Re-Thinking Approaches to Youth Justice Hannah Klose

Re-Thinking Approaches to Youth Justice A Public Health Model Approach to Respond to Young People’s Involvement in Violence in Australia

Hannah Klose*

Introduction

It has been over 30 years since the Australian government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘CRC’).1 Last year, an examination was conducted on the Government’s progress in the last five years in relation to children’s rights in Australia.2 Based on findings from my own research, it is clear that there is a distinct gap between ‘rights’ and ‘public health’ when it comes to addressing children’s needs and protecting them from potential harm. Hence, this article proposes that a holistic and interdisciplinary public health approach be implemented in Australia, and ideally, on a global scale.3 By definition, a public health approach is characterised and defined by its own emphasis on prevention and early intervention, primarily focusing on prioritising the needs of children and young people and addressing the social determinants of violence.4 This approach has been pioneered successfully, particularly in Glasgow, Scotland, as a leading model in applying community-based initiatives, including prevention and early intervention strategies which consider and prioritise the needs of children and young people and address the social determinants of violence.5 Implementing these strategies would also steer children and young people away from the youth justice system and set them up for a more optimistic future.6 In this context, taking a public health approach would involve introducing data-driven strategies and evidence-based programs, particularly with Indigenous and other vulnerable groups through participative and restorative approaches, as for example, with the Justice Reinvestment Project in Bourke in Western New South Wales.7

Prevention and Early Intervention: An International Comparative Study

As part of a larger comparative study from which this article is derived, I employed a mixed-methods approach consisting of two separate processes; a quantitative analysis of online media content over a six-month period and a collection of qualitative data through twenty-five semi-structured interviews with practitioners, policymakers and academics within the youth justice sphere in Australia and the United Kingdom.8 Each qualitative semi-structured interview with participants was conducted at a place and time of mutual convenience for Australian participants; and via Skype or WhatsApp for UK participants. Using a thematic analysis, I coded and interpreted key quotes which emerged from the interview data into themes and categories which strongly referenced a ‘public health approach’ and how this model can be adopted properly and resourced accordingly. Therefore, the purpose of the international study was to provide a holistic understanding of how public health approaches are responding to the needs of children and young people involved in the criminal justice system.9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Hannah Klose is currently a PhD Student and Graduate Teaching Associate within the Faculty of Arts (Criminology) at Monash University and has previously worked as a Research Assistant for the International Youth Justice Network. In 2019, she graduated with First Class Honours in Criminology from Monash University. To date, she has made submissions into Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, the Youth Violence Commission, Australia and New Zealand Society of Criminology (ANZSOC), Current Issues in Criminal Justice and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990). Australian Human Rights Commission, Children’s Rights Report 2019: In Their Own Right (Report, 28 October 2019) 10. Laura Jane Robertson, A Practice-Based Approach to Youth Justice: The Whole System Approach in Scotland (PhD Thesis, The University of Glasgow, 2017) 16–18 <http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8493/1/2017RobertsonPhD.pdf>. The approach this article will be proposing is an implementation of Scotland Whole System Approach (WSA) which aims to improve long-term outcomes for children and young people, by diverting them away from statutory measures: at 14. World Health Organisation, World Report on Violence and Health (Report, 2002) 3. Sarah Pepin, Sally Lipscombe and Grahame Allen, Public Health Model to Reduce Youth Violence, House of Commons Library (Debate Pack No CDP-2018-0274, 12 December 2018) 3. Victorian Council of Social Service, Restoring Youth Justice: VCOSS Submission to the Inquiry into Youth Justice Centres (Report, March 2017) 6. ‘Justice Reinvestment in Bourke’, Just Reinvest NSW (Web Page) <https://www.justreinvest.org.au/justice-reinvestment-in-bourke/>. Hannah Klose, ‘Utilising a Public Health Model Approach to Respond to Youth Violence in Victoria’ (Research Summary Document, Monash University, 2019) 11 (‘Summary Document’). Ibid 2.

10 Ibid 20. 11 Sheryl A Hemphill and Rachel Smith, Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth,

‘Preventing Youth Violence: What Does and

Doesn’t Work and Why?’ (Research Report,

October 2010) 18 <https://www.aracy.org. au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/122/filename/Preventing_Youth_

Violence_-_What_does_and_doesn%27t_ work_and_why.pdf>. 12 Helen Fatouros, ‘Is our youth justice system really broken?’ (Conference Paper, Castan

Centre for Human Rights Law, 22 July 2016) 1 <http://youthlaw.asn.au/wp-content/ uploads/2016/07/Is-our-youth-justice-system-really-broken-VLA.pdf>. 13 See Michelle Black et al, ‘Learning across the

UK: A Review of Public Health Systems and

Policy Approaches to Early Child Development Since Political Devolution’ (2020) 42(2)

Journal of Public Health 224. 14 Kate Fitz-Gibbon and Faith Gordon, ‘One

Year on from Royal Commission Findings on Northern Territory Child Detention: What has Changed?’, The Conversation (Online, 19

November 2018) <https://theconversation. com/one-year-on-from-royal-commissionfindings-on-northern-territory-child-detention-what-has-changed-106993> ; Legal and Social Issues Committee, Parliament of

Victoria, Inquiry into Youth Justice Centres in

Victoria (Final Report, March 2018) 112. 15 Ibid. 16 National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander

Legal Services, The Crisis of Indigenous

Youth Detained in Australia (Written Statement to UN Human Rights Council, 21 August 2017) 2. 17 Legal and Social Issues Committee, Parliament of Victoria, Inquiry into Youth Justice Centres in

Victoria (Final Report, March 2018) 141. 18 Ibid 92–3. 19 Jesuit Social Services, ‘Foundations of

Victoria’s youth justice system must be maintained’(24 May, 2017) <https://jss.org.au/ foundations-of-victorias-youth-justice-system-must-be-maintained/>. 20 Hannah Klose, ‘The Effectiveness of a Public

Health Model Approach in Responding to

Youth Violence in Victoria: An International

Comparative Study’ (Honours Thesis, Monash

University, 28 October 2019) 43 (‘Thesis’). 21 Julie White et al, Improving Educational

Connection for Young People in Custody (Final Report, 21 June 2019) 16. 22 Victorian Ombudsman, ‘OPCAT in Victoria: A thematic investigation of practices related to solitary confinement of children and young people’ (Report, 5 September 2019) 131 <https://assets.ombudsman.vic. gov.au/assets/Reports/Parliamentary-Reports/1-PDF-Report-Files/OPCAT-in-Victoria-A-thematic-investigation-of-practices-related-to-solitary-_-September-2019. pdf?mtime=20191216123911>. 23 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Doing Time,

Time or Doing: Indigenous Youth in the

Criminal Justice System (Report, June 2011) chs 2, 19. 24 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,

Parliament of Australia, Youth Detention

Population in Australia (Bulletin No 145, 17

December 2018) 2 <https://www.aihw.gov. au/getmedia/55f8ff82-9091-420d-a75e37799af96943/aihw-juv-128-youth-detentionpopulation-in-Australia-2018-bulletin-145dec-2018.pdf.aspx?inline=true>.

When discussing the effectiveness of these approaches, one participant in Victoria confirmed that ‘a public health approach is one that looks at a more preventative, early response’.10 Hence, this point establishes that a public health approach is not just holistic and multidisciplinary, but it also involves ‘getting in early’ to prevent future violence.11 However, despite the growing awareness of the public health approach to youth violence and this model being on the table for decades now, the practitioners and policymakers interviewed held inconsistent definitions of the approach and seemed to lack concrete examples of how it would be applied in practice. This demonstrates that there is not only ambiguity in terms of specific steps to take in order to restore our justice system, but there is often a tendency for governments to often revert to a ‘law and order’ approach which will have alarming long term consequences for young people and the wider community.12 This article explores alternatives to criminalisation, and through an international comparative lens, examines the integration of a ‘public health approach’ which has been successful in Scotland and is well-supported in other parts of the United Kingdom to respond to youth involvement in violence.13

iii Context of Australia’s Youth Justice System and Current Approaches

In the context of Australia’s youth justice system, there are serious concerns surrounding the treatment of children and young people in detention in Victoria and the Northern Territory.14 Over the past decade, children detained in the Northern Territory have been ‘mistreated, verbally abused, humiliated, isolated or left alone for long periods’, among other serious human rights breaches.15 These incidents prompted a response by the Australian government who convened a Royal Commission in 2017 into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory.16 Youth detention centres at Parkville and Malmsbury in Victoria have also reported serious violations of human rights against young people which have subsequently led to low-level disruptive behaviour to highly-publicised riots and escapes.17 It is against this backdrop of considerable concern about the violations of the rights of children in the criminal justice system that this article explores appropriate responses that could be utilised to reduce and prevent young people’s involvement in violence.

In Victoria, the shift from a welfare orientation to a supervision and surveillance approach18 offers an interesting contextual case study as it is ultimately at-risk of eroding its ‘progressive’ juvenile justice system.19 A youth justice practitioner who was interviewed for my research project recognised that Victoria, for instance, ‘is really sitting at a punitive approach at the moment … recently youth justice has fallen under the Department of Justice, rather than Department of Health and Human Services’.20 The aim of my study was to view the protection and realisation of children’s rights and well-being through the lens and framework of public health, rather than justice. An evident example of a ‘justice’ response is the Australian government’s plan to build a new youth detention centre in Cherry Creek in outer Melbourne, which is expected to be operational in 2021.21 Hence, rather than investing in approaches which will therapeutically address the needs of children and young people, child prisons are expanding across Australia.22

Additionally, the disproportionately high level of Indigenous children aged between 10 and 17 years within the youth justice system is a major challenge which confronts the Australian Government’s commitment to ‘Closing the Gap’.23 As of December 2018, Indigenous children represent almost 59% of the children and young people who are placed into youth detention centres across Australia, which is nearly three in five.24 To reduce this significant proportion of Indigenous children who are detained there needs to be sustained investment through co-creation and community participative processes in primary prevention in economically and socially disadvantaged communities.25 Therefore, to prevent Indigenous children from coming into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place, there needs to be a complete and committed public health initiative, which must extend universally to marginalised communities.26

iv Re-Thinking Approaches: Practitioner Perspectives and Public Health Approaches in Scotland

Over the last two decades, a public health approach has been internationally recognised as an effective primary model in responding to and preventing children

and young people’s involvement in violence.27 From a developmental and life course perspective, this approach is premised on the idea that children’s safety and wellbeing exist on a continuum and that the risk factors and the social determinants of youth violence are considered when providing these support services to vulnerable or ‘at-risk’ groups.28 A university academic from the United Kingdom acknowledged that a public health approach is ‘inclusive of all parts of society … it’s the bridge between our health, our police, our social care, the community and the children … it all works together’. 29 This further supports the integration of a holistic approach which requires different governments and agencies to collaborate to achieve shared goals for children and young people, as well as the wider community.

In comparison to Australia and England, Scotland’s youth justice system promotes the welfare of children and young people by taking a ‘child-centred’ approach and successfully integrating the framework of the CRC. 30 Established in 2005 by the Strathclyde Police, the Violence Reduction Unit in Glasgow (‘VRU’) is regarded as a highly progressive organisation which is invested in reducing and addressing the risk and protective factors of violence through a multi-agency approach.31 In responding to youth involvement in violence, this approach ultimately addresses four key components: the underlying factors of violence and why it occurs; the magnitude and scope of violence; ways to prevent violence; and finally, applying a range of interventions and determining the effectiveness of these approaches.32 Primarily modelled on a public health approach, the launch of Scotland’s VRU has triggered renewed public and policy debate to tackle serious violence throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, including England and Wales. While conducting fieldwork for my study, a participant from Glasgow, Scotland asserted that ‘a violence reduction unit in Scotland has very much drawn upon a public health perspective’.33 In comparison, an academic from Victoria, Australia insightfully maintained that ‘the Scottish model has been quite different to the rest of the UK … it’s a model that has always focussed on the needs of young people’.34 These quotes reflect the strong recommendations which have been proposed towards implementing public health approaches to address and prevent youth involvement in violence in Australia. Furthermore, the Scottish public health approach has prompted other countries, particularly the rest of the UK, to learn from Glasgow by tailoring their approach to meet the needs and challenges of both countries and move away from the traditional methods of punishment and criminalisation.35

Several participants also acknowledged the need to view children and young people coming into conflict with the law, through a ‘child-friendly’ lens.36 The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (2009-2020) report identifies a public health approach to child wellbeing which considers the risks and vulnerabilities of children and young people, as well as the need for prevention and early intervention.37 Although the 10-year plan is due to lapse at the end of this year, it is evident that this initiative has been either neglected or poorly carried out by the government as it has not been adequately reflected in Parliament.38 To support this statement, a Victorian politician recognised that ‘if we were to take a public health approach, we would be dealing with those health issues … we would be recognising that we could provide early intervention … including wraparound services for the families’.39 When discussing the effectiveness of these wraparound services and support systems, a participant from the United Kingdom introduced the concept of a ‘risk and protective factor paradigm’,40 which suggests why certain groups of children and young people are more or less likely to become victims of crime. According to Haines and Case, this can be achieved by reducing potential risk factors, such as including social exclusion and poor parental supervision, and enhancing protective factors, including access to social support and educational services for children, young people and families.41

In response to this finding, another University academic from the United Kingdom recognised the importance of incorporating these contextual factors into youth justice policies at an international level: ‘I’d basically see a public health model as one that brings to the forefront the considerations of having social determinants … that the contact around the youth justice system is the reason for young people committing offences’. 42 While it is true that contact with the youth justice system increases recidivism, compared to alternative non-justice approaches for children experiencing similar risks, it is also the case that most of the causes of youth violence are due to the social determinants, including family and community factors.43 The general consensus from participants, particularly those based in the

25 Koorie Youth Council, Ngaga-dji (Hear Me):

Young Voices Creating Change for Justice (Report, October 2018) 6 <https://static1. squarespace.com/static/5b7d09f775f9ee5c f0a54a07/t/5b860aff352f53267bc3486c/1535511527195/Ngaga-dji+report+August+2018.pdf>. 26 Australian Institute of Family Studies, Child

Protection and Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander children, (CFCA Resource Sheet,

January 2020) < https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/sites/ default/files/publication-documents/2001_child_ protection_and_atsi_children.pdf> 12. 27 Daryl J Higgins, ‘A Public Health Approach to

Enhancing Safe and Supportive Family Environments for Children’ [2015] (96) Family Matters 39, 40. 28 Ibid 39. 29 Klose, ‘Summary Document’ (n 8) 21. 30 Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice, A Guide to Youth Justice in Scotland: Policy, Practice and Legislation (Report, June 2018) 6–8 <https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/68059/1/

CYCJ_2018_a_guide_to_youth_justice_in_scotland.pdf>. 31 Klose, ‘Summary Document’ (n 8) 5; Peden et al., Collaborative Approaches to Preventing Offending and Re-offending in Children (‘CAPRICORN’) (Report, July 2019) <https:// dera.ioe.ac.uk/33984/1/CAPRICORN_resource. pdf> 38. 32 Violence Reduction Unit, Violence is Preventable, Not Inevitable: The Story and Impact of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit (Report, 2020) 7. 33 Klose, ‘Thesis’ (n 20) 45. 34 Ibid. 35 See Pepin, Lipscombe and Allen (n 5). 36 Klose, ‘Summary Document’ (n 8) 23. 37 Council of Australian Governments, Parliament of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s

Business: National Framework for Protecting

Australia’s Children 2009-2020 (National Framework, 1 June 2009) 7–8 <https://www.dss.gov. au/sites/default/files/documents/child_protection_framework.pdf>. 38 Families Australia, Beyond 2020: Towards a

Successor Plan for the National Framework for

Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 (Final

Report, May 2020) 40 <https://familiesaustralia. org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/BEYOND2020-FINAL-NATIONAL-CONSULT-REPORT28MAY2020-1.pdf>. 39 Klose, ‘Thesis’ (n 20) 44. 40 Klose, ‘Summary Document’ (n 8) 20. 41 Kevin Haines and Stephen Case, ‘The Rhetoric and Reality of the “Risk Factor Prevention Paradigm” Approach to Preventing and Reducing

Youth Offending’ (2008) 8(1) Youth Justice 5. 42 Klose, ‘Thesis’ (n 20) 45. 43 World Health Organisation, Preventing Youth

Violence: An Overview of the Evidence (Report, 30 July 2015) ch 2 <http://www.drugs.ie/ resourcesfiles/ResearchDocs/Global/WHO_

Youth_Violence.pdf>.

44 Pepin, Lipscombe and Allen (n 5) 3. 45 Ibid. 46 Penny Armytage and James Ogloff, Parliament of Victoria, Youth Justice Review and

Strategy: Meeting Needs and Reducing

Offending (Report, 7 August 2017) 12;

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019. Youth Justice in Australia 2017–18 (Report, 18 April 2019) 40. United Kingdom, was that the public health approach in Glasgow, Scotland is a significant step in reducing and preventing violent crime. In December 2018, Leslie Evans, the Scottish Government Permanent Secretary described the approach as having ‘changed lives.’44 Between 2008 and 2018, Scotland’s homicide rate has halved and the number of hospital admissions due to assault with a sharp object has fallen in Glasgow by 62%.45 Hence, it is clear from the findings in my research that the need for a public health approach, as advocated in the United Kingdom, has relevance for Australia’s youth justice system. It is therefore absolutely vital that governments and policymakers rethink why they are locking children up and instead start to invest more funding into restorative and early intervention models, provide more options for diversion programs and to start to recognise that we simply cannot treat children the same way we treat adults.

v Recommendations for the Future

This article seeks to shed light on the distinct lack of contingency embedded in Australia’s current framework in response to children and young people’s involvement in violence, as well as prevention from further harm within the youth justice system. Many participants interviewed for this study agreed that the youth justice systems in Australia, England and Wales have been structured in a way that is failing to effectively consider the social determinants and factors linked to children and young people’s involvement in violence.46 Therefore, the views of children, young people and their advocates must be reflected in the policy framework and legislation so that their voices are heard and the protection of children’s rights is appropriately embedded within the criminal justice system. Overall, the aim should be to understand why children and young people are engaged in and are exposed to what is deemed as violent behaviour.

Furthermore, it was revealed in the interviews with professionals that public health responses are critical in addressing the individuals needs as well as proactively protecting and promoting the rights of children and young people. Based on the emergence of these findings, this article has demonstrated the strong correlations existing between the contextual factors and the social determinants of health and children’s and young people’s involvement in violence. The qualitative data analysis in this study has provided a foundation of recommendations for future reforms, outlining that we must continue to critique and assess the relevancy of a public health approach to prevent youth violence in order to encourage more ‘child-friendly’ practices at national and international levels and learn from countries such as Scotland. The key next step would be to ensure that the voices and experiences of children and young people are listened to and at the heart of all future reforms in this area.