The Reality of Rehabilitation in Youth Detention

The word ‘rehabilitation’ is included in the sentencing laws of every Australian jurisdiction, promising systems that support children to return safely to their communities, yet many children in detention are still locked alone for long periods without education or support.

A system that claims to rehabilitate must do so in reality, not merely on paper. 

The foundational principle of youth justice is that detention should not worsen the child’s situation or their prospect. The Australian Law Reform Commission stressed this years ago, when it concluded that detention will not work if children come out more criminally inclined than when they went in. It recommended strong rehabilitation programs in areas such as education, employment skills, and emotional development including anger management and relapse prevention. This guidance has remained consistent in expert advice ever since, yet the implementation gap remains significant. 

Rehabilitation is more than a stated objective. It is a legal and ethical requirement. It exists not only for the right of the child but for the genuine safety of the community. When children in detention are denied meaningful human contact and access to programs that build skills, the outcomes are neither just nor protective. 

This is already legally required

Sentencing frameworks around the country contain similar expectations for their young people in custody. NSW legislation includes rehabilitation, community protection and recognition of harm as core aims of sentencing. Victoria’s Act promises fair procedures, proportional responses and reintegration. Queensland’s legislation outlines the importance of ensuring rehabilitation and fair treatment. These laws are entirely inconsistent with the continued practice of removing children from education, from contact with family, or from opportunities to develop the skills they need to thrive. 

They also do not provide any space for isolating children in locked rooms for long hours. When this happens, it is an arguable breach of what our laws already require. 

Australia has already defined what children should be entitled to. The gap rests not in the legislation but in whether it is actually carried out. 

Despite the intent being clear, the ALRC found that many detention centres continue to operate in ways that do not support young people’s needs. Young people surveyed expressed that their basic developmental and rehabilitative needs were not being met. Submissions also pointed to a disconnect between policy rhetoric and actual funding for rehabilitation programs.

Rehabilitation cannot happen in isolation

There is no credible model of youth rehabilitation that occurs alone behind a locked door. Solitary confinement prevents the delivery of education, therapy, skill-building and human connection. These are the very supports that sentencing legislation promises.

If a system removes children from those supports, the outcomes reflect that absence. Mental health declines, education pathways are disrupted and the transition back to community becomes more difficult. In some states, children have been held in isolation despite clear recognition that rehabilitation must guide decision-making. 

Staffing challenges are frequently the driver of cancelled programs. When resources are stretched, daily schooling and group-based activities are often suspended. This reveals how rehabilitation is treated in practice. It is seen as optional. The first to go when operational pressure rises. Yet it is the one element that can reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The contrast is seen when investment is made. A research-driven approach in NSW that trained youth officers in positive behaviour management demonstrated improvements in safety and culture. Change is possible when systems choose to prioritise what works over what feels punitive.

When the default response to challenging behaviour is isolation, the lesson is not personal responsibility but powerlessness. When time in detention is spent without learning opportunities or structured support, children are returned to the community carrying the same vulnerabilities that contributed to their offending.

Decades of research have all pointed to the fact that a detention experience that focuses on management rather than development does not reduce harm. It risks exacerbating it. The Townsville Community Legal Service told the ALRC that rehabilitation cannot remain a rhetorical priority. It must be matched by funding and implementation. 

In 2025, Australia still operates facilities where children report long hours alone, and where access to education depends on workforce capacity. These systems cannot plausibly be described as rehabilitative.

Concrete change is needed to align law with policy

Daily access to education and therapeutic support must be treated as non negotiable. Decisions on staffing and budgeting must reflect the legal purpose of the system. 

International standards have made clear that restrictive practices which prevent meaningful human interaction are incompatible with children’s rights. The continued use of solitary confinement indicates not only a failure of care but a failure to achieve the goals that detention is intended to serve.

Rehabilitation is not a luxury that can be removed when it becomes difficult to deliver. It is the foundation of youth justice. Without it, detention risks becoming a site of harm rather than a path to change.

Australian law already knows this. It is written into every sentencing framework. 

The next step is ensuring those promises are delivered to every child in every facility, not as an aspiration but as standard practice.