The case for small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities: Utility and feasibility for policy transfer to the Victorian youth justice system
| Published date | 01 March 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/26338076231193503 |
| Author | Sanne Oostermeijer,Fleur Souverein,Arne Popma,Stuart Ross,Diana Johns,Lieke van Domburgh,Eva Mulder |
| Date | 01 March 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The case for small-scale,
community-integrated,
therapeutic facilities: Utility
and feasibility for policy
transfer to the Victorian youth
justice system
Sanne Oostermeijer
Centre for Mental Health, School of Population and Global Health, The
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Fleur Souverein
Amsterdam University Medical Centre (AUMC), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Arne Popma
Amsterdam University Medical Centre (AUMC), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Stuart Ross
School of Social & Political Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The University of
Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Diana Johns
School of Social & Political Sciences, Faculty of Arts, The University of
Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Lieke van Domburgh
Amsterdam University Medical Centre (AUMC), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; iHUB Youth (Mental Health) Care and Education,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Sanne Oostermeijer,Centre for Mental Health, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Email: sanne.oostermeijer@unimelb.edu.au
Article
Journal of Criminology
2024, Vol. 57(1) 100–120
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/26338076231193503
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Eva Mulder
Amsterdam University Medical Centre (AUMC), Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; LUMC Curium, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Leiden
University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract
Several jurisdictions around the world have recognised that meaningful youth justice reform is
more likely to be achieved when moving away from the reliance on large-scale conventional
youth justice detention institutions. Small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities
(referred to as “community-integrated facilities”) are more likely to provide an opportunity
to facilitate systemic reforms that are necessary to improve outcomes for justice-involved
young people, reduce institutional violence, and ultimately improve public safety. Based on
recent reforms in the Netherlands, this article aims to describe the potential benefits and
feasibility of implementing community-integrated facilities with a specific focus on Victoria,
Australia. We will do so by considering the key operational elements and facilitators to imple-
mentation as identified previously in an evaluation of the Dutch reforms. While this article
involves a single specific context, as a case study it may nevertheless illuminate implications
for other jurisdictions considering similar policy transf er activities.
Keywords
Correctional facilities, dialogue, interpretive policy analysis, juvenile justice, policy transfer,
youth detention, youth recidivism
Date received: 1 March 2023; accepted: 25 July 2023
Introduction
There is a paradox at the heart of youth justice in Australia. On the one hand, rates of youth
crime have fallen sharply, as evidenced by falling rates of police arrests and charges against
young people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021). There have been similar if less dramatic
falls in youth custody and youth justice supervision rates across the country, so that youth
justice populations are now significantly smaller than they were five years previously
(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). Yet, Australia’s current youth justice insti-
tutions have continued largely unchanged and have experienced a pattern of serious and per-
sistent problems. A key question that arises from this is whether the current facilities that
form much of the physical institutional basis of the Australian youth justice custodial estate,
with an over-reliance on physical and procedural security, are fit-for-purpose.
An alternative approach is that of dispersed, small-scale, community-integrated youth
justice facilities that are safe, humane and offer the potential to provide developmentally appro-
priate responses to young people. This approach has been the basis for youth justice reforms in
several countries including the United States (McCarthey et al., 2016), Sweden, Finland,
Norway (Lappi-Seppälä, 2011), and the Netherlands (Souverein et al., 2020). Such an institu-
tional model has the potential to address several of the challenges facing Australian
Oostermeijer et al. 101
To continue reading
Request your trial