Chapter 2Outcomes and impacts of youth detention
2.1The National Children’s Commissioner, Ms Anne Hollonds, has highlighted that ‘most children who become involved with the child justice system are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, with complex social issues influencing their involvement with the system’.
2.2Australian and New Zealand Children’s Commissioners, Guardians and Advocates (ANZCCGA) agreed with this assessment and outlined the types of disadvantage experienced by children and young people interacting with the child justice system:
Children in the justice system have fragmented education experiences, marked by periods of exclusion and expulsion, resulting in poor educational outcomes. They have precarious living arrangements including homelessness and/or placements in out-of-home care. They have often experienced drug and alcohol related addiction, struggle with complex, unresolved trauma, and live with mental illness and/or disabilities. Children in the justice system have higher rates of speech, language and communication disorders, [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder], autism spectrum disorders, [fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD], and acquired/traumatic brain injury.
2.3This chapter discusses the outcomes and impacts of youth detention, including:
the social determinants of justice;
outcomes of youth detention; and
alternatives to detention.
Social determinants of justice
2.4Professor Ruth McCausland and Professor Eileen Baldry, both based at UNSW Sydney, described the background and structural factors affecting young people as the ‘social determinants of justice’ (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1Social determinants of justice
Source: R. McCausland and E. Baldry (2023), 'Who does Australia Lock Up? The Social Determinants of Justice', International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 12(3), p. 45.
2.5The Law Council of Australia (Law Council) explained:
These social determinants, which put children at greater risk of contact with the criminal justice system, spiral out from individual and family factors; to social, economic, environmental and political contexts; into the broader social determinants of justice including early abuse, systemic racism and discrimination, poverty and unequal access to resources, and ultimately into the operation of the criminal legal system itself. The broader social determinants of justice need to be addressed in order to reduce crimes by children and limit if not abolish child incarceration.
2.6Similarly, theAustralian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) submitted:
Despite evidence of the social determinants that are the root causes of offending behaviour, policy responses to these children are often only tinkering with the symptoms, with tougher policing, stricter bail laws, and more incarceration. This is done under the guise of keeping the community safe but are often counterproductive…The solutions lie in transformational thinking and action to address systemic disadvantage.
2.7Ms Leesa Waters, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN), shared the view that youth offending and detention cannot be addressed simply by focussing on the youth justice system:
Focusing solely on youth justice systems is such a small piece of the puzzle. …[W]e will not progress the entire puzzle, and we will continue to fail marginalised young people and their families through enabling the ongoing system failures. Instead, we need a holistic approach that tackles the root causes of youth involvement in the justice system, from social inequalities to system failures. I've seen firsthand when young people come into contact with the justice system. It's often because we as a society fail to support them and their families early enough. It's like putting a bandaid on a severed artery. If we do not invest in all of these systems before all of these children hit the youth justice system, we'll see it bleed out entirely—an overwhelmed system, worsening reoffending and a generation of young people failed by the very structures that are meant to protect them...The reality is that most children do not need to be removed from their families. They need their families to be supported. Yet our current approach too often blames parents rather than providing the tools they need to keep their children safe and well.
2.8Ms Jodie Griffiths-Cook, ACT Public Advocate and Children and Young People Commissioner, agreed that support for families is crucial to early recognition and intervention:
If we don't put up the scaffolding around families to enable them to build that parenting capacity and to build their ability to respond to their children's needs…then it's impossible for many families if they haven't grown up with those examples themselves. It makes it extraordinarily challenging for them to know what that standard is that we are asking of them. I talk about circumstances of inadvertent neglect. Time and again we see families coming into the care and protection system who don't know what they don't know or what they need to know to be an effective parent. If we don't teach them, if we don't give them those skills, how can we expect them to reach the bar that we hold over their heads?
2.9SNAICC—National Voice for our Children (SNAICC) Chief Executive Officer Ms Catherine Liddle advised that, at present, families do not receive support until children and young people have come to the attention of the child protection system:
The way the child protection system works is that you cannot get support until you are in trouble, which is ridiculous. We should be intervening way earlier…So what would that be? We've picked up a child. We not only find a responsible adult but we also triage, and it should be an Aboriginal person triaging because, again, that's a job, and it's likely someone who knows the child. We ask, 'What else do you need right now?' They say, 'Oh, actually I've been having trouble with this; I've been having trouble with that,' sothat, when they wake up the next morning, those supports are immediately kicking in. But that level of wraparound support, that nuance, is missing. And there is nowhere you can walk into—pretty much anywhere—where you can say: 'Right now, I'm a little bit worried about my kid. He's jumping out of windows at night, and he's hanging out with these kids. I'm at a loss. I've got trouble. I know I might be drinking a little bit too much. Where do I go?’ Where are the rehabilitation services?
The child protection system
2.10Several stakeholders especially commented on out-of-home care (an individual and family factor) as a key issue or risk factor, with children and young people in the child protection system at higher risk of entering the child justice system (‘crossover children’ or ‘crossover kids’).
2.11In its report, the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families (1995–1997, see Chapter 3) especially traced the history of forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.
2.12On 25 October 2024, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) released its report presenting information on young people under supervision during 2022–23 who interacted with the child protection system in the 10 years prior to 30 June 2023 (Young people under youth justice supervision and their interaction with the child protection system 2022–23) (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2Young people under youth justice supervision with an interaction with the child protection system
Source: AIHW, Young people under youth justice supervision and their interaction with the child protection system, 2022–23, 2024, p. 7.
2.13Figure 2.2 shows that nearly two-thirds of children and young people under youth justice supervision had an interaction with the child protection system in the relevant 10-year period. For First Nations youth, the percentage was even higher (76 per cent), as was the percentage for children aged 10–13 experiencing supervision for the first time (84 per cent).
Attitudes to youth
2.14Several submitters and witnesses especially commented on how children and young people are portrayed in the media, and how this affects attitudes and responses to youth offending. TheAustralian Youth Affairs Coalition (AYAC), forexample, submitted:
Young people are frequently and indiscriminately portrayed as politically apathetic and disengaged…as ‘gang members’…as criminals and substance abusers…and as threats to society. Young people of colour are most often targeted by these portrayals, and often with racialised terms attached. Thistype of reporting is harmful, and often inaccurate, and therefore problematic in and of itself. However, such relentless and sensationalised reporting can also lead to policy-making that is reactive and that appeals to populist ‘tough on crime’ ideals, rather than being evidence-based and targeted at effectively addressing the social determinants of justice.
2.15Ms Sarah Nelson, a woman with lived experience, stated that children and young people are highly aware and sensitive to how they are being portrayed:
These young people are watching and hearing what we are saying about them and they are internalising it. Most, if not all, of these young people have a core belief about themselves that they have nothing of value to offer this world…We are reinforcing this belief through the language we use when it comes to them and through the way that we treat them. Weare reinforcing it through our bias against them...The devaluation of them as human beings…is adding to their self-hatred, which then creates more self-destruction. We speak about them and how they are self-destructing more as problems that need to be solved rather than patterns of self-destruction that need to be changed.
2.16Ms Zoë Robinson, Advocate for Children and Young People (NSW), highlighted similar views from her consultations with young people in youth detention centres:
The children and young people interviewed told us: it was inevitable they would end up in adult custody; being in custody was better than being in out-of-home care; and they felt very few people listened or cared, they were also the most insecure children and young people interviewed about their immediate future.
2.17The Guardian for Children and Young People (SA), Ms Shona Reid, said that children and young people have a lot to say about the world and how they are treated:
Last year, I spoke to children and young people in the Adelaide Youth Training Centre. The underlining sentiment was twofold. Firstly, they were being let down. They were let down from the moment they were born by their families that were supposed to grow them up, love them, care for them and provide them safety. They were let down by statutory bodies that were supposed to protect them when they were hurt. They were let down by schools that were supposed to teach and nurture them. They were let down by their peers who they were trying to make connections with but ended up entwining them in troubling and offending behaviours. They were let down by support systems that promised to be there when the times were tough, but workers changed so often that they were hardly able to remember their names or services were only funded for 12 months and they disappeared as quickly as they appeared. They were let down by their legal representation, who did not explain the wholeness of their situation, the court processes, their rights and their responsibilities, and they ended up getting into more trouble. They were let down by the promise of a new start and that rehabilitation or diversion programs would be offered to them in youth detention settings, and that just didn't happen.
Secondly, children and young people expressed the desire to be part of something. They expressed the desire to be more than just a passenger in their life, to contribute meaningfully to their own world and to ours. I saw and heard children and young people who want to be part of this community; they truly do. They want to be part of our society; they truly do. They want to be meaningful to themselves and to the community around them. When I hear from kids—I want to do the quotes, because I'm quoting them—and they say, 'I know the statistics for kids like me,' I worry that even children know the trajectory of their life at the age of 10 and that our society's response to them is so predictable that they simply give up because they believe we simply don't care enough.
2.18Ms Al Hilaly, Campaign and Policy Strategist at NAPCAN, said:
Too many young people are slipping through the cracks—not because they lack potential but because the systems designed to help them were never built with them in mind. We see this every day: young people forced to navigate institutions that don't understand their realities; families struggling to even access the most basic supports; and a justice system that punishes rather than prevents.
2.19SNAICC’s Ms Liddle, argued that, in all the circumstances, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth are being held to an unreasonably high standard:
Accountability of offenders is important, but asking Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to be accountable for their disadvantage and their poverty, for their near-everyday experiences of systemic racism [seeChapter 3], for the absence of anyone supporting them and for the overstressed service system that can't go to those children, we are asking for a greater level of accountability than what we ask of our governments or our justice systems, or anything we assume of ourselves. And what we know is that by the time a child hits a justice system, they have been failed by so many, and yet, when they hit that justice system, the only person that is ever held to account is the child.
2.20The National Children’s Commissioner emphasised that children and young people in detention want to have what is considered a normal childhood:
They're really asking for the sorts of things that all kids—your kids, my kids—need; that is, the basics of a good childhood, like food, somewhere safe to live, a good sense of connection with family, school and peers, and stuff to do, like sport. A lot of these kids talked about the fact that in their communities either there aren't sport or cultural activities that they can do, or the parents can't afford them…There are some simple fixes here where we could address these things.
2.21Ms Nerita Waight, Deputy Chair of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS), expressed the view that ‘until we tackle the way that media reports crime, particularly youth crime, I just think we will not break the cycle of the way that politicians approach it’.
Outcomes of youth detention
2.22Submitters and witnesses stated that there are short and long-term outcomes of detention, which can have significant and detrimental impacts on the lives of young people and society more broadly. This section of the interim report outlines the following key outcomes: physical health, mental health and wellbeing; abuse and mistreatment; and recidivism.
Physical health, mental health and wellbeing
2.23On 14 June 2018, the AIHW released its report entitled National data on the health of justice-involved young people: afeasibility study, 2016–17. This feasibility report highlighted that ‘little information exists at the national level about the health of young people under youth justice supervision in Australia’, and outlined how this ‘critical data gap might be addressed into the future’. In particular:
It is recommended that a national data collection on the health of young people under youth justice supervision be developed, using a combination of data linkage with the [Youth Justice National Minimum Data Set], and administrative data available from youth detention centres.
2.24headspace acknowledged that there is limited national data but reiterated the obvious: the young people involved in the youth justice system are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of Australian communities, with multiple intersectional and adverse healthcare needs.
Access to healthcare
2.25Many stakeholders argued that there is inadequate access to healthcare in youth detention centres. As an example, National Legal Aid (NLA) highlighted the case of individuals with disability whose pre-existing needs are not being met:
Children and young people with disability, including those with neurodevelopmental disorders such as [FASD], are often detained without receiving the support they need, further compounding their vulnerability.
2.26The Australian Medical Association (AMA) indirectly referenced Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which protects the right of the child to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health and access to healthcare services, as well as Rule24 of the United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (theMandela Rules), which provides, among other things:
Rule 24
1. The provision of health care for prisoners is a State responsibility. Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community [the equivalence of care principle], and should have access to necessary health-care services free of charge without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status.
2.27The AMA affirmed its position that the ‘fundamental human rights of people in custodial settings must be upheld…including through…equity of access to safe and appropriate healthcare [and health service delivery models]’. However, it contended that these human rights are unmet:
Incarceration and poor health are strongly associated, suggesting non-compliance by jurisdictions in relation to the rights of those in custody. Incomparison to the general population, those in custodial settings experience higher rates of chronic physical disease, mental ill-health, communicable disease, and addiction. Current service delivery settings across Australian custodial settings do not always enable access to the same standard of healthcare most Australians would expect.
2.28The AMA stated that ‘jurisdictional issues regarding a lack-of-compliance often occur due to contradictory legislation, and government changes’. It explicitly supported the Guiding principles for Corrections in Australia, which reflects a national intent for jurisdictions to achieve best practice across five outcomes, including health and wellbeing (Outcome 4).
2.29At the Commonwealth level, the AMA specifically noted that children and young people in detention are excluded from Medicare Benefits Scheme (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidies (subsection 19(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973):
…the intent of this clause is to avoid duplication of services and expenditure between the Commonwealth and states and territories. However, this is premised on the assumption that an equivalence of health service is being provided by jurisdictions in custodial settings...By not allowing those in custodial settings to access MBS and PBS items, Australia is negating the Mandela Rules as they relate to the same standard of healthcare across the broader community.
2.30The AMA emphasised that healthcare should be provided in a comprehensive, age and culturally appropriate manner, a view shared by the Australian National Preventive Mechanism (ANPM), which endorsed health service delivery by Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs):
Healthcare for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people in all forms of detention, including youth detention, must be culturally safe, and designed and led by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people themselves. This should involve adequately resourced and empowered [ACCHOs]. However, access to ACCHOs is limited, and the lack of access to Medicare in youth detention (as in adult prisons) can lead to an inability to access some services, including culturally safe healthcare.
Mental healthcare
2.31Submitters and witnesses expressed particular concern with the lack of access to mental healthcare in youth detention centres, an environment that, they argued, can exacerbate and/or foster mental health issues (for example, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder).
2.32The ANPM submitted, for example:
Children entering detention regularly have complex combinations of pre-existing mental health conditions, cognitive impairment, and histories of trauma. They may also have mental health conditions which present in a manner involving alleged offending behaviour. Not only does detention compound mental health circumstances, members have noted that access to mental health services in detention is also flawed, as well as impacted consequentially by other facility concerns such as staffing shortages.
2.33The National Justice Project (NJP) and the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research (Jumbunna) highlighted one study which found that young people involved in the criminal justice system have a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders than the general youth population, with 45 per cent to 73 per cent diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder.
2.34The AMA advised that the factors that would be checked by medical professionals are not being considered at the point of entry, including the possibility of a child or young person having developmental disorders, such as FASD, or severe and complex mental health conditions:
The AMA advocates on the importance of developmental health and wellbeing, and checks should be undertaken on all children in contact with custodial settings, to ensure health conditions are known and considered when decisions are being made about the young person.
2.35NLA submitted that staff at youth detention centres are often ill-equipped to respond to the complex needs and challenging behaviours of children and young people in detention, including, for example, the provision of mental health screenings and psychiatric supports.
2.36Ms Hollonds and Ms Rosemary Kayess, Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the AHRC, agreed that staff are not trained and youth detention facilities are not resourced to manage children and young people’s complex needs, which can exacerbate the young people’s conditions and lead to harmful isolation and restraint practices (also see Chapter 4):
Solitary confinement and seclusion are used a lot for kids with disability when they're in the criminal justice system. A lot of it is used to respond to behaviour. Behaviour is a direct response or an exacerbation of their disability in engagement with their environment, and it becomes a bit of a catch-22 situation. They endure restrictive practices as a way to try to get them to submit in terms of their behaviour, but those restrictive practices exacerbate that particular behaviour. It becomes a situation where restrictive practices are increased in use, but it's not going to change the behaviour because it's contributing to the traumatic response.
2.37In response to the provision of disability supports and services for young people, Ms Tarja Saastamoinen, Group Manager, Children and Families at the Department of Social Services, advised that, on 28 January 2025, the Safety, Rights and Justice Targeted Action Plan 2025–2027 was launched as part of Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031. This plan commits Australian governments to specific actions for children and young people involved in youth justice. In addition, Ms Saastamoinen advised that the Australian government is progressing its response to the 2023 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability:
As part of the Australian government's response, disability liaison officers are increasingly being introduced into police settings to improve the police responses to people with disability and to strengthen the disability community confidence side. Justice liaison officers have been introduced in justice settings to increase awareness of the needs of people with disability and clarify roles and responsibilities at the interface between social service systems and justice services…[W]e are working across the department to ensure that there are those connections between the disability space and areas such as mine which look after children and families.
Mental health and wellbeing impacts
2.38Several submitters pointed out that childhood and adolescence are critical times for emotional, social and cognitive growth, which, they argued, can be significantly disrupted by detention. For example, the Australian Child Rights Taskforce submitted:
Childhood and adolescence are ‘critical times for building capabilities for life’. They are also times in which boundaries are tested and decisions are sometimes impulsive. They will include mistakes and are often influenced by the less than perfect circumstances in which they may live. When children come into conflict with the criminal law, the traditional criminal justice system does not offer the guidance and support that is necessary to set them back on track. And too often surrounding service systems are inadequate, not child-centred and pay insufficient attention to what is required for their protection, their health and wellbeing and respect for their rights. A different approach is required. The knowledge of how to undertake such an approach is not a mystery. It is well documented and guided by the international principles of child rights and youth justice.
2.39The NJP and Jumbunna drew attention to the personal mental health and wellbeing impacts on children and young people in youth justice detention. They stated that the young people are often trapped in ‘a cycle of despair where systemic neglect, poor conditions, and a lack of support can lead to frustration, unrest, and riots’. Its submission illustrated this point:
…Banksia Hill recorded over 400 critical incidents by the end of 2022 (plus another 132 critical incidents at Unit 18 alone), with many young people repeatedly involved in violent outbursts. This pattern is not unique to one facility—it reflects a broader failure across the youth justice system to provide environments that nurture young people’s wellbeing and development. The isolation, punitive measures, and lack of support push these young people further into crisis, potentially fuelling further incidents of unrest.Breaking this cycle requires addressing the root causes of despair, such as trauma, mental health issues, and a lack of community connection, rather than resorting to punitive measures.
2.40The NJP and Jumbunna focussed particularly upon isolation practices as having profound psychological impacts:
The use of isolation and high-security units, such as Unit 18 at Banksia Hill, subject young people to prolonged isolation in conditions that violate international human rights standards, such as the Mandela Rules. In some cases, young people have been unlawfully confined for up to 24 hours a day, over a span of multiple weeks. The psychological impact of such isolation is profound, leading to deteriorating mental health, increased feelings of hopelessness, and heightened risks of self-harm or suicide.
Unit 18 is not an isolated case; many Australian detention centres rely on similar high-security units for managing so-called ‘high-risk’ detainees. Reform must focus on eliminating the use of isolation and developing therapeutic, community-based responses that address the underlying needs of these young people.
2.41In another example, Ms Griffiths-Cook acknowledged that the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre (Australian Capital Territory) had a no-physical contact policy, which has now been reversed:
We know how important family connection is. We know how important it is to get a hug from our parent, our brother or our sister. When you are incarcerated, as my colleagues said, often for up to 23-hours a day. So we need to be looking at ways that that connection with family is as wholesome as it can be, despite the constraints of being in a detention facility. We need to recognise the strength that comes from that connection and we need to do what we can to embrace that and to make that work for our children and young people.
2.42Sisters Inside and the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women & Girls (National Network) submitted that ‘children’s prisons…lack social and therapeutic care and support’ and ‘serve as sites of ongoing trauma and violence’. Dr James Beaufils, Senior Research Fellow at Jumbunna, agreed: ‘these are colonial institutions where community, young people and families continue to feel unsafe’.
Disproportionate impacts on vulnerable youth
2.43The committee received evidence that the health and wellbeing of some children and young people are disproportionately impacted in detention. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth, who experience negative outcomes resulting from the absence of cultural safety and cultural connection.
2.44Maranguka, a place-based Indigenous-led initiative operating regionally in Bourke (NSW), submitted that detention has ‘devastating impacts’ on First Nations children, including because it severs ties with family and culture. Itnoted that this disconnection occurs at a critical time in a young person’s development and is particularly impactful in regional and remote areas:
The youth justice and incarceration systems in Australia often strip away the individuality of a person, prioritising uniformity as a method of control…
Detention centres are often a space of enforcement, not rehabilitation, at a stage when young people’s brains and decision-making capacities are not even fully developed yet.
During the remand or incarceration period, family access in regional and rural areas like Bourke are heavily impacted. The closest detention centres are hundreds of kilometres away. The young people in detention are often already in a deeply vulnerable state - to be further disconnected physically from country, community, and family can be a detriment to their rehabilitation process. As an example, the closest detention centre to Bourke is Dubbo, which is 370 kms and effectively a 4-hour car journey away, with limited public transport services that only run 3-4 days a week at specific times. For families who are already under significant financial pressure in this economy, the burden of having to bear the cost of arranging a car and/or accommodation close to the detention centres simply to visit their children, ends up preventing families from maintaining frequent contact and providing adequate support to their child in detention, with some families also experiencing a lack of access to AVL (audio-visual link) facilities for communication.
2.45The NJP and Jumbunna agreed that cultural connection is a fundamental part of identity and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. They contended that, nationally, youth detention centres fail to consistently provide opportunities for these youth to engage with culture:
Although some centres have introduced First Nations content into the curriculum and facilitated visits from First Nations service providers, these efforts are often under-resourced and inconsistent. Given the overrepresentation of First Nations youth in detention—who make up around 63% of the detained population nationwide—the lack of regular cultural programming is a serious issue. True reform must ensure that cultural connection is embedded in the daily lives of young people in detention, providing them with a sense of belonging and community that can aid in their personal growth.
2.46The AHRC pointed out that the detention of children carries additional historical weight for First Nations people:
…from colonial policies of control through to the Stolen Generations to the over-surveillance of children and young people…This [incarceration] is regarded as further punishment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and their experiences of disadvantage, vulnerability and trauma.
Abuse and mistreatment
2.47Several submitters and witnesses raised concerns about the abuse and mistreatment of children and young people in detention, from the use of watchhouses, and harmful isolation and restraint practices, to the deliberate infliction of harm, including assault.
2.48According to Professor George Newhouse, Principal Solicitor and Chief Executive Officer of the NJP:
The youth justice system is a total institution. It's just as controlling and just as abusive as religious orders once were. The rates of abuse and violence in youth detention and in child protection are frightening, but the total institutions deny the existence of abuse and violence and simply blame the children: the victims of the abuse. These organisations rally around their staff and their structures, using the law and spin to protect themselves and not the children, just as the church once did.
2.49The Justice Reform Initiative submitted:
Practices of abuse, neglect and mismanagement have occurred (and continue to occur) in children’s prisons in every state and territory in Australia. For example, in all jurisdictions, solitary confinement is used unlawfully, inappropriately and punitively on children who are held in conditions that fall well short of minimum standards...
In addition to the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in the NT, particular concerns have been raised in relation to the Ashley Youth Detention Centre in Tasmania, the Banksia Hill Detention Centre in Western Australia and the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre in Queensland. In Victoria concerns have been raised about the overuse of lockdowns and isolation for young people in Parkville Youth Detention Centre and the Malmsbury Youth Detention Centre. Similar concerns have been raised regarding the Kurlana Tapa Youth Detention Centre in South Australia. In NSW’s Baxter Youth Detention Centre, Correctional Service Officers have undertaken full strip searches of young people circumventing laws that only permitted partial strip searches.
The cruel and degrading treatment of children in prison is in violation of Australia’s international obligations under the CRC and the [UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, the Havana Rules].
2.50Mr Nick Feik, journalist and former editor of The Monthly magazine, commented on Tasmania’s Ashley Youth Detention Centre (AYDC), as follows:
Children in detention in Tasmania are currently unsafe, despite decades of promises, reviews and inquiries into how to improve relevant laws and systems – and extensive evidence suggests the state is either incapable or unwilling to do what is required to protect them…
The [AYDC] in northern Tasmania is that state’s only youth detention centre, and for years – decades, in fact – it has been unsafe for children. TheTasmanian government, faced with its manifest failures, has promised since 2021 to close it down, but its actions speak for themselves: AYDC remains open for the foreseeable future, and conditions are as dangerous as ever.
The recent Commission of Inquiry…into the Tasmanian government’s responses to child sexual abuse in institutional settings spent three years investigating and documenting such abuses. It exposed literally thousands of cases of physical and sexual abuse, and the worst institution by far was the Ashley Youth Detention Centre.
2.51The First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN) submitted that the Banksia Hill Detention Centre (Banksia Hill) and Unit 18 at the Casuarina Prison (Unit 18) in Western Australia are a ‘national disgrace’, with the youth detained there—more than 70 per cent of whom are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people—'forgotten, abused and ignored’:
Banksia Hill has long been in a state of crisis, unfit for any child...FPDN considers that the words of the Office of the Inspector speak for themselves:
This [2023] inspection was part of our routine three-yearly schedule set to look at all facets of life in Banksia Hill and the gazetted Unit 18 at Casuarina Prison (Unit 18). Our inspection team included specialist advisers covering education, young people, health and mental health, and cultural safety.
Given what we know about the needs of the young people in custody in Western Australia, our intention was to use our experts’ knowledge and advice to examine whether the care being provided to the young people was trauma informed and contemporary. We had intended to overlay various perspectives to the inspection report…
Despite this objective, we have been unable to apply such focus to this report. The situation we observed was so far from a normal routine that anything above getting many of the young people out of cell for a few hours each day seemed unattainable.
Instead of having their basic needs met, these children are being subjected to treatment that is so reprehensible as to bring into application the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984.
2.52Sisters Inside and the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women & Girls (the National Network) highlighted a gender issue that, they argued, can especially impact girls in youth detention centres:
While all guards—irrespective of gender—can inflict harm, the presence of male guards overseeing vulnerable children creates an amplified oppressive dynamic. Children, especially young girls, are placed in positions of heightened vulnerability, making them more susceptible to abuse. It must also be noted that many criminalised children and especially girls, have experienced or witnessed gendered violence and abuse.
2.53Anglicare Southern Queensland noted that the impacts on girls of ‘a system designed for boys and young men’ is currently being investigated by its Young Women’s Voices Australian Research Council Linkage project.
2.54The NSW Advocate for Children and Young People noted that children and young people in detention do not complain about poor treatment by staff within centres for fear of retribution. Or when they do try and complain, they could not. One young person told Ms Robinson: ‘in terms of the complaints or if there's any issues, then the staff just shut it down’.
Recidivism
2.55On 25 August 2023, the AIHW released its report entitled Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2021–22. This report presented data on the number of young people released from a supervised sentence who then returned under another supervised sentence (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3Returns to sentenced supervision while aged 10-17
Source: AIHW, Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision, 2021–22, 2023, p. 5.
2.56Figure 2.3 shows that one in two (51 per cent) of children and young people whose first supervised sentence was detention returned to sentenced supervision before turning 18, compared to 41 per cent of young people whose first supervised sentenced was community-based.
2.57The AIHW noted that ‘the younger a person was at the start of their first supervised sentence, the more likely they were to return to sentenced supervision at some time before the age of 18’.
2.58Many submitters referenced the AIHW and other data, as well as relevant research, demonstrating that detention can reinforce criminal behaviours and perpetuate cycles of reoffending. The Law Council summarised that ‘the detention and institutionalisation of children in their formative years is a proven key factor in recidivism rates’.
2.59Similarly, the Western Australian Inspector of Custodial Services, Mr Eamon Ryan, submitted that ‘the outcomes and impacts of youth incarceration are well researched, with evidenced influence throughout the developmental lifespan’. Mr Ryan identified three key outcomes and impacts of youth incarceration—systemic re-traumatisation, labelling and stigma, ‘cross-over kids’—leading to a fourth key outcome:
Increased risk of recidivism. All above identified outcomes and impacts increase both criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs; empirical risk factors directly relevant to an increased likelihood of reoffending (Andrews & Bonta, 2007). Conversely, research consistently finds youth detention has little influence in reducing recidivism and should be used only as a last resort (Clancey, Wang, & Lin, 2020).
2.60Levitt Robinson submitted that children are meant to be sent to youth detention centres ‘to be rehabilitated to the extent that they can be reintegrated into the community’. However:
Rates of recidivism indicate the extent to which the goals of rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, and as a corollary, community safety, have not been realised. The rate of recidivism in Western Australia is 52.59% and indicates that a culture in which punishment is the predominant objective fails on all fronts.
2.61The AIHW submitted that ‘a current data gap is a national measure of recidivism’, as the main dataset contains data on supervised sentences, not offences, and does not track young people into the adult criminal justice system.
2.62The AIHW and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) are currently progressing the National Crime and Justice Data Linkage Project, to nationally link the Youth Justice National Minimum Data Set data with police, courts and adult corrections data in the ABS’ Criminal Justice Data Asset (in development): ‘this linkage aims to provide a better understanding of the flows of young people from the youth to adult justice system’.
First Nations youth
2.63The AIHW’s Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision 2021–22 also reported that, of all young people who received a supervised sentence, about one-third (38 per cent or 17 254) were First Nations people. A minority (4per cent or 684) received a first supervised sentence of detention, with about three-fifths (62 per cent or 425) returned to sentenced supervision before the age of 18 (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4First Nations youth with a supervised sentence, from 2000–01 to 2021–22, by type of first supervised sentence
Source: AIHW, Young people returning to sentenced youth justice supervision, 2021–22, 2023, p. 9.
2.64The AIHW added that First Nations youth who had a first supervised sentence of detention were 1.4 times more likely than non-Indigenous youth to receive another supervised sentence before the age of 18 (62 per cent, compared to 45 per cent).
2.65The AIHW observed that ‘First Nations young people typically enter youth justice at younger ages than non-Indigenous young people’. In view of its findings at paragraph 2.56: ‘it would be expected that First Nations young people are more likely to return to youth justice supervision than non-Indigenous young people’.
2.66In relation to this data, Sisters Inside and the National Network described the carceral cycle as both violent and predictable:
Once a child is criminalised, the chances of repeated re-criminalisation are alarmingly high. The majority of children who receive community-based sentences are likely to re-enter the criminal punishment system and, tragically, many children who are sentenced to imprisonment end up incarcerated again within a year...This feedback loop between youth and adult incarceration ensures that children are ensnared in the carceral state from a young age, perpetuating a lifelong cycle of imprisonment and trauma that is almost impossible to escape.
2.67Sisters Inside and the National Network considered that this cycle is not accidental:
It is a deliberate product of state systems that heavily police First Nations families, pathologise First Nations children as inherently criminal, and subject them to heightened levels of surveillance and control. Aboriginal children and their families are disproportionately monitored by police and so called “child protection services”, making them far more vulnerable to criminalisation than their non-Indigenous peers...
The over-policing of First Nations children and their communities is a direct result of systemic racism embedded in Australian institutions. Thecriminal[,] legal and family policing systems pathologise Indigenous communities, viewing them through a lens of dysfunction rather than recognising the impacts of colonisation, dispossession, and historical trauma. Instead of providing culturally appropriate support and opportunities, the state responds with heavy surveillance, punitive measures, and incarceration. This relentless cycle reinforces structural inequality, where First Nations children are denied access to education, employment, and social services that could offer pathways out of poverty and criminalisation. The design is clear—by keeping First Nations children and their families under constant scrutiny and control, the state ensures their continued marginalisation and oppression, locking them in a cycle of criminalisation that is almost impossible to break.
Alternatives to detention
2.68In 2019, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, referencing Article 37(b) of the CRC (see Chapter 4), urged States parties to ‘immediately embark on a process to reduce reliance on detention to [keep it to] a minimum’.
2.69Submitters and witnesses agreed that involvement with the child justice system, and especially detention, must be a measure of last resort. TheNJP and Jumbunna voiced concerns, however, that ‘prisons [are] becoming the ad hoc response to youth in desperate need of more appropriate care and support’.
2.70Rather than a carceral response, submitters called for a child justice system that prioritises the safety, wellbeing and human rights of children and young people. In their view, Australia must have alternatives to detention that are evidence-based and focussed on intervention, prevention, rehabilitation and support. UNICEF Australia, forexample, argued:
Investment in prevention and diversion allows us to better identify the needs of children early, re-directing them away from the criminal justice system to programs and supports that are better placed to respond to their needs. Diversion programs and community-led rehabilitative approaches can be used to address the underlying causes of offending, thereby increasing the likelihood of success, helping young people to avoid the negative consequences of detention and lead productive lives. There is also strong domestic and international evidence that suggest these approaches have far more positive outcomes for children, young people and the community.
2.71Similarly, NLA highlighted the multiple benefits of diversion:
Diversion provides a “swift and economically efficient response to offending, which is often non-serious and transient in nature”.It can also minimise the “criminogenic effects of formal justice system contact as a result of negative labelling and stigmatisation”.Diversion can also provide an opportunity to address underlying risk factors that may cause or contribute to offending behaviour in children and young people.
Investment in supervised detention
2.72The National Children’s Commissioner shared these views in her report entitled ‘Help way earlier!’: How Australia can transform child justice to improve safety and wellbeing (the Help way earlier! report):
Taking a public health approach to children’s involvement with the criminal justice system means focusing on prevention and early intervention, addressing the social determinants of crime, and meeting the basic needs of children, their families and communities, including in health, education, and social services such as housing and income security.
2.73Ms Hollonds noted that the criminal justice system is neither equipped nor designed to provide a holistic approach to youth offending, with investment focused primarily on supervised detention:
In 2022–2023, total recurrent expenditure on detention-based supervision, community-based supervision and group conferencing was $1.3 billion nationally, with detention-based supervision accounting for the majority of this expenditure (64.7%, or $855.3 million). It costs taxpayers $2,827.47 per day, which equates to approximately $1.03 million per annum to lock up a child. In contrast, nationally in 2022–23, the average cost per day per young person subject to community-based supervision was $305.8.
2.74Submitters and witnesses acknowledged the daily/yearly costs of detaining children and young people, with some referencing the above calculations that were produced by the Productivity Commission. SHINE for Kids remarked on these costs and their value for money, as follows:
It currently costs $1 million per year in NSW to keep a single young person incarcerated. Despite this enormous investment, 81.37% of young people released from sentenced detention in NSW (85% nationally) returned to sentenced supervision within 12 months of release. This revolving door costs taxpayers enormously, while doing little to address the root causes of offending (and reoffending) among a highly vulnerable cohort with complex needs.
2.75Ms Nerita Waight, Deputy Chair of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, commented similarly, saying:
[Youth justice systems] would rather spend $3,320.46 a day to lock up a young person than to do the work to implement innovative solutions that provide a pathway to long-term change and keep everyone safe.
Justice reinvestment
2.76Justice reinvestment is an approach to criminal justice reform that involves redirecting money from prisons to fund and rebuild human resources and physical infrastructure in the areas most affected by high levels of incarceration. The Australian Law Reform Commission explained:
Justice reinvestment suggests that prisons are an investment failure, ‘destabilising communities along with the individuals whom they fail to train, treat, or rehabilitate (and whose mental health and substance abuse are often exacerbated by the experience of imprisonment)’. Instead, to address the causes of offending, money is better spent—and indeed savings can be made—by reinvesting in places where there are a high concentration of offenders. Justice reinvestment, its proponents contend, can serve both the ends of economic efficiency and social justice: ‘the most efficient way to a just society is to reduce criminality at source through investment in social justice’.
2.77The AYAC agreed with this assessment:
Australia’s current approach to youth justice is failing on multiple fronts. Itcriminalises specific groups of young people, including First Nations children and young people, children and young people from multicultural backgrounds, children and young people who live in out-of-home care, 18 to 25-year-olds, and girls and young women with complex needs…Imprisonment, in particular, causes multiple harms – it impairs healthy development, exacerbates pre-existing trauma, harms mental health and wellbeing, compounds the impacts of colonisation and dispossession, results in poor educational outcomes, damages family relationships, and perpetuates and reinforces economic, social, and health inequity…It actively violates human rights, and poses a risk to life, especially for First Nations children and young people…And – to add insult to injury – it does not reduce rates of offending and reoffending…It’s time we did things differently.
2.78Similarly, Justice Action submitted:
Youth incarceration is destructive, removing young people from the environment they should be in, alienating them from their community and the sociocultural influences that should be preparing them for life in adulthood. The Australian youth justice system is set up to isolate incarcerated youth, creating more negative outcomes in the process. Youth misbehaviour is a symptom of a wider social problem, and should be regarded as an opportunity to institute structural change through restorative justice programs.
2.79The NJP and Jumbunna supported a justice reinvestment approach:
Investments in education, housing, and employment opportunities are proven to reduce offending. Research from the Telethon Kids Institute found that young people who receive support with education and housing post-release are over 60% less likely to reoffend. Youth diversion programs, such as Bail Support Programs, provide young people with an alternative to detention, offering access to stable accommodation, educational opportunities, and mentorship. These programs reduce recidivism and provide young people with the tools needed to succeed in the long term. This is a national crisis that demands a comprehensive response, grounded in community-led solutions, mental health care, and early intervention programs.
2.80The AGD outlined funding commitments made by the Australian government, to establish the National Justice Reinvestment Program and the Justice Reinvestment in Central Australia Program:
Both programs are designed to support place-based and community-led initiatives that meet the individual needs of each community…To date, a total of 26 initiatives nationally, comprised from New South Wales (2), theNorthern Territory (6), South Australia (2), Victoria (1), Queensland (9) and Western Australia (6) have been successful in securing funding under the National Justice Reinvestment Program, of which 11 have a focus on youth.
2.81Ms Esther Bogaart, First Assistant Secretary, First Nations and Justice Policy Division at the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), added that the National Justice Reinvestment Program has been designed to meet the needs of different communities:
The program has been designed in a way that it is community led, and communities are asked to identify, in applying for grants under the program, what needs to be done within that local community, that local context, to reduce contact with the criminal justice systems.
2.82The AGD submitted that the states and territories also have a role to play in supporting justice reinvestment to address the drivers of incarceration, and emphasised the Commonwealth’s leadership on these issues:
Engagement with state and territory governments on justice reinvestment continues bilaterally and through appropriate ministerial forums, including [the Standing Council of Attorneys-General, SCAG]. At the December 2023 SCAG meeting, Attorneys-General endorsed the Commonwealth State & Territory Justice Reinvestment Collaboration Principles to support national consistency and cooperation on justice reinvestment. The collaboration principles, along with the Priority Reforms, are guiding the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on justice reinvestment. These MoUs will inform how the Australian, state and territory governments will work together to support communities funded to implement justice reinvestment initiatives, including co-contributions and data sharing arrangements.
Availability of diversionary alternatives
2.83Some submitters suggested that one reason for the carceral response to youth offending might be that there is a lack of diversionary alternatives to detention. The AHRC submitted that, to comply with Article 37(b) of the CRC (detention as a last resort), effective and responsive alternatives would need to be developed:
A genuinely therapeutic and rehabilitative model should promote positive social connection with a child’s family, community and culture, and be focused on building connections and relationships. Many submissions suggested that detention centres should be small scale, locally sited and integrated within the surrounding community. They should promote ‘relational and differentiated security’ with a focus on therapeutic and individually tailored responses. These should include opportunities for education and life skills and address offending behaviour alongside mental health, substance misuse and other health and wellbeing needs. There should be a strong focus on resocialisation and reintegration.
2.84The AHRC identified three international examples of alternative detention models—the Diagrama model (Spain), the Missouri model and the Close to Home Program (New York City), and the justice approach (Hawaii)—that were commonly referred to in other submissions.
2.85In addition to the availability of diversionary alternatives, the Advocate for Children and Young People (NSW) highlighted that there would also need to be improvements to referral pathways, to connect First Nations children and young people in conflict with the law with community-based cultural programs before, during and after their engagement with the youth justice system.
2.86The Law Council advised that there is ample research into alternative pathways for vulnerable offenders, however, there has been no coordinated national effort to promote these pathways:
The constitutional division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states and territories in this area cannot justify further inaction in this regard. We are all responsible for ensuring the safety and dignity of children in our society, and a national approach is needed in which the Commonwealth Government works with the states and territories to achieve the necessary reforms in concert, in line with their respective roles and responsibilities. The emphasis must be on ensuring that children are connected with their families, education and culture. They must be safe, fed, housed, healthy, active and their wellbeing prioritised.
Rehabilitation and reintegration
2.87As indicated throughout this chapter, submitters and witnesses argued that children and young people in youth detention centres must have access to comprehensive therapeutic services and supports (for example: mental health care, substance abuse treatment, education programs and behaviour change programs).
2.88Mr Brett Collins, Coordinator at Justice Action, supported the provision of computers in cells at youth detention centres throughout Australia. He argued that this is one way in which to access supports and services in a cost-effective manner, as well as enable young people to maintain connection to family:
It makes an enormous difference for a person to be not isolated from family. Everyone's talked about how important it is to have a family. Everyone's talked about how important it is to have restorative justice and access to lawyers and counselling. All of those things are achievable, very simply and very easily, with a computer in cells. But the kids have been deprived of that.
2.89The Guardian for Children and Young People (SA) said, however, that children and young people are not getting rehabilitation in youth detention facilities:
…rehabilitation is an aspiration rather than a reality, with containment of children being the dominating functional goal of these facilities…[K]ids say to me, 'Instead of helping us to reconnect to society, it's mainly alienating us and making us think that because we've done crime we are always outcasted and always segregated'.
2.90Ms Jacqueline McGowan-Jones, Commissioner for Children and Young People (WA), agreed that detention is not facilitating rehabilitation:
We don't rehabilitate. We don't support them to have rehabilitation for drug and alcohol problems. We don't support them with the needs they have for their disabilities, cognitive impairments and other things. We are condemning these children to a life of institutionalisation.
2.91Professor Newhouse said:
If a child has the misfortune to be incarcerated, they have no effective protections, no effective advocates and they receive virtually no care. It's my observation that, in most states, there is no therapeutic treatment provided to children, no disability support and virtually no education, just brutality and punishment. Children in detention are treated as outcasts from society. They are systematically disbelieved, just as children in the care of religious orders and orphanages were in the past.
2.92Stakeholders noted the importance of therapeutic services and supports with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. NLA, for example, submitted:
Detained children and young people must have access to comprehensive rehabilitation services…Many of the recent reviews, inquiries and reports highlight the lack of appropriate programs and services for children [and] young people in detention and the subsequent implications for rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.This is particularly true for First Nations children and young people, given the importance of cultural support and cultural connection in addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children and young people in detention.
2.93The AMA agreed that ‘reintegration into the community is pivotal to preventing reoffence’ and argued that there must be a greater commitment to assisting children and young people exiting detention:
A commitment to assisting people to be reintegrated into the community by targeting areas such as comprehensive release plans, social service integration through primary healthcare providers, housing and homelessness, and links with family and community is essential. All levels of government need to actively work towards decreasing criminalisation and recidivism rates.
2.94Ms Robinson, Advocate for Children and Young People (NSW), specifically noted that the institutionalisation of young people creates dependency on the system, and agreed that provision must be made for a variety of post detention supports:
Young people are provided with many services and opportunities in NSW youth justice centres (such as access to school that supports their needs and healthcare). Upon their release back into the community they no longer have access to these important supports. Having these basic needs provided for are the types of support that children and young people are looking for prior to their interactions with the youth justice system and following their exit from the system.
2.95SHINE for Kids noted one particular support—youth mentoring programs—which it argued produce positive outcomes for at-risk youth across multiple domains:
In mentoring programs for young offenders or young people leaving custody, the first days and months post-release are critical for re-engaging the young person in pro-social activities that connect the young person to the community, such as education, employment, and leisure. However, such re-engagement cannot occur in a vacuum. Mentoring programs are valuable in that they can help address the necessary precursors for a young person’s engagement with services (such as self-awareness, confidence, resilience, help-seeking behaviours and knowledge of services) as well as providing a trusted neutral person for the young person who can advocate for them, transport them to services and speak on their behalf when needed. Given the low levels of trust in others consistently reported among young people in custody, the importance of relationship building and rapport, from a high quality, non-judgemental and reliable mentor for achieving positive outcomes cannot be understated.
2.96Similarly, Justice Action supported peer mentoring programs to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism for children and young people involved in the criminal justice system:
…peer mentoring programs should be introduced to the juvenile justice system of each Australian State and Territory. Peer mentoring programs would allow youth offenders to develop meaningful relationships with people from similar backgrounds and shared experiences. Role models, especially of young people who have managed to overcome their problems, is vital.
The premise of peer mentoring is building a relationship of mutual trust, friendship and support within which help, advice and assistance can be offered as part of the process of re-building a life after being labelled a criminal and where many barriers actively prevent return to normal life…
Mentoring has been found to achieve profoundly positive outcomes for young offenders. All the young people in well performing mentoree relationships of six months or more reported reduced offending, increased community involvement, improved self-esteem, communication skills, and greater motivation.