The fight against youth crime needs to start in the family home, says Peter Davis. Photo: rawpixel.com.
If we are serious about stopping youth crime, we need to get serious about protecting children before they become entrenched in it.
That means intervening early when children are being abused, neglected or raised in environments that are demonstrably unsafe and, where necessary, removing them from those environments even when that means overriding what a parent wants or their own rights.
That isn’t being tough on children. It’s being tough on the cycle.
The NSW Government’s $8.4 million early intervention pilot for children aged eight to 13 is, in principle, a step in the right direction. Providing voluntary, wraparound support to children with complex needs before they become entrenched in the criminal justice system makes sense.
But the real question is whether we are prepared to address the environment those children return to.
As a former police officer, I saw young people involved in offending for many different reasons. Some were bored. Some were looking for somewhere to belong. Some wanted purpose, attention or an outlet. Others had grown up surrounded by dysfunction and negative influences.
I’ve also seen children removed from dysfunctional or dangerous environments, placed somewhere stable and supportive, and begin to flourish, only to be returned to essentially the same environment, influences and problems.
Then we are surprised when the behaviour starts again.
We cannot keep taking a child out of a broken environment, putting them somewhere safe, returning them to the same environment and then wondering why the cycle continues.
A child doesn’t choose their parents, their home or the circumstances they are born into.
Where parents can provide a safe and stable environment, we should support them to do so. But where there is clear evidence that they cannot, the child’s safety and wellbeing must come first.
Sometimes that may mean long-term care or foster care. Sometimes it may mean restricting contact where contact is unsafe or not in the child’s best interests.
Those are incredibly difficult decisions. But sometimes the hardest decision is also the most compassionate one.
To drive a car, you need to demonstrate that you can do so safely. Depending on the circumstances, keeping certain animals involves licensing or other safeguards. Assistance dogs can involve medical evidence, referrals, police checks and references demonstrating need and suitability.
I’m not suggesting children should be treated like cars, animals or assistance dogs. Quite the opposite.
Children are human beings and the most vulnerable people in our society.
So why, when their safety is at stake, are we sometimes so reluctant to make the difficult decisions necessary to protect them?
The question shouldn’t simply be, “What rights does the parent have?”
It should also be, “What rights does this child have, and who is going to protect them?”
Parents’ rights matter. But they cannot automatically outweigh a child’s right to safety, stability and a genuine opportunity to grow up free from abuse and dysfunction.
Serious repeat offending, particularly break and enter and vehicle theft, has real victims. Communities deserve to be safe, and young people who repeatedly offend need appropriate consequences.
But police should be the last resort, not the youth crime strategy.
Police cannot fix family dysfunction, create belonging or provide a child with purpose.
That requires youth workers, psychologists, social workers, caseworkers, schools, families and community organisations working together.
Queensland also demonstrates that tougher accountability and early intervention do not have to be competing philosophies. We can be firm on serious repeat offending while investing in programs designed to stop children becoming repeat offenders in the first place.
We can do both. There is another part of this equation that governments need to get right: the people delivering these programs.
We need the right people, proper training, clinical supervision, debriefing and genuine support, but also a system that retains them. You cannot build trust with a revolving door.
Measure results, not announcements. Ultimately, the success of this program shouldn’t be measured by how much money is spent or how many children enter it.
It should be measured by outcomes.
How many children engage and remain engaged?
How many don’t offend?
How many don’t reoffend?
How many families become more stable?
And ultimately, how many future victims are prevented?
We should support families where they can be supported. We should hold young people accountable when they offend. We should protect communities from serious repeat offenders.
But we also need the courage to intervene early when a child’s environment is helping create the cycle and, where necessary, put that child’s rights and safety ahead of an adult’s preference.
Because the goal shouldn’t simply be to respond to the next offence. It should be to prevent it, and prevent the next victim.
Feel strongly about an issue? Make your case. Send a short pitch for an opinion piece to Region Riverina editor Oliver Jacques at [email protected] for consideration.
