Making Room in the Inn: Teen Courts in Australia's Juvenile Justice System1
Dr. Paul Omojo Omaji
School of Justice and Business Law
Edith Cowan University
Joondalup Western Australia
Abstract
Like several Western countries, Australia has increasingly grappled with the perceived rising juvenile crime in the last 10 years. Nearly all jurisdictions in Australia have introduced specific statutory measures to deal with this problem. But, until recently, none has considered the teen court concept let alone research its place in the justice approach to the prevention of youth crime. This address presents the issues that have emerged in the preliminary consideration of teen court concept by an Australian jurisdiction at the instigation of the author in conjunction with the Royal Association of Justices of the Peace. It argues that, like the Bethlehem Inn which missed out on accommodating the birth of King Jesus because it had no room left, the teen court concept may struggle for a place in Australia despite its unique potential for mobilizing young people away from crime and into productive citizenship.
Introduction
The Chair and distinguished fellow participants, my profound gratitude goes to the organizers of this vital conference at which I can discuss the effort in Australia to move forward with the use of teen courts. To Sir Richard Weaver in particular, I express my best regards. In his capacity as the National Executive Director of one of the organizing bodies, the National Teen Courts of America and Teen Clubs of America Inc, he judged that I would have something important to contribute to the conference and invited me to speak to you. While I may be confident that what I will say today will bear out his judgement, I am fully conscious of the fact that I am speaking before an international panel of 'judges' indeed. When I later learnt that Sir Weaver founded the incorporated body, he grew even higher in my estimation, as I naturally develop a great respect for people who are not only great thinkers but are enterprising enough to turn ideas into tangible outcomes.
I also thank the President of the Western Australia Royal Association of Justices of the Peace, Mr Maurice Fawcett, who greatly encouraged me to make good the invitation from Sir Weaver. Together with the Ministry of Justice, particularly the Executive Director of Court Services - Mr Richard Foster, he inspired me to intensify my investigation of the teen court concept in the hope that this concept will some day find its appropriate place in the policy and practical thinking about juvenile crime and justice in Australia. Lastly, I would like to thank my University for financially supporting my attendance at this conference. The backing of my Head of School, Mr Nara Srinivasan, in this regard is highly appreciated.
I approach this conference as an opportunity not just for you to hear the developments in Australia but, more significantly, for us to gain first hand understanding of how the teen courts concept works in practice and how to set up the courts.
Background
In the last decade or so, I have avidly observed and contributed scholarly to the debates about the juvenile crime, justice and corrections in western democracies generally and Australia in particular2. The essence of my observation and arguments during this period is aptly captured by Borowski and O'Connor (1997, px)3 in these words:
Few topics generate as much public concern, comment and often outrage as juvenile crime [justice and corrections]. Indeed, juvenile crime appears to be a metaphor for societal concern over issues of social change, social threat and social decay. The last twenty years have witnessed substantial legislative, policy and practice changes in relation to how society deals with young people who offend...Every State in Australia has fundamentally changed its approach to dealing with juvenile crime.
Of the changes that can be observed during this period, I have further argued that not all have gone in the same direction. Some have been progressive and shown a high degree of imaginativeness in the responses that they generate. Others have manifested a throw-back to sterile fundamentalism about the 'evil of youth' and led to devices that further entrench young people in a criminal lifestyle. On the whole, though, I have noticed that the agencies responsible for this apparently intractable area of public concern have continued to seek new ideas about how best to tackle the 'dragon' in juvenile crime. My desire to avail my expertise to these agencies in their worthy quest has led to the current emerging interest in the teen court concept.
Where it all began: 'teen court' talk at a dinner party:
In conventional wisdom, the dinner party is an unlikely place for a serious idea to be canvassed openly, such as how to deal with the juvenile crime problem that has become of much concern to the public. Yet, it was at such a gathering that the pioneer interest among bureaucracies for justice administration in Australia about the teen justices and teen courts was cultivated.
At the Royal Association of Justices Annual Dinner on 28 November 1998, the President of the Association - Mr Maurice Fawcett, referred in his speech to the need to appoint Youth Justices from students of high schools. The aim was to give them:
* knowledge of the law that will assist them in taking their rightful and law abiding place in society, and
* an insight into avenues of vocation for their future place in the community especially in the honoured position of a Senior Justice of the Peace for the State of Western Australia at a later date' (Abridged from Mr Fawcett's memo to me, 15 January 1999).
As I sat listening to the speech, I was struck by the imaginativeness of the Youth Justices idea and the possibility of it expanding logically to embrace the introduction of teen courts about which I had done some basic research at this stage. Immediately after that speech, I approached the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Mr Peter Foss, who was in attendance at the dinner party to ensure that the Youth Justices idea had not gone unnoticed. I affirmed the idea and indicated that there is scope in that idea to develop a program of teen courts which could be very effective in crime prevention and in reducing the cost of justice in the State. Mr Foss warmed up to this suggestion and acknowledged the merit of exploring it.
At the close of the dinner party, I informed Mr Fawcett about my interaction with the Minister regarding his idea about Youth Justices and the possibility of expanding it to include teen courts. I promised to assist the Association professionally in developing that idea into a proposal that can be considered at the policy level and invited him to send me his initial thoughts on the matter.
Proposal to the Minister
Within two months, Mr Fawcett sent me his notes on Youth Justices. In my comments and additional suggestions on how to institute a viable Youth Justices program, I advised that a logical extension of the proposed functions of the Youth Justices is to empower some of them to 'constitute teen or youth courts to deal with minor young offenders'. I expressed the basis of my advice as follows:
The best prospect of mobilizing the energies of young people for contribution of profound importance lies in the teen court system. America has now over 250 teen courts in at least 30 states. Many more are being established as ordinary people and policy makers are realizing the many benefits associated with this youth-based system. [There are presently over 500 teen court programs in the United States.]
Youth courts greatly enhance the ideals of accountability, positive peer influence, competency development, empowerment and community participation for young people. All of this helps young people to take pride and ownership in the health and well being of their communities. As a strategy for mobilizing peer influence to reduce delinquency and recidivism, some youth courts in America boast of 95% success rate.
The operation and administration of youth court programs need to be researched and customized to our own local conditions. Nonetheless, training young people as Youth Justices is one of the best routes to set them up for a successful and effective participation in this scheme.
My advice emanated from a preliminary research that I had conducted on new ways to address juvenile crime and justice. In that research, inter alia, I had found that:
* although teen courts blossomed in America only in the last two decades, the history of the concept goes back to the 1930s in California (the Odessa Texas program that started in 1986 and the District Teen Courts of America that started in 1989 are both national models although they vary in their methods). In other words, the subject matter is a tried and tested concept;
* in addition to serving as dispositional alternatives to conventional court procedures, teen courts - especially District Teen Court Programs, 'are and can be leadership programs comprised of law-related, job-related, and general educational and counseling programs..., they are designed to prevent and reduce the use of alcohol and drugs among youths, as well as juvenile crime in general' (A Case in Point 1994);
* by reducing crime in the streets, teen courts allow better use of law enforcement personnel and help to keep their cost down, help keep unemployment from rising, and encourage tourism in the community;
* the financial outlay for running teen court programs seems affordable and comparatively cheap in relation to conventional courts;
* minor offences, such as shoplifting or petty larceny, vandalism or criminal mischief, disorderly conduct and other similar behaviors, that clog conventional courts could be effectively disposed at teen courts and leave behind no stigmatization or criminal labeling for teenagers to carry for the rest of their lives;
* teen courts' penalties aim to reintegrate offending teenagers into active and positive community participation rather than marginalis them; and
* teen court programs are based on the philosophical understanding of adolescence as a pivotal stage of human development where sound guidance and meaningful learning opportunities will aid young people in becoming responsible and productive citizens (American Probation and Parole Association 1997) (hereinafter, APPA 1997).
In light of my comments and suggestions, Mr Fawcett sent a formal proposal to the Minister asking him to consider appointing Youth Justices for general duties and for the youth courts program. He also relayed my willingness to collaborate with his Association and the Ministry of Justice to fully investigate the procedures for establishing both programs. Soon, the media got wind of the proposal and interviewed me to confirm my role in the process and, in particular, my views about the benefits of the teen courts program. A subsequent publication on 23 April 1999 titled 'Plan for teens to judge their peers' in West Australian, the major newspaper in the State, reflected my optimism. More significantly, it brought the concepts of Youth Justices and Teen Courts to the public attention arguably for the first time in any Australian jurisdiction.
Inaugural meeting with the Ministry of Justice about Teen courts/Youth Justices
On the instruction of the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, the Executive Director of Court Services in the Ministry of Justice called a meeting the purpose of which was to exchange information and views on the teen court and youth justices concepts. Others at this meeting were the Assistant Director of Court Services, the President and Registrar of the Royal Association of Justices of Western Australia, a representative from the Police Services Prosecuting Branch, a representative from the Student and Education Risk Project of the Department of Education, the Directors of Juvenile Custodial Service and Community Based Services of the Ministry of Justice, the Manager of Policy and Planning from Aboriginal Policy and Services of the Ministry of Justice, and myself from Edith Cowan University.
I expanded to the meeting on some of the philosophies of teen courts as I understood them at the time and summarized the other main points that I had gleaned from initial research. As part of the context for my argument in favor of exploring the teen court concept, I reiterated what should be trite knowledge namely that historically young people had been sidelined in the justice system and, as a consequence, shielded from one of the most promising character-building responsibilities - judging others. I then stated that the teen court concept used in the USA seemed to have approached this issue laterally, adopting the philosophy of giving the young person responsibility and using the positive influences of peers to shape him or her up for productive citizenship. Crucially, I made the point that the program engaged young people more effectively and they responded better than if they went to the Children's Court, and that there was no associated stigmatization from this process.
In the discussion that ensued, several questions were raised which require further investigation before they can be adequately answered. As I indicated earlier, it is expected that this conference will provide an opportunity for relevant information addressing some, if not all, of these questions. Hopefully, this will form the basis for another structured interaction across the Pacific.
Issues needing to be further examined
In this section, I will outline the main questions that emerged from the initial consideration of the teen court concept. I will also articulate my view as to the context from which the questions arose and highlight the extent of our knowledge in relation to the capacity of the teen courts concept to respond effectively to these areas of concern.
Will the teen court add another layer of pre-court diversion that may not be required?
Since 1960, diversion has become an integral feature of juvenile justice in most western countries. The establishment in US in 1967 of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice played a major role in this development. The Commission 'recommended that specialized agencies be established to provide dispositional alternatives to adjudication for those young offenders who, while needing treatment, did not require a formal court hearing' (Wundersitz 1997, p271). Thus the mechanisms that emerged from this history emphasized treatment programs to which such young offenders could be referred.
For instance, the Teen Court program serves in multiple capacity as a pre-court diversion program, post court diversion program, probationary programs and more. It provides avenues for the treatment of youthful offenders which otherwise may go untreated due to an overcrowded court system. The teen court related treatment programs require that juveniles do more than restitution for their crime. These programs are directed to getting at the root of the problem, for example, does a teenager violate the law in order to get attention from his parents, to feel wanted, needed or admired by others, or is the violation a result of not knowing what the law is and consequently violating it by accident or ignorance.
In contradistinction, the several diversionary mechanisms that emerged in most jurisdictions in Australia between 1960 and the present have been designed so that young offenders are channeled away from the formal justice system to be dealt with in more 'redemptive' ways, but not necessarily sent into any treatment programs. The mechanisms include Police Cautioning, Children's Panel or Juvenile Justice Team hearings and Family Conferencing.
Western Australia operated the Panel since 1964 but replaced it in 1995 with Juvenile Justice Teams (JJTs). In the legislation, Young Offenders Act 1994, that introduced this change, Police Cautioning was formally instituted along with the JJTs. A recent independent evaluation of the legislation recommends wider pre-court diversion with an expansion of the JJTs and the officers responsible for the JJTs in the Ministry of Justice anticipates that many of the concepts of teen courts would be incorporated into JJT. Hence the question as to necessity if at all of introducing teen courts in Western Australia or Australia for that matter.
The main emerging issues in this context are:
* since the 'diversion Inn' in Australia looks crowded, it might be difficult if not impossible to make room for teen courts which are themselves regarded as diversionary programs (teen courts may carry with them the power of salvation as King Jesus did when no room could be found for his birth in the Bethlehem Inn, but at this stage this is yet to be obvious to Australian justice researchers and policy makers);
* the interface of teen courts with other diversion methods might create needless complications;
* the minor offences that would be dealt with by teen courts are already being dealt with by existing diversion mechanisms; and
* any extra energies should be concentrated on more serious offences.
Critically, therefore, it is important that we understand what distinguishes teen courts from the existing diversion methods in Australia. I have already alluded to one of such features, namely that teen courts are avenues to leadership and life skills programs in addition to being dispositional alternatives to conventional courts. It should also be stated here that unlike the existing diversion mechanisms in Australia, teen courts embody judicial discipline and responsibility that center around young people as actors rather than as passive recipients of punishment in youth-based schemes. In teen courts, young people 'assume roles that give them the power to make decisions that can have a direct impact on the lives of the teen court defendants. Through these roles, [they] can play an active part in addressing the problem of juvenile delinquency within their community' (APPA 1997, p43) Further research is required in order to establish what all this means for a government in Australia trying to provide strategic services to deal with juvenile crime.
Would there be a fair outcome for young people in the teen court system?
The basis of this question is the belief, rightly or wrongly, that children, ordinarily, are unduly punitive and vindictive towards their peers. To give them judicial power as the teen courts do is seen as arming them with a state apparatus that they will not hesitate to wield, most likely in an irresponsible manner. According to this belief, teen court volunteers would soon become unpopular and find it difficult to live in the community peaceably with the peers they might have judged harshly. Teen courts program then becomes a recipe for 'teen warfare' in the neighborhoods.
Competent researchers in the area of juvenile crime and justice will notice the 'deficit discourse' that underlies this belief. Those that subscribe to this discourse construct 'youth' as an age of deviance, disruption and wickedness (Brown 1998, p3), and believe that the people that occupy this category cannot be trusted with powers of any kind, least of all a judicial power.
The history of childhood, especially from the Victorian age, suggests that adult nostalgia and anxieties frequently get projected onto the lives of young people through the discourse of 'youth deficit' (Aries 1973). This projection not only demonizes young people but also counsels against committing responsibilities to them. Be that as it may, it will be salutary for any jurisdiction in Australia which wishes to make room for teen courts to know for sure that the program will not only provide life and coping skills but also deliver a fair outcome for young people in the system.
Anecdotal evidence about the American experience shows that, while under normal juvenile or adult court jurisdiction teenagers may build up a hatred or anger at a system that does not understand them or appears to not care about them, teenagers that are judged by their peers tend to respect the judgement of the Teen Court a great deal. To illustrate this point, the following conversation makes a good point.
First teen: 'Are you going out tonight'
Second teen: 'Can't, my mom wont let me'.
First teen: 'You can sneak out'
Second teen, 'I can't the judge said I had a curfew'
First teen: 'Big deal, how is he going to know if you go out'
Second teen: 'The Teen Court said I can't'.
First teen: 'Oh, okay, maybe next time'.
Feeling of anger is not apparent in this conversation. There is a great deal of respect for the teenagers that serve on the Teen Court Programs, especially those of the national Teen Courts of America. There is no anger or hatred for these young leaders, as the referred teenagers are educated and accepted into a positive program that shows and gives them respect; a program that encourages them to continue on the right side of the law. There is no harsh treatment under the guidelines established by the National Teen Courts of America Program. No "Teen Wars", in fact, more and more teenagers are actually asking to be referred to the teen court programs themselves.
How would the teen court process be controlled, by who, and with what resources?
The concern here is about the appropriate administrative arrangements that can ensure that teen courts fit into the existing framework of justice administration in Australia. Further, any possibility that there could be considerable resources expended in operating teen courts will naturally raise the question about the return on investment in this concept, particularly given that other pre-court diversion programs already exist and do require on-going allocation of taxpayers' money.
Existing literature suggests that teen courts can be run on very low budgets and, indeed, entirely with non-tax dollars in some cases. However, it is understandable that for jurisdictions that have had no direct prior experience, firm budgetary details, including how to source non-tax funds, need to be determined.
Generally, research shows that most teen courts operate on budgets ranging from US$20,000 to US$60,000 per annum. The view expressed in A Case in Point (1994) that 'this expense should be the financial responsibility of the violators themselves' means that the funding of teen courts can be different from the way conventional courts are funded at present in Australia. How does the shift of responsibility work in practice? Further, the '$2000 minimum monetary considerations' discussed in the Handbook of the National Teen Courts of America raises an issue that may not resonate immediately with policy makers in the Australian context. It indicates that teen volunteers who will operate as judges, jury, bailiffs, clerks, prosecuting and defense attorneys, should be expected to pay dues of US$30 per year. From the Australian perspective, therefore, the rationale and modality of 'taxing' people who offer their services free of charge before they can get the chance to serve are not obvious.
The assumptions that underlie the American approach have been expressed as follows:
he who has a 'financial interest' in a project, whatever it may be, has a genuine interest in its success. Families that have a financial interest in their teenager's program have a greater willingness to see it succeed. There is also a well established understanding that what is earned is more appreciated than what is simply given. A teenager that spends his or her own money to buy an item is more likely to care for it a great deal more than that which is simply received as a gift after demanding it be bought for them (National Teen Courts officer, per. comm. 1999).
The minimum monetary considerations illustrate that while some communities are going without a teen court program because they do not have US$20,000 to $100,000 of tax payers' money in the form of a grant to operate a teen court for the benefit of their community, it would not take much effort to raise a minimum amount of money to start one without a government handout. The use of government money would be appreciated, however, it could be used with a great deal more efficiency than is used by some government programs.
The dues that volunteers are expected to pay is only in relation to their membership of the Teen Club. In return for their dues, the teenagers receive many benefits. They receive training in a number of areas, such as job interview techniques and time management for students. The training is provided to them at no cost once a week, every week of the year that they are members. In addition, they participate in social functions such as barbecues, parties, dinners, free movies, and much more at no additional cost to them. They also get to meet a number of influential people from their communities as well as other communities.
As club members, they provide their community a service by serving on the teen court as judge, attorney, clerk, juror, or other staff member. In recognition of this service, they also receive Certificates of Appreciation, as well as certificates of completion of the workshop and training seminars they attend that help them when applying for jobs, scholarships, and/or college, and an opportunity to receive scholarships. In addition, they are covered by insurance in the event they were to sustain an injury as a result of an accident; a coverage, which many teenagers and their families do not have in a country that does not provide free socialized medicine.
What are the legal and ethical issues involved in operating teen courts?
The significance of this question does not lie merely in determining whether or not the establishment of teen courts requires legislative changes in relation to the framework of justice administration. As existing literature shows, there are fundamental issues of due process, consent of participants, confidentiality and privacy rights, and liability in terms of immunity, waivers and insurance.
On this issue, there is a strong parallel between the query about teen courts and matters that have been raised in Australian jurisdictions that recently investigated the idea of drug courts. Participating in a feasibility study on a drug court for the Ministry of Justice recently, I became well aware that opinions of professionals in the field can be divided on legal and ethical issues. How much legislative changes should be countenanced? What matters should be made the subject of such changes? Who loses or gains more power in the process? And how, should the target population be selected? Etc. (Ryder, Krazlan, Walker, Fowler and Omaji (1999).
Although the teen court movement in America is distinguished by a great deal of diversity of style, substance, and procedure, and that there are no uniform national laws or guidelines, the advice is that 'teen court startup efforts should include a thorough search of state law to identify basic authority for operation and to ensure compliance with special...legislation that now or in the future may impose explicit statutory obligations on the program' (APPA 1997, p28).
The National Teen Courts of America established national guidelines and standards in 1989 for the purpose of providing a means of operating successful teen court programs without the problems associated with programs with no standards. These guidelines, for example, prevent the mistreatment of youths undergoing a trial by their teen peers. They prevent harsh, cruel, and unjustified punishment of teenagers. These standards provide procedure for uniform training of the teen and adult volunteers associated with the teen court programs. They are designed to protect the rights of not only the teenagers referred to the programs , but of the volunteers themselves.
Since Australia is a federation just like America, it is conceivable that each jurisdiction would be responsible for determining what the legal and ethical issues might arise in moving forward with the teen court concept. The example of the National Teen Court of America in setting national guidelines is salutary for interested parties in Australia that may be concerned about how to generate uniform standards.
What are the cultural underpinnings of teen courts, and are there significant cultural differences between the US and Australia on this matter?
This question arose from the widely known Australian experience of the indigenous people who disproportionately receive adverse decisions of the justice system. Although they represent about two per cent of the Australian population, indigenous people constitute about 60 per cent of police arrests, court convictions and prison populations.
At the meeting with the Ministry of Justice, it was reiterated that the establishment of additional justices of the peace or courts would not accord with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody to contract rather than expand the justice system net in which more Aboriginal young people might be caught. Alternatively, teen courts might only be replacing one court system with another without appearing to consider the dynamics of Aboriginal cultures, in particular the involvement of families in dispute resolution processes. The multi-cultural nature of the Australian society means that this query will also extend to the experiences of young people from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds, previously known as non-English speaking background people.
Having researched the nexus between culture and law or justice and found that law and justice are cultural artifacts (Omaji 1999), I can sympathize wholly with this query. Part of the investigation that will address this issue should be an examination of the impact of teen courts on Native Americans and other minorities in America. From this research, parallels can be drawn on the possible impact on Aboriginal people and migrant minorities in Australia.
I am informed that the teen court program of the National Teen Courts of America utilizes the involvement of the parents and other family members in the teen court process in what is recognized as a family enriched program. It encourages the understanding and acceptance of multi-cultural backgrounds and in fact has had guest speakers from a variety of countries speak about their native languages, customs, and laws for the purpose of providing a greater understanding of the world as a whole.
Concluding remarks
Australia continues to have her own share of juvenile crime and what is commonly called the crisis of legitimacy in the juvenile justice system. At times one wonders whether spin doctors have increasingly realized that 'moral panics' about juvenile crime constitute a useful tool for their trade. Popular reports about youth and crime is too 'rhythmic' to be spontaneous and certainly not supported by systematic data.
Equally evident from research is that legislative, policy and practice changes in relation to how best to deal with our youth of today continue unabated in Australia. The over-representation of Aboriginal youth and the increasing involvement of young people from non-mainstream cultures in Australia's criminal justice systems complicate an already disquieting picture.
Against this background, inquirers are on the look out for what works and some, such as myself, have become aware of the teen court concept. As yet we do not know enough about the concept to form any concrete opinion at the policy level. Understandably, those who work at the coal face of judicial administration, particularly in the juvenile justice divisions, are nervous that teen courts might turn out to be another expensive program that will add little to the existing diversion schemes.
Shreds of light coming from preliminary academic research reveal, at least, silhouettes of a promising program. What is clearly required is further research to determine concretely how ample a room there is for teen courts in the Australia's justice system, and education to reinforce to policy makers the wisdom of embracing the concept.
References
American Probation and Parole Association (1997) Peer Justice and Youth Empowerment: An Implementation Guide for Teen Court Programs. Washington D.C: OJJDP.
Aries, P. (1973) Centuries of Childhood. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Beresford, Q. and Omaji, P. (1996) Rites of Passage: Aboriginal Youth Crime and Justice. Perth: Fremantle Arts Center Press (jointly) ISBN 1 8636 8137 X
Borowski, A. and O'Connor, I. (1997) Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Corrections. Melbourne: Longman. ISBN 0 582 80365 9.
Brown, S. (1998) Understanding youth and crime: Listening to Youth? Buckingham: Open University Press.
Omaji. P. (1999) Cultural Diversity, Law and Justice: A Reader. Perth: Edith Cowan University
Omaji, P. (1997) 'The Violent Juvenile Offender', in A. Borowski and I. O'Connor (eds) Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Corrections. Melbourne: Longman. ISBN 0 582 80365 9; pp206-224
Omaji, P. (1997) 'Critical Issues in Managing Young Offenders: A Review of Western Australian Initiatives'. Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice: Toward 2000 and Beyond Conference Proceedings. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0 642 24043 4.
Omaji, P. (1995) 'Custodial sentencing in Australia's juvenile justice system', The India Law Institute Journal, Vol.37 no.4, pp483-495.
Omaji, P. (1993) 'Schools and Juvenile Crime Prevention', in L. Atkinson and S. Gerull (eds) National Conference on Juvenile Justice Proceedings. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0 642 19620 6. pp399-412.
Omaji P. (1993) Regulating School Discipline Problems. Perth: Edith Cowan University. ISBN 0 7298 0163 2
Omaji, P. and Beresford, Q. (1996) 'Preventing Aboriginal Juvenile Crime', in Stirr, P. (ed) Crime Prevention: Everybody's Business. Perth: ISBN 0646 25589 4. ppl41-149.
Ryder, D.; Kraszlan, K.; Walker, N.; Fowler, H.; and Omaji, P. (1999) WA Drug Court Feasibility Study. Perth: ECU.
Wundersitz, J. (1997) 'Pre-Court Diversion: The Australian Experience', in A. Borowski and I. O'Connor (eds) Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Corrections. Melbourne: Longman. ISBN 0 582 80365 9; pp270-291.
