“A therapeutic, whole-of-life approach to recovering a young life, must have as its focus interventions managed by staff who are well trained, passionate about their task, willing and able to work in small teams, and paid enough to want to stay.” HUGH SELBY fears this battle was lost in the ACT before it began.

According to that fount of useful information, Google AI: “Youth detention centres in Australia provide programs and services to help young people (aged 10-17) who have been charged (and refused bail) or convicted of a crime. The goal is to rehabilitate young people and help them live productive lives in the community”. 

Are those twin goals being met? Sadly, not – for reasons which reflect a culture of secure detention being much more important than either of those goals, and a failure by government to commit the resources necessary to adopt, implement and evaluate therapeutic programs intended to give the kids a chance in life.

Later in this article I look at the evaluations of some programs that have, or are being used, in the youth detention space. The evaluation efforts deserve praise, but the outcomes disappoint. Rather more research is needed.

Just possibly that lack of evaluations contributed to a recent “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding” decision by the new Queensland government. It has legislated this month that criminal responsibility should commence at a younger, not later age. The only possible polite comment about that enthusiastic leap to the past is “You fools!”.

Tellingly, in August 2024, so readily available to any politician, is the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) report on the involvement of 10-13-year-olds in the NSW criminal justice system. That report finds that most of these children who appear in court are from disadvantaged backgrounds; the majority have been victims of violence, have had significant contact with the child protection system, and have a parent with a history of offending. Aboriginal children and children living in regional and remote NSW are disproportionately represented.

Now of which is to say that all souls, even young ones, can be redeemed. There are people who, from a young age, need to be kept securely because we don’t have any other way to cope with them. Our failings plus their failings yield a lost life.

Paying too much for too little

In 2021/22 the average cost per day for a young person detained in a Youth Justice Centre in NSW was $2748.96. The average cost per day for a young person to be supervised in the community was just over 10 per cent of that, $293.15. With two more years of inflation, the cost will now be more.

In 2023, the ACT government spent $3619 a day for each child in detention at our purpose-built Bimberi, according to the independent ACT Custodial Inspector Rebecca Minty.

Among the 845 young people in detention around Australia on an average night in the June quarter 2024, most were male (90 per cent), aged 14-17 (81 per cent) and First Nations (60 per cent). Over the four-year period, the number of young people in detention fluctuated across quarters, though rose overall from 791 in the June quarter 2020.

At a weekly cost of at least $18,000, all of that being met by taxpayers, there are these obvious questions: are the detainees being rehabilitated? Are they going on to live “productive lives”? Are the detention conditions and programs fit for purpose and value for money?

Let’s start with value for money by using a “service” comparison.

The cost to attend an inpatient, intensive, drug/alcohol rehabilitation program, in more than comfortable surroundings, conveniently between Sydney and Canberra, staying in a private room with shared ensuite, is less than the youth detention average cost, being $16,500 a week. Odds on that the food looks better and is served in a less cafeteria style space than what’s on offer in the youth detention centres.

The private retreat sojourn includes a personalised recovery plan that addresses the client’s specific needs and goals – be that dealing with addiction, trauma or seeking mental health support. The residential intensive is followed by months of “aftercare”, which begin with weekly sessions and then become fortnightly.

The Sydney Retreat program is much cheaper. This is a not-for-profit drug and alcohol rehab. It offers a 28-day residential program at $11,450 (that’s less than $3000 per week, so less than two nights in youth detention). Its website also offers useful information on other rehabilitation options.

Of course, a telling difference between the addiction rehab residential programs and youth detention is that we pay to keep the youthful residents in, obstruct any efforts to burn the buildings to the ground, make unsuccessful efforts to stop contraband getting in, and pay for the cycle of inquests and inquiries as to why kids keep dying in these places.

The custodial and supervision staff are expected to have vocational training, the best guide being the Certificate 3 in Correctional Practice.

One of the specialisations is “youth custodial”. Among the core skills taught in the program are communication, including “culturally appropriate language and style” and recognition that clients may have language and/or literacy difficulties. There is nothing in the core program that touches on client rehabilitation and/or providing a pathway to “productive lives”.

Within the electives there are such courses as “Protect the safety and welfare of young offenders”, “Promote co-operative behaviour”, and “Manage conflict through negotiation”.

In a sentence, there are no therapeutic elements, the staff training program is strictly about managing risk: risk to staff, risk to detainees, risk to facilities.

An indication of current thinking can be found in the 2024 mid-year advertising of youth worker jobs at Bimberi. The job pays around $74K to $79K. Key parts of the advertisement included: “Youth Workers play an important role in identifying and managing risk and maintaining the safety and security of Bimberi.

“Successful applicants will be provided with nine weeks paid induction training that covers topics including legislative obligations, human rights, trauma informed and therapeutic practice, responding to critical situations (including use of force) and behaviour management.”

There is no mention either of the Certificate 3, or of developing therapeutic skills such as might be learned and used by social workers, clinical psychologists, or educators dealing with young people with special needs.

There is no mention of tackling the twin goals of the detention – rehabilitation and equipping these young people to have productive lives.

There is a better way, but don’t get excited

An optimist (unaware of the focus upon security) could be forgiven for thinking that given all the funding, with all that security, coupled with intervention programs, and a positive, encouraging rapport between detainees and staff, the success rate (as measured by those twin goals of rehabilitation and productive lives) would be high.

That would be until the optimist skimmed the recently published article, “Lived experiences of youth justice detention in Australia”. This article reports interviews with a dozen young people, aged 16 or more, recently released from detention in NSW. That is a tiny, but telling sample.

The article reports that “well over 50 per cent of young people released from detention [return] to some form of criminal justice supervision within 12 months”.

According to the Custodial Inspector’s latest reports, in the ACT, in the first six months of 2024, 87 young people were released from Bimberi; however, 32 returned to custody within the same period.

Given what the 12 interviewees relate that is not surprising. Outside is grim – grim families, grim communities, grim future. Inside there is a network. As one young person explained to an inquiry in the Northern Territory: “Inside we became like brothers. We all came from broken families and went through the same things in detention. We all bonded. We all needed each other.”

The article reports on the approach of a non-government organisation in Spain, called the Diagrama Foundation: “Core to the operation of Diagrama’s youth detention centres… is an emphasis on relationships, full days of education and activities, engagement with families, carers or other significant people, healthy living and an engaging environment and a staff team comprising social workers, psychologists and integration workers. Security staff at these centres are remarkably few in numbers.”

That approach is starkly different to a report about how detainees are treated at Bimberi. Several years after the covid crisis, they are “not allowed to hug family during visits unless they are grieving or experiencing trauma”.

Closer to home we can compare the Bimberi approach to that of a new youth justice facility to Melbourne’s west.

This is a purpose-built facility designed to support the rehabilitation of young people.

It includes:

• a dedicated health and mental health facility;

• alcohol and drug treatment capability;

• a purpose-built intensive intervention unit to deliver therapeutic and intensive interventions to support young people presenting with violent behaviours in custody; and,

• an education and vocational campus on site, to deliver the education and training young people need to transition effectively into the community and lead productive lives.

Where there’s a will there’s a way.

The good and bad of evaluation

NSW has a Youth on Track program for 10-17 year olds. In place since 2013 it aims to help young people make better decisions about their lives. It is offered in only some parts of the state.

Together with case workers, a personal plan for up to 12 months is made which involves:

• consistent communication with the young person and their family; 

• assessing the young person’s risks and needs ;

• receiving support from a caseworker; and 

• creating achievable goals to prevent future offences. 

The caseworkers can use cognitive-behavioural and family interventions. They can also refer a young person to other services.

In mid-2022 the NSW BOCSAR delivered an evaluative report on the Youth on Track program.

For research purposes, some participants were assigned to a fast track program that was just six weeks long.

The study found that Youth on Track participants were 6.2 percentage points more likely to be in employment at the end of their program and worked one hour more each week, on average, compared with Fast Track participants.

Youth on Track participants were also 1.5 percentage points less likely to be in out-of-home care at program exit. Both these differences were statistically significant.

However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of school attendance, involvement in community activities or stable accommodation at program exit.

The research team recommended that further research should be undertaken to examine the efficacy of key aspects of the program, including the risk assessment tool and behavioural intervention.

Two and a half years later, if such research has been, or is being conducted, it is under wraps.

A decade ago there was an evaluation by the Australian Institute of Criminology of indigenous youth justice programs.

This study examined four programs that strove to divert young people from the criminal justice system. These four programs variously addressed prevention, early interventions with young people identified as being at risk, diversion from the court process, and finally, treatment to prevent recidivism.

The report writers noted the lack of resources for these programs, which entailed an inability to roll out the program as intended, along with staff shortages.

Unsurprisingly those constraints entailed lack of data collection, which meant an inability to monitor outcomes and change the programs to better meet participant needs. It also meant that the study had to fall back on “qualitative data”, which while useful is not an adequate basis for insightful evaluation.

Recommendations were made for how to, and what data should be collected.

A decade on, if there is a follow up report, it is not easily found.

To end this discussion on a positive note there is a lesson for the ACT in the measured success of Victoria’s Children’s Court Youth Diversion (CCYD).

An evaluation of the program carried out over 2020-2022, found that CCYD had a positive impact on re-offending rates.

The evaluation found that:

• less than a quarter of participants had re-offended within six months of completing their diversion

• over half of participants had not re-offended after two years

• re-offending among participants was less frequent and less serious than among young people with similar offending history and characteristics who received an alternative court outcome.

Change the focus, change the outcomes for the better 

The battle to even try to aspire to the twin aims set out at the start of this article was lost in the ACT before it began.

A therapeutic, whole-of-life approach to recovering a young life, must have as its focus interventions managed by staff who are well trained, passionate about their task, willing and able to work in small teams, and paid enough to want to stay.

Those interventions must begin as soon as the young person arrives at the centre. This means that the assessments of each young person’s attributes – both strengths and limitations – must be thorough.

The possibilities for personal growth that can be found in the young person’s community – be that extended family, elders, sports people – must be engaged as central, not incidental to the journey. To ignore the context of the young person’s past and present is to ensure failure.

Here’s a hint to those in charge. Just as children’s hospitals have accommodation for the families of their young patients, so centres – such as Bimberi – need at least a bus to bring and return home all the other necessary people who are part of turning the young person’s life around,

So much more could be done that is within the capacity of many present custodial staff. Having worked with adult corrective service officers (both custodial and community) for several years, I have no doubt that many would be excellent therapeutic agents for those in their care, given appropriate training, supervision and mentoring. So much talent is being wasted. So much pointless expenditure.

The limitations, or non-existence, of youth programs mean that youth offenders become adult offenders. Then the cost to lock ’em up is more than $150,000 per year per prisoner. For that money the territory can employ an experienced clinical psychologist or social worker for each potential long-term offender who is successfully put back on track when a young offender.

It’s starkly obvious. Keep one teenager out of adult prison and there’s the money for another committed clinician who can work with other staff to keep that teenager, and those other detainees with whom they have bonded inside, to see and have a future outside. Keep two, three, four out of adult prison…

Once upon a time we thought ours was the Lucky Country. I could be wrong, but I don’t imagine that the 845 or so youthful inmates of our youth detention centres around Australia will see this coming Christmas Day as joyous or full of hope.

For too many of them the concept of lucky is better caught in Clint Eastwood’s memorable line as detective Harry Callahan in Dirty Harry: “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”