• Print

Age and sex 

Most young people under supervision in 2014–15 were male. On an average day, males accounted for about 4 in 5 (82%) young people under supervision. This proportion was even higher in detention (91%).

On an average day, in 2014–15  most (79%) young people under supervision were aged 14–17, and about 13% were aged 18 and over. Just 8% of young people under supervision on an average day were aged 10–13 (see also Age range for treatment as a young person).

The age distribution of young males and females under supervision was similar, although, on average males tended to be older. Numbers and rates of males under supervision were highest among those aged 16 and 17, and among females aged 15 and 16.

Figure: Young people under supervision on an average day by age and sex, Australia, 2014–15

This population pyramid shows that the age distributions of young males and females under supervision were broadly similar, although males tended to be slightly older, on average. In 2014–15, about 14% of males under supervision were aged 18 or older, compared with just over 7% of females.

Notes

  1. Includes non-standard data for Western Australia and the Northern Territory, as JJ NMDS data were not supplied for 2014–15 (see Technical notes).
  2. Age is calculated as at the start of the financial year if the first period of supervision began before the start of the financial year; otherwise, age is calculated as at the start of the first period of supervision in the relevant year.

Source: Youth justice in Australia 2014–15 (table S5)

Remoteness and socioeconomic position

Although most young people under supervision had lived in cities (39%) and regional areas (34%) before entering supervision, those from geographically remote areas were the most likely to be supervised. Young people aged 10–17 from Remote areas were 7 times as likely to be under supervision on an average day as those from Major cities, while those from Very remote areas were 9 times as likely.

Young people aged 10–17 from the areas of lowest socioeconomic advantage were about 6 times as likely to be under supervision as those from the areas of highest socioeconomic advantage.