Student Name Susann Treston s1

Student name Susann Treston

Student number S0158048

Course code SOWK13013

Assignment Assessment 2

Topic Practice Context and Intervention

Word Count 1500 (1649)

Lecturer Shirley Ledger

Due date 6 September 2011

Table of Contents Context of Youth Justice In Australia, state and territory governments are responsible for juvenile justice and share a number of characteristics, including the arrest, charge and sentencing process and legal orders handed down by the courts. A number of agencies are involved in various stages and processes such as police, courts, parole boards and juvenile justice agencies.

Juvenile justice agencies are responsible for supervising young people on supervised orders, such as supervised bail or remand and sentenced orders such as probation, sentenced detention and parole. Agencies also have responsibility for running police- referred and court-referred group conferencing programs. Additional services provided include education, training and rehabilitation programs, assistance finding accommodation and employment or returning to school (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2011). The Department of Communities provides services and interventions as outlined in organisational policies including management of youth detention centres, youth justice service centres, youth justice conferencing, court specific services and undertaking interventions with children involved in the youth justice system. The legal framework of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) provides laws for young people aged 10-16 years old who commit, or are alleged to have committed offences (Department of Communities 2011). The principle objectives of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) are to establish an administrative basis for juvenile justice, including police procedure, diversionary and sentencing options, outlining court process, youth detention centre operation and recognition of family and community roles in rehabilitation and reintegration, in particular for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, see Appendix C (AIHW 2011).

Queensland Services are delivered through 16 youth justice service centres and two youth detention centres. Brisbane Youth Detention Centre at Wacol, accommodates state wide females, and males from south of Rockhampton, whilst the Cleveland Youth Detention Centre in Townsville, accommodates young males from north of Rockhampton (Queensland Government 2010b).

Best Interests of Child The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) sets out comprehensive minimum standards for the treatment of all children, that all children

Susann Treston Page 3 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 have ‘a right to protection, to participation, to personal development and to basic material provision’ (Muncie cited Coppins et al. 2011). Underpinning these rights is the notion of best interests of the child; in all decision making concerning children, a primary or greater consideration is acting in the child’s best interests. Custody or detention should be used as a last resort, there is considerable discrepancy in terms of the number of juveniles detained in custody raising questions about the extent to which best interests practices are followed in a climate where social control and the risk management are functions of political imperatives (Goldson & Muncie, 2006; Hendrick, 2006, cited Coppins et al 2011) See Appendix D. The Queensland government violates the human rights of children by treating some children as adults in the criminal justice system which moves them away from operation of the Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld). The 17 year old, a child for every other legal purpose, is not dealt with on the basis of detention as a last resort, their heightened vulnerability to physical and emotional harm make detention a confronting experience. The act of detention can foster institutionalisation, a training ground for criminal activity, leave children with no basic life skills for societal reintegration and have a destructive effect worsening rates of recidivism. The requirement for separating child and adult offenders can significantly impede rehabilitation, stigmatise the young offender who may endure their sentence in isolation. Young female offenders in detention are subject to mandatory strip searching prior to and after visitation. When 89% of female prisoners are victims of sexual abuse, a strip search is experienced as revictimisation by the state, a powerful disincentive to maintain contact with family (Sisters Inside 2001).

The interests of a child can sometimes conflict with the interests of other persons or groups in society, rights-based considerations may in certain rare circumstances override the best interest considerations (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2008). For example, a sexual offender assessed at high risk of reoffending, a young person considered violent and/or is a danger to the community, considered a high risk of suicide, suffering a psychotic episode or has significant mental health issues, is resistant to departmental intervention; (sexual offender intervention or mental health intervention) or familial and community support or monitoring (Department of Communities 2009b). Juvenile justice legislation in Australia serves to ensure that the procedural rights of a young offender are met, however, much of the legislation does not extend to ensuring that what happens once the young person enters the juvenile justice system is in his other best interests. (Coppins et al 2011).

Interventions Four common factors of interventions influencing behaviour change are client factors, relationship factors, model/ technique, hope and expectancy (Clark 2011b). Techniques emphasising punishment and penalty to stop negative behaviour have become an obstacle for increasing motivation and assisting change towards positive behaviours. A directive-confrontational style of communication produces resistance and reduces positive client behaviours in comparison to a supportive, client-centred approach. With the rise of evidence-based practice, Andrews, et al (1990) outlines principles of effective intervention that include risk assessment, targeting criminogenic needs and responsivity to temperament, learning style, motivation, culture and gender of offenders when assigning and delivering programs. See Appendix A for Intervention Framework (cited Clark 2001a).

Interventions with offenders in the community are more effective than those with offenders in institutions who have more frequent, serious and persistent offending in comparison to those on community supervision orders, however research findings establish that cognitive behavioural approaches based on social learning theory, can change behaviour (Smith, D 2005). Particular offence focused interventions include the group based, Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Changing Habits and Reaching Targets (CHART) Programs, see Appendix B (Department of Communities 2010). The theoretical basis rests upon Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT), defined as a combination of cognitive and behavioural therapeutic approaches used to modify maladaptive thoughts and behaviours. Beck et al. (1979) described the A- B-C model: situations (A) do not create feelings/emotions (C) in a person; instead (B) are cognitive appraisals attaching meaning and value of the situation to the individual, often based on faulty thinking or distortions of reality arising from

Susann Treston Page 5 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 previous experiences (cited Schmied & Tully 2009). Group interventions, including social skills, cognitive-behavioural, psychoanalytic and psycho-educational groups are considered to be successful with adolescents, as: • adolescents accept peer comments more readily. • group norms have a powerfully socialising influence • members benefit vicariously from the work done by others • opportunities for listening without demands are provided. Associated with group work is social learning theory providing a basis for multi- systemic therapy for problem behaviours and conduct disorders. Individuals learn by experience and observing others; through the process of reinforcement adaptive positive behaviours, which are acknowledged in the group process, are reinforced by the reward available (Schmied & Tully 2009).

Indigenous Youth Justice in Australia As a consequence of historical and contemporary circumstance, Indigenous youth face higher risk exposure which is crucial to understanding overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. Risk factors include a history of socioeconomic disadvantage, racial prejudice and cultural alienation, poor health and living standards, cognitive disability and mental health issues, high rates of unemployment, issues of family dysfunction, vulnerability to drug and alcohol abuse, lack of culturally relevant education and high rates of truancy, lack of culturally appropriate prevention and intervention programs, limited access to alternative sentencing and community-based programs and the potential for bias in the exercise of police discretion and elsewhere in the criminal justice system (Murphy et al. 2010). Strengthening cultural knowledge and linking Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people to their family, kin and clan groups can foster empowerment and engagement and is essential to positive outcomes (Queensland Government Community Services 2010).

In recent years, Queensland has also implemented a number of youth justice programs and initiatives for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. Indigenous Service Support Officers (ISSOs) have been introduced to provide culturally appropriate support and intervention (Murphy et al. 2010). A key response to the challenge of engaging young people, their families and communities was to modify the services existing framework to provide alternative strategies which were culturally appropriate in order to enhance communication and cooperation between the service and Indigenous communities (Dawes 2008). Involuntary clients had ingrained views about the juvenile justice system and low motivation to re-engage with community based education or training programmes. Additionally, unless the family was supportive there is less chance of desistance. Caseworkers described encountering families which failed to provide basic standards of support such as safety, food and clothing or where there was a breakdown of basic rules and values and few positive adult role models (Dawes 2008). A modified offence focused intervention FACE has been developed for Indigenous offenders in remote communities, see Appendix B. The theoretical framework is bases upon the strengths based approach and the social ecological model. The strengths perspective is a belief in the offenders’ ability to change focusing on available strengths, resources and assets. In the past, criminal justice has focused on deficits, disorders and failure (Clark 2001a). Strengths-based approaches provide a way of identifying and fostering resilience in young people, and view young people as ‘experts’ in their own lives with ability to find solutions to life challenges. Therapeutic approaches based on a strengths-based approach include solution focused therapy and narrative approaches offering a structure for negotiating the problem according to the client perspective. Both involve eliciting and examining client perspective and assisting a client to see alternative possibilities (Trotter 2004, cited Schmied & Tully 2009). According to Clark (2001a), a strengths approach increases responsibility and accountability by ‘holding offenders accountable for the solution’ calling for staff to move mandated youth from passive program recipients to active participants (Clark 2001a). Over the past thirty years there has been a shift in the explanation for child developmental psychopathology from being centred on the child, or mother and child (as in attachment theory or Social Learning Theory), to an explanation based on systems theory. Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed a socio-ecological model where child development is influenced by the non-static nature of family, peers, school and neighbourhood and broader social context such as the media, parental work arrangements and government policies. An assessment identifies risk factors in a

Susann Treston Page 7 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 child’s environment, which predisposing a poorer outcome and protective factors which might buffer them (cited Schmied & Tully 2009).

Appendix A: Youth Justice Intervention Framework YOUTH JUSTICE INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK OUTLINE Offending is reduced, communities and victims are restored and young people are integrated into their communities

COURT ORDERS AND BAIL SUPPORT (delivered by Youth Justice Service Centre) Long-term Outcomes  Young person has completed the court order(s) and requirements imposed on him/her by the court Short-term Outcomes  Young person complies with the court order(s) and requirements imposed on him/her by the Court Intervention Types  Probation Order  Community Service Order  Intensive Supervision Order  Conditional Release Order  Detention Order/Remand  Supervised Release Order  Bail with departmental support

SUPPORT SERVICES (ideally delivered in the community by an external provider) Long-term Outcomes  Young person has improved stability, health and well being Short-term Outcomes  Young person and/or their family members have increased access to resources and support to improve stability  Young person and/or their family members have increased access to resources and support to improve health and well-being Intervention Types  Personal and Practical Support  Health and Therapeutic Support

OFFENCE FOCUSSED INTERVENTION (delivered by Youth Justice Service Centre) Long-term Outcomes  Young person makes positive changes to his/her offending behaviour Short-term Outcomes  Young person has insight into the thinking and behaviour that contributed to his/her offending and has the skills to apply pro-social alternatives  Young person is held accountable for his/her offending behaviour and (where possible) has repaired the harm caused by his/her offending  Young person has knowledge and strategies to reduce the level of his/her drug and alcohol use Intervention Types  Modifying Offending Thoughts and Behaviour  Reparative Action  Substance Misuse Intervention

DEVELOPMENTAL INTERVENTION (ideally delivered in the community by an external provider) Long-term Outcomes  Young person engages positively with his/her peers, families and communities Short-term Outcomes  Young person has skills and knowledge for positive social interaction and community living  Young person and his/her family have an increased level of functioning and connection to sustainable community based support • Young person has increased access to positive community based activity Intervention Types  Life Skills Social Skills Development  Development  Family support  Cultural Identity Development and Support  Access to Recreation/ Leisure  Access to Education, Training and/or Employment (Department of Communities 2009a, p. 3)

Appendix B: ART, CHART and FACE Programs

Aggression Replacement Training (ART)  Cognitive Behavioural Program designed to change aggressive and violent behaviours. Delivery 3 times per week including a lesson on moral reasoning, skills streaming and anger control. This intensity level required to change ingrained thought processes and behaviours.  Washington State Institute for Public Policy evaluated ART in 2002. Results showed a 28 percent reduction in recidivism for young people who had participated in the program.

Susann Treston Page 9 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 Alternative forms of ART in Remote Indigenous Communities  ART is difficult to deliver to remote locations due to the intensity of the program  FACE has been developed, based on the principles from ART  FACE is a 5 day program delivered in a camp environment to young people from remote Indigenous communities in FNQ. The program is co-delivered by Community Elders.

Changing Habits and Reaching Targets (CHART) Program  28 session program to support casework with young offenders  Offenders consider their behaviour, identifying factors that led to the offence and ways to reduce these in the future, and  Understanding the impact of their actions on victims  By addressing violence and how to deal with anger in pro-social ways (Department of Communities 2010).

Appendix C: Legislation Youth Justice Act 1992 – Objectives of Act The principal objectives of this Act are-- (a) to establish the basis for the administration of juvenile justice; and

(b) to establish a code for dealing with children who have, or are alleged to have, committed offences; and

(c) to provide for the jurisdiction and proceedings of courts dealing with children; and (d) to ensure that courts that deal with children who have committed offences deal with them according to principles established under this Act; and

(e) to recognise the importance of families of children and communities, in particular Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, in the provision of services designed to—

(i) rehabilitate children who commit offences; and (ii) reintegrate children who commit offences into the community (Austlii 2011a).

Youth Justice Act 1992 – Charter Of Youth Justice Principles 1. The community should be protected from offences. 2. The youth justice system should uphold the rights of children, keep them safe and promote their physical and mental wellbeing. 3. A child being dealt with under this Act should be— (a) treated with respect and dignity, including while the child is in custody; and (b) encouraged to treat others with respect and dignity, including courts, persons administering this Act and other children being dealt with under this Act. 4. Because a child tends to be vulnerable in dealings with a person in authority, a child should be given the special protection allowed by this Act during an investigation or proceeding in relation to an offence committed, or allegedly committed, by the child. 5.If a child commits an offence, the child should be treated in a way that diverts the child from the courts' criminal justice system, unless the nature of the offence and the child's criminal history indicate that a proceeding for the offence should be started. 6. A child being dealt with under this Act should have procedures and other matters explained to the child in a way the child understands. 7. If a proceeding is started against a child for an offence-- (a) the proceeding should be conducted in a fair, just and timely way; and (b) the child should be given the opportunity to participate in and understand the proceeding. 8. A child who commits an offence should be-- (a) held accountable and encouraged to accept responsibility for the offending behaviour; and (b) dealt with in a way that will give the child the opportunity to develop in responsible, beneficial and socially acceptable ways; and (c) dealt with in a way that strengthens the child's family. 9. A victim of an offence committed by a child should be given the opportunity to participate in the process of dealing with the child for the offence in a way allowed by the law. 10. A parent of a child should be encouraged to fulfil the parent's responsibility for the care and supervision of the child, and supported in the parent's efforts to fulfil this responsibility. 11. A decision affecting a child should, if practicable, be made and implemented within a timeframe appropriate to the child's sense of time. 12. A person making a decision relating to a child under this Act should consider the child's age, maturity and, where appropriate, cultural and religious beliefs and practices.

Susann Treston Page 11 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 13. If practicable, a child of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background should be dealt with in a way that involves the child's community. 14. Programs and services established under this Act for children should-- (a) be culturally appropriate; and (b) promote their health and self respect; and (c) foster their sense of responsibility; and (d) encourage attitudes and the development of skills that will help the children to develop their potential as members of society. 15. A child being dealt with under this Act should have access to legal and other support services, including services concerned with advocacy and interpretation. 16. A child should be dealt with under this Act in a way that allows the child to be reintegrated into the community. 17. A child should be detained in custody for an offence, whether on arrest or sentence, only as a last resort and for the least time that is justified in the circumstances. 18. A child detained in custody should only be held in a facility suitable for children. 19. While a child is in detention, contacts should be fostered between the child and the community. 20. A child who is detained in a detention centre under this Act-- (a) should be provided with a safe and stable living environment; and (b) should be helped to maintain relationships with the child's family and community; (c) should be consulted about, and allowed to take part in making, decisions affecting the child's life (having regard to the child's age or ability to understand), particularly decisions about-- (i) the child's participation in programs at the detention centre; and (ii) contact with the child's family; and (iii) the child's health; and (iv) the child's schooling; and (d) should be given information about decisions and plans about the child's future while in the chief executive's custody (having regard to the child's age or ability to understand and the security and safety of the child, other persons and property); and (e) should be given privacy that is appropriate in the circumstances including, for example, privacy in relation to the child's personal information; and (f) should have access to dental, medical and therapeutic services necessary to meet the child's needs; and (g) should have access to education appropriate to the child's age and development; (h) should receive appropriate help in making the transition from being in detention to independence (Austlii 2011b).

Other legislation that interacts with the Youth Justice Act 1992 includes the Childrens Court Act 1992, the Bail Act 1980, the Criminal Code, and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Queensland Government 2010a).

Susann Treston Page 13 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 Appendix D: Issues and dilemmas maintaining best interests of the child

 Young persons are required to be held in holding cell until their matter comes up, which could be all day. It also means there is no family support going before the court which is recognised as a difficult and sometimes traumatic process (New South Wales Government 2010).  Some of the principles included in the Act are not being achieved through the lack of resources.

 Custody as a last resort is compromised by the lack of available accommodation.

 Strengthening family relationships is difficult to achieve when there is a lack of resources in the human services system.

 Families sometimes don’t have the skills to participate in restorative justice.

 Young people need the cognitive skills to participate in restorative justice sessions, otherwise the sessions can be damaging.

 Mentors need to be well trained in terms of language levels and stages of cognitive development.

 Sometimes participants may be further alienated by restorative justice and rehabilitation processes and this is counterproductive.

 Young people should only be strip searched pursuant to a court order; (Department of Human Services 2009). References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011, ‘Juvenile justice in Australia 2008–09’, Juvenile justice series no. 7. Cat. no. JUV 7, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737418606&tab=2 Austlii 2011a, ‘Youth Justice Act 1992 – objectives of Act’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/yja1992185/s2.html Austlii 2011b, ‘Youth Justice Act 1992 - schedule 1 - charter of youth justice principles’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/yja1992185/sch1.html Clark, M 2001a, ‘Influencing positive behaviour change: increasing the therapeutic approach of juvenile courts’, Federal Probation Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 18-27, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.buildmotivation.com/images/11%20increase%20tx%20of%20jc-fed%20prob.pdf

Clark, M 2011b, ‘Juvenile Justice’, Great Lakes Training Incorporated, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.buildmotivation.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=34

Coppins V, Casey, S & Campbell, A 2011, ‘The Child’s best interest: a review of Australian juvenile justice legislation’, The Open Criminology Journal, vol. 4, pp. 23-31, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocrij/articles/V004/SI0010TOCRIJ/23TOCRIJ.pdf

Dawes, G 2008, ‘The challenges of reintegrating young offenders back to their communities: the caseworkers perspective’, paper presented at the Australian Sociological Association Conference, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.tasa.org.au/uploads/2011/05/Dawes-Glenn-Session-40- PDF.pdf

Department of Communities 2009a, ‘Summary youth justice intervention framework’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/youth/youth- justice/documents/pdf/summary-youth-justice-intervention-framework.pdf

Department of Communities 2009b, ‘General case management issues’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/youth/youth-justice/publications/services-practice- manual/index.html

Department of Human Services 2009, ‘Review of the Youth Justice Act 1997’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/48326/YJ_Consultation- _Groups_Organisations.pdf Department of Communities 2011, ‘Youth Justice’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/childsafety/protecting-children/ongoing-intervention/youth-justice Department of Communities 2010, ‘Offence focused programs addressing youth violence in Queensland’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/236261/Michael-Tansky.pdf

New South Wales Government 2010, ‘A strategic review of the NSW juvenile justice system’, viewed 3 September 2011, http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/pdf_htm/publications/general/Juvenile%20Justice %20Review%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

Murphy P, McGinness, A & McDermott, T 2010, ‘Review of effective practice in juvenile justice’, New South Wales Government, Department of Juvenile Justice, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/pdf_htm/publications/general/Juvenile%20Justice%20Effective%20Practice %20Review%20FINAL.pdf

Queensland Government 2010a, ‘About youth justice’, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/youth/youth-justice/about/

Susann Treston Page 15 of 16 S0158048 SOWK13013 Queensland Government 2010b, ‘Youth justice services’, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/youth/youth-justice/services/ Queensland Government Community Services 2010, ‘Youth justice services practice manual, case plan’, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.communityservices.qld.gov.au/youth/youth-justice/publications/services-practice- manual/index.html

Schmied, V & Tully, L 2009, ’Effective strategies and interventions for adolescents in a child protection context’, New South Wales department of Community Services, Ashfield, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/effective_adolescent_strategies.p df

Sisters Inside 2001, ‘age does matter’, Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill 2001 Consultation Draft, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.sistersinside.com.au/media/juvenilejustice.pdf

Smith, D 2005, ‘The effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, Criminal Justice, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.181–195, viewed 2 September 2011, http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/professional_learning/resources/papers/SmithD_05_Chil drenRisk&Crime.pdf

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 2008, ‘UNHCR guidelines on determining the best interests of the child’, viewed 2 September 2011, http://www.unhcr.org/4566b16b2.pdf