The Mercury, 26 November 2025
SMALLER, LOCAL FACILIITIES A BETTER OPTION THAN A CENTRAL PRISON FOR KIDS.
Decades of experience and extensive research have shown that when it comes to responding to youth crime, what happens at the local level is what really matters – as does size.
Large, centralised detention centres or prisons for children do not work well when it comes to preventing future offending. They may temporarily incapacitate offenders and protect communities, but overall, they tend toward containment and warehousing rather than rehabilitation and opportunity generation.
The net result, as the track record of Ashley Youth Detention Centre demonstrates, is that young people universally graduate to adult prison. This is a consequence which no one really wants or needs.
International examples, backed up by robust evaluation of best practice, demonstrate that building large, centralised facilities, like the proposed Pontville youth prison, is basically planning for failure.
Indeed, the evidence is that the community will be safer, and children better cared for if there is not a centralised “detention” centre, especially one that is far from families and communities.
A dispersed model of four or five separate smaller facilities, established throughout Tasmania, is a much better option.
We know that in countries where juvenile repeat offending is low, there is a rehabilitative, therapeutic approach to the detention of children.
A custodial oriented physical environment such as that inevitably exhibited by a centralised centre (since it deals with serious as well as less serious offenders) does not accord with this approach. The evidence shows that it is possible to detain children who have committed serious crimes in a selected, secure place within one or more of the dispersed therapeutic facilities.
Ultimately, the fundamental questions are how can we prevent serious offending by understanding and dealing with its causes, and how can we respond in a non-punitive but rehabilitative manner if it occurs.
The evidence shows that small, regionally based secure facilities, closer to family and community, achieve the best outcomes for young people, their families and the community.
It is a truism that “we have to live with those we punish”. This applies to children and young people just as it does to adults. It makes sense, therefore, to focus on rehabilitation and restorative justice, as well as educational and therapeutic measures, especially when dealing with some of the most vulnerable people in our state. After all, they will be returning to our communities, usually after a fairly short time away.
Children and young people ‘act out’ in ways that are harmful to themselves, their friends, their families and their communities. Repairing the harm, building alternative futures and securing community safety are best achieved through providing these young people social emotional wellbeing support, assessment and development. Schooling, skilling and sporting all have their part to play in this process.
So too, does ensuring trauma-responsive care in environments that encourage hope rather than despair, growth rather than reticence, and giving rather than taking.
Smaller facilities allow for greater individualised responses to the needs, wishes and aspirations of children. Constructing a ‘good life’ for themselves is more likely achieved when there is opportunity for positive relationships between young people, professional staff and local community members.
Local and small affords closer connections with appropriate community-based programs, projects and mentors.
Children who are detained, whether on remand or sentenced, do far better when they remain close to families and supports. Significant others in the lives of children in the criminal justice system can mostly be found within the communities where the children live.
With smaller facilities, those people who work with the children can do so in both community and secure settings. This would provide a continuity of care at the local level, and include health, education, sport and employment opportunities.
A centralised detention facility impedes access for families and professional supports and wastes time, petrol and money. Building a centralised detention centre will lock in these costs indefinitely. Establishing local facilities would result in substantial savings related to travel and these savings could be reinvested into other areas of need.
In our informed view, based on substantial evidence and practical experience, it makes little financial or operational sense to centralise a detention facility in Tasmania.
What we need are smaller ‘home like’ facilities located around the state. Small and local is the best answer to dealing with youth crime and its aftermath.
The status quo has historically proven to be costly and destructive, a situation in which there are no long-term winners. Given this, what do we have to lose by going with the evidence of what actually works?
Pat Burton is a criminologist and Tasmania representative of the national Justice Reform Initiative.
Rob White is Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Criminology at the University of Tasmania.