretary’s report

This last year has been one of considerable change for the Youth Parole

Board. Vic Gordon was on the Board during my first Board meeting when

I started out as a parole officer in 2002. His years of experience and

knowledge were an asset to the Board.

Deb Bryant used her expertise and experience to guide decisions in a

balanced way. Her work with victims helped in the development of the

Board’s Victim Register. Rod Carracher’s knowledge of the department

and skill within the field of disability assisted the Board considerably.

We have two new departmental Board members, Andrew Higgs and Soula Kontomichalos, and we

welcome them both. They bring such knowledge and skill from their years of work in the department

and we look forward to their contribution.

I had the opportunity to organise a parole and custody forum earlier this year. I believe there is a

great deal of value in professional development and peer networking opportunities that forums can

provide. The focus of this forum was bringing key staff involved in parole planning and management

of parolees together to reflect on current practice and ways to strengthen parole planning

and supervision.

The forum also brought attention to the Youth Justice Community Support Service (YJCSS) which

provides pre and post-release support to young people exiting custody on parole. This program

funded by the department and delivered by several community service organisations across the

state. YJCSS workers provide direct client work by engaging with young people and supporting

young people in all aspects of their lives. YJCSS also supports young people to develop independent

living skills in transitional housing and secure long-term housing. The program has been operating

for eight years and is an invaluable support for young people on parole and after completion of

statutory orders.

The forum invited staff from all levels within the community parole teams, custodial teams and

support programs with a focus on direct casework with parolees. The attendance of over 100

staff from across the state, positive feedback and the opportunity to enhance current practice

demonstrate the benefit of delivering a subsequent forum next year.

His Honour Judge Bourke’s fair, balanced approach and expertise mean that I truly learn something

new from him every week. I would like to thank Judge Bourke for his good humour and support.

I would like to thank the Secretariat team, Administrative Coordinator Catherine Cusworth,

and Administrative Officers Alyssa Moore and Tahlia Belcher. Many thanks for the work you

do and the commitment you demonstrate to the Secretariat.

Sally NortonSecretary

Youth Parole Board

1

Jurisdiction and powers of the Youth Parole BoardSection 442 of the Children, Youth and Families Act makes provision for the establishment of the

Youth Parole Board (the Board).

Sections 462 and 463 of the Act stipulate that each young person ordered by a court to be detained

in a youth residential centre or a youth justice centre is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.

Section 458 empowers the Board to release, or grant parole to, young people subject to its jurisdiction.

Section 453 stipulates that a parole officer is, in relation to a parole order made by the Board, subject

to the direction of the Board.

Sections 464 to 477 deal with the power to transfer young people between youth justice centres

and youth residential centres and to transfer to prison.

Dual-track systemSection 32 of the Sentencing Act 1991 legislates that some 18–20 year olds convicted of serious

offences can be detained in a youth justice centre instead of an adult prison if the court believes

the young person has reasonable prospects for rehabilitation, or is particularly impressionable,

immature or likely to be subjected to undesirable influences in an adult prison. This is commonly

referred to as the dual-track system.

Objectives of paroleParole permits the young person to serve part of their sentence in the community, under the

guidance and supervision of their parole officer.

Parole enables a young person to receive the support and assistance they require to adapt

successfully in their transition from detention to the community. The role of a parole officer to

monitor progress is a critical factor in the overall program of rehabilitation.

Functions of the BoardThe Board carries out the following general functions:

• exercising jurisdiction over all young people sentenced by a court to a period of detention in a youth residential centre aged 10 to 14 or in a youth justice centre aged 15 to 20 and those transferred by the Adult Parole Board

• making decisions concerning eligibility for and release on parole of young people sentenced to detention

• making decisions concerning the transfer of young people between a youth residential centre and a youth justice centre and between a youth justice centre and prison.

Introduction

2 Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16

In carrying out these functions, the Board:

• interviews young people in detention either on request of centre management, a young person, or on the Board’s own initiative

• requests, receives and considers case histories, client service plans, progress reports on young people who are detained and parole plans and parole progress reports

• requests and considers special reports and court documents, for example, Male Adolescent Program for Positive Sexuality (MAPPS) reports, court transcripts, psychiatric and psychological reports

• interviews young people for the purpose of granting parole and issuing warnings

• amends, cancels or varies conditions of parole orders

• makes decisions concerning transfers between youth justice centres and transfers to prison

• prepares an annual report for the Minister for Families and Children.

Youth Parole Board members (from left): Yvonne Luke, Helen Dimopoulos, His Honour Judge Michael Bourke, Soula Kontomichalos, and His Honour Judge Ross Howie.

3

The Board generally meets twice each month on a Monday. In 2015–16, 24 scheduled Board meetings

were held. In addition to scheduled meetings, ad hoc meetings are held to formally warn young

people in relation to unsatisfactory compliance with parole conditions or unsatisfactory behaviour in

custody. Ad hoc meetings may also be held to consider reports from the Department of Health and

Human Services regarding urgent cancellations or transfers of young people to prison. In 2015–16,

the Board conducted 43 ad hoc meetings that dealt with 47 matters.

During 2015–16, the Board considered 2,316 matters during the total 67 scheduled

and ad hoc meetings held.

The Board uses the Parkville Youth Justice Precinct as a base for its meetings. On occasion, it may

also hold meetings at Malmsbury Youth Justice Precinct.

Prior to Board meetings, Board members read court transcripts, background information,

psychological/psychiatric reports, progress reports and other information submitted by youth justice

staff and other workers for each case to be considered at the meeting.

The Board strongly encourages youth justice and other staff who work closely with young people to

attend Board meetings to provide information and recommendations to the Board, where required.

The Board interviews each young person individually on the day they are to be released on parole to

discuss issues that may impact on their ability to successfully complete their parole, and to ensure

that they clearly understand what the Board requires of them. A young person’s parole officer

attends the interview to support the young person and to observe the advice issued by the Board so

that it may be reinforced during the parole period.

The Board is always pleased to have family members or other support people attend the parole

interview with the young person.

VisitorsThe Board welcomes the attendance of visitors with a special interest in youth justice at its meetings.

The Board requires all approved visitors to adhere to procedures regarding confidentiality of Board

proceedings. Visitors receive an explanation of how the Board performs its statutory responsibilities,

and are able to observe its operation. Appendix 1 details the range of interested individuals and

agencies that have visited the Board during this year.

Meetings of the Board


In making decisions concerning parole, the Board considers each case on its merits while using

flexible guidelines to streamline the process and assist in release planning.

The Board bases its decisions on information from a range of sources, including comments by the

sentencing court and reports from custodial staff, parole officers, psychologists and psychiatrists,

medical practitioners and other professionals working with the young person. The Board also

considers requests put forward by the young people themselves.

Factors considered by the Board include:

• interests of/risk to the community

• victims’ wellbeing

• interests of the young person

• age of the young person

• capacity for parole to assist the young person’s rehabilitation

• intentions and comments of the sentencing authority

• the nature and circumstances of the offences

• outstanding charges/pending court appearances

• young person’s criminal history

• previous community-based dispositions and compliance

• family and community support networks

• release plans

• reports, assessments and recommendations made by a variety of professionals, including medical practitioners, psychologists, psychiatrists, custodial staff, parole officers and support agencies

• submissions made by the young person, the young person’s family, friends and potential employers.

The parole plan presented to the Board by the parole officer must provide comprehensive

information about the young person’s plans for living in the community on parole. Most importantly,

the Board must be satisfied that suitable accommodation is available before granting parole.

Youth parole orders have core terms and conditions that are prescribed in the Children, Youth

and Families Regulations 2007 as follows:

a) the parolee must not break any law

b) the parolee must be supervised by a parole officer

c) the parolee must obey any lawful instructions of his or her parole officer

d) the parolee must report as and when reasonably directed by his or her parole officer

e) the parolee may be interviewed by his or her parole officer at any reasonable time and place that

the parole officer directs

f) the parolee must advise his or her parole officer within two days after the change if the parolee

changes his or her address

g) the parolee must not leave Victoria without the written permission of his or her parole officer

h) the parole officer of the parolee must not unreasonably withhold written permission under

paragraph (g).

Parole orders issued by the Board

5

On the day of parole, the Board interviews each young person and explains the conditions of their

parole. In addition to the core conditions, there were 346 special conditions placed on parole

orders in 2015–16 (see Table 5) compared with 352 in 2014–15.

At the end of a parole hearing, the young person signs their parole order indicating that they

understand and consent to the expectations and conditions of parole.

The Board directed the issue of 193 parole orders during the period, which is three fewer than the

previous year (196).

Table 1: Parole orders issued by the Board

Number of parole orders issued by the Board

Gender/order type 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Females – youth parole order

6 15 11

Males – youth parole order 184 177 182

Females – youth residential parole order

0 0 – *

Males – youth residential parole order

5 4 – *

Annual total 195 196 193

Note: Department data extracted 7 July 2016.

*In 2014 a number of amendments made to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 provided for the amalgamation of the Youth Residential Board and the Youth Parole Board. Therefore all orders issued by the Board are youth parole orders. There is no longer a separate youth residential parole order issued. When young people aged 10–14 years sentenced to a youth residential centre order are released on parole, they are issued with a youth parole order.


Warnings from the Board provide a young person with an opportunity to re-assess their behaviour

and make changes that will result in successfully completing their sentence in a youth justice centre

and/or on parole. Warnings are delivered firmly, but with the objective of motivating a young person

towards positive action.

During 2015–16, the Board interviewed 17 young people (15 males and 2 females) in relation to

unsatisfactory behaviour in custody or non-compliance with parole conditions during their parole

period. This is a slight increase from 14 in the previous year.

For those in custody, the Board discusses the young person’s behaviour with them, sets expectations

for improvement and warns of possible action by the Board including the refusal of parole or for

young adults, the transfer to prison.

For those on parole, the reasons for failure to comply with the conditions are ascertained and

discussed. Young people have the opportunity to put their case before the Board, and are encouraged

to work closely with their youth justice parole officer. The Board emphasises the need to comply with

conditions of parole, and warns that further breaches can result in cancellation of parole.

The Board also interviewed young people about other issues, such as aspects of their release plan,

requests for transfers and issues concerning their offending behaviour.

Table 2: Warnings issued by the Board

Year Warnings issued by the Board

2010–11 40

2011–12 43

2012–13 31

2013–14 35

2014–15 14

2015–16 17

Note: YPB secretariat data

Warnings issued by the Board

7

Cancellation of parole

The Board considers parole breaches to be a serious matter and often deals with such breaches

by cancelling parole orders.

There are two types of breach considered by the Board:

• breach by re-offending resulting in conviction and sentence (reconviction)

• breach by failing to observe conditions of the order, for example, failure to report to their parole officer or failure to comply with the special conditions of the order.

Under s. 460 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, young people who breach parole can

have their parole cancelled by the Board. Cancellation of a parole order results in the issue of a

warrant for the arrest of the young person who is then returned to youth justice custody to serve

the unexpired portion of his or her original sentence. In some cases, the Board may grant a credit for

part of the unexpired sentence for the period the young person complied with their parole. In making

this decision, the Board takes into account the nature of the breach and the young person’s response

to parole supervision.

If the Board considers it appropriate, it can again release a young person on parole after his or her

parole has been cancelled.

The Board works closely with youth justice parole officers to devise flexible responses that address

the difficulties experienced by a young person in adhering to their parole conditions. Nonetheless,

a young person’s attitude and compliance with supervision and efforts in addressing their problems

plays a large part in determining the Board’s actions in these circumstances.

Cancellations by the Board for the period 2015–16The Board cancelled 85 parole orders, representing 44 per cent of parole orders issued (as a

proportion of those released on parole in 2015–16), of which 53 were subject to Children’s Court

sentences and 32 were subject to higher court sentences. The proportion of parole orders cancelled

increased by 8 per cent compared to the previous year when there were 71 cancellations.

The rate of parole cancellations continues to be significantly higher for the younger age group –

62 per cent for young people on Children’s Court orders and 38 per cent for those on higher

court sentences.

The difference in parole cancellation rates between young people subject to a youth justice centre

order imposed through the Children’s Court and those who had been sentenced in higher courts

through the dual-track system is an established trend. These outcomes illustrate young people’s

maturation as they progress towards adulthood and are in line with the principles underpinning

the youth justice service, being that young people require different treatment from adult offenders

due to their lack of maturity, propensity to take risks, susceptibility to peer influence, undeveloped

consequential thinking and, importantly, their capacity to be rehabilitated.

There were fewer parole cancellations for offending (34) than for failure to comply with conditions

of parole (51).

As in past years, in 2015–16 a large percentage of young people whose parole orders were cancelled

had serious substance misuse problems. The abuse of alcohol and drugs remains a serious concern

of the Board, primarily due to its impact on the offending behaviour of young people but also

because of the effect it has on their health and general wellbeing.


In some cases, the Board cancelled parole where it was believed the young person was at serious risk

of self-harm and unable to maintain themselves in the community without further offending.

Table 3: Parole cancellations issued by the Board for Children’s Court and higher court sentences

Number of parole cancellations

Jurisdiction 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Children’s Court sentences 34 38 53

Higher court sentences 34 33 32



Some cancellations were for parole orders issued before the current reporting period.

Table 4: Reasons for parole cancellations issued by the Board

Number of parole cancellations

Reason 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Reconviction 23 22 34

Failing to comply with conditions

45 49 51



9

The parole plan is a report describing the current status and post-release plans of young people about to be paroled. The parole plan is prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services’ community youth justice service parole officer in consultation with the young person, the youth justice centre staff and significant others. Parole plans are developed in the context of the young person’s client service plan. Assessment is based on interviews with the prospective parolee, parents, relatives, support service providers, prospective or current employers, teachers and other relevant sources.

The parole plan outlines arrangements to be put in place for the parolee in key areas such as managing the risk of re-offending, accommodation, education/employment, professional support (counselling), supervision and compliance with special conditions.

The officer submitting the parole plan, the youth justice centre staff and/or specialist support staff can recommend special conditions. These conditions can arise from the offending history, or from reports indicating specific problems likely to interfere with successful completion of the parole order.

In 2015–16, there were 346 special conditions imposed on a proportion of the total of 193 parole orders issued. There can be multiple conditions placed on a parole order.

Many young people being released on parole have a background of illicit drug use. The Board encourages young people to seek treatment for their drug problem. During 2015–16, 132 parole orders (68 per cent) of the total parole orders had a special condition requiring the parolee to attend substance abuse treatment on the direction of their parole officer.

The Board again notes, with increased concern, that the mental health needs of young people within the youth justice service remains high. In 2015–16, 64 young people (33 per cent) who were paroled were subject to a special condition in relation to psychiatric and/or psychological counselling.

In 2015–16 there was an increase to 26 young people on parole subject to a special condition to attend a motor vehicle offending program (13 per cent).

A breakdown of special conditions imposed by the Board in 2015–16 is outlined in Table 5. Special conditions that can be imposed, either singularly or in combination, include, but are not restricted to, those listed in Table 6.

Table 5: Special conditions imposed by the Board during 2015–16

Type of conditionNumber of special conditions

imposed by the Board

Substance abuse counselling 132

Psychological counselling 63

Psychiatric counselling 1

General counselling 32

Anger management/violence prevention 2

Attend MAPPS 8

Reside as directed 3

No contact with an individual 57

Not to attend a geographical location 12

Abide by conditions of intervention order (IVO) 6

Motor vehicle offending program 26

Other 4

Total 346

Note: YPB Secretariat data.

Parole plan


Table 6: Special conditions for parole

Direction Meaning

You must attend substance abuse counselling.

The young person is to attend alcohol and/or other drug counselling, as and when directed by the parole officer.

You must attend anger management, psychological counselling and/or psychiatric treatment as directed.

The young person must follow instructions from the parole officer concerning anger management, psychiatric treatment or psychological counselling. Usually some contact has been initiated with a counselling service in the community prior to parole and this should be continued, as appropriate.

In other cases, the parole officer may refer the young person to appropriate services once parole has been granted.

You must reside as and where directed.

The young person must reside at the place specified in the parole order and must not change address without prior agreement from the parole officer.

You must not have contact with X. The young person is to have no intentional physical contact or communication with specified person/s.

That you do not attend X. The young person is not to attend a specified location or premises.

You must attend the Male Adolescent Program for Positive Sexuality (MAPPS).

The young person must attend, as directed, an intensive program for young people convicted of sexual offences.

You must attend a day or rehabilitation program.

The young person must attend a day program or rehabilitation program such as education, training, work preparation or motor vehicle offenders program as directed by the parole officer.

You must submit for drug testing as directed.

The young person must submit for drug testing as and when directed.

You must attend gambling counselling as directed.

The young person must attend gambling counselling as and when directed by the parole officer.

You must attend a motor vehicle offender program.

The young person must attend a program that addresses motor vehicle offending behaviours, including dangerous driving and theft of motor vehicle.

You must abide by the conditions of any intervention order.

The must person must comply with any intervention orders that the young person is named for the duration of the parole order. This is to reinforce the conditions of any intervention order active during parole period.

11

Parole supervision

Youth parole officers are authorised under s. 453 of the Children, Youth and Families Act to provide

parole supervision for young people upon their release.

Youth parole officers are subject to the direction of the Board in relation to its parole orders. They

are subject to the direction of the Secretary of the department in relation to any other duties and

responsibilities they may have.

Youth parole officers are located in community-based youth justice teams across Victoria to provide

post-release supervision for young people on parole. There are close links between the youth justice

centres and the youth justice units to ensure a consistent and appropriate response during a young

person’s sentence.

Parole supervision includes supporting and assisting the parolee to enhance connection to the

community through family, accommodation, education, employment and recreation. It also involves

monitoring behaviour in the community, assessing attendance and performance at work or school,

checking compliance with the conditions of the parole order and providing progress reports to the

Board as required.

Youth parole officers are instrumental in ensuring young people are supervised and supported

throughout their sentences, both in youth justice centres and in the community. Parole officers

regularly visit young people in custody during their sentence to establish or maintain a relationship,

collaborate with youth justice centre staff and begin release planning at an early stage of the sentence.

Parole officers are required to deal with very complex issues when young people are released into the

community. They put a considerable amount of time and effort into setting up appropriate plans and

preparing for their transition to the community, particularly securing appropriate accommodation

for young people with high needs. Support workers from the Youth Justice Community Support

Service work in partnership with statutory youth parole officers and have been effective in providing

services and post release support to young people on parole and beyond the expiry date of the

parole order to support re-integration in the community and minimise the risk of further offending.

The Board acknowledges the excellent quality of information provided in reports by parole officers

and their efforts to challenge offending behaviour and address the needs of young people with

difficult, complex and pressing needs.

During the parole period, the Board receives regular reports from parole officers about the progress

of parolees. Some of the young people are seen by the Board during their parole period to discuss

issues that have arisen, to warn them about inappropriate behaviour or to acknowledge and

reinforce positive action they have taken.


Sections 464 to 477 of the Children, Youth and Families Act deal with the power of the

Youth Parole Board and Adult Parole Board to transfer young people between jurisdictions.

Table 7: Transfers issued by the Youth Parole Board

Number of transfers issued by the Board

Provision 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Transfer from youth residential centre to youth justice centre (ss. 464 and 465)

0 3 1

Transfer from youth justice centre to prison (s. 467) 4 2 1

Young person’s request for transfer to prison (s. 468) 2 1 0

Transfer from youth justice centre to youth residential centre (s. 470)

0 0 0

Transfer back to prison after transfer from prison to youth justice centre (s. 473)

1 0 0

Person in youth residential centre sentenced to detention in youth justice centre or imprisonment (s. 474)

0 0 0

Person in youth justice centre sentenced to imprisonment (s. 475)

21 7 12

Person in youth justice centre sentenced to detention in youth residential centre (s. 476)

0 0 0

Person in prison sentenced to detention in youth justice centre (s. 477)

2 2 0


Note: YPB Secretariat data.

Adult Parole Board transfers from prison to youth justice centre (s. 471)Section 471(1) of the Children Youth and Families Act provides that, if the Adult Parole Board

considers it appropriate, the Adult Parole Board may direct that young person under the age of 21 to

be transferred to a youth justice centre from a prison. A report from the Secretary of the Department

of Health and Human Services concerning the suitability of the person for detention in a youth

justice centre and the availability of a place in a youth justice centre informs this directive.

Any young person transferred under s. 471 comes under the jurisdiction of the Youth Parole Board for

the duration of their sentence.

During 2015–16, the Adult Parole Board transferred one young person from prison to a youth justice

centre under s. 471.

Transfers

13

Young Offenders Transfer Review Group A Young Offenders Transfer Review Group (YOTRG) has been jointly established by the Youth Parole

Board and Adult Parole Board to provide a forum to focus on young people who have been, or are likely

to be, transferred between a youth justice centre and prison. YOTRG meetings discuss matters that

affect the young people who straddle both the adult and youth jurisdictions. These young people are

usually aged 18–21 and may be sentenced in either the children’s or higher courts. This forum provides

an opportunity for information exchange to ensure that both jurisdictions maintain contemporary

information about these young people.

The YOTRG is not a decision-making body. Instead, these meetings provide an opportunity for all

parties to monitor and receive progress reports on this group of young people.

Victim RegisterThe Board recognises the importance of taking victims’ issues into consideration when preparing to

parole a young person. The trauma associated with being a victim, particularly of a violent, intimate

offence, does not necessarily dissipate over time. While acknowledging that parole is rehabilitative

and of benefit to the community by reducing the risk of further offending, the Board takes seriously

this impact on victims.

The Victim Register is an attempt to mitigate the potential for a victim to be retraumatised by

a young person’s reintegration into the community when subject to a parole order.

It identifies young people in custody who have committed a serious intimate offence against a

person who is either known to them or likely to have recurring contact with them on their re-entry to

the community.

The Board determines whether a young person is included in the register according to the

following factors:

• violence involved in the offence

• the intimacy of the act

• whether the perpetrator is known to the victim or vice versa

• how close the perpetrator and victim live to each other

• the likelihood the victim and perpetrator seeing each other.

Based on one or all of these factors, a young person who is considered eligible for parole may be

placed on the register.

Once a young person’s case is determined by the Board to be appropriate for inclusion in the victim

register, the secretary contacts the police informant and discusses any recommendations the

informant may have for special conditions on the parole order to protect the victim. The Board makes

the final decision about whether recommendations are placed on the young person’s parole order.

The register allows the Board to monitor the young person’s release and manage the risks associated

with them re-entering the community.


Overview

Characteristics of young offenders The results of a snapshot survey of 167 males and nine females detained on sentence and remand

on 7 October 2015 carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services shows:

• 45 per cent had been subject to a previous child protection order

• 19 per cent were subject to a current child protection order

• 63 per cent were victims of abuse, trauma or neglect

• 62 per cent had previously been suspended or expelled from school

• 30 per cent presented with mental health issues

• 18 per cent had a history of self harm or suicidal ideation

• 24 per cent presented with issues concerning their intellectual functioning

• 11 per cent were registered with Disability Services

• 10 per cent had a history of alcohol misuse

• 16 per cent had a history of drug misuse

• 66 per cent had a history of both alcohol and drug misuse

• 12 per cent had offended while under the influence of alcohol but not drugs

• 20 per cent had offended while under the influence of drugs but not alcohol

• 58 per cent had offended while under the influence of alcohol, and also while under the influence of drugs

• 12 per cent were parents

• 38 per cent had a family history of parental or sibling imprisonment

• 12 per cent spoke English as a second language

• 10 per cent were homeless with no fixed address or residing in insecure housing prior to custody.

This information reinforces the Board’s understanding that young people in custody present with

great complexity. The Board acknowledges the skill and dedication of the custodial staff in their

ongoing support and care of these vulnerable young people.

Case planning and reporting to the BoardYouth justice parole officers and others submit a large number of reports to the Board, including

assessments, custodial progress reports, parole plans and parole progress reports. These reports

identify the needs and risks of the young people, detailing targeted interventions, goals and report

on progress made towards addressing problems and post-release plans. The reports are vital to

providing information to the Board and inform its decision making. Consultation and coordination

with other program areas such as Child Protection and Disability Services is a critical component

of case management and planning. The Board recognises the considerable workload involved and

appreciates the professional skill and advice provided by the youth justice service and others to

support the planning and decision making for young people preparing for and on parole.

15

Involvement with child protectionThe annual snapshot survey of young people in custody showed that 45 per cent of young people

in youth justice centres had been subject to a child protection order and 19 per cent of young people

in custody were currently dual clients of child protection and youth justice services.

These figures are higher in the younger cohort, where 66 per cent of the young people aged 15 and

younger had been subject to a previous child protection order. Of these, 78 per cent were current

dual clients of child protection and youth justice.

The Board considers it imperative that the child protection and youth justice services work

collaboratively to implement supports that will assist young people to overcome, as much as

possible, the effects of traumatic experiences early in life.

Child protection and youth justice services share a formal protocol that provides a guide to

collaborative working practices where a young person is involved with both systems. During 2015–16,

extensive statewide training of all youth justice community-based case managers emphasised

links with child protection by developing of a common understanding of young people’s presenting

behaviours through a trauma and attachment lens.

Young people with disabilitiesYoung people with disabilities continue to represent a significant number of those seen by the

Board. The annual youth justice client survey identified that 24 per cent of young people in custody

presented with issues concerning their intellectual functioning. Eleven per cent of these young

people were registered with Disability Services.

The Board was pleased that the difficulties and disadvantages faced by young people with

intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system was the focus of the Larry Osborne Parole

Scholarship report completed this year. The Board looks forward to progress on the review and

implementation of recommendations from this report by the Youth Parole Board Scholarship

Steering Group to enhance the service response for young people with disabilities.

The Board also acknowledges the significance of the commencement of the roll out of the National

Disability Insurance Scheme, which will provide flexible and individualised support for people with a

disability, their families and carers. In preparation to transition to the National Disability Insurance

Scheme, youth justice staff in the community and custodial centres will embed specialist disability

expertise as part of case management response and case coordination for young people.

Mental health issuesMental health problems continue to be a significant risk factor for young people who come before

the Board. The annual snapshot survey shows that 30 per cent of young people in custody presented

with a mental health issue and 18 per cent had a history of self-harm or suicidal ideation. The early

assessment and effective treatment of mental health issues is critical to improve recovery, improve

life outcomes and reduce the risk of further offending.

The department provides primary health and rehabilitation services for young people in youth

justice through the Youth Health and Rehabilitation Service.


The Board acknowledges and values the continuing good work of staff and clinicians of the Youth

Health and Rehabilitation Service and the Youth Justice Mental Health Initiative, which focuses on

providing comprehensive care to address the often substantial mental health needs of this group

in custody and in their transition back to the community. A collaborative and care team approach

between these services and youth justice ensures that parole planning is addressing identified risks

and support needs.

Alcohol and drug servicesThe annual snapshot survey shows that 66 per cent of young people detained on sentence and

remand had a history of alcohol and licit and illicit drug use. It has long-term impacts on the health

of young people in the youth justice service. The close and often complex relationship between

substance misuse and offending is also concerning.

Alcohol and other drug misuse continues to be a significant factor in offending behaviour for the

majority of young people dealt with by the Board. Rates of substance use among young people

involved within the youth justice service are high and more prevalent than in the general population.

This is highlighted in the annual survey, which found that 90 per cent of young people in custody

were under the influence of either drugs or alcohol when their offending occurred.

Addressing the harmful use of alcohol and other drugs by young people involved with the youth

justice service is essential to the recovery of their health and reducing the likelihood of further

offending against the community.

The department funds a range of drug counselling and treatment providers in the community and

provides primary health and rehabilitation services for young people in youth justice through the

Youth Health and Rehabilitation Service.

The Board is also pleased that this service is delivering a new suite of psycho-educational group-

based programs offered to all young people on remand, including an alcohol and other drug harm-

minimisation program. These programs expand the range of interventions available to address

young people’s alcohol and other drug rehabilitation needs.

The Board recognises and appreciates the good work and dedication of youth justice staff and other

service providers in the earliest possible assessment and treatment of young people in custody.

Ongoing counselling and treatment on release on parole also supports the reduction of alcohol

and other drug use and recovery from the harm associated with their misuse.

17

Programs for young people who have sexually offendedThe Board continues to rely on the Male Adolescent Program for Positive Sexuality (MAPPS) to

provide specialist advice in relation to treatment issues, community risk assessments and parole

planning for young people who have sexually offended. Over many years MAPPS has provided

individualised risk assessment and treatment to young people who sexually offend that is highly

valued by the Board.

Young people and family violenceThe impact of family violence on children and young people and their family relationships was

highlighted in the Royal Commission into Family Violence (Victoria) completed earlier this year.

The Board commends the additional funding and reforms underway to begin to address the

recommendations of the Commission and build a stronger, more coordinated system to prevent

family violence.

Many of the young people appearing before the Board have been exposed to violence in the home

during their childhood. Studies show that the trauma experienced by infants and small children

exposed to this environment can harm the development of their brain and impair cognitive and

sensory growth, which can develop into longstanding problems. These children have trouble with

school work, have poor concentration and focus, and are at greater risk of substance misuse and

criminal behaviour. Domestic violence research also indicates that children from violent homes

exhibit more aggressive behaviour.

These issues are reflected in the level and severity of violent offending and the complex emotional,

psychological and behavioural problems exhibited by many of the young people appearing before

the Board.

Some of the young people also have intervention orders against them, in relation to family members

and/or their partners that can add to the complexity of parole planning and re-integration

processes. The Board acknowledges the skilful management by parole officers in often complex and

difficult familial situations. This helps ensure the successful transition of young people from custody

back into the community, as well as the work undertaken by a range of services to address existing

trauma caused by the exposure of young people to family violence.

Violence prevention programsThe Board is pleased to learn that the Adolescent Violence Intervention Program (AVIP) is continuing

to be delivered at Malmsbury Youth Justice Precinct as part of the Youth Health and Rehabilitation

Service provision. Many of the young people being detained in youth justice centres have committed

violent offences and AVIP aims to reduce the recurrence of violence among this group of young

people. The Youth Health and Rehabilitation Service also provides one-to-one counselling focused on

anger management and violence prevention for young people deemed appropriate.

The Board remains conscious of the importance of violence-specific interventions in light of ongoing

community concern at the prevalence of violent offending committed by young people.


Responding to the impact of trauma and cumulative harmThe characteristics of young people in youth justice centres indicate that many come from

backgrounds of abuse and disadvantage. The annual snapshot survey showed that 63 per cent

of young people in custody were victims of abuse, trauma or neglect and 45 per cent had previous

involvement with child protection.

A trauma-informed youth and family service system is one in which all parties involved recognise

and respond to the impact of traumatic stress on those who have contact with the system. Services

within such a system instil trauma awareness, knowledge and skills into their organisational cultures,

practices and policies. They act in collaboration with those who are involved with the young person

to facilitate and support the recovery and resilience of the young person and their family.

During 2015–16, more than 100 youth justice case managers in the community participated in trauma

training, ‘Working with young offenders who have experienced trauma’. This statewide saturation

training was a collaborative project between the department and the Berry Street Take Two training

team. The one-day training examined the developmental impact of trauma on young people

involved in the criminal justice system. The trauma training was linked with the Best Interests Case

Practice Model adapted for youth justice. This is focused on the best interests of the young person

to support their rehabilitation, a future without offending, their recovery from trauma and to achieve

positive life outcomes.

Training emphasises the importance of case managers knowing the developmental and relational

history of their clients, to help inform how they work with them and what plans are most likely to be

developmentally relevant within the context of trauma-informed practice. Training also increased

understanding of the importance of care teams in supporting trauma-informed practice, and

strengthened common language and understanding around trauma-informed practice between

youth justice and child protection.

Considerable effort is devoted to undertaking a considered, collaborative and holistic approach to

managing young people both in custody and on parole. The Board acknowledges the cooperative

efforts of youth justice staff and other professionals involved in this approach.

Therapeutic operating model The Board is pleased to note that Professor Brian McKenna from Auckland University of Technology

has been contracted as a consultant to work with the Secure Services’ Practice Development Team

on the development of a trauma-informed therapeutic operating model. It is anticipated that this

model will guide practice across all Secure Services sites, including Parkville and Malmsbury Youth

Justice precincts, by early 2017.

Compelling research evidence continues to inform us that significant trauma experienced in

childhood and early adulthood is a key social determinant of ongoing health, wellbeing and

happiness. It is expected that this operating model will assist in better engagement and intervention

with young people who present with complex and violent behaviour in custody, often as a result of

trauma experienced in their early lives.

The Board looks forward to the implementation of the model and monitoring the impact for young

people over time.

19

Aboriginal young people

Table 8: Number of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young people who received youth residential and youth justice centre orders during 2015–16

Type of order Aboriginal Non-AboriginalNumber of

young people

YRC order 10–14 years 3 (38%) 5 8

Children’s Court YJC order 15–17 years

26 (17%) 127 153

Higher court YJC order 18+ years

18 (14%) 113 131

Total 47 (16%) 245 292

Note: A young person may be subject to more than one category of order.

Department data extracted 7 July 2016.

Forty-seven Aboriginal young people came under the jurisdiction of the Board during 2014–15, an

increase of eight from the previous year. This can be attributed to more Aboriginal young people

aged 15–17 receiving a youth justice centre order in the Children’s Court jurisdiction, increasing from

15 to 26 or 73 per cent. This is proportionally higher than the 53 per cent increase in the number

of non-Aboriginal young people sentenced to a youth justice centre order in the Children’s Court

jurisdiction of 127, compared to 83 young people the previous year.

The Board remains concerned about the continued overrepresentation of Aboriginal young people

in custody, particularly the increase of young Aboriginal people receiving custodial orders in the

Children’s Court. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Koori Youth Justice Program aims

to reduce this overrepresentation by providing a range of culturally specific intensive support to

reduce, divert and rehabilitate young Aboriginal people who are at risk of offending.

Aboriginal Liaison Officers support Aboriginal young people in custody at both the Malmsbury and

Parkville Youth Justice Precincts to strengthen connections with family, community and assist the

Board to understand the complexities of the young person’s situation.

The Koori Intensive Support Program (KISP) provides intensive outreach support to Aboriginal young

people on youth justice orders as well as those on bail, deferred sentences and those reintegrating

with their community after release from custody.

The Koori Early School Leavers and Youth Employment Program (Mildura and North Eastern

Melbourne) continues to prevent contact with the justice system by engaging young Aboriginal

people (aged 10–20 years) with school or alternative educational, vocational or employment

pathways to counteract disconnection or poor connection to school, training or work.


Community-based Koori youth justice workers assist Aboriginal young people who are at risk of

engaging with the criminal justice system, or are subject to youth justice orders in the community,

to comply with their order and engage in their local and cultural communities. Fourteen Aboriginal-

controlled community organisations and one community service organisation are funded to deliver

this program across Victoria.

The Board welcomes the increase in funding for the community-based Koori Youth Justice Program

announced by the Victorian Government, which will ensure access to the program across the state.

Young people from Māori and Pacific Islander backgroundsThe Board notes that 11 per cent of young people sentenced to detention during 2015–16 were from

Māori and Pacific Islander backgrounds. This is slightly lower than the previous year of 14 per cent.

Of the 28 Māori and Pacific Islander young people who received a custodial sentence during this

reporting period, 18 were sentenced through the Children’s Court (64 per cent), an increasing trend

noted over the past two reporting periods (37 per cent in 2013–14 and 52 per cent in 2014–15).

The Board remains concerned about the violent nature of the offending for which many of these

young people have been found guilty, as well as similar behaviours at times continuing in custody.

The Board is pleased that Māori and Pacific Islander young people in custody continue to benefit

from a cultural support worker attending both Malmsbury and Parkville Youth Justice precincts,

and welcomes the decision to create an additional Pasifika Cultural Support Worker position within

custody. Cultural support workers assist young people in addressing their criminal behaviour by

providing counselling and mentoring services, as well as working with community groups to identify

connections with appropriate organisations to assist young people following their release.

The Board understands that a Māori and Pacific Islander reference group comprised of custodial

staff, health and education representatives, and youth justice service development and design

team is collaborating to address the issue of overrepresentation of Māori and Pacific Islander

young people in the youth justice system. Within custodial services there has been a significant

increase in access to activities delivered by culturally specific organisations at both Parkville

and Malmsbury sites.

Education services for young people in youth justice centresThe Board recognises the important role that education plays in the rehabilitation and development

of young people who have historically been disengaged from formal education providers.

The Board is pleased to see Parkville College continue to provide an innovative and specialist

curriculum which includes literacy and numeracy skills, sport, music, art and wellbeing instruction,

along with vocational classes.

Parkville College operates across all Secure Services sites, including both Parkville and Malmsbury,

and provides educational programs to all young people, six days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

The school offers a variety of pathways for young people to complete their secondary school

education and tailors learning to each individual’s needs.

21

Depending on their age and ability, young people can participate in educational activities including

the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL), the Vocational Education and Training (VET)

and the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE). Students who undertake university while in custody

are also supported by Parkville College.

Further to this, Parkville College operates a Flexible Learning Centre that provides an option for

students to extend their enrolment with the school upon exiting custody, giving them continuity and

stability in their education.

The Board notes that Parkville College now provides a Koorie Cultural Education program guided

by elders and delivered by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff from Parkville College and Secure

Services. The Board supports the contention that a confident understanding and pride in cultural

identity is essential for healthy development and growth for Aboriginal young people. The Board

acknowledges the work this program does, with three dedicated positions focusing on Aboriginal

education and support.

Employment support servicesThe Board recognises the importance of supporting young people to establish links to income

and employment support services prior to their release from custody. Mission Australia’s WorkOut

program engages collaboratively with the youth justice service, Parkville College, Centrelink and

other service providers to support young people to access appropriate training and employment

options.

The Board is pleased with the comprehensive service Mission Australia provides to assist young

people in attaining training and employment. The WorkOut service employs three workers – one

transition worker at located at Parkville, one transition worker located at Malmsbury and an

employment liaison officer who works with young people at both sites and in the community.

Collectively, the team supports effective referral pathways and undertakes thorough assessments

to ensure individualised placements for young people.

The WorkOut program works with both sentenced and remanded clients and continues to support

young people in the community for up to 26 weeks. This can often be after their involvement with the

youth justice service has ended.

In 2015–16 Mission Australia received 169 referrals for the WorkOut program. Over 60 per cent of

the young people who participated in this program were placed in training or employment on their

release from custody.

Centrelink also assesses young people upon entry to custody to provide timely, appropriate support

payments and services upon their transition into the community. Prior to a young person’s release,

an employment service assessment and a job capacity assessment is conducted which facilitates a

referral to Jobactive, Transition to Work or a Disability Employment Service provider, if required.


Temporary leave programThe Board acknowledges the important role of temporary leave from custody, granted at the

pre-release stage, in reintegrating young people back into the community upon release. This

provides an opportunity to begin engaging in post-release programs such as work experience,

education and vocational training. Being able to access these programs enhances the parole

planning process, helps to facilitate a more fluid transition into the community and increases the

chances of successful parole completion.

Continued high numbers of young people on remand and lower numbers on custodial sentences

have affected the number of young people eligible to access the temporary leave program. As a

result the number of temporary leaves for 2015–16 decreased by a further four per cent compared

with the previous year, following a decrease of 25 per cent between 2014–15 and 2013–14.

It is anticipated that recent further amendments to the Bail Act introduced in May 2016, which

removed a number of provisions contributing to higher remand numbers, could lead to a reduction

in remand numbers over time.

Post-release support servicesEnsuring that each young person on parole has access to appropriate post-release supports is

a key factor in parole planning. The Youth Justice Community Support Service (YJCSS) provides

individualised intensive support to eligible young people exiting custodial facilities. The Board

recognises the important role of YJCSS support workers in complementing statutory case

management and parole supervision provided by youth justice.

The Department of Health and Human Services funds community service organisations across

Victoria to deliver this intensive support and provide young people with access to employment,

education, training, mental health and drug and alcohol treatment and transitional and housing

support services. Lead agencies include Jesuit Social Services, Barwon Child Youth and Family,

Brophy Family and Youth Services, St Luke’s Anglicare, Centacare Ballarat, Salvocare Brayton,

Quantum Support Services and Mallee Accommodation and Support Service.

YJCSS continues to work in conjunction with the youth justice service to ensure the early

identification and referral of young people in custody who will require intensive post release

support, improved exit planning through formalised care-teams and outcome-focused support

plans. Importantly, YJCSS is able to continue to provide support services post expiry of statutory

youth justice orders including parole, based on the young person’s ongoing needs to ensure

positive linkages with broader community supports and reducing the risk of further offending.

Broadening the availability and range of accommodation options available to young people at risk

of homelessness on release and improving pathways to employment have also continued to be

a focus for these services.

23

Accommodation The availability of suitable accommodation on release from custody remains one of the most crucial

factors in granting parole to a young person. The Board is pleased with the continuing joint initiatives

between the Department of Health and Humans Services’ youth justice and housing services to

minimise the risk of homelessness on release. This includes the Youth Justice Housing Pathways

Initiative component of YJCSS that has the capacity to provide accommodation and linked intensive

support in 55 dedicated transitional housing properties across the state and a specific protocol

between homelessness services entry points and youth justice to strengthen housing pathways for

young people exiting custody.

Despite these initiatives, the demand for secure and suitable housing for young people involved

with youth justice remains unmet, and can result in deferrals of parole or exit into inappropriate or

insecure accommodation, increasing the risk of homelessness post release.

The Youth Justice Homelessness Assistance Service provided by VincentCare also continues to

assist young people exiting youth justice centres in order to explore and develop early housing

pathways prior to their release from custody when they cannot access dedicated youth justice

properties. The Department of Health and Human Services has funded VincentCare to pilot the

Youth Justice Housing Brokerage program. This pilot aimed to extend the range of housing options

for young people exiting youth justice centres, prevent deferrals of parole due to a lack of suitable

accommodation, and provide assistance to obtain essential household items.

To date, the pilot has assisted young people to secure private rental accommodation and supported

the return to family or extended family. It has also assisted young people to exit youth justice

transitional housing into private rental accommodation, creating greater capacity in the system for

young people exiting custody. The Board looks forward to the completed evaluation of the pilot and

further recommendations to enhance post-release accommodation options.

The Board is interested in further work being undertaken to explore and expand the range of

suitable housing options for young people involved with youth justice. Dillon House, part of the Next

Steps program operated by Jesuit Social Services, remains the only specifically-funded 24-hour

supported accommodation accessible to young people involved in the youth justice system, and is

limited to three beds. This program also provides early intervention and family therapy to prevent

homelessness among at-risk young people by strengthening family relationships, and has recently

added head-leased private rental properties to expand housing provided in the program.

Youth FOYER models across Victoria which can provide accommodation and support to young

people while they participate in education or training continue to be explored as a suitable housing

option for some young people involved with youth justice.

The Board remains supportive of enhancements to accommodation and post-release support

services given their importance in providing coordinated support and assistance to parolees

to enable them to successfully complete their parole, and the importance of stable and secure

accommodation in reducing the risk of offending.


Table 9: Releases and cancellations 2006–16

Year endingReleases on parole

Paroles cancelled –

compliance*

Paroles cancelled

-reconviction

Paroles completed

Persons on parole at this date

30 June 2006 216 34 30 152 113

30 June 2007 207 33 24 114 108

30 June 2008 235 43 32 105 137

30 June 2009 210 47 26 134 110

30 June 2010 256 44 51 106 111

30 June 2011 240 44 36 103 136

30 June 2012 257 51 36 115 133

30 June 2013 231 48 25 112 126

30 June 2014 195 45 23 102 124

30 June 2015 196 49 22 97 112

30 June 2016 193 51 34 93 94

*Paroles cancelled because of failure to comply with conditions of parole.


Comment: As noted in the body of the report, the number of young people released on parole in 2015–16 has remained reasonably consistent with the two previous reporting periods. These numbers remain low compared with previous years, and are attributed to a significant reduction in the number of youth justice centre orders imposed on young people appearing before the adult courts during the last three reporting periods (see Table 10). While the number of youth justice centre orders has significantly increased in the Children’s Court jurisdiction in 2015–16 compared with the previous year, this has not appeared to have affected releases on parole. This can depend on sentence length (where young people on orders with a sentence less than six months are not eligible for release on parole) and the impact of pre-sentence detention or ‘time served’ after a period of remand.

Forty-four per cent of parole orders issued in 2015–16 were cancelled. This proportion has increased from the previous reporting period (36 per cent).

It is noted that some cancellations were for parole orders issued prior to the current reporting period.

Statistical supplement for the year ended 30 June 2016

25

Table 10: Number of youth justice centre and youth residential centre orders

YearChildren’s Court

youth justice centre

Children’s Court youth residential

centre

Higher courts youth justice

centreTotal

2004–05 173 21 393 587

2005–06 214 27 369 610

2006–07 246 14 298 558

2007–08 264 24 387 675

2008–09 337 19 308 664

2009–10 358 32 391 781

2010–11 356 30 336 722

2011–12 299 13 371 683

2012–13 206 14 401 621

2013–14 193 13 272 478

2014–15 193 20 259 472

2015–16 308 18 243 569

Note: These figures include multiple orders for some individuals.


Comment: During 2015–16 the total number of youth justice centre orders increased by 21 per cent from the previous year. This is due to a 60 per cent increase of youth justice centre orders issued in the Children’s Court jurisdiction from 193 to 308.

For the same period, there were two fewer custodial orders imposed on children aged 10–14 years and 16 fewer youth justice centre orders imposed in higher courts.

Table 11: Parole orders issued and parole cancellations by division during 2015–16

Division Parole orders issued Parole orders cancelled

North 38 19 (50%)

West 61 26 (42%)

South 55 23 (42%)

East 39 17 (44%)

Total 193 85 (44%)



Table 12: Youth justice centre and youth residential centre orders issued by jurisdiction 2015–16

Court Gender Base orderOrder to be served

concurrently or cumulatively

Total

Children’s Court:

youth residential centre

Male 8 10 18

Female 0 0 0

Children’s Court:

youth justice centre

Male 153 130 283

Female 5 3 8

Magistrates CourtMale 84 126 210

Female 1 0 1

County CourtMale 24 5 29

Female 2 0 2

County Court of

Appeals

Male 10 5 15

Female 0 0 0

Supreme CourtMale 2 0 2

Female 0 0 0

Interstate OrderMale 1 0 1

Female 0 0 0

SubtotalMale 282 276 558

Female 8 3 11

Total 290 279 569

Note: Department data extracted 7 July 2016

Table 13: Sentences commenced 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2016 overseen by youth justice

Type of order 06–07 07–08 08–09 09–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16

Probation 945 940 1,076 1,198 1,127 957 892 811 805 676

Youth supervision 368 400 538 518 527 479 453 359 422 438

Youth attendance 82 73 108 125 115 80 66 85 78 71

Youth residential

centre 10 24 9 12 12 6 9 9 11 8

Youth justice

centre 270 255 269 342 305 317 294 229 214 282

Total 1,675 1,692 2,000 2,195 2,086 1,838 1,714 1,493 1,530 1,475

Note: Community-based orders includes young people on multiple orders, if applicable.

Custodial sentences do not include additional concurrent or cumulative orders.


27

Table 14: Sentences commenced 1 July 2013– June 30 2016 overseen by youth justice (individuals)

Type of order 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Probation 599 569 473

Youth supervision 226 247 249

Youth attendance 47 40 31

Youth residential centre 2 2 7

Youth justice centre 198 203 251

Interstate custody order 1 0 1

Total 1,073 1,061 1,012

Note: Young people who received more than one order in the reporting period and/or those with multiple concurrent orders counted once only.

Where a young person received two or more orders in the reporting period, only the highest tariff order is counted.


Comment: Of the 251 young people subject to a youth justice centre order in 2015–16, 115 were sentenced through the dual-track system and 136 were sentenced as children.

Table 15: Remand orders commenced 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2016

Type of order 06–07 07–08 08–09 09–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16

Youth residential centre remand

100 170 123 133 137 181 158 144 225 214

Youth justice centre remand

281 368 439 526 467 585 559 601 687 765

Total 381 538 562 659 604 766 717 745 912 979


Comment: Youth justice centre remands increased by 78 (11 per cent) in 2015–16. Youth residential centre remands decreased by 11 (5 per cent decrease).

Table 16: Remand orders commenced from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2016* (individuals)

Type of order 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Youth residential centre remand

67 67 84 83

Youth justice centre remand

316 307 369 401

Total 383 374 453 484


Note: Young people who received more than one remand order in the reporting period counted once only.

Comment: The number of individuals remanded in a youth justice centre rose by 32 (nine per cent) in 2015–16 compared with the previous year. The number of individuals remanded in a youth residential centre reduced by one (one per cent) in 2015–16 from the previous year.

*Erratum: A data error relating to the individuals on remand orders published in the Youth Parole Board annual reports in 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15 has been amended. The data in Table 16 displays the revised data for 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15. Erratum report Youth Parole Board 2014–15 is available at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/documents-and-resources/reports-publications/youth-parole-board-annual-report


Appendix 1: Visitors to the Youth Parole Board meetings during 2015–16

The Honourable Jenny Mikakos, Minister for

Families and Children / Minister for Youth Affairs

Kym Peake, Secretary, Department of Health

and Human Services

Ben Schokman, Lawyer, Human Rights

Law Centre

Laura Wilson, Lawyer, Human Rights Law Centre

Hugh De Kretser, Executive Director,

Human Rights Law Centre

Brendan Murray, Executive Principal,

Parkville College

Simon Lenten, Director Strategy and Service

Delivery, Parkville College

Management and/or staff of:Barwon Area Youth Justice (Geelong)

Barwon Child Youth and Families, Youth Justice

Community Support Service (Geelong)

Berry Street (Clayton)

Brimbank Melton Area Youth Justice (Sunshine)

Central Highlands Area Youth Justice (Ballarat)

Centacare, Youth Justice Community Support

Service (Ballarat)

Child Protection (Ballarat)

Inner Eastern Melbourne Area Youth Justice

(Box Hill)

Forensicare

Goulburn Area Youth Justice (Shepparton/

Seymour)

Inner Gippsland Area Youth Justice (Morwell)

Intensive Case Management Service (Berry

Street, Morwell)

Jesuit Social Services, Youth Justice Community

Support Service – Metropolitan Melbourne

Koori Youth Justice (Bairnsdale)

Loddon Area Youth Justice (Bendigo)

Malmsbury Youth Justice Precinct

Next Steps, Jesuit Social Services (Carlton)

North Eastern Area Youth Justice, (Brunswick,

Glenroy and Preston)

North and West Area Youth Justice (Fitzroy)

Outer Eastern Melbourne Area Youth Justice

(Ringwood)

Outer Gippsland Area (Bairnsdale)

Out Reach Support (Abbottsford)

Ovens Murray Area Youth Justice

(Wodonga, Wangaratta)

Parkville Youth Justice Precinct

Quantum Support Services, Youth Justice

Community Support Service

(Inner and Outer Gippsland)

SalvoCare Brayton Child and Family Services,

Youth Justice Community Support Service

(Shepparton)

Southern Melbourne Area Youth Justice

(Dandenong, Frankston, Bayside)

St Lukes’s, Anglicare, Youth Justice Community

Support Service (Bendigo)

Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (Morwell)

VincentCare, Youth Justice Homelessness

Assistance (Glenroy)

Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative,

North Geelong

Western District Area Youth Justice,

(Warrnambool)

Western Melbourne Area Youth Justice

(Footscray, Sunshine)

Wombat Housing and Support Service

(North Melbourne)

Youth Health and Rehabilitative Service

Youth Support and Advocacy Service

Students on placement from:RMIT

Federation University Ballarat

Latrobe University

Monash University

Deakin University

Goulburn Ovens (TAFE)

The Gordon

Sunraysia Institute of TAFE

Documents

Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015-16...Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2015–16 ii Y epor 201516 If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format, please