Use of restraint in residential care settings for children and young people

An international movement promoting the reduced use of physical restraint and other coercive practices has brought into focus the ways in which those who are responsible for the care of children and young people respond to problematic behaviour. The topic generates emotive discussion, with proponents advancing the argument that the use of coercive measures enhances the quality of care and protects young people from harm, and civil libertarians who argue that restraint is never an appropriate way of managing behaviour. Despite such debates there is an absence of good research and scholarly activity on restraint practices, leading to uncertainty about the immediate and long-term effects of particular practices on both staff and young people. Consequently, it has been difficult for agencies to develop clear, consistent, and definitive policies. Drawing on international perspectives, the aim of this article is to discuss issues relevant to the practice of restraint in residential care facilities for children and young people in Australia, highlighting a number of issues that require resolution prior to the development of practice guidelines.

The children's court of South Australia

This chapter provides an overview of the history and development of the Youth Court in South Australia. Drawing on interviews conducted with judicial officers and Court stakeholders, we highlight some of the changes that have taken place since the Court’s inception, as well as how the Court currently understands its role and positioning within the broader justice and welfare systems.

Key discussion points of these interviews included the Youth Court’s guiding principles and how they impact on Court procedures and responses to young people in the system, as well as the challenges that limit, or create dif fi culties for, the effective operation of the Youth Court.

It is concluded that the Youth Court system attempts to balance both welfare and justice approaches to dealing with young people, but these approaches are sometimes hindered in practice by inadequate procedural, structural and resource- related factors. Limitations of the Court and its processes are often difficult to evaluate in isolation from the broader system in which the Court is positioned.

Challenges redoubled: contexts of risk and compromised access to services for children with sexualised behaviours

 Clinical studies indicate that children who engage in coercive or aggressive sexual acts are more likely to come from conditions of developmental adversity. Broadly speaking, the context of risk for children engaging in these behaviours aligns with particular indicators of social exclusion; geographic disadvantage, compromised family functioning and poverty. Children from such conditions of adversity are thought to be doubly compromised, as the context of risk that gave rise to the behaviours may also compromise families’ engagement with specialised therapeutic services to modify a child’s behaviours. In the absence of empirical data on the prevalence of problem sexual behaviours in Australia, this paper suggests that that scholarship and data collection underpinning the social inclusion policy agenda may inform the targeted delivery of secondary prevention strategies for children most at risk of engaging in problem sexual behaviours.

Mentoring programs for indigenous youth at-risk

There is a range of risk factors that may make young people of any ethnicity more likely to engage in antisocial behaviours. These factors include the young person’s own attitudes; relationships within the family; and growing up in communities where there is widespread violence, alcohol and other substance abuse, poverty, poor health and poor-quality housing. Indigenous young people face the additional challenges ofdispossession, discontinuity of culture and intergenerational trauma.A strong connection to culture—coupled with high self-esteem, a strong sense of autonomy, and with living in cohesive, functioning families and communities—can be protective factors that result in Indigenous young people choosing productive life pathways.Mentoring is a relationship intervention strategy that can assist in building some of these protective factors. A growing body of research demonstrates that mentoring can have powerful and lasting positive effects in improving behavioural, academic and vocational outcomes for at-risk youth and, to a more limited extent, in reducing contact with juvenile justice systems.In an Indigenous context, mentoring is a particularly promising initiative because it fits well with Indigenous teaching and learning styles and can help to build strong collective ties within a community.Mentoring programs can involve adult or peer mentors and can be implemented in a range of ways, such as one-on-one or in groups.Although positive results can be achieved with single-intervention mentoring for at risk youth, integrating mentoring into broader programs produces a greater level of positive change.The way the mentoring program is run and the nature of the relationship between mentor and mentee are crucial in determining the outcomes of youth mentoring programs.

R v Scobie, finally taking the Royal Commission into aboriginal deaths in custody seriously?

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody examined in the context of R v Scobie - the use made of the Commission's recommendations by Justice Gray in R v Scobie - questioning the value of imprisonment for certain types of offenders.