I first become intrigued by how the legal system works when I came across a newspaper article in 1998 that highlighted research around sentencing disparities between Anglo Australian, Indigenous and Pacific young people.² It found the latter two cohorts were receiving harsher penalties, double those of their white counterparts, despite coming from similar criminal histories and backgrounds. Being a teenager myself at the time, with an Anglo-Australian mother and Fijian father, and extended family and friends involved in the youth justice system, it made me feel an array of emotions ranging from disbelief, frustration and anger. This in essence, further underpinned my growing understanding of social justice, and to question why society undertakes such treatment of people, especially its youth.

My growing interest in the youth justice system flourished through my undergraduate degree in social work. Studying at the then University of Western Sydney (now known as Western Sydney University), I came to further understand the role of systems theory, and the importance placed on creating various social systems to cater for individuals, families and communities that make up a society. But I also became more intrigued by the idea that certain systems may create further inequalities and areas of marginalisation as a result of them not catering for its people. As I further heard from lecturers on the ongoing needs across public housing communities in western Sydney, it motivated me to serve and strive to contribute (where appropriate) to promoting a more fair and just systemic response to young people involved in the youth justice system.

After successfully completing my four-year social work degree, I eagerly secured my first full-time job in 2003, working as a Post Release Support Program (PRSP) caseworker. This role was funded by NSW Juvenile Justice and contracted by Mission Australia, a non-government organisation, to work collaboratively across the Campbelltown and Liverpool local government areas. My core role was to help young people aged between 10–17 years reintegrate into their community after spending time in custody. This model was previously set up due to a trend within the Children’s Court where young people were not receiving a mandated parole period after their incarceration, which limited their scope to receive support by Juvenile Justice. Despite young people having a short or extensive criminal history, my support was aimed to help clients and their families reintegrate positively into their community. However, many challenges still occurred as the model at the time only focussed on certain outcomes that were perceived to reorient the young person into forms of education, training or employment. Of course, these are important components of helping a young person, but it did not cater for the extensive social and welfare needs such families were still experiencing, and the need to move limited resources to areas that would cater for such deficits in the community.

Such work bolstered my understanding around the ongoing limitations across government departments and agencies that appeared to work in silos rather than collaboratively. For example, as I was trying to get support from local schools to enrol a client, I was trying to negotiate resources to help fund the additional means to enable them to engage, eg, uniforms, workbooks, pens etc. At the same time, I was also trying to gain other resources to help with physical health needs to support the young person and their family. Realistically, I knew this was the role I was employed to do as a case worker, however, it felt that at times, if I didn’t proactively approach certain services and departments to connect with one another and to gain support and assistance, then they may have never done so. This challenge perpetuated the lack of understanding and insight certain community organisations may have around the true social and welfare needs of young offenders and their families.

My desire to create a greater insight on the need to challenge and change the way in which community-based agencies were not working together become my focal point; including the desire to understand how NSW Police, NSW Children’s Court and NSW Juvenile Justice interacted to support the reduction in recidivist offending behaviour. This objective was further extended by the completion of a Master in Education degree in 2005, where I focussed on the role of engaging disengaged learners in education, followed by the start of my professional doctorate in cultural research where I aimed to further understand the development of antisocial behaviour in young offenders. My paper is focussed on exploring the various entities that make up the youth justice system, and the possible role of creating good practice approaches and opportunities for organisational capacity building.

In the first section, I will explore the social and welfare needs of young offenders, and their interactions with NSW Police, NSW Children’s Court and NSW Juvenile Justice — with a view to highlight the possible incongruence that may occur due to certain practices that further perpetuate cycles of disadvantage and marginalisation. In the second section, I will explore models of good practice within holistic intervention programs that reduce recidivists’ offending behaviour. Finally, I will explore the ongoing need to develop and implement whole-of-community and whole-of-government strategies that better enhance and promote social inclusion, cohesion and cultural capital.

There is a growing amount of research that highlights the significant concurrence between youth who offend and their social and welfare needs.³ An implicit need arises to create systems that effectively respond to such obligations. Rather than view youth justice as solely bringing a young person to account from a criminal lens, there is an emphasis to meet the challenging needs from a welfare perspective. Specifically, it is through an ecological, or holistic lens, that we can start to gain a better insight, understanding and room for better strategies that deter recidivist offending behaviours. Rather than see the young person through the lens of their criminogenic needs and risks, ie factors that lead to offending, systems should be better equipped to promote pro-social attitudes and behaviours that lead to inclusion and engagement.

Through my own empirical research with young offenders,⁴ 10 key areas were profiled: seven around the prevalence of social and welfare needs, and the other three associated with their interaction with the youth justice system. In total, 100 young people were profiled through their involvement in case-management services provided by a large non-government agency, Mission Australia, that worked in partnership with NSW Police and NSW Juvenile Justice. The following subsection of the paper will profile the key findings from this research, which is further supported by quotes gained from young people. Such a perspective highlights the realities of working with young people with significant social and welfare needs, and the role the youth justice system should play in helping rehabilitate and deter recidivist offending behaviour, rather than perpetuate and create further tensions and strains across the community.

Models of service delivery and provision should reflect the social and welfare needs. A holistic approach helps meet such needs, and understands and addresses criminogenic factors. Traditionally, case-management approaches have been utilised when working with young offenders especially through statutory entities like NSW Juvenile Justice. However, it is how this case-management model is established and implemented that can make the difference.

Various case-management models exist, ranging from problem solving and task centred, to post-modern, narrative and psychosocial. Under each model, one of the main goals is to re-position the client as an individual within their situation, and provide scope for the case worker to support the young person to explore the possible reasons and solutions to the issues they are experiencing. Ideally, the case worker is situated to empower the client to be self-determined, as someone — when given the opportunity — who has the ability to challenge and change their current pathway towards a more positive set of outcomes.

A good practice approach to case management is both prescriptive and descriptive. Prescriptive in the way in which various stages occur across the life of the working relationship, facilitated by the case worker in conjunction with the young person. The descriptive nature of good case management occurs where the client is able to nuance the direction by providing their own insight and aspirations. Combining a prescriptive and descriptive approach will enable specific goals to be mapped, while assisting tangible outcomes to occur.

For example, as per Table 3 below, Stage One would consist of assessment; where the case worker gains a greater insight and understanding of the client’s circumstances. Stage Two includes goal-setting activities that enable the client to explore the possible solutions to the problems they are facing.

Table 3: Good practice approach to case management

Descriptively, young people are the central component of the case-management process — where they are seen as collaborators and contributors. Their own perspective and narratives shape the way in which each stage is undertaken, providing a practical application and understanding to the process.

At the same time, an overarching focus is also part of the case-management process, knowing that each stage also yields a more in-depth ability to provide the young person with the opportunity to both deconstruct, and reconstruct their understanding of self and others. This is achieved by making them the focal point, enabling the case worker to facilitate the helpful relationship towards a change process that deals effectively with the social and welfare needs that perpetuate offending behaviour.

I have been involved in creating a case-management model that supports the development of young people involved in crime. Under the auspices of South West Youth Services and Mission Australia, the Youth Offender Support Programs (YOSP) were formed to develop three programs to work with NSW Police and NSW Juvenile Justice. A psychosocial case-management model was developed to address criminogenic factors, and the accompanying social and welfare needs by accessing and setting goals against 13 life domains (Table 4). Each domain represents a key area of the individual’s life, while also listing key tasks or activities that could support the young person to set goals, and to implement them as part of the case-management process. The top five domains that were most utilised were:

Table 4: Youth Offender Support Programs

Other promising models include the newly formed and implemented Youth on Track, a program funded by NSW Juvenile Justice with Mission Australia, and referrals sourced by NSW Police and NSW Education. The majority of referrals are activated from NSW Police after the young person has received their second caution, or youth justice conference or charge. Over half identify as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. On entry, near to 60% of participants had a medium-high risk of offending, but on completion, scored low-medium.⁷ Additional benefits include 88% of young people improving their relationship with police, including positive and no contact; and 50% have reduced their offending risk after three months of involvement.⁸ The key feature of the case-management model is to address eight central criminogenic domains: antisocial behaviour and thinking, peer relations, alcohol and other drug use, education and employment, family functioning and connection to community.⁹ An ongoing evaluation framework underpins the model, with a view to highlight strengths and areas of improvement.¹⁰

Overall, there is a need to enable a young person to understand their own role in the community through their participation in pro-social activities and behaviours. This also includes promoting community-based resources and capacity to deal with needs. That is, how can we expect to have resilient individuals if we do not adequately fund resources within communities and regions that support psychosocial development and achievement? This includes providing support for families to thrive, and access educational opportunities that are on par with existing educational levels.

We also need to ensure organisations are adequately resourced and understand the work being achieved with vulnerable young people and their families. This may be achieved through the following three areas underpinned by the notion of capital as expounded by sociology theorist Pierre Bourdieu:¹¹

There is a real need to promote partnership between individuals, families and communities with the organisations and institutions that work with them. Rather than working and competing against each other, including departmental silos that may exist across State government and their contracted services, we need to promote whole-of-family, whole-of-community and whole-of-government approaches that are equally underpinned by social resilience, social mobility and social inclusion.

A whole-of-family approach provides scope for individuals to be understood in the context of the family, and the various social and welfare needs that may exist within. At the same time, the ability to highlight possible capabilities and strengths that can be utilised in the change process is part of the solution. We need to understand that young offenders are part of a family/care-giving system that may require additional assistance, while at the same time providing supportive engagement with this service. Such young people and their families should also be acknowledged for their resilience, and this needs to be recognised as part of their ability to move beyond difficult situations and create further opportunities to thrive.

A whole-of-community approach provides scope for communities to see themselves as that — sharing a common unity that enables their members to operate and function in a purposeful manner. Being aware of what resources are available to help connect people to one another, while also acknowledging certain gaps and areas of improvement is part of this process. Providing young offenders with a space to be included and feel like they belong and can contribute is part of this approach. This will also promote a sense of social mobility where people can move in and across a physical space while also seeing the potential to move beyond perceived limitations whether they be physical or economic. The ability to traverse beyond their local community and across other areas of the region can also support young people to see beyond their marginality, in turn, providing new opportunities and experiences that can help enforce positive engagement and inclusion with others.

A whole-of-government approach provides scope for departments to move beyond the limitations of red tape and rhetoric. All government departments are created to undertake a certain role and responsibility across civil society, but within each department, a governance structure is created, and a certain way of doing things occurs. The need to uphold legislative frameworks and operations that fall under a certain remit is required, but at the possible sacrifice of working collegially with other cognate departments. In turn, a barrier is created, and resources are expended with a common good in mind, but may fall short of meeting the need of the community in which they are created to service. Therefore, the need to institute connections to working with each other can be part of breaking down these barriers. This includes enhancing working relationships between all departments that have a vested interest in counteracting youth offending and crime, including Police, Education, Health, Juvenile Justice and the Children’s Court. Ensuring strategic departmental plans are more inclusive of each other results in a level of social inclusion not just within the statutory agencies, but also across the wider community. Overall, a better scale of economy is enabled and an efficiency to truly meet the social and welfare needs of young offenders and their families.

Through this approach, I believe we can achieve a more holistic response to the way in which we work collaboratively in and across the community. It is my ongoing hope and professional commitment to promote the scope for society to be more aware of the realities associated with the needs of young people who commit crime, and to create a systemic response that benefits all stakeholders including government departments and its services in the desire to deter recidivist offending behaviour while promoting happy, healthy communities.