Abstract
Several jurisdictions around the world have recognised that meaningful youth justice reform is more likely to be achieved when moving away from the reliance on large-scale conventional youth justice detention institutions. Small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities (referred to as “community-integrated facilities”) are more likely to provide an opportunity to facilitate systemic reforms that are necessary to improve outcomes for justice-involved young people, reduce institutional violence, and ultimately improve public safety. Based on recent reforms in the Netherlands, this article aims to describe the potential benefits and feasibility of implementing community-integrated facilities with a specific focus on Victoria, Australia. We will do so by considering the key operational elements and facilitators to implementation as identified previously in an evaluation of the Dutch reforms. While this article involves a single specific context, as a case study it may nevertheless illuminate implications for other jurisdictions considering similar policy transfer activities.
Keywords
Introduction
There is a paradox at the heart of youth justice in Australia. On the one hand, rates of youth crime have fallen sharply, as evidenced by falling rates of police arrests and charges against young people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). There have been similar if less dramatic falls in youth custody and youth justice supervision rates across the country, so that youth justice populations are now significantly smaller than they were five years previously (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). Yet, Australia's current youth justice institutions have continued largely unchanged and have experienced a pattern of serious and persistent problems. A key question that arises from this is whether the current facilities that form much of the physical institutional basis of the Australian youth justice custodial estate, with an over-reliance on physical and procedural security, are fit-for-purpose.
An alternative approach is that of dispersed, small-scale, community-integrated youth justice facilities that are safe, humane and offer the potential to provide developmentally appropriate responses to young people. This approach has been the basis for youth justice reforms in several countries including the United States (McCarthey et al., 2016), Sweden, Finland, Norway (Lappi-Seppälä, 2011), and the Netherlands (Souverein et al., 2020). Such an institutional model has the potential to address several of the challenges facing Australian jurisdictions at a critical time of youth justice reforms. This challenge is particularly acute in the State of Victoria (Australia), where a series of recent reviews have highlighted the significant shortcomings and harmful effects of the youth justice system (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Commission for Children and Young People, 2017; Parliament of Victoria, 2018; Victorian Ombudsman, 2017). This article presents the case for small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic youth justice facilities in Victoria (Australia) by examining the features of the “Dutch model” (Souverein et al., 2023) and the feasibility of transferring the lessons from one jurisdiction, in the Netherlands, to this local context.
Small-scale community-integrated youth justice detention models
The search for alternatives to conventional youth custody institutions has its basis in a fundamental distinction between welfare-oriented approaches, which prioritise the social and psychological needs of young people who have offended, and criminal law approaches that focus on punishment (Doob & Tonry, 2004). A key concern is that detaining young people in conventional institutions with an over-reliance on physical and procedural security is inherently damaging and inconsistent with rehabilitative and therapeutic goals. Conventional custodial facilities have been criticised (by academics, practitioners and policymakers) for being over-crowded, over-reliant on isolation and segregation, unstable and inherently dangerous, damaging to young people's physical and mental well-being, disruptive of family and community connections, and offering inadequate facilities for rehabilitative programs (e.g., Commission for Children and Young People, 2017; McCarthy et al., 2016). The consequences of incarceration include high rates of trauma, self-harm and violence, deterioration across a range of developmental indicators, poor reoffending outcomes, stigmatisation and socio-economic exclusion (Austin et al., 2005; Bateman, 2017; Janes, 2021).
McCarthy et al. (2016) identify as one of the key elements in effective youth justice system reform replacing large-scale high-security facilities with small-scale community-integrated facilities that emphasise educational continuity and achievement, young people–staff relationships, family engagement and building community connections. Oostermeijer and Dwyer (2019) and Dwyer and Oostermeijer (2019) have recently put forward a theoretical design model for good practice youth justice facilities, based on the current international evidence base on “what works” in rehabilitative interventions for justice-involved young people. They consider the key principles of good practice youth justice facility design to be small-scale, locally sited, and integrated with the surrounding community, designed to promote relational and differentiated security, and comprising therapeutic design characteristics. Although the design does not offer a complete solution, they illustrate that these design characteristics affect the ability to provide treatment elements that are known to be effective through an extensive case study of three highly regarded models in Europe (the Netherlands, Spain and Norway). The impact of these facility characteristics was further illustrated by the study of facilities in the United States, England and Scotland (Dwyer, 2023). These case studies included detailed analysis of each facility including interviews with staff, facility footprints, number of beds, number of units, staff–resident ratios, public transport options, land-use planning zones, floor maps, observational data and photographs. Although the facilities were included based on their status as “good” or “best” practices, evidence of a causal relationship between the design characteristics and rehabilitative outcomes is currently lacking. However, the model clearly illustrates how community-integrated youth justice facilities align with the key elements of effective treatment of offending behaviours and adolescent well-being, including a focus on therapeutic, tailored approaches that build and strengthen positive youth development, social support networks, and commitment to school or work (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019). Supportive social relationships and interactions within one's environments and context are further highlighted in the strength-based and social–ecological literature on justice-involved young people (Johns et al., 2017; Robinson, 2015; Rowe & Soppitt, 2014). Given the impacts of physical design on well-being and rehabilitative outcomes (e.g. Bernheimer et al., 2017; Connellan et al., 2013; Ulrich et al., 2018), youth justice facility design should be considered as one aspect in a holistic approach which incorporates a cultural and philosophical orientation towards promoting young people's health and well-being. This further illustrates the case for reform of the institutional basis of youth justice towards community-integrated facilities.
In New York City (US), a decline in crime and the number of young people placed in detention meant that the cost per young person increased significantly. As criticisms and resistance to the tough-on-crime approach were growing in the early 2000s, several reports by advocates and taskforces highlighted the inhumane conditions of the New York State facilities. Together with a tragic death of a 15-year-old boy in one of these facilities, this paved the way for significant reforms including the “Close to Home” Initiative (Weissman et al., 2019). The Close to Home initiative replaced sentencing to remote state-operated facilities with small-scale local facilities (6–18 beds), which was part of a broader set of youth justice-related reforms in New York. This included reducing the number of young people in secure detention overall and developing and expanding community-based supervision options.
Illustrating the potential of such an approach, outcomes included a 68% decline in out-of-home placements and a 52% drop in youth arrests in New York City (Weissman et al., 2019). The facilities are distributed across the city so young people can be placed close to their homes, which are typically retrofitted houses (Dwyer, 2023). It has been reported that young people placed in Close to Home facilities continue to experience fewer physical assaults and altercations compared to young people in previous years (NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2021). Furthermore, fewer young people were absent without leave, and more young people were able to pass their school classes and advance at least one grade level during their stay (NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2021). However, it seems that there is currently no longitudinal data showing the long-term impacts on the lives of young people placed in Close to Home facilities.
The Missouri model (USA) also involves small-scale, decentralised facilities focusing on continuous case management, peer-led services and providing a therapeutic treatment environment (Huebner, 2013; Mendel, 2010). A crucial factor in the implementation of this model was the switch to smaller facilities (with an average of 20 beds) with part of the aim being to foster one-on-one relationships between young people and staff (Mendel, 2010). Reportedly, there were very few assaults on young people or staff in these facilities and young people were rarely subjected to mechanical restraints and isolation (Mendel, 2010). Although a direct comparison between different facilities is difficult, young people placed in the Missouri facilities made greater educational progress and experienced more successful transitions back to the community compared to young people incarcerated in facilities in other US jurisdictions (Huebner, 2013; Mendel, 2010). It has been noted that little empirical research has been conducted and that much is still to be learned about how the Missouri model affects the long-term life trajectories of young people (Huebner, 2013).
Although limited, evidence from these two models from the US further indicates the potential for small-scale community-integrated youth justice facilities to alleviate some of the common challenges known to persist in conventional youth justice institutions. The more recent reforms in the Netherlands, involving three community-integrated pilot facilities, were closely monitored as part of a three-year evaluation which gives a more detailed description of the local impacts (Souverein et al., 2018).
The Dutch model of small-scale, community-integrated facilities
As the number of young people in conventional large-scale facilities in the Netherlands has been declining in the last decade, a growing number of these facilities have closed. This prompted the reconsideration of the institutional form of juvenile justice detention. In 2015, the Dutch Ministry of Justice examined the feasibility and potential efficacy of implementing small-scale community-integrated youth justice facilities in the Netherlands. In 2016, three pilot sites were opened in Amsterdam, Groningen and Nijmegen. These pilot facilities provided local placements in small-scale facilities for up to eight justice-involved young people, either sentenced or unsentenced, as an alternative to placement in a large-scale facility (72–105 beds). The main aim was to maintain and utilise any protective factors present and to provide support and treatment in close proximity to young people's home environment. Each pilot facility involved local and regional stakeholders in the design, implementation and operationalisation of the facility. A three-year mixed-method evaluation study was initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Justice to examine the feasibility and efficacy of alternative custodial models for youth justice. The evaluation involved action research, utilising both qualitative and quantitative data, while engaging all stakeholders in a cyclic process of action, research and critical reflection. It was reported that the majority of young people were able to continue (70%) and/or successfully start (37%) school or work activities (Souverein et al., 2018). Young people were also able to continue (78%) and/or start engaging (57%) with healthcare and youth support services. A total of six absences without leave were registered across all facilities, of which four young people voluntarily returned within one day. A total of 18% of young people were transferred to a large-scale facility because of non-compliant behaviour or involvement in an incident, of which 2% of cases involved physical violence (Souverein et al., 2018). Qualitative results also indicated wide support for the facilities among professional key stakeholders, as well as detained young people and their families. Overall, it was concluded that these facilities provide justice-involved young people with a valuable opportunity to be supported and get their lives “back on track”. It should be noted that although promising, more research is needed to study the efficacy and effectiveness of such facilities compared to other types of interventions.
In 2019, the Dutch Government announced legislation to further implement small-scale community-integrated youth custodial facilities throughout the Netherlands, forming a permanent part of a continuum of approaches for justice-involved young people. A previous paper describes in detail the key operational elements of successful implementation, which included: structured assessment and indication of placement; a small-scale and tailored approach; a main focus on relational security; integration with the local community and its stakeholders; integrated, multidisciplinary approach to assessment, treatment planning and service delivery; active collaboration with young people and their support network; and selection, guidance and supervision of staff (Souverein et al., 2023).
Methods
Using a “two-case” case study (Yin, 2009), we apply an interpretive approach to policy analysis (Wagenaar, 2011; Yanow, 2000) to understand the barriers and facilitators to implementing change in youth justice policy and infrastructure, across jurisdictions. This approach involves centring dialogue as a mode of research (MacInnis & Portelli, 2002), which assumes dialogue to be a problem-focused inquiry involving “exchange between those who consider themselves to be equals” (MacInnis & Portelli, 2002, p. 34).
Interpretive policy analysis
“Interpretive policy analysis is not one but many approaches” (Wagenaar, 2011, p. 7), characterised by a normative and emancipatory or transformative purpose; it brings together analysis and action (p. 224), to consider what should be and what could be. Within this approach, dialogue is a policy analysis “tool” that “combines thinking and acting” (Wagenaar, 2011, p. 224). Similarly, from Shor and Freire's (1987) perspective, “[t]hrough dialogue, reflecting together on what we know and don’t know, we can then act critically to transform reality” (cited in MacInnis & Portelli, 2002, p. 34).
Framed by this dialogic approach, this article arose out of an ongoing deliberative, consultative, co-learning project comprising various exchange opportunities over a five-year period 1 (2018–2022). Our exchanges comprised dialogue in different forms – conversation, inquiry, debate and instruction (Burbules, 1993, in MacInnis & Portelli, 2002, p. 35) – through which we generated new insights about our different contexts and better understanding of our own. To these exchanges, we bring to bear decades of collective experience as policy and practice-oriented academics in our respective jurisdictional contexts. Our dialogic method thus also emphasises the importance of local knowledge (Yanow, 2000), in which understandings of our respective jurisdictional features, and the assumptions underpinning them, is grounded.
An earlier case study of the Dutch reforms (Souverein et al., 2023) defined the key operational elements of the community-integrated facilities in the Netherlands. Imagining how similar reforms might be implemented elsewhere, we considered the feasibility of transferring the Dutch model of youth justice policy and practice to the Victorian context. As a group, we discussed and debated each of these operational elements, drawing on our local expertise, and reflecting on the factors that facilitated the Dutch implementation process. This dialogue formed the basis of our interpretive policy analysis through a “two-case” case study (Yin, 2009) of the Dutch model and the Victorian youth justice context.
A “two-case” case study: Policy transfer to Victoria
Based on recent reforms in the Netherlands, this article seeks to describe the potential benefits and feasibility of implementing small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities in Victoria, Australia. We use a “two-case” case study approach (Yin, 2009) to explain and describe the two settings, not as a method, per se, but to locate the focus of our analysis (Stake, 2005). In presenting the Dutch case study, drawing on an earlier evaluation of a small-scale facility in Amsterdam (Souverein et al., 2018), we consider the key operational elements and facilitators of the implementation of the Dutch reforms. While this article focuses on the specific context of Victoria's youth justice system, as a case study, it may nevertheless illuminate implications for policy transfer in other jurisdictions (McFarlane & Canton, 2014).
The rationale for our “two-case” case study is twofold: (a) the potential of small-scale community-integrated youth justice facilities invites consideration of the utility and feasibility of such a model in a different social–political context; (b) Victoria's State Government has demonstrated readiness to new ideas and innovative models to draw from, and an interest in local and international evidence on which to base their plans for reform. Notwithstanding the opportunity for policy transfer of successfully implemented alternative models, such as the Dutch model, “[i]ndividual nations, and their cultures, histories and politics, can be just as quirky and esoteric as individual human beings” (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). The range and interaction of social, cultural political and economic factors that distinguish each jurisdiction can, in unpredictable ways, either facilitate or undermine attempted reforms inspired by models from elsewhere and thus pose distinct challenges for policy transfer (McFarlane & Canton, 2014). Attempts for transfer of policy and practice should always involve considered analysis of the local context and a readiness to adapt to local needs. This behoves an explanation of the local context.
Contextualising Victoria's youth justice detention system
The case for reform of the institutional basis of youth justice
Youth justice has long been a contested and problematic domain of policy and practice for jurisdictions across the globe. There is considerable heterogeneity in the philosophical basis of youth justice systems, with welfarist, justice, diversionary, risk management, community protection and human rights perspectives competing for priority (Clancey et al., 2020; Hazel, 2008), leading to local and national policy divergence amounting to “normlessness” (Haines & Case, 2018). The problematic nature of contemporary youth justice is also reflected in the recurrent concerns about systems in “crisis”. In Australia, the depth of the crisis in youth justice is apparent in the series of parliamentary and other reviews (at least 20 in the last five years), covering a wide range of legislative, management, programmatic, and policy issues (Clancey et al., 2020). The issues that have generated this stream of activity are multiple and complex and include the over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, African-Australian, Pasifika young people and young people who experienced out-of-home care; long-standing inadequacies in programs and support services, staff training and retention; frequent assaults on staff and young people, and riots and escapes in a cyclic pattern with the over-use of force, isolation and segregation. Clancey et al. (2020) identify a range of themes common to some or all of these reviews: the multiple and complex needs of young people in the justice system; the detrimental effects of detention and the failure to use detention as a last resort; as well as the need for greater provision of therapeutic and educational programs, and having suitably trained and supervised staff.
The crisis in Victoria is particularly apparent through recurring institutional violence, manifesting in staff assaults, young people “rioting” and being repeatedly locked down in solitary confinement. This pattern of recurring crises came to a head between October 2016 and January 2017 when a series of major incidents at the two youth justice facilities in Victoria (i.e. the Parkville and Malmsbury facilities) resulted in escapes, violence towards staff and other inmates, and serious damage to residential and program units. These incidents and the systemic and infrastructural flaws that gave rise to them were highlighted in a series of reports to government: Armytage and Ogloff's (2017) Youth justice review and strategy; the Commissioner for Children and Young People's (CCYP) The same four walls inquiry into the use of isolation, separation and lockdowns (Commission for Children and Young People, 2017); the 2017 Parliamentary inquiry into youth justice centres (Parliament of Victoria, 2018); and the former Police Commissioner Comrie's independent Review of the Parkville Youth Justice Precinct (Comrie, 2017). These inquiries reiterated concerns raised several years by the Victorian Ombudsman (Victorian Ombudsman, 2010, 2013), and illustrate the persistence of the current problems facing the Victorian youth justice custodial system.
All these reviews in Victoria highlighted the need for extensive, holistic and long-term reforms, generally focusing on programs, procedures, staffing and management regimes within youth justice facilities. Over the years, fewer and fewer evidence-based interventions were delivered to young people in youth justice detention. The exception was Parkville College, a specialist Victorian Government School that provides education to students who are or have been, detained in custody (as well as secure care settings for those who are transitioning from these settings). Although Parkville College does not provide rehabilitative services, education is considered a protective factor that can facilitate rehabilitation (Victorian Auditor-General's Office, 2018). However, recent system pressures have made it increasingly challenging for detained young people to attend school appropriately (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Victorian Auditor-General's Office, 2018).
A recurrent theme is how the institutional basis of youth custody (the physical and procedural structures) in Victoria bears on the problems experienced over recent years. The two custodial sites in Victoria provide age- and sex-graded facilities for between 150 and 200 young people on an average day, the vast majority of whom are male (94%) and over half (57%) of whom are held on remand (pre-trial detention) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). During 2020, approximately 630 young people spent time in one of these facilities during the year, with an average length of 94 days and a median length of 16 days (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022).
The 2010 Ombudsman review labelled conditions at the Parkville facility “disgraceful” (Victorian Ombudsman, 2010, pp. 5–6), and the general unsuitability of custodial facilities was referred to by the Comrie, CCYP and the later 2017 Victorian Ombudsman reviews. The Parliamentary Committee review devoted a full chapter to institutional issues with Vitoria’s youth justice facilities, identifying problems with “fundamental design and construction weaknesses” at the Parkville facility, internal structures that were no longer fit-for-purpose, including difficulties in isolating areas where incidents happen, and the inability to provide differentiated low-, medium- and high-security regimes within the facilities (see generally chapter 8 of Parliament of Victoria, 2018).
Construction of the new Cherry Creek Youth Justice Centre has recently been completed with the opening underway, adding another 140 beds to Victoria's custodial system (Community Safety Building Authority, 2023). The facility is located approximately 50 km west of Melbourne. Notably, the number of beds was scaled down from the initial 244 beds (Ilanbey, 2019). The new facility has long been criticised by experts and local advocacy organisations, arguing it will not offer a solution to the current problems faced in Victoria (Jesuit Social Services, 2019; Sadler, 2022). The department acknowledged opening the new facility was “certainly not cause for celebration”, but said it would be able to provide a more nuanced service and cater to children and young people with complex needs (Morgan, 2023). This new facility involves significant infrastructural investments and will effectively involve a one-size-fits-all high-security level due to a huge perimeter wall and is located on an isolated greenfield site. Both its size and location do not align with the current evidence on good practice youth justice facilities (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019).
The physical infrastructure of youth custody in Victoria contributes to the problems in the system in a variety of ways. A feature of the Victorian system is that all institutions operate under a one-size-fits-all high-security regime, with an over-reliance on physical and procedural security. It has also been noted that the current facilities are not located in proximity to relevant services (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). This is inappropriate for a youth justice population for several reasons. It works against the priority goals of rehabilitation and the provision of community-integrated support and the principle of placing young people in a “least restrictive environment”. It creates conditions that counteract evidence-based trauma-informed and culturally responsive practices, which can re-traumatise a group marked by high levels of personal and intergenerational trauma (McCarthy et al., 2016). Furthermore, it reinforces public, media and self-perceptions of justice-involved young people as “other”, “unworthy” citizens, or somehow “deserving” of punitive and harsh treatment. Finally, McCarthy et al. (2016) have argued that large-scale institutional structures are impervious to reform efforts, with their harmful effects being embedded in the physical environment itself. They discuss how any reform efforts (e.g. change of leadership, training or new programs) cannot withstand the deep-rooted nature of bureaucracy, institutionalisation, power imbalances and oversight mechanisms that are at play in these facilities. As such, substantial reform of the current youth custodial model is more likely to be achieved when moving away from the reliance on the current conventional youth custody institutions in Victoria.
Reducing the over-reliance on physical security
The number of young people in custody is intimately associated with changes in bail laws and associated practices. Victoria's Justice System has shown increasing focus on “community safety” or “community protection”, which have dominated bail discussions in recent years, fuelling a trend towards more people being denied bail and held on remand (McMahon, 2019). Furthermore, the absence of adequate community-integrated support, giving courts confidence that an appropriate range of activities will be delivered, has contributed to an over-reliance on custodial responses (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). This is inherently unjust as young people should never be detained because of a lack of, or inadequacies of, community support structures. Most Australian jurisdictions have legislation to enforce the principle of imprisonment as a last resort. In Victoria, this is reflected in section 361 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (the Act), which stipulates that detention may not be imposed if another sanction is appropriate; however, it is difficult to assess adherence to such legislation.
In Victoria, most of the state's youth justice expenditure is focused on the acute end of the system, with relatively little expenditure on prevention and early intervention strategies (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). Across Australia, Victoria has the most expensive youth justice system per capita, with little difference in outcomes. However, there is no evidence to show that time in custody contributes to a reduction in the frequency or severity of reoffending (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019; Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016). Armytage and Ogloff (2017) highlighted that the current custodial system does not employ the necessary support to promote successful outcomes for young people. While on remand, young people experience disruption to education and employment, are denied therapeutic programs which often are available for sentenced only, and there is often insufficient time to arrange a smooth transition to the community (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Parliament of Victoria, 2018).
While one of the current youth justice facilities (the Parkville Youth Justice Precinct) is located close to relevant services, the current operating model does not facilitate the continuation of educational or care services during and after a custodial intervention. Furthermore, there currently is little engagement with families and young's peoples broader support network (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). This is further amplified by the large geographical distances in Victoria, as for many young people and their families the distance between home and the State facility is often significant. Small-scale community-integrated facilities in Victoria may serve as a more appropriate and much-needed alternative for young people in custody, by facilitating local support and continuation of educational and care services.
A safe custodial environment
Current Victorian youth justice facilities do not provide a safe environment and report significant levels of institutional violence. The lack of a safe environment in Victoria is symptomatic of institutional rather than individual issues (Comrie, 2017). Across Australia, Victoria has shown the highest rate of assaults in custody, between young people and between staff and young people (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). Investigations have revealed the mistreatment of young people in custody including the excessive use of isolation, separation and lockdowns (Commission for Children and Young People, 2017; Victorian Ombudsman, 2017). Institutional violence is often met with an ever-more restrictive regime, while under greater restriction, the risk of another incident increases, placing the system in a state of hypervigilance (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). A safe custodial environment demands that this cycle be broken. No one, staff or young person, can participate positively or effectively in any programme unless or until they feel safe.
Another important issue in Victoria is the lack of a well-embedded security framework for staff. Many custodial workers report feeling inadequately trained, equipped and supported in their work, particularly those who have experienced major incidents or assaults (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). Despite the recognition that “relational security” plays a crucial role in an effective operating model, it is currently lacking in Victorian custodial facilities (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). The Dutch evaluation of community-integrated facilities suggests that these facilities can increase a focus on relational security, while reducing physical and operational security. The small size, local siting and differentiated security measures of a youth justice facility can collectively influence the establishment of a relational approach (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019). This highlights the importance of small-scale, community-integrated facilities for the establishment of a relational security approach. As such, these facilities are likely to facilitate a safer environment for both staff and young people.
Place-based and culturally appropriate responses
It is recognised in Victoria that both social disadvantage and the likelihood of involvement in the youth justice system is geographically concentrated. Between 2008 and 2010, 25.4% of remanded young people in custody came from 2.2% of Victoria's postcodes (Ericson & Vinson, 2010). This gives an opportunity for localised place-based responses within the Victorian youth justice system. Small-scale community-integrated models offer such a placed-based response for justice-involved young people requiring a custodial response. Place-based responses offer the opportunity for community-owned responses and can facilitate self-determination for those communities whose young people are overrepresented in the youth justice system. Due to systematic disadvantages, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are continuously overrepresented in the youth justice system across Australia, including Victoria (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). The experiences of Aboriginal young people in custody have been described in their own words in the Ngaga-dji Report, which voices the importance of strong connection to family, culture, community and how this relates to their mental and physical well-being (Koorie Youth Council, 2018). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are more deeply affected when removed from their communities and/or are taken “off country”. 2 When interventions or programmes use non-Aboriginal frameworks to understand Aboriginal children's needs and strengths, they are unsuccessful (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, 2017). Besides Indigenous populations, there is also an overrepresentation of other culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups, including young people from African backgrounds (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). This clearly indicates the need for cultural safety and culturally appropriate responses that are place-based and community-owned. Specifically, for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities, this may offer the possibility to sustain or build strong connections to family, country and culture (Koorie Youth Council, 2018).
What is the feasibility of policy transfer of the Dutch model to the context of Victoria?
Assessment and indication of placements
A fundamental feature of the Dutch model is that youth justice facilities should consist of a continuum of security and care, allowing a more appropriate and tailored response for each individual. This requires adequate tools and processes to determine the level of risk and the appropriate security levels, as well as a young person's need for care and treatment. Armytage and Ogloff's (2017) review highlighted that through Victoria's youth justice system, assessment processes are not consistently applied, and noted a lack of appropriate tools. To facilitate policy transfer of the Dutch model, the Victorian youth justice system should implement facilities that enable a continuum of security and care accompanied by effective screening, risk and needs assessment to guide appropriate custodial placement. Moreover, information about the assessment of young people should be transparent and made available to young people, their families, and professionals with whom they are involved. The evaluation of the Dutch reforms showed that various stakeholders developed criteria and working processes for the appropriate assessment, indication and placement of young people which involved a consensus-building process. The assessment was focused on young people's strengths and resources, as opposed to a risk-averse approach (Souverein et al., 2023). The Dutch evaluation showed that two main criteria were deemed key for successful placement within a community-integrated facility, motivation and “protective factors”. Stakeholders felt that young people needed to show motivation and express at least some desire to get their “lives back on track”. Protective factors such as school or work engagement, a supportive social network or professional care engagement, or a potential to develop these, should be present. Notably, it was mentioned that offence severity should not be a discriminating factor in determining whether young people should be placed in a community-integrated facility. Furthermore, stakeholders highlighted that a young person's motivation and attitudes could not simply be determined from a case file. Such an approach to assessment and placement requires active collaboration between all agencies and organisations involved in the placement, assessment and treatment of justice-involved young people in custody. Victorian stakeholders would have to collaborate to develop local and appropriate assessment processes and placement criteria, and not simply rely on traditional structured risk assessments.
A small-scale and tailored approach
The Victorian youth justice system has demonstrated a growing need for a more tailored approach to youth custody. The Youth Parole Board has reported ongoing concerns regarding the high rates of well-being and mental health issues experienced by young people in custody (Victorian Youth Parole Board, 2018, 2020). The Armytage and Ogloff’s review highlights that the institutional infrastructures and strategies of the current youth justice facilities fail to appropriately address and respond to the various needs of young people. Victoria currently lacks an effective assessment and classification system needed for a tailored and specialised youth justice approach. The current classification system has been described as outdated, based on an arbitrary separation by age groups (as well as gender and sentenced versus unsentenced), which does not consider the seriousness of the crime committed or a young person's individual characteristics and needs (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017).
The small-scale community-integrated facilities in the Netherlands consisted of eight beds each to allow staff to identify and understand young people's individual risks, needs, skills and strengths; based on this knowledge, staff can offer tailored trajectories (Souverein et al., 2018). While the effects of the custodial environment on young people's behaviour and rehabilitative prospects are acknowledged in Victoria (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Parliament of Victoria, 2018; Royal Commission NT, 2017; Victorian Auditor-General's Office, 2018), the infrastructural problems highlighted in numerous reviews remain a challenge. Victoria's current youth justice infrastructural design is neither conducive to safety and security nor to a tailored approach (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Comrie, 2017).
The recent major investment in the new Cherry Creek facility means that this is likely to be a permanent fixture of the Victorian Youth custodial system for at least a decade. It may also make additional infrastructural investments unlikely. Firstly, as large-scale high-security facilities are an inherently flawed model, the continuation of such a model comes with unacceptable financial, human and societal costs and should under no circumstances be the way forward (McCarthy et al., 2016). As demonstrated in Spain, it may be possible to achieve a therapeutic youth justice facility with a maximum of 60 to 70 beds. However, the Spanish facilities involve highly skilled staff as “educators” (e.g. professional backgrounds in law, teaching and social work) and the operating model has taken years to perfect (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019). Alternatively, there are international “prison repurpose projects” that exemplify how to repurpose large-scale youth justice facilities to meet community needs. For example, in Texas, a former youth justice facility was repurposed into a recovery centre and “one-stop shop for social services” (Love et al., 2018). Other new purposes for closed prisons include a small farm incubator, homeless shelter, museum and special events venue, and a distillery (The Sentencing Project, 2016). Secondly, community-integrated facilities do not require purpose-built facilities and can be established by retrofitting existing houses or offices with minimal capital investment (Dwyer, 2023). Community-integrated facilities provide the government with more flexibility to meet changing needs, reducing the high costs of empty beds associated with large-scale facilities when the population needs change (McCarthy et al., 2016).
Integration with the local community
Integration with the local community formed one of the central principles of the Dutch reforms (Souverein et al., 2018). This was operationalised by locating the facility within a neighbourhood close to the young person's home environment (maximum 1.5 hour travel time) and by actively utilising resources within the community, such as local school, work, therapy and health care. Professionals, young people and parents/caregivers emphasised that this community-integrated approach stimulated the development of young people and therefore they expected that this contributed to a successful prevention of recidivism. Notably, local community members were initially resistant to the facility being located in their neighbourhood and even protested against it. By actively and genuinely engaging the community and providing a transparent and direct line of communication, the local community was able to accept and embrace the facility. Introducing the new facilities and fostering community acceptance was a careful consideration in the implementation process and incidents impacting on neighbours and local community were carefully monitored.
Over the last decade, despite a sustained decline in Victorian youth crime rates, media reports of growing youth violence – and racialised narratives in particular (e.g., Benier et al., 2018) – have fuelled public perceptions of justice-involved young people as risky and out-of-control. These perceptions have validated Victoria's increasingly “tough on crime” approach to young people; they may also have reinforced “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes, as demonstrated by community protests against the new youth justice facility “Cherry Creek” being built west of Werribee (on the outskirts of Melbourne). 3 Furthermore, increasing reports of staff assaults and unsafe custodial environments have diminished staff confidence and retention and increased the volatility of custodial settings. In response to staff feeling unsafe and unsupported, their Union 4 has been actively speaking out against working conditions in youth justice facilities, intensifying scrutiny of the custodial system, which poses challenges in terms of “selling” a community-integrated model to the community. As demonstrated in the Netherlands, by actively and genuinely engaging the community and providing a transparent and direct line of communication, the local community may be able to accept and embrace a community-integrated facility.
Local youth organisations have been advocating for attitudinal shifts towards being “smart on crime”, and generating increasing community consent for rehabilitative, therapeutic responses. Overall, the falling numbers of young people involved with youth justice (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021), together with the number of unsentenced young people in detention almost doubling (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2020), provide a strong rationale for reducing the use of large-scale youth incarceration and transitioning to small-scale community-integrated facilities in Victoria. Yet, when considering opportunities for change, it is important that policymakers and practitioners are sensitive to community perceptions and concerns and address the constant and high volume of media attention on youth crime in Victoria.
It should be noted that Victoria has a lower population density and geographical and urban-fabric differences that may impact model transfer. For example, the Netherlands has a well-developed public transport system making most cities and towns easily accessible, whereas Victoria comprises regional and remote areas where residents are mainly reliant on car transport to access services and major cities. This will impact the requirements for a facility to be considered adequately “local” or community-integrated for young people across Victoria. The design and locality of small-scale community-integrated facilities will need to be flexible and responsive to local needs and resources within the community. Also, a sufficiently large target population and a relatively small regional spread of this target population, such as in large cities such as Amsterdam, is advantageous to implementation. In Victoria, the spread of the target population is larger, highlighting the need for smaller (and more local) facilities to avoid placing young people far away from their community connections and resources.
Integrated and multidisciplinary assessment, planning and service delivery
The Dutch reforms take a highly integrated approach, with case management being covered by an external key stakeholder who remains involved after the young person's release (Souverein et al., 2018). The facility itself was easily accessible for local stakeholders and regular multidisciplinary case meetings were held (including youth probation services, child protective services, and mental healthcare professionals). In Victoria, there have been ongoing issues with the integrated operation of youth justice custodial services in Victoria and their service delivery partners, with a lack of shared understanding and open communication. This has resulted in fragmented service delivery for young people in custody (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). As such, considerable effort will have to be made to ensure an integrated and multidisciplinary approach to the case management of young people in custody. This will have to involve easy access for key stakeholders (both physically and procedurally), improved mechanisms for information sharing, and aligned case management plans with both short- and long-term goals forming an inter-agency “action plan” (Souverein et al., 2018).
A relational security approach
The concept of relational security has been recognised recently in Victoria as being the most effective security element in any custodial setting (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017): “The relationship between staff and young people is critical for the prompt identification of their risks, issues, needs and triggers. In an effective operating model, these relationships form part of daily operations […]”. However, it was also highlighted that it currently does not form a core component in the operations of Victorian youth justice facilities and that adequate consideration of the relationships between staff and young people is missing. A recent study points out ongoing challenges involved in the establishment of a relational security approach within Victoria's youth justice facilities, such as high staff turnover, a high workload, a lack of training opportunities, a lack of team cohesion and facility design (Oostermeijer et al., 2022). The Dutch reforms outline how a relational security approach might be conceptualised and implemented, which involves the physical presence of staff, a collaborative relationship with a focus on young people's autonomy and agency, and positive and informal interactions between staff and young people (Souverein et al., 2018). As previously mentioned, the small size, local siting and differentiated security measures of a youth justice facility are important institutional aspects that collectively influence the establishment of a relational approach (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019).
Active collaboration with young people and their support network
The Dutch reforms indicate that active engagement of young people and their support network in intervention planning and service delivery was key to the ability to offer a tailored approach, and successfully reduce risks and strengthen protective factors. Young people and their support network must experience active involvement in the planning and decision making throughout the trajectory and have their input reflected in case management plans (Souverein et al., 2023). Victoria's Youth Justice Strategic Plan (2020–2030) mentions “strengthening the voice and participation of young people and their families in Youth Justice” as one of its objectives, active engagement in the case management plans does not seem to be a current focus. Furthermore, there is little engagement with families and young people's broader support network and it has been noted that Victoria's youth justice system needs to refocus on facilitating access to family and community (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017).
Australia constitutes a colonial-settler society with a vast overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in custody. Self-determination is especially important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities supporting their future generations (Koorie Youth Council, 2018). Connection to culture and community is especially important for Koori young people involved in the justice system (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Koorie Youth Council, 2018). Yet the evidence and guidelines discussed in the current article are built upon scientific knowledge that comes predominantly from Western countries and cohorts and, therefore, it cannot automatically be assumed to be relevant or appropriate for First Nations (and other non-western) communities or young people in Australia. This further highlights the need to actively collaborate with young people and their local support network in order to provide meaningful and culturally appropriate support.
Staff and management
Acknowledging the essential role of staff in providing a safe and therapeutic environment, a focus on adequate skills and the ability to connect with young people is paramount. Careful staff selection, structured, ongoing supervision and transformational leadership were key to the operational model of the small-scale Dutch facility (Souverein et al., 2023). Currently, Victoria does not require its custodial workforce to have any pre-service qualifications, 5 while in the Netherlands, staff often have a degree in social work or psychology. At the same time, there is very little clinical practice or supervision available for staff in Victoria, despite a concerning level of internal as well as external scrutiny (Comrie, 2017). More extensive and practical training programmes and support for current Victorian staff with a focus on youth development needs, mental health needs, relational security and de-escalation techniques are needed. Additionally, a “soft” transition may be employed in which a tertiary degree in relevant fields (e.g. teaching, social work or psychology) is required for new staff appointments.
Notably, in the Dutch evaluation, staff for the community-integrated facilities were mainly selected based on their ability to genuinely connect with justice-involved young people, rather than their professional skills. Another important factor was the alignment of their values and work ethics with the underlying values of the operating model. It is also noted that staff received extensive support and coaching to ensure their ways of working aligned with a therapeutic environment. In Victoria, the Youth Justice Custodial Workforce Plan 2010 outlines a similar commitment to “increase the number of people working in Youth Justice custody with the requisite skills and values”. The Victorian Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2020–2030 thus demonstrates a willingness and commitment to whole-of-system change, however, transformational leadership and ongoing mentoring and staff support will be needed to realise genuine and sustainable change.
Facilitating factors for implementation
In August 2017, the Victorian Government announced they accepted in principle all of Armytage and Ogloff's recommendations, and in June 2020 they released their Youth Justice Strategic Plan (Department of Justice and Community Safety, 2020). This describes a vision to once again be a leading youth justice system that “strengthens partnerships with children and young people, families and all services and professionals who support their rehabilitation and positive development” (p. 17). This offers momentum and opportunity for change with top-down as well as bottom-up support which will facilitate any reform efforts (Souverein et al., 2023). Any reform efforts should involve all relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation of the facility's work process, utilising existing knowledge and experience. Transparency, a shared vision and a guiding practice framework will be key to this process (Souverein et al., 2023). Furthermore, a stepwise implementation while allowing appropriate time and resources to successfully implement and integrate new working processes will be key (Souverein et al., 2023). Genuine involvement of relevant local stakeholders and service providers in the youth justice system, local council, and State government should be involved in the design as well as the implementation of the facility's work processes. This should also include the local community in which the facility is situated. The Dutch evaluation also highlighted the importance of monitoring and evaluation by independent researchers as an essential component of building support for, and confidence in, the youth justice reforms among stakeholders, politicians, and the community. It provided transparency and contributed to the optimal development and implementation of working processes.
Conclusion
The transfer and cross-jurisdictional implementation of youth justice policy or practice is never straightforward, nor merely a technical matter of transplanting knowledge. Attempts to transfer policy and/or practice must begin with a critical analysis of the systemic and socio-political context of both jurisdictions. Our interpretive analysis of these contexts based on local knowledge and dialogic exchange – and our “two-case” case study of the Dutch operation of community-integrated facilities, explored from an Australian perspective – has highlighted underlying conditions for implementation that may otherwise have been taken for granted or unrecognised.
Victoria is on its way to system change, as outlined in the 2020 Youth Justice Strategic Plan. Through our dialogue and exchange of local knowledge, we have examined the feasibility for small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities to be a component of this systemic reform in Victoria, based on lessons from recent Dutch reforms. These facilities may alleviate some of the pressing challenges in the current custodial system by offering an alternative to high-security facilities. This is likely to facilitate a more tailored and integrated approach, increased safety, better engagement with family and broader support network, continuation of educational and care services, and provide a place-based and more culturally appropriate approach. It also offers the potential for a custodial system that is more flexible and adaptable, able to respond more readily to the diverse cohorts that present and emerge within the custodial system (Dwyer, 2023).
By considering the key operational elements of the Dutch model, in the context of Victoria, we reflect on the feasibility of implementing such a model. Firstly, the Victorian youth justice system will require the implementation of effective screening, risk and needs assessment to guide appropriate custodial placement. Such information should be transparent and made available to young people, their families, and the professionals with whom they are involved. Furthermore, it is important that policymakers and practitioners are sensitive to community perceptions and concerns and address the high and sensationalised volume of media attention on youth crime in Victoria. Establishing community-integrated facilities will involve allaying community concerns through genuine consultation and involvement. A shift of focus towards young people's autonomy and agency will also be required, facilitated by more positive and informal interactions between staff and young people. Staff will need more adequate and ongoing support to enact cultural change. Finally, a shared vision and more integrated services need to be established, by strengthening multi-stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Overall, when considering the key elements set out in the current case study, it seems feasible to implement small-scale, community-integrated facilities across Victoria.
Although the model of small-scale, community-integrated facilities will not solve all the challenges facing the Victoria youth custody system, it does provide an opportunity to build a more varied custodial system that is responsive to the ever-changing needs of the youth justice population. It has been shown that this approach is capable of facilitating profound systemic reforms that are necessary to improve outcomes for justice-involved youth, reduce institutional violence, and improve public safety by reducing the risk of reoffending (Souverein et al., 2018; Weissman et al., 2019). Furthermore, there are significant long-term monetary benefits involved in this approach through improved effectiveness of treatment and reducing the risk of reoffending and minimising long-term costs; reduced capital expenditure as existing premises could be utilised, and comparable operating costs to the existing facilities; and higher staff retention, reduced absenteeism, and reduced costs associated with staff recruitment (Oostermeijer & Dwyer, 2019).
Future research may benefit from considering lessons learned from deinstitutionalisation efforts within other sectors in Victoria, such as the mental health care sector. Between 1994 and 2000, public mental health services in Victoria have undergone major reforms. The 14 stand-alone psychiatric institutions were closed and replaced with a wide range of inpatient, residential and community-based mental health services (Gerrand, 2005). Facilitators and barriers of this major reform initiative have been outlined and may offer further insights into youth justice system reform in Victoria (Gerrand, 2005; Gooding, 2016). For example, reinvesting institutional savings, substantial upfront funding and a prescriptive blueprint for system-wide reform contributed to its success.
The key reform elements outlined in this article provide a starting point for dialogue between State government, youth justice and community stakeholders. The principles underlying any proposed reforms should be discussed and developed in collaboration with the local community, to best address the needs and strengths of their own young people. A small-scale community-integrated model in Victoria will need to be flexible and responsive to local needs, and utilise existing local resources and community stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder involvement will also benefit the transition back into the community, as connections built with people and support networks outside the youth justice system will be able to continue and provide more sustainable support.
This article offers a guide for academics, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to leverage existing knowledge and resources, to facilitate system reforms that improve outcomes for justice-involved young people, reduce institutional violence, and improve public safety through reducing the risk of reoffending. Ultimately, reducing violence and enhancing safety in the community means reducing violence and enhancing safety for young people in secure settings. To this end, facilitating the implementation of the Dutch model of small-scale community-integrated youth justice facilities in a different socio-political context, such as Victoria, demands that all these aspects are thoroughly and genuinely addressed. Through dialogue, recalling Shor and Freire, we can then act critically to transform our shared reality.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Fleur Souverein received funding from the Prins Bernard Cultuurfonds, Jo Kolk Studiefonds (grant number N/A).
