A Model for the Design of Youth Custodial Facilities: Key Characteristics to Promote Effective Treatment

The case for small-scale, community-integrated, therapeutic facilities: Utility and feasibility for policy transfer to the Victorian youth justice system

“…This new facility involves significant infrastructural investments and will effectively involve a one-size-fits-all high-security level due to a huge perimeter wall and is located on an isolated greenfield site. Both its size and location do not align with the current evidence on good practice youth justice facilities (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019).…”

“…McCarthy et al (2016) identify as one of the key elements in effective youth justice system reform replacing large-scale high-security facilities with small-scale community-integrated facilities that emphasise educational continuity and achievement, young people-staff relationships, family engagement and building community connections. Oostermeijer and Dwyer (2019) and Dwyer and Oostermeijer (2019) have recently put forward a theoretical design model for good practice youth justice facilities, based on the current international evidence base on "what works" in rehabilitative interventions for justice-involved young people. They consider the key principles of good practice youth justice facility design to be small-scale, locally sited, and integrated with the surrounding community, designed to promote relational and differentiated security, and comprising therapeutic design characteristics.…”

“…Although the design does not offer a complete solution, they illustrate that these design characteristics affect the ability to provide treatment elements that are known to be effective through an extensive case study of three highly regarded models in Europe (the Netherlands, Spain and Norway). The impact of these facility characteristics was further illustrated by the study of facilities in the United States, England and Scotland (Dwyer, 2023). These case studies included detailed analysis of each facility including interviews with staff, facility footprints, number of beds, number of units, staff-resident ratios, public transport options, land-use planning zones, floor maps, observational data and photographs.…”

“…Illustrating the potential of such an approach, outcomes included a 68% decline in out-of-home placements and a 52% drop in youth arrests in New York City (Weissman et al, 2019). The facilities are distributed across the city so young people can be placed close to their homes, which are typically retrofitted houses (Dwyer, 2023). It has been reported that young people placed in Close to Home facilities continue to experience fewer physical assaults and altercations compared to young people in previous years (NYC Administration for Children's Services, 2021).…”

“…Although the facilities were included based on their status as “good” or “best” practices, evidence of a causal relationship between the design characteristics and rehabilitative outcomes is currently lacking. However, the model clearly illustrates how community-integrated youth justice facilities align with the key elements of effective treatment of offending behaviours and adolescent well-being, including a focus on therapeutic, tailored approaches that build and strengthen positive youth development, social support networks, and commitment to school or work (Dwyer & Oostermeijer, 2019). Supportive social relationships and interactions within one's environments and context are further highlighted in the strength-based and social–ecological literature on justice-involved young people (Johns et al, 2017; Robinson, 2015; Rowe & Soppitt, 2014).…”