The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
In the framework of the EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
1. The IJJO Presentation. 2. The European branch; the European Council for Juvenile Justice. 3. The IJJO work on the development of European indicators on juvenile justice.
1 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
1. The IJJO PRESENTATION
The International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) Children and young people all over the world are in need of protection and special care when they come into conflict with the law. This is the inspiration behind the establishment of the International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO), which offers an inter-disciplinary system of information, communication, debates, analysis and proposals concerning different areas relating to the development of juvenile justice in the world. The IJJO was created in 2003 and obtained the statute of Public Utility in 2006. Its headquarters are based in Brussels and it receives support and sponsorship from a variety of university institutions, organizations and government departments, as well as from the European Commission. The IJJO is an ambitious endeavor that promotes an international and interdisciplinary approach to issues related to juvenile justice, based on UN rules and regulations and implemented through its mission and activities. These rules and regulations include: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). In the framework of the development of the Observatory’s activities, the IJJO attaches importance to the promotion of a holistic and interdisciplinary concept of juvenile justice, based on three fundamental axes: the prevention of juvenile delinquency, intervention and educational measures and socio-professional reinsertion.
Moreover, the IJJO provides a permanent forum for analysis, information and reflection on topics related to juvenile delinquency and justice. It is also a network of juvenile justice experts and observers. The IJJO has a benchmarking function; it establishes good-practice criteria and 2 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
disseminates information on efficient strategies related to policies and interventions. It also helps to generate research and offers technical assistance to those working in the field. Finally, the IJJO disseminates information in English, French and Spanish through its online resources, including, news, events and publications databases, and engages in awareness-raising with the general public to build support for the protection of young offenders’ rights. Every two years, the IJJO organises an International Conference in which numerous experts from different fields come together to analyse juvenile justice systems, action models and intervention models, which can be applied at a national level. By encouraging the creation and monitoring of these international juvenile justice groups, the IJJO aims at contributing to the progress and improvement of policies and stimulating the development of new educational intervention programmes and research that concentrates on minors at risk of social exclusion. The First IJJO International Conference, held in Salamanca in October 2004, focused on delinquency prevention in a globalized world; the Second IJJO International Conference, held in Brussels in October 2006, tackled the idea of a framework for integrating juvenile justice in Europe; the Third IJJO International Conference, held in Valencia in October 2008, dealt with the current situation of juvenile justice systems in Europe, trends in applicable models and good practices. The Fourth IJJO International Conference was held in Rome on November 2010; it dealt with integrated juvenile justice systems and especially focused on approaches and methodologies regarding mental disorders and drug misuse. The next IJJO International Conference will be held in London on November 2012 and will focus on juvenile justice in a world in crisis.
The Observatory is geared towards a varied international audience. Participation in the IJJO is open to organizations including professional associations, policy makers, legislators and security services, as well as professionals concerned by the situation of young people in conflict with the law. 3 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
The IJJO takes a broad view of the issues related to juvenile justice. Its interests are not limited only to young people who come into conflict with the law, but extend to include minors and young people in social difficulties or experiencing behavioral challenges. The overarching goal is to encourage the positive development of young people so that they may acquire the skills they need to become free citizens outside the circuits of exclusion and imprisonment.
2. The European branch; The EUROPEAN COUNCIL FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE
The European Council for Juvenile Justice, as a European Think-Tank on Juvenile Justice is composed of European Experts in the field, who analyses the situation of children in conflict with the law and develop the corresponding strategies and recommendations. Among its activities, the European Council for Juvenile Justice gather quantitative and qualitative information on the situation of children, adolescents and young people in conflict with the law through European researches and green papers. It develops a specific advocacy and recommendations program concerning the development of juvenile justice, which is destined to the European Institutions in general and the National authorities that have requested it. The following sections form the European Council for Juvenile Justice: -
Public Administration Section: 27 representatives from public state bodies in charge of the administration of the juvenile justice, mainly Ministries.
-
Academic Section: brings together 27 representatives of European Universities; Faculties and Departments of Law, Criminology, etc.
4 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
-
NGO Section: 27 on the field NGO experts are part of the European Council for Juvenile Justice. They constitute important not-for-profit organizations at national level, which participate in the Council if their objectives include a commitment to the protection, the defence, and the intervention with minors and young people in conflict with the law.
-
ECJJ I MEETING: Paris 2009
In order to present its activities and structure to the representatives of the public administrations, universities and NGOs involved into juvenile justice in Europe, the European Juvenile Justice Observatory organized one meeting per section to present the European Council for Juvenile Justice: 'Towards a European common strategy in juvenile justice'. Indeed, together with the French Ministry of Justice’s Directorate-General for the Judicial Protection of Youth, the IJJO and its European branch the EJJO organized the 1st meeting with the representatives in charge of national youth justice and childcare policies, held in Paris in December 2009. This meeting took place within the framework of the celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
5 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
-
ECJJ II MEETING: Roma 2010
In 2010, the IJJO together with the EJJO followed up the development of the European Council for Juvenile Justice. More than 70 professionals and experts coming from the 27 EU Member States and representing the three Council sections: Public Administration Section, NGOs and Academic Section, participated in this II Meeting organized in Rome.
This Second meeting received the support of the Department of Juvenile Justice of the Ministry of Justice of Italy, that hosted the meeting at Instituto Centrale di Formazione del Personale del Dipartimento per la Giustizia Minorile. One of the EJJO objectives was to bring together Juvenile Justice Stakeholders and European institutions representatives, and thus the EJJO was pleased to count on the participation of representatives from the Directorate General of Justice of the European Commission and from the Council of Europe. They presented their priorities concerning policies in the field of juvenile justice such as the Draft Communication on Children's Rights 2011 - 2014 of the European Commission and the Guidelines for a Child-Friendly Justice of the Council of Europe. The results of the work developed by the participants in each of the Sections of the European Council of Juvenile Justice in this Second Meeting have been presented to the competent 6 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
European institutions, and more specifically to the European Commission, through three Green Papers coordinated by three experts on each one of the debated themes. The themes and experts responsible for the coordination of each Green Paper were the following: - The Green Paper of the Public Administration Section is on the 'Implementation of international standards in European juvenile justice systems', coordinated by Dr. Ineke Pruin – University of Greifswald (Germany)-. - The paper corresponding to the NGO Section has as its central theme 'The social insertion of minors and young offenders, key in the fight against recidivism', developed under the coordination of Mrs. Séverine Jacomy – Vité (Swiss consultant specialized in the Rights of the Child)-. - In the case of the Academic Section, the Green Paper deals with: 'Measures of deprivation of liberty affecting child and young offenders: How can international standards of juvenile justice be promoted and alternative measures encouraged?', coordinated by Dr. Ursula Kikelly – University of Cork (Ireland)-. On the 9th of June 2011 the IJJO and its European Branch, the EJJO presented at the European Economic and Social Committee, the Three IJJO Green Papers on Child Friendly Justice, as results of the research work developed within each one of the Three Sections of the European Council for Juvenile Justice, a consultative body of the European Juvenile Justice Observatory. The IJJO Green Papers presentation was followed by an interesting debate among experts and representatives from EU institutions and Member States. Participants highlighted the difficulty of performing cross-European comparisons in the field of juvenile justice, mainly because of the lack of reliable data on juvenile justice. Participants also pointed out most of the juvenile justice programs are being implemented without being assessed and that human and financial resources and infrastructure are lacking in many Member States. With regards the 7 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
implementation of international standards on juvenile justice, participants agreed upon the fact that substantial efforts need to be done to overcome those barriers hindering their effective implementation.
8 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
Project Proposal under the framework of the EUROPEAN COUNCIL FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE
HOW TO MEASURE JUVENILE JUSTICE IN EUROPE: IJJO JJ INDICATORS
9 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
European Juvenile Justice Council and Measurement of Juvenile Justice in Europe
a) Definition of Juvenile Justice Indicators: The definition for ‘indicator’ as stated by UNICEF stipulates that: “an indicator provides a common way of measuring and presenting information that reveals whether standards are being met”1. In the last 10 to 15 years, a number of comparative researches, studies and surveys have been dedicated to examine juvenile justice systems in Europe, but not many can identify if national juvenile justice systems meet the International Standards both in law and in practice. To this extent, the research entitled ‘Juvenile Justice Indicators for Europe: How to Measure Juvenile Justice’ 2 paid close attention to Europe insofar as it is easier to compare these juvenile justice systems together than to compare all the available juvenile justice systems in the world . The diversity within Europe is probably smaller than on a global scale, which should make it easier to develop specific European indicators. Furthermore, this could allow us to identify indicators that are far more precise and which will consequently deliver more accurate information on whether juvenile justice in Europe works in accordance with the standards 3.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes 2007, p. 2. Edited by The International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO). 2009 3 Juvenile Justice Indicators for Europe: How to Measure Juvenile Justice’ Ineke Pruin, Joanna Grzywa, Philip Horsfield. University of Greifswald. Edited by IJJO. 2009 1 2
10 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
b) Background of juvenile justice indicators: This investigation draws on a range of previous research and studies, without which it would not have been possible to identify indicators that are valid across Europe. In addition to this, the strong commitment of all EU institutions and Member States to promote, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in all relevant EU policies and to turn it into concrete results is a key element to reaffirm our commitment with the development of a coherent approach through the juvenile justice indicators. - EC Communication. An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child: Bearing in mind the principle of building the basis for evidence-based policy making, it states that the previous implementation of the 2006 Communication has revealed a significant lack of reliable, comparable and official data. This is a serious obstacle for the development and implementation of genuine evidencebased policies. Improving the existing monitoring systems, establishing child rights-related policy targets, and monitoring their impact are one of the key challenges. Gaps in knowledge about the situation and needs of the most vulnerable groups of children should be addressed as a matter of priority. In this context, there is also a need for more information on methods to prevent crimes against children.4 - UNICEF set of fifteen juvenile justice core indicators (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes 2007). These are categorised into (a) quantitative indicators, and (b) policy indicators, and have provided us with crucial encouragements and suggestions to develop our own. Some UNICEF indicators have been incorporated directly into the questionnaires presented here (and is clearly quoted as such, but in the majority of cases adapted for the “European context”). 4
An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child: The Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Brussels, 15.2.2011 COM(2011) 60 final
11 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
- Research on the different European Systems on Juvenile Justice was developed, to include efficient indicators able to ask complex, multi-dimensional questions. (Sources used: (McCarney (1996),
Shoemaker
(1996),
Dünkel/van
Kalmthout/Schüler-Springorum,
(1997),
Albrecht/Kilchling (2002), Kilkelly/Moore 2002, Morgan/Evans (2002,....) The following International instruments were the decisive starting point for our deliberations: •
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (CRC),
•
General Comment No. 10 (2007): Children’s rights in juvenile justice (GC No. 10 (2007)),
•
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (1985) (Beijing Rules),
•
The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (1990) (Riyadh Guidelines),
•
The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990) (“Havana Rules”)
•
Council of Europe’s Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (European Prison Rules)
•
Council of Europe’s Recommendation Rec(2003)20 concerning “New ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice” (CM/Rec(2003)20) and
•
Council of Europe’s Recommendation Rec(2008)11 concerning “European rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures” CM/Rec(2008)11
12 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
c) Description: Juvenile justice indicators tool and its implementation through the European Juvenile Justice Council (EJJC) The objective of this project is to identify significant indicators on the basis of which one can establish whether juvenile justice systems in Europe are working in accordance with international standards. Furthermore, the presented report aims at determining the means by which these indicators, once identified, can be surveyed. Developing these indicators in a manner that considers the different forms of state interventions and responses to juvenile delinquency that exist across Europe is particularly challenging and to this extent, obtaining the respective data becomes a rather complex endeavor. On the one hand, the questions need to be formulated rather generically/generally in order to be applicable to all the different system variants in Europe. At the same time, a certain degree of precision and specificity is required as well in order to make sure the yielded data are significant, meaningful and even usable. Indicators can only be determined once, in a prior step, the responses to juvenile delinquency that are even available in a given country have been identified. Then, in a second step, one can review whether the respective standards are being met in theory and practice for the different responses that are available. During the last meeting of the Public Administration section, representatives from several EU national bodies in charge of Juvenile Justice adverted to the fact that there are actually no more capacities for data collection. As a matter of fact, practitioners spend a quarter of their working time filling out questionnaires and forms at the moment, and each new questionnaire from the European authorities might well reduce the quality of their responses. We should therefore search for ways to work with existing data more effectively rather than postulate more and more. A minimum amount of relevant indicators measuring juvenile justice, disaggregated according to age, offence type, all available sanctions or measures, including diversion of juvenile offenders to the welfare system or to mental health institutions, would help to alleviate the lack of information we have in this field. 5 Green Paper. Public Administration Section. European Council for Juvenile Justice: ‘Evaluation of the Implementation of International Standards in National Juvenile Justice Systems’. 2011 5
13 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
In the current research6, indicators were developed in a general and generic enough way so that they are applicable to the various juvenile justice approaches in Europe. Moreover, they were sufficiently concrete to allow the degree of adherence to the standards to be identified. Through the development of questions, which can respond to the different chosen aspects of European Juvenile Justice Systems, they allowed to finally determine if International Standards have been met. d) Methodology of implementation through the European Juvenile Justice Council (EJJC) The first step was to identify the “benchmarks” that, according to the international standards, define what a good juvenile justice system actually is. The international instruments stated above (see page 16) were the decisive starting. The biggest challenge on this level lay in defining a number of principles/standards that we would be able to work with, especially in light of the limitations that a short research period entails. We were thus compelled to restrict our work. The standards that we have chosen to investigate are those that can be seen as being of prominent importance for a juvenile justice system that is based on human rights. In an effort to systematise and simplify the survey, our selection of standards was then classified into the following categories:
6
See 3 14 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
QUESTIONNAIRE I
Special juvenile justice system Aims of the juvenile justice system Scope of juvenile justice I - Routes into the juvenile justice system Scope of juvenile justice II – Age groups Existence of procedural safeguards for juvenile offenders Diversion Dispositions by the juvenile court/judge after a formal hearing
15 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
QUESTIONNAIRE II: Juveniles deprived of their liberty-following sub-categories due to the extense of this theme.
Accommodation Supervision by staff Provision of education training and leisure time activities Work Health Aggression self-inflicted harm/ deaths/ conflict Release preparations Regard for the right to privacy and (religious) self determination Disciplinary measures Complaints and complaint procederes Staff Regulations and provisions governing contacts with the outside world Involvement of parents Early release provisions Aftercare Inspections and monitoring of institutions Juveniles suffering from mental illness
16 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
As stated in our study 7, such questionnaires could be used regularly to provide up-to-date indicator-data on the state of compliance to international standards in a country. They are designed in a fashion that allows the respective country to conduct a form of self-evaluation, which in turn could have positive adverse effects: clearly defined indicators that are presented convincingly are suitable for clarifying and quite plainly reminding Member States of the core principles of juvenile justice. In a sense, the mere dissemination of well-developed indicators can induce discussion and debate in a country, and serve to promote the further approximation of juvenile justice systems to the international standards. (….) As far as our conception goes, the questionnaires with which the indicators are described in this report are to be ascertained, should be discussed in various international boards, committees and/or panels that are composed of as wide an array of researchers and practitioners as possible. The various indicators shall only be adequate for reviewing/surveying the juvenile justice systems in Europe (and thus for contributing to an improvement of the situation of juveniles in conflict with the law) if they are met with Europe-wide agreement. Questionnaire I- Aims to measure indicators for the following fields of interest: “Special juvenile justice system”, “Aims of the juvenile justice system”, “Scope of juvenile justice I - Routes into the juvenile justice system”, “Scope of juvenile justice II – Age groups”, “Existence of procedural safeguards for juvenile offenders”, “Diversion” and “Dispositions by the juvenile court/judge after a formal hearing”. The instrument should be completed either by a comprehensively informed national juvenile justice expert, or directly by the country’s Justice Administration. The instrument should be completed either by a comprehensively informed national juvenile justice expert, or directly by the country’s Justice Administration, for instance a Member of the Public Administration Section of the European Council for Juvenile Justice.
7
See 3 and 6 17 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
Questionnarire II- is dedicated entirely to juveniles who are deprived of their liberty, a particularly important and sensitive issue for which an extensive breadth of international standards and requirements exists. On the one hand, this questionnaire contains questions that aim to determine qualitative indicators on the different forms of deprivation of liberty (including f. ex. police custody and pre-trial detention). The lion’s share of questions, however, is devoted to the living conditions in the different kinds of available institutions, and to the number of juveniles who are in these institutions following a conviction. Generally, this instrument should be filled in by either an expert or member of the Academic section of the European Council for Juvenile Justice. (Preferably with extensive knowledge on the execution of sanctions and/or measures). Therefore, in order to reach agreements on the indicators and questionnaires, and examine their validity, and in order to achieve the aspired-to degree of universal validity, the questionnaires should be presented to and discussed within international boards, panels and committees that are preferably attended by representatives of each country willing to apply these instruments. In this way, The International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO) is working through a Group of Academics which forms the Academic Section of the European Council for Juvenile Justice. The ideal situation would be for the indicators to be agreed at a scientific level (integration of European juvenile justice researchers), a governmental level and a non-governmental level. Considering this premise, the European Council for Juvenile Justice appears to be an appropriate working infrastructure insofar as it is a European Think-Tank on Juvenile Justice composed of European Experts (Academic, administration and NGO section) who analyses the situation of children in conflict with the law and develop the corresponding strategies and recommendations.
18 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org
The need for EU indicators on Juvenile Justice The IJJO contribution
e) Continuous assessment of juvenile justice indicators: The evaluation, follow up and assessment of the juvenile justice indicators will be carried out by The Standing Committee which is composed by one expert of each Member States, as stated above, coming from one of the three sections of the European Council for Juvenile Justice: Public administrations, NGOs and academic sections. This Standing Committee has 27 members, in charge of the decision-making process and strategy proposal for whole Council. The Standing Committee’s functions cover the new establishment and formulation of the present juvenile justice indicators, if it is necessary, on behalf of the Council to the EJJO Governing Council.
19 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO)
oijj@oijj.org
www.ijjo.org