Crossover between child protection and
youth justice, and transition to the adult
system

Centre for Social Research and Evaluation
Te Pokapū Rangahau Arotake Hapori

July 2010

Acknowledgements
Christine Jamieson, Ministry of Social Development
David Harpham and Adrian Jurke, Department of Corrections


Kip Marks and Nick James, Ministry of Social Development


Rissa Ota and Ricus Erasmus, Ministry of Social Development
Denise Herz, California State University, Los Angeles

Unpublished Report
The Ministry of Social Development
Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora
P O Box 1556
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
www.msd.govt.nz

File ref: A4967765

link to page 4 link to page 4

Introduction
This document summarises research into New Zealand’s adult offenders, seeking to
identify what proportion of adult offenders with sentences managed by the
Department of Corrections1  have had any degree of contact with Child, Youth and
Family2 for care and protection and/or youth justice concerns.
The purpose of the work is to identify the degree of crossover between the care and
protection system, youth justice, and the adult justice system.  It provides evidence of
what has generally  been anecdotally understood –  that the risk factors for  children
and  young  people  that attract the attention of child protection services overlap with
those risk factors that indicate poor outcomes as an adult.
The rate of child maltreatment findings in New Zealand is going down for physical
abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. Despite this, notifications of concern –  and the
associated demand placed on Child, Youth and Family resources – continue to rise.
At the same time, data collection and analysis capability amongst social services and
the justice sector has become increasingly sophisticated, allowing agencies to more
effectively interrogate their records in order to inform future work.
Through comparing records for the adult offending population held by the
Department of Corrections against those for children and young people previously
known to Child, Youth and Family, there is the opportunity to understand where
further analysis can inform early intervention models that wil  enable agencies to help
change the path of those at risk of a life of offending.
Benefits of such an approach are manifold. A life of offending is obviously costly for
the  Government.    That cost is addressed in this document. What cannot be
accurately  measured is the cost to society. A young person exhibiting sustained,
chronic,  antisocial, criminogenic behaviour that extends into adulthood harms their
victims, their victims’  families, their own family, their peers and sometimes entire
communities. The potential to be a positive, contributing part of the community is lost,
both to them and the country.
This research quantifies adult offenders who were known to Child, Youth and Family
through  Care  and  Protection  (C&P)  or  Youth Justice  (YJ).  It identifies the
disproportionate cost to the Department of Corrections of adult offenders that have
come to the attention of Child, Youth and Family as children and young people; and
indicates  the potential value of early intervention.  It also  identifies some early
warning indicators that are associated with a transition to adult offending.

1  The Department of Corrections enforces the sentences and orders of the criminal courts
and parole board. Corrections improves public safety by ensuring sentence compliance and
works to reduce re-offending by providing offenders with rehabilitation programmes,
education and job training. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/
2 The two key roles of the Department of Child, Youth and Family are:  to be a provider of
high-quality services to children who need care and protection or who offend and to support
and assist their families to keep their children safe; and  to facilitate and collaborate in the
delivery of high-quality services by other service providers to children and young people
who are living in circumstances where they are at risk of being in need of care and
protection or committing offences. http://www.cyf.govt.nz/
Page 1

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5

Background
Children and young people included in this work
The  primary  data which underpin this research reflect  contact by one or both
agencies with people born in 19893.    ‘Client’  is used throughout this report in the
generic sense that  the relevant agency  “delivered  services or interventions to this
person; has a record for this person”.
Notably, the data describe  contact with clients rather than details of the underlying
reasons for that contact4.  Research and evaluation work undertaken generally which
includes case-notes  analysis  identifies that there are typically multiple background
issues within the family’s situation for investigated cases.  Issues include  mental
health, crime and family violence, substance abuse, alcohol and drug issues.  Very
few case-notes identify solely physical or sexual abuse issues occurring without a
range of stressors also present.  Most child abuse is observed to be occurring with
the context of high stress conditions.
Child, Youth and Family is routinely alerted to  vulnerable children  who may face  a
number of risks  in addition to maltreatment e.g.  family criminality, poor parenting
skills, educational disengagement, mental health, drugs and alcohol, antisocial peers.
Thus ‘contact’ and ‘client’ are defined in a broad sense for Child, Youth and Family.
Records for children and young people are held by the agency, even where an
investigation or intervention was not required. For example, a single, unsubstantiated
concern around neglect would still constitute –  for the purposes of the measures
used in this research - a child being referred to as a client. At the other end of the
spectrum is the most serious of abuse. Caution must be exercised as to interpreting
a client as being subject to active intervention from child protection services.
Child, Youth and Family is the lead agency with responsibility for child protection and
youth justice from 0 to 16 years. At least a quarter of the children and young people
in New Zealand come to Child, Youth and Family’s  attention  over  concerns about
neglect, abuse or offending.
The Department of Corrections deals mostly with people aged 17 years or over. For
very serious offences, those as young as 14 can be transferred from the Child, Youth
and Family youth justice system to receive a Corrections-managed sentence5.
Most children and young people known to Child, Youth and Family do not go on to a
Corrections-managed sentence, however over half of young people under 20 years
old in prisons have had prior contact with the agency.
Cost of crime
In  addition to imposing wide social costs, crime has a direct impact on cost to the
Government  and thus the taxpayer. In 2003/2004, Treasury (Roper & Thompson,
2006) estimated that crime cost New Zealand $9.1 bil ion annually.  Of this, $2.1

3  In the chapter on cost of high-risk clients there are supplementary results for the cohort born
in 1985.
4 Underlying reasons may be captured in unstructured case notes, but these are not analysed
here.
5 In the extreme case of murder or manslaughter legislation allows for those as young as 10
to receive a prison sentence.
Page 2

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6

billion was carried  by the Crown. Communities carry the bulk of the crime costs.
Financial costs are a proxy for the considerable harm crime causes within society.
Life-course persistent offenders dominate offender costs
The cost of harm and crime is unevenly spread amongst offenders (Wolfgang, Figlio
& Sellin, 1972). A small proportion of offenders (5%-6%) commit disproportionate
amounts of all offences (50%-60%).  These high-volume offenders start their careers
early and stay in the justice system for a long time.   The median cost (across all
government) of a chronic antisocial male6  over his lifetime in New Zealand is
estimated at $3 million7 (Scott, 2003).
Teenage prisoners dominate Corrections’ costs
A small proportion of males consistently display antisocial behaviour throughout their
life (Moffitt, 1993).  They show antisocial behaviour as a child, and offend both as a
youth and an adult.  High-cost  offenders are noticeable in their later years as their
offending has outlasted that of their peers (Harpham, 2008).
As background to this work,  an analysis of  Corrections’  clients born in 1960
confirmed that imprisonment  of  a  young person  under twenty years old is a likely
indicator of life long, persistent offending.  The costs for Corrections’ clients born in
1960 were tracked through to 2009 when they were aged 48 or 49. Over this period
the group who started a Corrections-managed  sentence while they were teenagers
cost Corrections on average:
•
five times more than the group starting in their late twenties
•
ten times more than the group starting in their late thirties.
Clients who enter prison under  20  typically go on to have long and expensive
Corrections’ intervention.
Effectiveness of interventions at different life stages
The effectiveness of interventions appears to be age dependent.  Two time-sensitive
windows have been identified in which to address a child or young person’s
criminogenic behaviour:
•
before age seven, and the earlier the better8  (Advisory Group on Conduct
Problems, 2009)
•
after age 30 (Bakker & Riley, 1996).
Interventions during the intense offending years (under 20 to mid/late 20s) can stil  be
effective, but it can be more difficult or costly to achieve the same level of behaviour
change.

6  Chronic  antisocial  adolescent males were defined as those male offenders who had their
first adult court conviction before 17 years and at least one offence after the age of 45 years.
7 Lifetime costs varied from $1.0 million to $6.1 million.  This costing did not cover costs within
Child, Youth and Family.
8  Interventions between the ages of 8 and 12 were found to be more complex and less
effective.
Page 3

Effectiveness of adult interventions
One reason that young people whose behaviour has led to a prison sentence go on
to dominate Corrections’ costs is that they are difficult to rehabilitate.
Figure 1 shows that in the five years after release from prison those aged under 20
years (at the time of their release from prison) are the highest reoffenders of any age
group (Nadesu, 2009).


Figure 1: Reconviction and reimprisonment rates by age at release from prison (Nadesu, 2009)
100%
90%
s
80%
er
n
70%
riso
60%
f P
50%
Re-Convicted
e o
40%
Re-imprisoned
tag
cen
30%
er
P
20%
10%
0%
Under 20
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40+
Age Groups

Targeting earlier intervention would require earlier identification
Targeted  intervention for the most at risk children and young people requires tools
that support accurate early identification of risks and needs.  This research tests the
extent to which Child, Youth and Family data provide an opportunity to identify and
intervene with those most at risk of becoming chronically antisocial, prior to referral
for formal Youth Justice processes, and prior to imprisonment.
This report covers the:
•
degree of overlap between Care and Protection and Youth Justice jurisdictions
•
linking of data from Child, Youth and Family and Corrections
•
identification of clients known to both agencies
•
impact of high-cost clients.

Page 4

link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8

Data
The Centre for Social Research and Evaluation (CSRE) and Department of
Corrections cooperated to conduct research on the crossover  from  Care  and
Protection into Youth Justice and on to Corrections-managed sentences9 for two birth
cohorts: those born in 1985 and in 1989.    The two agencies extracted and
exchanged the data that form the basis for this work in May 2009; unless otherwise
indicated results in this paper are as at May 2009.
Crossover between Care and Protection and Youth Justice clients
The term crossover client denotes children and young people known to both the Care
and Protection and Youth Justice systems.  In the last decade, international interest
in crossover clients has been growing (Ryan & Testa, 2005; Bilchik & Nash, 2008;
Herz & Ryan 2008; Herz, 2010).
At a national level, New Zealand has simple jurisdictions, making research into
crossover clients comparatively easy to conduct.  Within New Zealand, Child, Youth
and Family is ideally placed to identify crossover clients.
Child, Youth and Family is not notified of all offences committed by children and
young people.  The emphasis within the New Zealand youth justice system is to
divert young offenders away from formal youth justice processes where possible.
Around  20  percent  of youth offenders are referred for formal10  Child, Youth and
Family Youth Justice processes, while the remainder are dealt with informally11.  This
research only contains results for clients with referrals to Child, Youth and Family for
formal  Youth Justice  processes12  and so does  not  consider  those who received
alternative action.
Child, Youth and Family and Corrections client ages overlap
While Child, Youth and Family primarily deals with children and young people aged
16 or under and Corrections primarily deal with those  aged 17 or over, there is a
small age overlap. Child, Youth and Family can hold care and protection  records
from conception to age 16 years13 and formal youth justice records from age 10 to 17
years.
Only the adult court system may impose a Corrections-managed sentence, such as
community work or imprisonment. Court cases to do with young people aged 14 to
16 (or in the case of murder or manslaughter, those as young as 10) are heard, at

9  Matching with Corrections’ data means the study does not consider lesser sanctions open
to Police (eg warning, caution or alternative action) or the Courts (eg fine and discharge
without conviction).  Questions on the overlap between CYF clients and offenders identified
and dealt with in these other ways would require data matching exercises with Police and
the Ministry of Justice, which were outside the scope of this work.
10 Through family group conference (FGC) and/or Youth Court.
11 Through alternative action, such as warning or diversion.
12  Answering the question about care and protection clients with informal  Youth Justice
contact  would require a separate data match between CYF and Police. Official Police
records do not capture the full extent of offending by individuals, as some crimes are
unreported, unrecorded or unsolved.
13  A small number of clients (e.g. those with high needs such as severe disabilities) have
guardianship arrangements until age 20.
Page 5

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9

least initially, outside of the adult justice system in the Youth Court.  The Youth Court
cannot impose a Corrections-managed sentence, but it is able to transfer the most
serious cases to the District or High Courts which can.  Of those born in 1989 and
later sentenced to imprisonment, only 30 (less than 5%) were aged 16 or younger at
the time they committed the offence leading to that sentence.
Incomplete birth cohort data
This work uses data from Child, Youth and Family’s current recording system which
was introduced in 1996.  Records prior to 1996 exist, but it was not feasible to merge
them with the newer data.  For children born in 1989 this means the data used in this
work do not contain records for their first six years of life; for those born in 1985 the
gap spans their first ten years. Child, Youth and Family  will have the first set of
complete  single-system client  data for a birth cohort in 2014, when those born in
1996 turn 18.
At the time data was extracted and matched in 2009:
•
the cohort born in 1989 was turning 20 years of age. The records available for
this research do not include care and protection data from conception to 6 years
old; an estimated14 50 percent of lifetime Child, Youth and Family referrals.
•
the 1985 birth cohort was turning 24 years of age.  The records available for this
research do not include records from conception to 10 years old; an estimated
68 percent of lifetime Child, Youth and Family referrals (mostly care and
protection).
As the Child, Youth and Family records for the 1985 cohort are less complete, unless
otherwise stated the results in this report are for the 1989 birth cohort.
The  change between recording systems  results in  an under-estimation  of the
crossover from Care and Protection to Youth Justice.  Some clients who appear to
have  youth justice  records only, wil  have had  care and protection  records  in  the
earlier recording system.  When complete single-system data is available for a later
birth cohort the crossover may appear to increase.
Data and identity match
In accordance with the Privacy Act 1993, the Ministry of Social Development15  and
Corrections  developed an interagency agreement to exchange data for research
purposes.
Child, Youth and Family and Corrections records were matched on first name, middle
name, family name and date of birth.  Exact, equal or soundex16  matches on first
name, family name and date of birth constituted the bulk of the matches. Further

14 The estimate of missing records was based on the distribution of referrals by age of subject
in 2007.  Care and Protection referrals are heavily skewed towards the beginning of a
person’s life (aged 0-1 years) and decrease from there onwards.  Referrals increase again
slightly with youth justice referrals which increase towards their peak at the opposite end of
Child, Youth and Family jurisdiction (16 years of age).
15  The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is the government’s lead provider of policy
advice and services in respect of children and young people, working age people, older
people, families, whānau and communities.  Child, Youth and Family are one of the service
lines within the Ministry. http://www.msd.govt.nz/
16  Soundex is an algorithm that produces a suggested match on the basis that the names
sound the same, e.g. “Christine” and “Krystene”.
Page 6

matches were then identified using algorithms that check for common variations and
errors in the way that identities are recorded e.g. transposed characters, mismatched
date formats, hyphenated surnames.
At each stage the peer reviewers made conservative judgments about the data
match.  Multiple identities (and their attributes) were merged into single identities
before the results were analysed.
Statistics New Zealand estimates were used to establish the base for the 1989 birth
cohort.  From the 58,091 people born in 1989, the data used in this study included:
•  13,676 records for individuals held by Child, Youth and Family
•  4,259 records for individuals held by the Department of Corrections
There were 2,510  matches accepted between Child, Youth and Family and
Corrections records for the 1989 birth cohort.

Page 7

link to page 11

Crossover rates
Crossover Clients: Care and Protection to Youth Justice
Child, Youth and Family records  show that three-quarters (73%) of youth justice
clients are  also  known for  care and protection concerns  (Table 1)17.  To reduce the
effect of incomplete records before 1996, the data in this table are sourced from a
range of birth years.  Data for this table were extracted in July 2010.

Table 1: Crossover between Youth Justice and Care and Protection by year of birth
Age in 2009
15/16
14/15
13/14
12/13
11/12
10/11
9/10
Total /
Average
Year of Birth
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
YJ Only
965
492
225
65
17
7
10
1,781
C&P to YJ
1,992
1,362
791
236
90
47
21
4,539
YJ to C&P
162
91
37
11
4
1
1
307
Total with YJ
3,119
1,945
1,053
312
111
55
32
6,627
% C&P & YJ
69%
75%
79%
79%
85%
87%
69%
73%
Figure 2 shows that rather than being separate groups, the Child, Youth and Family
youth justice population is largely a subset of the Child, Youth and Family care and
protection population.  While the majority of Youth Justice clients come to attention
for care and protection issues, the vast majority of care and protection clients do not
go on to be involved with youth justice.
Figure 2: Overlap between Care and Protection and Youth Justice issues amongst CYF
C&P
only
onl
C&P
YJ
+YJ
only
onl

At  least one Care and Protection notification  precedes the youth justice  contact for
over two-thirds (68%) of youth justice  clients.   Those without a care and protection
record made up most of the remaining youth justice clients, with only 5% having a
youth justice record that pre-dated their care and protection contact.

17 This table describes the previous history of youth justice clients -- children and young
people with only a care and protection history are not included.
Page 8

These crossover results are significant, as they confirm a common pattern of
escalation within the Child, Youth and Family records.  The results highlight that with
further analysis of children or young persons’ care and protection histories, we can
proactively  identify  people at risk of future offending  behaviour.  With a strong
evidence base now established, this work is being taken forward by the Ministry as
outlined in the section below entitled Building on the evidence.
Transition: Child, Youth and Family to Corrections
Between the ages 6-16 years, 24 percent of the 1989 birth cohort had come to the
attention of Child, Youth and Family (Table 2).  By 2009, when the 1989 birth cohort
turned 20, 7 percent of the total cohort had acquired a Corrections-managed
community or prison sentence.
Over half  of  those under Corrections-managed sentences  were  known to Child,
Youth and Family. Of those born in 1989 who had acquired a Corrections-managed
sentence, either community-based or imprisonment,  by May 2009, over half  (59%)
had prior contact with Child, Youth and Family (Table 2).

Table 2: Crossover between Child, Youth and Family and Corrections by age 19/20
(1989 birth cohort)

Corrections’ Record

Yes
No
Total
Yes
2,510
11,166
13,676
Known to CYF 6 – 16 years
No
1,749
42,666
44,415
Total
4,259
53,832
58,091
The issues faced by children and  young people known to Child, Youth and Family
mean they are five times more likely to have a Corrections’ sentence by the year they
turn 20 than the rest of the population.  One in six (18%) of those born in 1989 known
to Child, Youth and Family had started a Corrections-managed sentence by age
19/20, compared to one in 25 (4%) of the non-Child, Youth and Family population
(Table 2).
Transition: teenagers in prison
The majority of teenage prisoners have Child, Youth and Family records.  Although
over 4,200  of  those in the 1989 birth cohort have  Corrections records,  most had
community-based sentences with only  672 (16%) imprisoned as teenagers.  The
majority (83%) of those imprisoned under 20 had a previous Child, Youth and Family
record (Figure 3).

Page 9

Figure 3: 1989 birth cohort imprisoned before age 20 years (n = 672)
Percentage of prisoners under 20 years (1989 birth cohort)
n=114
17%
Known to CYF
Not known to CYF
83%
n=558

Only a small number of teenagers go to prison. In terms of the total birth cohort of
58,091 only 672 (1.2%) have had a prison sentence by age 20.  This represents 16
percent of the 4,259 in the cohort with a Corrections record (Table 3).
Within the  13,676  1989 birth cohort of Child, Youth and Family clients,  the rate of
future imprisonment as a teenager, although stil  low in absolute terms, was relatively
higher at 4 percent.
While it is notable that young people whose behaviour results in prison have
predominantly come to the attention of Child, Youth and Family, it is as significant to
consider that the vast majority of children and young people known to Child, Youth
and Family do not enter the adult justice system.

Table 3: Crossover between Child, Youth and Family and prison before age 20 (1989
birth cohort)
Prison Record as a Teenager

Yes
No
Total
Yes
558
13,118
13,676
Known to CYF 6 – 16 years
No
114
44,301
44,415
Total
672
57,419
58,091
Transition to a Corrections sentence varies by Child, Youth and Family client
type
This section looks at flow rates and the teenage prison population (n = 672) broken
down by Child, Youth and Family client type:
•  Care and Protection only
•  Youth Justice only
Page 10

link to page 14

•  crossover clients (those with both a care and protection and youth justice
record).
The crossover client type is most at risk for receiving a future Corrections-managed
sentence.  Half (52%) of crossover clients have a Corrections record of some kind by
age 19/20 and 18  percent  are imprisoned under 20. This group accounts for half
(50%) of all prisoners under 20 –  see Figure 4. The group at next highest risk are
those  known to Youth Justice  only;  40  percent  of which  have a subsequent
Corrections record.
Clients with Care and Protection notifications that did not go on to engage with the
Youth Justice  system  had distinctly better adult justice system outcomes than their
crossover peers.
Figure 4: Prisoners under 20 by Child, Youth and Family client type (n = 672)
Prison under 20 years (1989 birth cohort)
n=114
n=333
17%
CP & YJ
n=84

13%
50%
YJ Only
CP Only
21%
Not known to CYF
n=141

Children and young people come into the care of the Chief Executive of the Ministry
of Social Development18 when there is no other way to ensure the safety and wel -
being of the child or young person.
Child, Youth and Family data shows that being placed in care is associated with a
higher transition between Child, Youth and Family and Corrections.  The need to be
placed in care  is likely to reflect the issues that the child or young person faced in
their home situation.
The most at risk Child, Youth and Family client type is a crossover client that at some
stage has been in care (Figure 5).


18 In care means that the child or young person is in the custody of the Chief Executive of the
Ministry of Social Development through a Care Agreement or Court Order under the children,
Young Persons and their Families Act 1989. Placements may happen in group homes or the
homes of foster carers.  Foster carers often include  family members (nieces, nephews,
grandchildren) or where that is not possible, non-family members.  Placements may last for a
short time until the child returns to their parents or be a more permanent arrangement.
Page 11

Figure 5: Community and prison sentences by 19/20 years, by Child, Youth and Family
client type (1989 birth cohort)
CP (in Care) & YJ
40.2%
32.3%
27.5%
No Corrections Record
CP (not in Care) & YJ
51.6%
34.8%
13.7%
YJ Only
Corrections Record:
59.7%
32.2%
8.1%
Community - Based Sentence
CP Only (in Care)
87.5%
10.9%  1.6%
Corrections Record:
Imprisonment under 20
CP Only (not in Care)
92.0%
7.2% 0.7%
Not known to CYF
Not known to CYF
96.1%
3.7%
0.3%
0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50%  60%  70%  80%  90% 100%

Over half (60%) of crossover children and young people that have been in care had a
Corrections’ record by age 19/20.  Over a quarter (28%) were imprisoned before 20
years of age.
Compared to those in the 1989 cohort without a CYF record, this high risk group was
15 times more likely to get a Corrections’ record by the age of 19/20, and 107 times
more likely to be imprisoned under 20.
The existence of a youth justice record makes a difference  to  the likelihood of a
young person getting a future Corrections sentence.  Where  children and young
people with a care and protection record do not crossover into  youth justice,  there
are fewer and less serious Corrections-managed sentences.
Page 12

link to page 16

Cost of high risk clients
During the preparation of this report, Child, Youth and Family and Corrections set out
to estimate the costs of their clients.
Cost of crossover clients
Early indications from Child Youth and Family costings are that crossover care and
protection and youth justice clients are more expensive than those with only care and
protection records and those with only youth justice records.
Corrections cost of high risk clients
Corrections have completed their client costs, and are able to aggregate up the
money spent on clients to the budget spent in each fiscal year.
Corrections  accrued19  costs of more than $77 mil ion for  people born in 1989 who
had either a community based or prison sentence before 30 June 2009 (Table 4). Of
this, $64.2 million (83%) was spent on those who had a previous record with Child,
Youth and Family.  Within Child, Youth and Family clients, those with a crossover
between care and protection and youth justice cost $39 mil ion; about half the total
spend, across a quarter of the 1989 cohort with Corrections records.
While this report has concentrated on the 1989 cohort, analysis of the 1985 cohort
shows  that the costs continue to mount as clients return to Corrections-managed
sentences at higher rates into their early twenties.
While only one person out of every 175 within the birth cohort (0.6%) have crossover
from care and protection to youth justice as wel  as a prison record under 20, those
people consumed around half of the money Corrections spent on the 1989 cohort by
2009.  The crossover care and protection and youth justice client is also Corrections’
most expensive client (Tables 4 and 5).
Table 4: Corrections cost for all sentences by CYF client type (as at 30 June 2009,
1989 cohort)

Not known to CYF
C&P only
YJ only
C&P & YJ
Total
Number of people
1,749
853
699
958
4259
Average Cost to Date
$7,630
$10,200
$23,200
$41,000
$18,200
Total Cost to Date
$13,340,000  $8,661,000  $16,250,000  $39,290,000  $77,540,000


19 Those with Corrections’ managed sentences have a future liability until their sentence ends.
Page 13

link to page 17

Table 5: Corrections cost for prisoners under 20 by CYF client type (as at 30 June
2009, 1989 cohort)

Not known to CYF
C&P only
YJ only
C&P & YJ
Total
Number of people
114
84
141
333
672
Average Cost to Date
$61,000
$61,500
$90,000
$105,000
$88,800
Total Cost to Date
$6,948,000
$5,164,000  $12,690,000  $34,850,000  $59,650,000
Whole of government cost
New Zealanders  that are high cost to Child, Youth and Family and Corrections are
almost certainly high cost to Police, Courts and the community.  They are also likely
to be high cost to Health, Education and to Work and Income. At present we have no
assessment of the money spent on common  clients over their lifetime, across
government. In combination with accurate early identification tools, such costings
could inform a prospective savings equation.
While comprehensive lifetime costings are unavailable, Scott (2003) estimated the
median lifetime cost to society of life course persistent male offenders at $3 mil ion
each20.
In addition to the money that government spends negating the harm that high risk
people cause, society loses the value of their potential pro-social  contribution.
People on this pathway are less likely to get an educational qualification – within the
prison population, those with a Child Youth and Family record were more likely to
have left school by or before Year 11. People on this pathway are also less likely to
be employed, more likely to be on a benefit, and less likely to contribute to shared
costs through taxed income.
Government spends disproportionate amounts of Corrections’  budget on those
previously known to  Child, Youth and Family who become prisoners  under 20.
These  prisoners have high reconviction and reimprisonment rates and carry a
disproportionately large future Corrections liability.  They are also  likely to be
expensive for other government agencies.
The majority of prisoners under 20 are known to Child, Youth and Family.  Most
make an earlier crossover from care and protection  to  youth  justice.  In addition to
their high cost, people on this pathway make less positive contributions to society
than they could.

20  This estimate included costs such as Corrections, Courts, Police, Work and Income and
victims, but not Child, Youth and Family.
Page 14

Building on the evidence
Based on this research, it is clear that there are opportunities within Child, Youth and
Family data to identify and target preventative services to potential high cost, high
harm clients.
Model ing work is underway, which identifies the children and young people most at
risk of making a transition into future offending.  The modelling effort has been
focused on the crossover from care and protection to youth justice, as the children
and young people can be identified at a time when interventions are most effective.
The models can identify future youth justice clients as early as age 6 to 7; up to ten
years before they crossover.
Investments targeted to children and young people could provide government with
significant value for money.  The actual value will depend on how efficiently at-risk
clients are diverted away from future offending and towards a pro-social life pathway.
Conclusion
Comparing records for offenders with sentences managed by Corrections against
those for children and young people known to Child, Youth and Family clearly shows
that:
•  there is an overlap between those under Corrections management and youth
offenders
•  those most at risk of making the transition to the adult system have previously
crossed over from Care and Protection to Youth Justice.
As time passes Child, Youth and Family will be able to collect more of each birth
cohort’s life records. Together with looking at crossover data from other areas such
as the education sector, this should enable models and targeting to be more
effective.
Given the potential to identify those who are at risk, if interventions can be targeted
more efficiently it would assist the Government to help change the path of those at
risk of a life of offending, and the gains are potentially very large. The gains include
not only the financial savings to the criminal justice system because of reduced
numbers of both youth and adult offenders, but also reduced harm to their victims,
their victims families, their own family, their peers and sometimes entire communities.
Page 15

References

Advisory Group on Conduct Problems (2009). Conduct problems best practice report.
Ministry of Social Development.
Bakker, L., & Riley, D.N. (1996). Remission  or cure? The re-conviction study five
years on. Psychological Service Report, Department of Corrections. Wel ington, New
Zealand.
Bilchik, S.,  & Nash, M. (2008). Child welfare and juvenile justice: Two sides of the
same coin. Juvenile and Family Justice Today, Fall 2008. In Teija Sudol Information
Packet Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare National Resource Center for Family-
Centered Practice and Permanency Planning A Service of Children’s
Bureau/ACF/DHHS. Retrieved from
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/Sudol_Info%20Pack_Juve
nileJustice_June09.pdf
Harpham, D.  (2008).  Offender  volumes  report 2007, Department of Corrections,
Wellington.
Herz, D. C., & Ryan, J. P. (2008). Exploring the characteristics and outcomes of
241.1 youths in Los Angeles  County.  San Francisco, CA: California Courts, The
Administrative Office of the Courts. In  D.C.  Herz (2010) Crossover youth practice
model research summary, California State University, Los Angeles.
Herz, D.C. (2010).  Crossover youth practice model research summary, California
State University, Los Angeles.
Moffit, T.  E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial
behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4): 674-701.
Nadesu, A. (2009). Reconviction patterns of released prisoners: a 60-months follow-
up analysis, Department of Corrections, Wel ington
Roper, T., & Thompson, A. (2006). Estimating the costs of crime in New Zealand in
2004/2004.  New Zealand Treasury Working Paper 06/04, Wel ington.
Ryan, J. P., & Testa, M. F. (2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency:
Investigating the role of placement and placement instability. Children and Youth
Services Review, 27, 227−249.
Scott, G. (2003). The  economic  benefits of rehabilitating  chronic adolescent
antisocial  males.  Proceedings of a Conference July 1–2, 2003, University of
Auckland, Youth Horizons Trust.
Wilson N., & Rolleston, R. (2004). A risk-need profile using four measures for youth
offenders incarcerated in young offender units. Wellington: Psychological Service,
Department of Corrections.
Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M.,  & Sellin, T. (1972).  Delinquency in a birth  cohort.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Page 16

Appendix 1: Agency record types
This study matched all available agency records. Both Child, Youth and Family and
Corrections administer services or interventions at different levels of intensity.
Child, Youth and Family Care and Protection
Child, Youth and Family Care and Protection interventions or services include:
•
notification (screening or escalation)
•
investigation
•
family group conference
•
family / whanau agreement
•
family court order
•
being placed in care.
Child, Youth and Family Youth Justice
Youth Justice  interventions escalate from family group conference to court.  Some
people with Youth Justice records have been placed into Youth Justice residences.
Child, Youth and Family record types
Significant Child, Youth and Family record types considered in this report are:
•
Care and Protection only
•
Youth Justice only
•
Care and Protection & Youth Justice (crossover clients)
Corrections record types
Corrections also administer a range of interventions, including:
•
community work
•
community supervision
•
intensive supervision
•
community detention (electronic curfew)
•
home detention
•
prison
•
parole
•
release on conditions
•
release on extended supervision
•
remand in custody

Page 17

Document Outline