Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice navigation

CoverPreventing Crime and Promoting Rights for Indigenous Young People with Cognitive Disabilities and Mental Health Issues

Part 3

Stories from the field: A life course approach to Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and mental health issues

Back to Contents

Download

The literature review pulls together some of the main concepts and findings about Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues from involvement with the juvenile justice system. However, we are also interested in finding out what is actually happening on the ground for these young people.

To do this, we have selected some promising programs and practices as case studies. These will help answer our questions about what is working now, what needs to change and ways forward to assist Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues. These case studies are supplemented by information, opinions and ideas from our consultations with a range for experts and those working in the field.[157]

The literature and consultations clearly showed that preventing offending behaviour amongst Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues is very complex. Some of the causes can be tracked back to early childhood development but continue throughout the life course. Importantly, they need to be understood in the specific social, cultural, historical and economic context of Indigenous communities. Interventions are not just about helping individuals but building the capacity of the communities that they live in. The earlier services and supports are provided, the stronger the community and social base, the better the outcomes will be.

Different interventions are required at different stages of life. To illustrate some of the different needs at different points in time and their relationship to offending behaviour, this section will map case studies across the life course. Each life stage will be accompanied by some of our consultation findings, some current service delivery challenges and case studies of programs or services. This plots a continuum of holistic service delivery aimed at preventing crime amongst Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues.

top | contents

a) Common Themes

Building on solid foundations through holistic services

Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues share many of the same needs as other Indigenous young people. They come from the same families, the same communities but face additional disadvantage due to their cognitive disability or mental health issue. For this reason, the overwhelming response from our consultations was that Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues need to be viewed holistically. Unless the entire spectrum of needs is addressed in a culturally appropriate way, it is unlikely that specialist disability or mental health services will effect much, if any change.

Similarly, there are good reasons to integrate capacity to deal with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues in accessible, culturally appropriate services. Many of our consultations pointed out that Indigenous young people don’t need another label and can suffer adverse consequences if they are singled out from peers for special treatment. Furthermore, many of the people consulted agreed that most of these young people would not attend a service that was based on their mental health or cognitive disability status. So, while it might seem like an easy fix to provide services specifically for this group of young people, based on our consultations, tightly targeted service provision is not the answer.

Overwhelmingly, participants suggested a holistic model of service to assist all Indigenous young people, including those with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues. Associate Professor Helen Milroy, an Indigenous child and adolescent psychiatrist, outlined this approach, encompassing physical, psychological, social and spiritual/ cultural needs. Below is Professor Milroy’s assessment of what is particularly relevant for all Indigenous young people including those with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health problems at risk of juvenile justice involvement.

These principles should act as a checklist for all services for Indigenous young people and have guided the selection of our case studies.

Holistic service delivery for Indigenous people is not a new idea and has long been part of Indigenous health policy. However, according to Professor Milroy, there are few programs that actually meet all of these needs. Indigenous programs tend to meet social and spiritual/ cultural needs well. Mainstream services deal better with physical and psychological/ emotional needs but neither seems to be able to balance all of these areas of concern.

Holistic service delivery also means an interagency, whole of government approach. The complex needs of Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health problems means that they are likely to be involved with a range of government and non government services. Despite a whole raft of policy documents and guidelines extolling the importance of interagency cooperation, our consultations found that this is rarely the case on the ground.

top | contents

Appropriate Assessments

At every stage, assessment and identification of children and young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues is crucial. Without identification, children and young people are likely to have their needs ignored or misinterpreted. This in turn, leads to poor outcomes. Despite the importance of early identification of special needs, consultations suggested that Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues slipping through the gaps was the norm, rather than the exception.

Consistent with the literature review, there were real concerns about the cultural bias in psychological assessments for cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues. Although there is greater validity for visual tests, according to workers from the Disability Services Commission in Western Australia, ‘you may as well throw away the tests when you are working with remote communities.’[159] Instead, workers ask parents or caregivers to compare the child or young person to others the same age to get a sense of appropriate development. Assessment is less clinical and ‘really a series of educated guesses’.[160]

Low confidence in assessment tools, continuing cultural bias, low expectations of Indigenous children and low recognition amongst Indigenous families and communities about possible cognitive and mental health all lead to fewer assessments. Assessment is the gate keeping process so fewer assessments equal lower levels of service provision.

To be eligible for disability support services a young person must have an IQ less than 70. This knocks out a large group in the borderline intellectually disabled range. Further, there was a belief amongst those we consulted that this is an arbitrary line. Many young people with higher IQs may be functionally well below the diagnostic mark. This is because any cognitive deficits are compounded by living in disadvantaged environments.

Mental health assessments also function poorly with Indigenous young people. Mental health assessments do not contextualise behaviour and symptoms within an awareness of Indigenous history and experience. The magnitude of trauma in the Indigenous community suggests that we need to seriously consider child and adolescent behaviour in this context. Across the board, experts, workers and community members felt that trauma and pain was at the root cause of most mental health issues.

From a clinical point of view, Professor Milroy suggested that there is a gross under diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Indigenous communities. PTSD is a psychological condition following exposure to a stressful or traumatic experience. It has been recognised as a particular issue for indigenous peoples around the world as:

the common experiences of childhood and adult trauma, removal of children from families, interpersonal violence, substance abuse, and early death all result in generations of people more likely to suffer from PTSD.[161]

The most commonly known symptom of PTSD is flash backs but also include restlessness, insomnia, aggressiveness, hyper-arousal and hyper-vigilance, depression, dissociation, emotional detachment and nightmares.

Many Indigenous young people are never diagnosed with PTSD. Instead, their behaviour is usually labelled as a conduct disorder. Alternatively, young people who report hearing, seeing or speaking to ancestors are often diagnosed with psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia when Professor Milroy believed that for the most part they are likely to have suffered from PTSD or depression. These diagnoses require very different treatments so there is no surprise that little progress is made with young people who are incorrectly diagnosed.

top | contents

Indigenous Concepts of Disability

Consultations affirmed the need to look at Indigenous concepts and experiences of disability. Workers from the Western Australian Disability Services Commission felt that some Indigenous families and communities did not recognise cognitive disability in the same way as non- Indigenous people. That is, signs of developmental delay were often attributed to the person being ‘a bit slow’ and not necessarily requiring further support.

Concepts of disability seem to be based on whether or not a person is functioning in the community context rather than diagnostic labels. For instance, Disability Services Commission staff related a case of a young person, who had been seen as ‘slow’, had struggled at school and didn’t communicate well. However, it wasn’t until his family found out that he didn’t understand, and in fact transgressed cultural law, that they thought something might be wrong and sought assistance.

Indigenous disability advocates from the NSW Aboriginal Disability Network agreed that disability can mean different things in different communities and is often a ‘difficult conversation’.[162] Nonetheless, disability causes real needs and ultimately diminishes a young person’s ability to participate in society if they are not given appropriate support and access. For this reason, any attempt to address disability should be within a rights based framework, rather than highlighting deficits and conferring labels.

top | contents

Different models of service delivery

The different circumstances and needs of Indigenous people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues require different models of service delivery. Many practitioners and experts in the field affirmed the vital role of Indigenous controlled services as a way to access culturally appropriate service but also help ‘sell’ their own services. Forming these sorts of partnerships can help make services, which may otherwise be viewed with suspicion, more accessible.

According to Shane Brown, South Sydney Youth Services, in terms of providing mental health care it is essential to place services outside of mainstream mental health services for young people.[163] There is still a lot of stigma around mental illness and many young people do not want to be labelled. Therefore, they are more likely to use a service at a generic youth service or other outreach method.

Given that some Indigenous people live in remote areas, there is a need for greater flexibility. The Disability Services Commission in Western Australia has extensive experience in meeting these challenges. For them, it is thinking about alternative ways to purchase services, co-location with other services and economies of scale. So, if there is only one person in Fitzroy Crossing that really needs service, it can pay to be more flexible with service eligibility in order to get more people utilising a service.

Text Box 7
Making disability services work in a remote location

An example of how these concepts can come together is seen in a case from the Disability Service Commission about an Indigenous young man with mild to moderate intellectual disability.

He had come into contact with the justice system. He tends to ‘get into strife when led by non ID peers’ which is compounded by drinking. He lives in a remote area with no easily accessible services, although he is clearly in need of support to try and prevent further offending.

To get around this, workers came up with a plan to use existing Aboriginal Health Services in the area and funded a disability worker for one day a week. The worker has identified triggers for offending, as well as his strengths, and found that he is ok when his family are around. The worker keeps an eye of the family situation, provides support and has tried to influence peers not to “stir him up”. There have also been conversations with the Police about his behaviour and how best to manage him without escalating conflict. So far, he has not re offended.[164]

top | contents

b) The early years and family support

It should be noted that while there is some consideration of the early years, this report is primarily focused on the particular circumstances around older children and young people. However, the common message through all of the consultations and case studies was the need to intervene early, providing a solid family and community base. When asked what needs to be done to prevent Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues from offending, most of the people made the connection between keeping families together, happy supported childhoods and good outcomes for children and young people, regardless of cognitive disability or mental health status.

Unfortunately, consultations reinforced that families are struggling, often resulting in high levels of child protection involvement. According to Phillip Narkle, respected Aboriginal Elder and Aboriginal Team Advisor with the Western Australian Intensive Supervision Program, ‘it is isolation and separation from family, friends and communities that really damages these kids.’[165] This is not news to anyone, but when we consider the extra complexity of disability or mental health issues on struggling families, we can see that this group of children and young people are at higher risk of being separated from their families. Based on stories from practitioners, a majority of the Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues have had involvement with the juvenile justice system and the child protection system.

Understanding and meeting the needs of young children with disabilities or mental health issues is essential to support families. Our consultations confirmed the picture of extreme socio- economic disadvantage, a very heavy burden of loss, family dysfunction, alcohol and drug use, child abuse, poor health and trauma. This burden of stress impaired family and community capacity to identify cognitive disability or mental health issues early on. Put simply, within such urgent, competing priorities, a child’s developmental milestones or early signs of mental health issues tend to go unnoticed until they reach crisis point. While families are struggling to meet basic needs, these issues remain unnoticed.

However, there was a consensus that more needs to be done to build Indigenous family capacity to pick up these early signs. A good suggestion from the Aboriginal Disability Network was to increase the capacity of Aboriginal Health Workers to screen for any issues during routine health checks. Theoretically, while this should be happening on the ground, due to the level of stress and under resourcing, many Aboriginal health workers are too stretched to undertake this work. Damian Griffis, from the Aboriginal Disability Network notes that many do not have the specific disability knowledge required.

Similarly, there is also a need for more skills and education to support screening for mental health issues. One positive initiative is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health First Aid Course (AMHFA). The AMHFA comprises of a 14-hour Mental Health First Aid Course and a research and evaluation arm. The purpose of the training is to provide people that come into contact with people with mental illness with basic skills and knowledge around causes, symptoms and management of mental illness. Like physical first aid treatment, it provides non- medical professionals with the opportunity to intervene before professional help arrives and increase their confidence in dealing with serious situations. The AMHFA is still in the pilot phase but is already yielding some good results.

The location of screening services and interventions is also crucial. Based on extensive research with Indigenous people with disabilities around NSW, Mr Griffis believed that there is still a very real fear that any disability or mental health issues of a child will be interpreted as poor parenting. Given past and present experiences of Indigenous communities, this is likely to lead to child protection action and removal of children. Locating these types of services in more trusted Indigenous controlled services could help over come this barrier.

Jenny Thomsen, from the Aboriginal Disability Network also suggested building awareness of disability and mental health issues amongst mothers and carers through ‘informal and friendly’ interactions such as mothers groups. There is also a role for family support and parenting programs to help families deal with cognitive disabilities and mental health problems. These children often act out and display difficult behaviours which are very difficult for parents.

Any such parenting support programs need to be sensitive to the interplay between Aboriginal child rearing practices and family strain. Professor Milroy explained that Indigenous children have autonomy from an early age:

This works if a family is functional and well buffered, so that a child can learn independence within boundaries but if a family is dysfunctional, the child gets independence with no boundaries. They are seen as adults by 10 years of age, have no trust for others and won’t listen to adults. So what is adaptive in the first 10 years to keep them safe becomes maladaptive later on.[166]

The challenge is the help parents learn how to set boundaries with children in a way that still fosters appropriate independence and respect.

Text Box 8
Promising practice for Indigenous children in out of home care

Unfortunately, not all children are able to stay in the care of their families for child protection issues. We know that young people in care are very disadvantaged across a range of indicators including health, education and involvement with the criminal justice system.

While there is little Australian evidence, we know from United States and United Kingdom research that children entering out of home care have a high prevalence of health problems and developmental disabilities.[167] United States research shows that 84% of children in a sample of foster care have developmental or psychological problems.[168]Given the heavy burden of poor health on Indigenous populations, the Royal Australian College of Physicians state that:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children coming into out of home care suffer an adverse double effect of wellbeing.[169]

Case study: Kari Clinic

Kari Aboriginal Resource Inc coordinates out of home care for Indigenous children across South Western Sydney. Children can be aged between 0-17 years, although the majority are between 4-12 years of age.

Kari found that many of the children needing foster care would come in and out of the system without having their health needs assessed or met. To address this gap, the CEO of Kari, Paul Ralph, approached Liverpool Hospital about provision of immediate health assessments of children being cared for by Kari.

Following negotiations with Kari, Health and Department of Community Services established a community clinic offering comprehensive health assessments to all children entering out of home care with Kari in 2003. Children are provided with:

  • Initial clinic with assessment provided by a paediatrician or early childhood nurse;
  • Developmental screening and full assessment if required;
  • Referral to speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy if required and
  • Priority access to dental, hearing and vision checks.

A comprehensive care plan is developed for each child which can be easily accessed later to ensure continuity of care and avoid duplication of service and assessment.

At this stage there is complete data on 79 children who range in age from 2 months to 13 years. The average age is 4.6 years. The majority of the children have suffered chronic neglect, physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence and around 20% had concerns about sexual abuse. The parents of the children presented with significant substance use and incarceration. Impaired cognitive abilities were a factor for some parents and 23% were known have experienced psychosis recently.

Based on the data collection:

  • 32% had global developmental delay (of these 25% were in the moderate to severe category for intellectual delay);
  • 63% had speech delay;
  • 32% had behavioural or learning problems;
  • 53% had hearing problems; and
  • 19% had vision problems.

In terms of previous assessments, 42% had been seen by a paediatrician and 13% had undergone psychometric or school assessments. However, only 2 of the foster carers had copies of the previous reports, so there were gaps in their knowledge of the child’s needs.

One of the strengths of the model, according to Paul Ralph, is that the health assessments are accompanied by recommendations that can be reviewed by the health clinic team. 30% of the children were reviewed in the clinic and received further intervention.

Good partnerships have been developed between carers, Kari, Health and Department of Community Services. However, there are still challenges to ensure the recommendations are met. An independent qualitative review has found that while identification is occurring there are obstacles around implementation of recommendations:

  • It can be difficult to contact caseworkers or foster parents about recommendations and follow up;
  • Casewokers were relying on foster parents to follow through with recommendations;
  • Foster parents were sometimes reluctant to attend clinic or follow up on recommendations;
  • Placements can breakdown and clinic staff are not necessarily informed.

Despite these barriers, Paul Ralph is ‘very proud’ of the clinic and thinks that it has made a real difference to the lives to the children. It is a significant breakthrough that these young people are actually receiving full health and developmental checks, with good quality reports and recommendations provided to foster carers. This can empower foster parents to set the children on the right path.

top | contents

c) The school years

School, particularly primary education should be the basis for good outcomes for all children. For Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues it should be a chance to identify impairments that impact on learning and put appropriate supports in place.

The predominant focus of our consultations was primary school. Primary school sets the literacy, numeracy and skills foundation needed for high school. If these skills are not mastered, children are unlikely to cope with high school. We know that Indigenous young people who end up in the juvenile justice system have low educational outcomes, dropping out of school early. This means that most of their education is probably at a primary school level.

Associate Professor Colleen Hayward, Manager of the Kulunga Research Network felt that the findings of the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey confirm this picture. Their research showed that no real gains have been made in educational outcomes for Indigenous young people over the past thirty years. Aboriginal children start from behind and are never able to make up the ground.

One promising initiative being implemented, according to Professor Hayward, is the Australian Early Development Index. The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) is a measurement of a child’s development, based on scores from a teacher completed checklist. It is used for children in their first year of school to look at aspects of:

The AEDI is currently being validated across the nation. The Telethon Institute is looking at a culturally appropriate adaptation for Indigenous young people. The AEDI is not designed to specifically diagnose children with specific learning disabilities or areas of developmental delay, it does act as a preliminary way of looking at what needs or areas for further consideration are present for children.

The inaccurate identification of Indigenous children as having cognitive disabilities seems to be a very real issue in Indigenous communities. That is, there are a large number of Indigenous young people who are being labelled as having a cognitive disability when in fact they don’t, or have a mental health issue instead. For Dr Chris Sarra, Director of the Indigenous Education Leadership Institution, the issue is entwined with the negative perceptions and expectations of Indigenous children.

Dr Sarra draws his expertise from over twenty years in the education system as a teacher, guidance officer, academic and principal. He was the first Indigenous principal at Cherbourg State School. A lot has been written about how to improve Indigenous education outcomes, but Dr Sarra’s leadership at Cherbourg seems to have actually put these principles into practice. A key part of the process was shifting attitudes of school staff, community and children.

Dr Sarra argued that mainstream Australia has very negative perceptions of Indigenous people. This filters down to those involved with the education system. Some teachers have lower expectations of Indigenous children based on the ‘complexity’[171] of Indigenous young people and perceptions that Indigenous families ‘don’t value education.’[172] Indigenous children and young people internalise these perceptions and low expectations to the extent that there is ‘collusion between school and children’s mind sets’[173] which ultimately produce failure. Judy Gould, a speech pathologist and doctorate researcher who has worked extensively with Indigenous young people in schools across Australia, characterised a ‘culture of deficit’[174] in many schools.

In a context where schools regard Indigenous children and young people with low expectations and hold attitudes about children’s capacity based on cultural assumptions, testing for intellectual disability is frequently misused. According to Ms Gould, testing for intellectual or cognitive disability can often be used to ‘confirm what they think about kids’[175] rather than constructively investigating any actual disability issues. Young people who act out are often labelled as intellectually impaired without any consideration of other issues that may be impacting on their behaviour such as family stress, language problems and particularly, hearing problems. Based on her research, Ms Gould found that instead of a child’s needs being considered holistically, the ‘default setting is intellectual disability.’[176]

A lack of contextual awareness creates a very limiting lens to look at Indigenous young people’s experiences at school. As well as incorrectly assessing cognitive disabilities, Professor Milroy noted the potential to misunderstand young people with mental health issues. As previously mentioned, at least anecdotally, there appears to be a large number of young people who could be diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. There is a real risk that their behaviour will be interpreted as cognitive disability rather than ringing alarm bells about mental health and leading to appropriate treatment. Professor Milroy has worked with children who have been expelled from school as early as year one due to undiagnosed PTSD. This represents a failure of the education system to look behind behaviours to understand underlying issues.

Dr Sarra and Ms Gould observed a misplaced view amongst some staff that even if the young people do not actually have an actual cognitive disability or intellectual impairment, ‘at least they are getting extra help at school’.[177] However, the fundamental flaw in this argument is that being labelled as having a cognitive disability or intellectual impairment often leads to worse, not better outcomes, for the child.

As previously noted in the literature review, incorrect diagnosis based on Indigenous status may raise a case for indirect discrimination. This may be covered under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 even if being identified as having a disability lead to additional services. This is because the label and subsequent treatment are less favourable and detrimentally affect the child’s rights.

For instance, Ms Gould recounted an all too common scenario, where a child in Year 1 was doing well at school but the family had come into hardship and were dealing with grief and loss issues. The child then started acting out in class and was soon treated as ‘naughty’ and assessed as having an intellectual impairment. The child was taken out of mainstream classes and placed in special education instead. There was no consideration of the family issues at play and the child was taken away from peers and the only teaching aid that was actually able to engage the child in learning.

Children are acutely aware of labels and categories. Even from Year 1, the children knew the special education class as the ‘dummies class’. This impacts on children’s self esteem, identity and most importantly, desire to attend school. Dr Sarra believes that children (and teachers) perform to expectations, which can have serious consequences for children who are labelled as ‘dummies’ and taken away from peers.

This particular child was only in the special education class for around a year but during that year lost track of the work and skills being learnt by the children in the mainstream classes (which was already way behind minimum standards). So while there probably wasn’t a good reason for the child be in the special class, the child ‘lost a year of learning opportunity, you can’t get that back.’[178] Ms Gould assessed that this may have damaged this young person’s chances. Without these foundational skills, children struggle to keep up and gradually disengage from school.

Another reason for the inappropriate labelling of children is tied to funding. Children with cognitive disabilities or requiring additional support obviously attract additional funding to schools. At least in Queensland, funding used to be allocated to individual students to purchase teacher’s aide hours and other support. It is now provided to schools without restriction and can be used to pay for additional teachers rather than support specific to the individual child. Anecdotally there is evidence of Indigenous children being assessed as intellectually impaired without even informing the parents or caregivers.

Aside from the enormous ethical issues, how can any positive change be made by the school, and with the family, if there is not basic communication and cooperation in the child’s best interest? Legally, it would seem that not consulting with the child or their parent(s) is in breach of the Disability Standards for Education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. These standards state:

Before the education provider makes an adjustment for the student, the education provider must consult the student, or an associate of the student, about:

  1. whether the adjustment is reasonable; and
  2. the extent to which the adjustment would achieve the aim in paragraph 4.2 (3) (b), 5.2 (2) (b), 7.2 (5) (b) or 7.2 (6) (b) in relation to the student; and
  3. whether there is any other reasonable adjustment that would be less disruptive and intrusive and no less beneficial for the student.

Issues of incorrect assessment aside, data shows that there is still a group of Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues. The question is how do we assist these children to enhance life chances? Once again, those we consulted with highlighted the similarities more than the differences of Indigenous children without cognitive disabilities. As the research has been telling us for the last 30 years, we need an education system that engages with families and communities; that provides a strong literacy and numeracy base early in life; and fosters a strong Indigenous identity. We heard that there are lots of strategies and policies but only pockets of practice where this is happening on the ground.

Teachers and practitioners recommended that getting assessment right is the first step. This means using standard IQ and other testing, but only as part of a ‘bigger picture that looks at young people holistically.’[179]After all of these things have been considered, if a cognitive disability is still found, there needs to be a conversation with parents or caregivers about what this means. One of the main advantages of identifying a cognitive disability early should be that it increases the chances of the family understanding and dealing with a young person’s behaviours. In terms of school support, especially for Indigenous children, the preferred strategy is working with them in mainstream classes with a teacher’s aide wherever possible, rather than segregating them from peers.

Text Box 9
What can be achieved- Cherbourg State School

Cherbourg State School is an Aboriginal Community School, 300kms out of Brisbane on the site of the former Cherbourg mission. It had the reputation of one of the most disadvantaged and dysfunctional schools in Queensland, with low literacy and numeracy outcomes and very high levels of absenteeism.

When Dr Chris Sarra arrived as the principal in 1998 he set about making fundamental changes to school. He challenged school staff to look at their attitudes towards students and raise their expectations of the children. He also challenged children to raise their own expectations and required them to meet higher standards of behaviour, attendance and learning.

This seems to have worked. Over an eighteen-month period unexplained absences dropped by 94%. Improved attendance also led to better educational outcomes. The diagnostic reading tests of year two students originally showed that 100% of children were below expected reading rates. Two years later, less than half were below expected reading levels. These shifts were also evident for older children. In 1999 all of the year 7 students were significantly below the state average for literacy, by 2004, 17 of 21 year 7 students were achieving within the state average range. [180]

The foundation for creating these changes was a promotion of positive models of Indigenous identity. Dr Sarra explains that:

When we talked about developing a positive identity, this meant for us being Strong. When we talked about achieving outcomes, this meant for us to being smart. So we developed a new motto- ‘Strong and Smart’. Today everywhere you go in our school you will see that all of the behaviour of all of the pupils and of the staff hangs off being strong and smart.[181]

To get the children to really take the new motto on board, a new school song based on a football song was adopted enthusiastically by the children:

Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells
Cherbourg School is here.
We’re young and black and deadly,
Come and hear us cheer.

Bring of every challenge,
And put us to the test.
We’re from Cherbourg State School,
And you know we’re the best.

Dr Sarra describes these changes as ‘simple yet complex’.[182] The reason for success was that it provided ‘leverage’ to address thinking and behaviour. Dr Sarra could then challenge the children to put it into practice:

It has to be more than words coming out of your mouth...the things that come out of your mouth have to match the way you behave...so you can’t say to me that you are ‘strong and smart’ and then go missing from school... You can’t tell me that you are young and black and deadly, and then play up and give the teacher a hard time![183]

The other crucial component in giving children pride in their identity was an Aboriginal studies program for all students. Importantly, it tried to balance and explain some of the problems facing the community so that:

Our children had to understand that while such ugly issues were prominent in Indigenous communities, including Cherbourg, they are unquestionably the legacy of other historical and sociological processes, and not the legacy of being Aboriginal.[184]

This quality of leadership and the principles for teaching provided a foundation for all Indigenous children. From Dr Sarra’s experience at Cherbourg State School, unless we manage to get these things right we can’t really begin to address the specific needs of Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues ‘in a meaningful way.’[185]

Since Dr Sarra has left the school, some of the progress has been maintained and Cherbourg is now a much more positive place than before. Dr Sarra acknowledges that there is no single, easy fix to Indigenous education as it requires attitude change rather than just programs.

top | contents

d) Early Adolescence and Offending

So far we have seen that struggling community and family backgrounds, lack of early identification and support, the systemic failure of the school system and disengagement from education all mark a steady progression into offending for many Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health problems. By the time they reach late childhood and early adolescence, our consultations have found that many are already involved in anti-social or offending behaviour.

top | contents

Causes of Offending and Early Intervention

The reasons for involvement in offending are similar again, to other Indigenous young people. However, this group is more vulnerable and less understood by police and other criminal justice workers. For young people who have struggled at school due to a cognitive disability or mental health issue, offending often relates to the child development principle of ‘mastery’. Professor Milroy stated that because many of these young people didn’t master skills at school, they keep trying until they find something that they are good at. For many of these young people, being ‘tough’ and then getting into trouble is something that fills that gap. Conversely, if support and encouragement was given to these young people to channel their strengths and energies into something more positive, they could also achieve a sense of mastery and increased self esteem without offending and anti-social behaviour.

Identity was a common theme in all of our consultations. As previously stated, Indigenous young people often struggle to find role models and cultural identity. Linda Bamblett, Manager of the Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Limited (VACSAL) that provides support to young Kooris involved with the juvenile justice system believed that many of their clients are ‘like fringe dwellers on Koori and mainstream society’[186] and are seeking some sort of belonging.

One way of creating belonging and identity is the formation of groups. For instance in Melbourne, Ms Bamblett argued that a group of Koori young people have, ‘taken it upon themselves to make their own cultural identity, belonging and acceptance’[187] through the formation of the ‘Koori Kripps’. This group of young people is involved in offending and fights other similar groups of young people. Workers felt that young people with cognitive disabilities were especially susceptible to joining these groups as they may already have lower self-awareness and self esteem.

The situation has caused considerable concern in the community and people have come together to try and address the reasons that have led these young people into this group rather than more positive ways of expressing their identity. Without condoning the bad behaviour and potential for violence, there was a real acknowledgment that these groups can form in response to perceived or real threats from other groups. Due to low confidence in police protection, these young people reportedly decide to protect themselves.

All of the workers on the ground noted the need to deal with the issue of groups of young people, or ‘gangs’ with great sensitivity. There is the potential for the perception of ‘criminal gangs’ to be politicised and create demonising images of Indigenous young people. The media portrayal of the Adelaide ‘Gang of 49’ was cited as testament to the danger of reinforcing of negative stereotypes. If young people are forming these groups because they feel alienated and marginalised from society, such approaches are insensitive and counter productive.

We also can’t underestimate the impact of poverty on these young peoples’ involvement in offending. We heard many stories of Indigenous young people, especially in rural and remote areas stealing to survive. Young people with cognitive disabilities can lack the skills to negotiate ‘the system’ and engage in rather reckless offences to get money for food and basic necessities.

Another recurrent theme in the consultations was the impact of family violence, leading to offending and also mental health problems. Lester Corning, manager of the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service Family Counselling Service, told us of his experience working with children who were stealing to survive as their parents were off gambling or drinking. The children would then get caught; often the father would hold the mother responsible, resulting in severe abuse and violence. The children would witness this violence, often impacting on their own mental health. Mr Corning described this cycle:

These kids are on a roundabout of floggings and hurt. They get flung off occasionally, we call that suicide or mental health but not much happens to stop it.[188]

Many of these young people find themselves in need of mental health services. However, we heard from practitioners that there is a severe lack of mental health services. For instance, Anthony Brown, Indigenous family counsellor at the Victorian Health Service, estimated that they would receive about thirty referrals for service in a month, whilst they are only resourced to work with around thirty families in a year. Many of these young people are involved with juvenile justice or at extreme risk of involvement.

Text Box 10

Promising Practice:
Tirkandi Inaburra Cultural and Development Centre

Tirkandi Inaburra is an Aboriginal community controlled early intervention centre in Coleambally, Central Southern NSW, which provides a culturally based residential program for Aboriginal boys between 12-15 years of age. The aim of the centre is to reduce the likelihood of Indigenous youth becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

Tirkandi Inaburra means ‘learn to dream’ in the Wiradjuri language and the centre’s vision is ‘Boys to Men Learning to Live their Dream’.

Tirkandi is the only program of its kind in Australia. Funded by the NSW Attorney General’s Department, it has been operating since January 2006. While it is still in the pilot phase there seems to be some very promising results and changes in the participants.

Tirkandi Inaburra’s program provides educational, recreational, life and living skills and cultural awareness activities which develop a participant’s skills and abilities and strengthens his self-worth, resilience and cultural identity.

At any one time, up to 16 boys can participate in program. The program runs for three to six months and is voluntary. The program targets boys who are at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system.

School based education is an integral part of the program, with a school provided on site. Intensive support and learning is facilitated by three teachers and two teacher’s assistants.

There is a strong strength based therapeutic element running throughout the program. Each participant has an individual case plan. Case planning includes planning for exit following the young person ‘graduation’ from the centre.

While Tirkandi Inaburra doesn’t specifically target young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues, the Executive Officer Colleen Murray is of the opinion that a significant number of the young people that come to the centre have undiagnosed and untreated cognitive issues which have effected their education. All of the boys present with challenging behaviours which are often labelled as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The reality is that many of these behaviours are ‘learned’ responses and need to be unlearnt. The centre takes the time to consider the unacceptable behaviours displayed and attempts to address the underlying issues which have caused such behaviours.

Tirkandi Inaburra is structured around school terms. For many participants, their time on the program is only time in their lives that they have attended a whole term of school.

All Tirkandi Inaburra’s activities, including school based education are delivered using a Connected Outcome Groups framework (COGS). The participants are challenged to learn and are provided with intensive support.

The dedicated and experienced staff at the centre take the time to identify any possible cognitive issues that may impact on learning.

Attending school consistently is not the only new experience for the boys. The program provides the participants with many opportunities to engage and learn from new experiences.

For instance, in cultural activities they learn to make and play didgeridoos, do Aboriginal dances and learn about Aboriginal history. In life and living skills activities they learn how to cook and clean and take care of themselves and are empowered to make better decisions by increasing their emotional intelligence in subjects such as positive thinking, conflict resolution, problem solving, respect etc. In the sport and recreation activities they are exposed to the concept of team and trust and encouraged by the rule of ‘have a go and try your best’.

It has become patently obvious to the staff that the vast majority of the boys have been denied attention, praise and positive reinforcement and have significant self esteem and self image issues. In particular the boys view their time at school as a failure, they are often labelled as ‘bad kids’ and are placed in remedial classes which in essence are behavioural classes and are expected to achieve little. In addition they receive little support and encouragement from family members.

The program and all the interactions with staff are built on recognising strengths and developing mutual respect. Aboriginal workers play a huge role in helping the boys understand their culture and connections. Many of the boys don’t know where they fit in. At the centre they are supported in a safe, secure and positive environment and are taught to be proud of their identity.

Tirkandi Inaburra is well linked into the broader community with relationships with government and non government agencies including Department of Education, Juvenile Justice, Police, Department of Community Services, Greater Southern Area Health Service and the Griffith Aboriginal Medical Service.

At the centre the boys are introduced to rigor, boundaries and expectations. They are expected to conform to the rules of the centre which are:

  • Have respect
  • Behave Well
  • Keep Clean
  • Stay safe
  • Have a Go and Try Your Best

The participants are ‘invited to take responsibility’ for their own decisions and the consequences of those decisions. They are rewarded for good choices and penalised by way of a consequence for poor choices. This strategy, coupled with strength based communication, an increased emotional intelligence and a nurturing environment has demonstrated that overtime a participant can make better decisions, “unlearn” his inappropriate responses and modify his own behaviours.

Not all of the participants who are accepted into the program graduate from the program. As this is a ‘voluntary’ program some leave of their own volition and others are sent home for continual non-compliance or exhibiting unacceptable levels of violent or threatening behaviour. Introducing rigor and boundaries into the lives of boys who have had little exposure to these concepts and confronting challenging and unacceptable behaviours does cause an escalation of poor behaviour in the initial weeks of the program. But in order to change the pathway in life for participants these anti-social behaviours must indeed be challenged.

At the end of each school term a formal graduation ceremony is held for those boys that do rise to the challenge and do commit to changing their pathway in life. The ceremony is a celebration of the achievements of the boys and is always well attended by family and community members.

Tirkandi Inaburra is currently being evaluated but anecdotally, at least, it seems to be making some big changes. The Executive Officer estimates that close to 90% of the graduates of the centre have re-engaged with school and community life and families are seeing positive changes in their young people. As one said, ‘I think I brought the wrong kid home with me but I’m keeping this one!’.
Tirkandi Inaburra is an innovative program with the potential to prevent offending of Indigenous young people, including those with mental health and cognitive disabilities. The only concern now is sustainability.

The Executive Officer is convinced that Tirkandi Inaburra is making a difference. But she is also acutely aware that for a participant to remain resilient and to sustain the personal change he has worked so hard to achieve, he needs the ongoing support of the significant others in his life.

Family members, schools and communities need to now match the conviction of this centre and its graduates and continue to support and guide these young men throughout their lives beyond this centre

As Professor Cunneen pointed out, they are essentially doing all the work of the Department of Juvenile Justice but with a fraction of the resources.[189] This highlights the importance of meaningful support from government agencies and partners to ensure success.

top | contents

Police Contact

Consistent with the literature review, in the field it was reported that Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues are more likely to have involvement with the police. Notably, in Western Australia, the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Service found that the Northbridge curfew and move on laws disproportionately affect Indigenous people and people with mental health issues. This was due to greater use of public space and high levels of homelessness. In their experience, when young people were asked to move on by police, often for trivial reasons, the situation quickly escalates, leading to further charges. Adding mental illness or cognitive disability to this volatile mix and the ‘trifecta’ of offensive behaviour or offensive language plus resist arrest and assault police officer, often brought these young people into the juvenile justice system.

Police act as gatekeepers of the juvenile justice system. Police have great discretion to either charge or divert young people. While all agreed that diversion was the ultimate goal, unless something is done to assist young people at the point of police diversion or contact, it is highly likely that they will be in trouble again. Although some young people get in trouble as a one off, many of the Indigenous young people with complex needs, including cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues, continue offending. So while Police must use cautions and warning and other diversionary options, there is an argument for providing some sort of ‘help and not just a slap on the wrist’, as an early intervention. However, this must be balanced with net widening concerns and be voluntary.

Text Box 11
Promising Practice:

Killara Youth Support Services

Killara Youth Support Services is an early intervention service run by the Western Australian Department of Corrective Services. Killara provides an outreach service to young people and their families who have been involved with the Police, or may be at risk of Police involvement. Killara operates from 8am to 1am seven days a week.

Most of the young people who work with Killara have been cautioned by the Police. Caseworkers look at all the police cautions issued to young people in the metropolitan area and contact young people and families to offer assistance. Referrals can also be received from schools and young people and families themselves.

Killara offers short term counselling and support on a purely voluntary basis. They offer assistance with issues such as family conflict, drug and alcohol use, school and behaviour problems. Work usually occurs in the young person’s or family home. Staff are often involved in assisting parents with parenting skills such as setting boundaries and managing conflict. As well as counselling, staff provide referrals and links to other services and have a dedicated education worker who helps with transitions back into the school system.

Killara staff report that around 15% of their client group is Indigenous. Killara employs some Indigenous caseworkers who tend to work with any Indigenous young people and their families.

Given the very high levels of over representation of Indigenous young people in the custody, only 15% seems a relatively low rate. This may be reflective of the lower usage of cautions with Indigenous young people and that the service is voluntary. Staff acknowledge that it can be very difficult to ‘sell’ Killara to Indigenous young people and their families when they know it is associated with the Department of Corrective Services. However, Indigenous staff go some way to breaking down these barriers.

In an acknowledgement of the success of the Killara model, a new program is being developed in Geraldton. It is anticipated that the Geraldton program will service much larger numbers of Indigenous young people at risk given the demographics of the area. The service is being developed in consultation with the Geraldton Community Reference Group which includes a range of Indigenous community members and leaders.

top | contents

Formal Diversion and Court Contact

Many Indigenous young people miss out on the early intervention services and positive school experiences which foster positive identity and provide opportunities to a better life. If these services have failed, the next point of intervention usually comes at formal diversion and court contact.

Supported by the research, those we consulted with found that Indigenous young people mostly offending at an earlier age. Tirkandi Inaburra workers reported that many of their clients may have been offending even before the age of criminal responsibility, so by the time they reached 10 years of age police already perceived them as ‘a menace and come down hard’.[190] Cautions and warnings all get used up much earlier and young people are referred to diversionary options such as conferencing sooner than non- Aboriginal children, if at all.

Dr Harry Blagg, of the Crime Research Centre in Western Australia was critical of the impact that conferencing has had on Indigenous young people. He believes that diversion is ‘still failing Aboriginal kids’[191] and very little improvement has been made over the past 15 years. As long as the police remain the gatekeepers of this system and there is little transparency at the level of discretionary decision making, this will remain the case. In fact, the diversion of so many non-Aboriginal offenders through conferencing, leaving an over represented group of Indigenous offenders behind, further stigmatises Indigenous people and feeds into negative stereotypes of Indigenous people as offenders.

Within this dynamic, Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues are once again considered especially disadvantaged. Most had very little confidence in police being able to pick up on these issues and there seems to be little reported capacity to adapt the process to meet their needs. This is disappointing because a conference run along a restorative justice model has the potential to ‘make things right’ with the offender, victim and community and develop a plan which can help the offender find their place in the community.

Text Box 12
Promising Practice:
Awareness and Sensitivity in Youth Justice Conferencing

A promising exception to this perception is a pilot program conducted by the Youth Justice Conferencing division of the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice. Conference convenors in the Fairfield area trialled a screening tool designed to pick up on any cognitive disability issues of conference participants.

Developed in consultation with the Criminal Justice Support Network, Department of Disability, Ageing and Home Care and other stakeholders, the screening tool provided a straight forward checklist for convenors, aware that many had no expertise in these issues. Convenors are not required to make an assessment of the nature or extent of a person’s condition, but they are required to try and make the conference equitable for everyone to maximise participation.

Checklist for Additional Support Needs in Youth Justice Conferencing
Indicators of intellectual disability, cognitive disability or mental health issues:

  • More difficulty following and remembering instructions
  • More difficulty understanding explanations- but may cover up that they don’t understand - you need to continually check
  • More difficulty reading everyday language
  • More limited writing skills
  • More difficulty concentrating for the time you’d expect, easily distracted
  • Difficulty understanding questions
  • Many be slow to respond to questions or try and avoid them
  • More than usual difficulty communicating ideas
  • Difficulty with abstract concepts like time and dates, their thinking may be more concrete
  • More likely to look at the whole ‘big picture’ and find it difficult to focus on a specific issue
  • More difficulty weighing up options and being able to think or plan ahead
  • May have inflexible thinking - getting stuck on a particular idea and be repetitive
  • More difficultly remembering information
  • May display inappropriate social behaviour, like not observing personal space
  • Person’s body language and expression many not match their words
  • Compulsive of repetitive in their actions eg. Rituals in certain tasks, ie. Hand washing, lining up objects, or there could be something more obvious like pulling their hair, rubbing arm for no reason etc.
  • Avoiding eye contact. This needs to be in the context of their cultural background as some cultures consider it rude to make direct eye contact. So it needs to be considered in the context of their general appearance, ie. Slouched shoulders, body withdrawn, and presentation of voice, tone, etc, while making note of any cultural differences that are the norms for that culture
  • The person may seem to be responding to stimuli not present in the room. This could be noted by being distracted, difficulty following conversations, talking to someone not present etc
  • In the course of the conference preparation, you may discover that there have been changes in the person’s mood, or behaviours, sleep or eating patterns for no apparent reason that makes sense.

Basic training and tips for working with people with cognitive disabilities was also provided to ensure that conference convenors could then make necessary adaptations to the process. If any participants were identified as having issues, convenors could then try and accommodate their needs within the conference process. Links were made with the Criminal Justice Support Network, a specialist support agency for people with intellectual disability involved with the criminal justice system, to provide additional assistance to convenors or participants if appropriate.

The pilot received good feedback from convenors who appreciated the prompts of the screening tool and education and support of disability support services. According to Lynn Davie, Manager, Fairfield Youth Justice Conferencing, it also increased their general effectiveness as it made them consider special needs and contextual issues of all participants, whether they had a disability or not.

The pilot did not include many Indigenous young people, primarily due to the geographic boundaries. However, Christine Sheeley, Youth Justice Conferencing project manager, feels that it could be an equally successful tool to skill up convenors dealing with Indigenous young people. The development group were also conscious of problems with hearing that we know effect many Indigenous young people. Training has been provided to conference convenors.

The pilot is now being evaluated but will be rolled out across the state and it is hoped it will be especially useful in country areas of NSW where there are larger numbers of Indigenous young people come into contact with Police. This is an instance of a simple adaptation to practice that has the capacity to increase service access for people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues.

Our consultations found that the situation didn’t improve as the young person moved to more formal proceedings. Aboriginal Legal Services felt that legal staff often lacked the knowledge and resources appropriately deal with Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues. A former NSW ALS solicitor reported:

everyone knows the factual things about Aboriginal people and mental health and have statistics in their head, but some magistrates find it very difficult to apply it in real life... I have seen otherwise very insightful magistrates making some bad decisions.[192]

Aboriginal Legal Services staff expressed a need for practically based training aimed at magistrates and legal professionals to increase their awareness of these issues, the prevalence of mental health and cognitive disabilities and a basic understanding of some of the signs. Of course, this is no replacement for proper assessment but it helps build recognition of the issue.

We heard that Indigenous young people seem to be missing out on diversion from the juvenile justice system under mental health provisions. For instance, in NSW there is a provision for diversion under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act. Section 32 of the Act applies if:

it appears to the Magistrate that the defendant is (or was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence):

  1. developmentally disabled; or
  2. suffering from a mental illness; or
  3. suffering from a mental condition for which treatment is available in a hospital;
    but who is not a mentally ill person within the Mental Health Act.[193]

If this applies, the Magistrate can divert the offender by dismissing the charge and discharging the person:

  1. into the care of a responsible person, unconditionally or subject to conditions;
  2. on the condition that the defendant attend a certain place for assessment and/ or treatment; or
  3. unconditionally.[194]

This should be a good way of dealing with Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues as it has the capacity to order treatment but doesn’t necessarily involve the young person in the juvenile justice system.

Anecdotally, this is being under utilised for Indigenous young people. Firstly, because of the appalling gaps in service there is no confidence among magistrates that the person will actually receive treatment. Secondly, the reports required can be up to $600 and therefore beyond the budget of stretched Aboriginal legal services unless the young person is facing custody. Finally, many of the young people with these complex issues are likely to breach bail in the time that it takes to prepare the report due to inadequate support. In a way, going through this process can be setting them up to fail.

Text Box 13
Promising Practice:
Justice Health Court Liaison Scheme

The large number of young people with mental health issues in the juvenile justice system has prompted the development of a Court Liaison Scheme in NSW. It is run by NSW Justice Health, the government agency responsible for the health care provision to adult prisoners and juvenile detainees.

The Court Liaison Scheme commenced in January 2006 and was initially based at Cobham Children’s Court in Western Sydney. This site was originally chosen as it takes in most of Western Sydney. It includes Blacktown Local Government Area, the highest Indigenous population in the state.

The program is essentially an assessment and referral service for young people before the court that may have mental health issues. Very few young people present with confirmed diagnoses, instead there is often a general sense from workers and legal practitioners that something is ‘not quite right’ and then referred to the on site Justice Health mental health practitioner.

The Justice Health worker then prepares a detailed assessment with the young person. If a young person has a mental health issue the worker will present a treatment plan to the court. An integral part of the assessment is checking if the young person is known to any other mental health services to ensure collaboration and consistency. However, it is estimated that about half of the young people have no support in place, especially as any mental health issues are only starting to emerge.

The treatment plan includes both community and custodial options, as it is not the place for workers to tell the Courts what to impose. Nonetheless, according to workers, most of the time the community based treatment recommendations are followed. In terms of diversion, charges can either be dismissed with recommendations for the treatment plan to be followed, or can be imposed through a supervised bail arrangement. For many magistrates, the advantage of a supervised bail arrangement is that some support is provided by juvenile justice to ensure the treatment plan is met. The deferral of sentence also provides a good incentive for the young person to make changes to avoid further consequences.

It is not specifically within Justice Health’s mandate to work with young people with a cognitive disability. This responsibility lies with the Department of Disability, Ageing and Home Care (DADHC). Staff note that some of their young people do present with borderline intellectual disability issues and Aspergers syndrome. The capacity to conduct assessments about risk to the community may pick up on some of the risk behaviours of these young people. Recommendations can still be made but it is the responsibility of DADHC to follow up on these.

In addition to the Court Liaison Scheme, Justice Health also run community clinics that provide very detailed assessment, recommendations and consultancy to young people involved with the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Community Services.

At October 2006, over 60% of the young people that went through the Court Liaison Scheme and Community Clinics identified as Indigenous. There have been conscious attempts to engage Indigenous communities. When the program was set up, workers consulted with the community and involved local Elders in the program. Workers explained what the program was about and then sought feedback and guidance on how they should work with Indigenous young people. There is a commitment to involve families wherever possible and strong links have been made with local Aboriginal Medical Services and the Aboriginal Legal Services.

Justice Health is recruiting an Aboriginal identified mental health trainee. The traineeship will include support to complete a health worker course through Charles Sturt University. It is planned that the identified Aboriginal trainee position will work with young people as well as having the capacity to engage with the community and build the organisational capacity to address Indigenous issues.

The Court Liaison Scheme has since expanded to Parramatta Children’s Court. Given the good results so far, there are also plans to extend the service to other metropolitan court locations.

Since the 1990s there have been a range of alternative court models and processes. Notably, these have included Indigenous courts and mental impairment/ intellectual disability courts. By and large, those we consulted with were positive about the developments. There was a sense that traditional courts may misinterpret the behaviours of Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues, often attributing non-compliance and particular presentations to cultural reasons. Juvenile justice practitioners saw the greater likelihood of these courts to notice and intervene in cognitive disability or mental health issues, as they had greater cultural understanding and awareness of ‘where the kids are coming from’.[195]

The process of sitting around a table and discussing the offence and options is also more likely to achieve engagement with Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities according to juvenile justice workers. Unlike other court proceedings, the less formal nature means that there are opportunities to check whether the young person actually understands what is going on and subsequently any outcomes or orders which they need to abide by. The role of Elders and recognition of culture is also important in achieving accountability and demonstrating that offending is not acceptable to the Indigenous community either. For young people with cognitive disabilities this concrete display had the potential to really sink in.

Text Box 14
Promising Practice:
Intellectual Disability/ Mental Impairment Court Based Diversions

In an acknowledgment of the large number of people with intellectual disabilities and cognitive disabilities in the justice system court based diversion programs have been developed in some jurisdictions (Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland). At this stage only adult offenders are eligible but it may be an option worth considering for young people as well.

In Western Australia, the Intellectual Disability Diversion Program (IDDP) is characteristic of these programs. According to Amanda Perlinski, Program Coordinator, IDDP has had success in working with Indigenous offenders. The program was developed in 2002 and is now a permanent program funded by the Department of Corrective Services.

The IDDP works along a therapeutic jurisprudence model. Magistrates, prosecutors and lawyers work to case manage an offender and solve problems that impact on offending. It is about diversion into treatment rather than traditional criminal justice options.

The IDDP, based at Perth Magistrates Court, receives referrals from lawyers, family members, carers, health professionals, police, court staff and community corrections officers. When a person is accepted, a detailed case plan is developed which links them in with service providers. Many have not received service in the past. The person is regularly reviewed at court to make sure they are complying with their plan and continuing to meet with service providers. Reports are provided by the IDDP coordinator.

Ms Perlinksi describes the participants on the IDDP as a ‘very challenging group of clients who frequently fall between the gaps’[196] of available services. For many, particularly Indigenous participants, this may be the first time any cognitive disability is ever identified. A typical example for Ms Perlinksi is an Indigenous young adult who has recently joined the program. Despite having been in juvenile custody for extended periods of time, no one managed to pick up on his very obvious cognitive disability. In fact, it was only by chance that Ms Perlinksi overheard a conversation between a legal aid solicitor and the person, and offered assistance, that he was even identified at this point.

This lack of appropriate identification and service for Indigenous people is not unusual. In Ms Perlinksi’s opinion it filters back to juvenile justice and education systems who don’t value Indigenous young people. Often:

nobody bothers with the Aboriginal kids sitting up the back of the class because there is an attitude that they don’t do well and will just leave anyway.[197]

From the example mentioned, this young adult was in considerable need when we started on the program. He had little family support and was desperately needing accommodation. The IDDP was able to find him temporary accommodation and get him basics like bank accounts and Centrelink payments. These things are a concrete start but there is a lot more to be done to prevent reoffending.

There are some concerns that programs like the IDDP can have a net widening effect and draw people into the criminal justice system when they should be treated in the community. However, practically they do seem to offer alternatives to a group of people who have few options. Given the extreme likelihood of Indigenous people becoming caught up in the criminal justice system, it seems better that there is another point of diversion.

top | contents

Involvement with Juvenile Justice

By the time Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health problems actually come in contact with the juvenile justice, they have usually suffered a range of systemic failures. Instead of using opportunities to intervene, many young people have fallen into the ‘too hard basket’ that leads to custody. However, there is a strong commitment not to give up on these young people. Just because they have progressed through to the extreme end of the juvenile justice system, there are still opportunities for positive change.

Consistent with the statistics, we heard that Indigenous young people are more likely to be entering custody, either on remand or a custodial sentence. We heard many stories about institutionalisation and the desperate circumstances where some Indigenous young people even committed offences with the express aim of going into custody as it was preferable to their lives on the outside.

Young people with cognitive disabilities may also be more prone to institutionalisation. Practitioners working with Indigenous people with disabilities found that some young people were actually more functional when they were in custody. This was because they responded to the structure, routine and certainty of custody, compared with their chaotic lives on the outside.[198] This is not a justification for custody but it does show that strategies and structure can work to support young people in the community.

Conversely, Indigenous young people with mental health problems often deteriorated in custody and in fact, some mental health issues were context dependant, according to Professor Milroy. We heard that mental health needs in custody were not always met, with few forensic services for juveniles across the country.

There was a call for greater screening of cognitive disabilities and/ or mental health issues by the juvenile justice system, although there was some concern raised about the specific disability and mental health knowledge of juvenile justice workers. Nonetheless, it makes sense that these issues be seriously considered as they have the likelihood to impact on what sort of case plan is developed and how it is implemented. Once again, there was a call for more culturally appropriate services as a base of any assessment or intervention for Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues.

Text Box 15
Promising Practice:
Koori Juvenile Justice Program

The Koori Juvenile Justice Program was established in Victoria in 1992 in response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Since then the Koori Juvenile Justice Program has evolved as a more comprehensive way of working with Koori young people and is an integral part of the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement.

The Koori Juvenile Justice Program is a self managed model, with funding provided to local Aboriginal Co-operatives that have responsibility for the employment, supervision and support of the Koori Juvenile Justice Program workers. This model has been instrumental in shaping the program. Overall the Aboriginal cooperatives seem to be well established in local communities and with broad knowledge and resources to assist young people.

The separation of the Koori Juvenile Justice Program workers from the juvenile justice workers is also seen as a good thing by workers according to workers at the Bert William Centre, (VACSAL) as it helps build rapport with young people and build trusting relationships.

The Koori Juvenile Justice Program now covers most of Victoria. Workers are available at all stages of contact with the juvenile justice system, as well as some capacity to provide diversionary options. All workers are Indigenous.

There are 16 Koori Juvenile Justice Worker positions based in the community across Victoria. They provide diversionary and rehabilitative services for Indigenous young people on juvenile justice orders or who are at risk of entering/ re-entering the juvenile justice system. Their role includes:

Diversionary strategies-

  • Developing and initiating culturally appropriate programs and strategies;
  • Providing support for Aboriginal young people and their families at court and to advocate on their behalf;
  • Providing secondary consultation to juvenile justice case managers to ensure the culturally appropriate information is provided to courts;
  • Providing advice to court as required;
  • Supporting or gaining support for Aboriginal young people detained by police and offer advice to police to ensure fair and reasonable outcomes for Aboriginal young people as required.

Working with Statutory Clients-

  • Attending client case planning and case management meetings;
  • Developing and reviewing Aboriginal Cultural Support Plans;
  • Providing cultural supervision, programs and support for Aboriginal people on court orders;
  • Providing secondary consultation to case managers of Aboriginal young people to ensure culturally relevant client assessment plans are implemented; and
  • Visiting Aboriginal young people in custody to ensure linkages with their Aboriginal community are established/ re-established.[199]

Koori Juvenile Justice Program workers are based in each of the juvenile custodial facilities. Their role is to ensure Indigenous young people maintain (or reconnect) with community and families whilst incarcerated. As well as providing the same sort of general culturally appropriate support as community based workers, they also:

  • assist Indigenous young people on remand access diversionary program;
  • initiate contact with community based Koori Justice Program workers; and
  • develop networks to ensure Indigenous young people have access to culturally appropriate services, especially when they are leaving custody[200].

A recent addition to the way juvenile justice services in Victoria works with Indigenous young people is through Aboriginal Cultural Support Plans. Aboriginal Cultural Support Plans are provide for each young person. With the young person, juvenile justice worker and family, information is gathered about the young person.

This includes:

  • the Aboriginal community group that the young person identifies with;
  • tribal/ family origin group;
  • identification of contacts to support cultural links;
  • a contact plan for Aboriginal services;
  • ways to maintain ongoing cultural links for a young person’s community; and
  • significant family information.[201]

The rationale for Aboriginal Cultural Support Plans is to systematically ensure that all Indigenous young people have access to the Koori Juvenile Justice Program. More broadly it is prefaced on the need to build pride in Indigenous identity and connection to community.

On the ground, workers from the Bert Williams Centre value the new Aboriginal Cultural Support Plans. Although it is ‘nothing new’[202] in terms of how they work with young people, it has created some safeguards in the system. It is strengthens their ability to increase young people’s ‘sense of belonging’[203] especially when young people have come from fractured communities. Some young people haven’t had the opportunity to learn about their culture. This can be a good chance to gain these experiences if they are ready and willing.

Phase 2 of the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement has enhanced the Koori Juvenile Justice Program.[204] There is now provision for a Koori Preventative Early School Leaver and Youth Employment Program. Based on an outreach model, it will provide intensive support to assist Koori young people involved/ or at risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system to remain at school, look at alternative education and employment options. To increase the number of Indigenous young people who are granted bail, a Koori Youth Intensive Bail Support Program has also commenced to provide support to meet bail conditions and improve chances for diversion from custody.

The fact that the Koori Juvenile Justice Program operates across the offending continuum, from ‘at risk’ clients all the way through to young people in custody is also a strength of the model. It provides multiple opportunities for engagement and can create lasting connections with young people. According to workers at the Bert Williams Centre, their door is always open to young people. They recognise that sometimes they may be sowing the seeds to change later. This helps develop a context where young people can really feel valued and accepted.

While the Koori Juvenile Justice Program doesn’t specifically target Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues, unlike mainstream juvenile justice programs it does build on a strong cultural base. Further, there seems to be a growing awareness of the specificity of cognitive disabilities and mental health needs in Victorian juvenile justice. These are noted in the Victorian Offender Needs Indicator for Youth (Victoria is the only state to systematically identify cognitive/ mental health status of young people in juvenile justice).

Together, these factors seem to have created an environment where staff are able to work well with Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues. Workers at the Bert Williams Centre relayed one typical case where they were able to make a difference with a young person with a cognitive disability. The young person came from a background of family violence, had been taken into care, was homeless and could not read or write when he ended up in juvenile justice system. He has now achieved his forklift license, is working and has his own home and family. For this young person, the key was building his identity, self esteem and ‘telling him, you are strong’[205] coupled with stability and showing care. This helped him maximise his potential and shift away from offending.

Of course, not all stories have such a happy ending but it does reaffirm that with the right support some of the ‘hardest kids’ make it through the system to positive ends.

 

Text Box 16
Promising Practice:
Intensive Supervision Program

The Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) run by Department of Corrective Services in Western Australia is a multi systemic therapy (MST) program for young people who commit serious and/ or repeat offences or whose severe anti social behaviour places them on a trajectory towards serious offending. The first ISP teams commenced in 2005 in Perth. Since then over half of the referrals have been for Indigenous young people.

MST is an empirically based international model which tries to prevent offending by looking at the range of systems which impact on the young person. These systems include family, peers, school, local community and support services. MST comes from a strengths based perspective but uses specific psychological and family therapies.

MST has been extensively evaluated overseas and there is evidence to suggest that it significantly reduces recidivism amongst participants. An interim evaluation of the ISP shows of 43 cases that have been out of the program for at least six months, the reduction in total days in custody was 32% and the reduction in the number of convicted offences was 73%.[206] This is a very small sample but promising nonetheless.

According to Phillip Narkle, Aboriginal Team Advisor, work has been done to make sure the MST was adapted to meet the needs of Indigenous families. The response of the Aboriginal community was initially very suspicious. However, Mr Narkle believes that there have now been enough positive results and adaptations to gain some community support.

The position of Aboriginal Team Advisor (ATA) was added to the original team of clinicians (social workers or psychologists). The ATA:

  • is responsible for team cultural sensitivity and learning;
  • meets with Indigenous families and gives an overview of ISP;
  • introduces and vouches for clinicians to gain greater acceptance and trust with family and young person;
  • works together with the clinician to help engage the family in the early stages;
  • is continually consulted by the team to ensure cultural appropriateness of assessments and interventions and
  • conducts community development and linkages.

Although the ISP is multi systemic in intent, the majority of the work is done with the young person and their family in their own home. There is a strong parenting component. The program aims to provide parents with the skills to deal with their children’s behaviour and prevent offending.

ISP is a very intensive program with clinicians and families meeting three to five times a week and workers are available on call for any crisis situations. Due to the intensity, the program lasts between 3 to 6 months, depending on the progress and needs of the particular family. According to Mairead McCoy, Manager, ISP, the research shows that after 4-6 months there are ‘diminishing returns’[207] on interventions.

It is not clear whether this is also the case for Indigenous young people with very complex needs against an intergenerational background of disadvantage. There was some scepticism about this approach amongst the other practitioners we consulted, although it is too early to make any firm findings.

ISP is a purely voluntary program. Mr Narkle believes that this is part of the reason for its success with Indigenous families as they are ‘sick of being driven into programs.’[208] This means that the Courts cannot make a young person participate in ISP. There have been attempts to make this happen but is has been resisted as it could change the dynamics of the program. Another reason for keeping the program voluntary is that a lot of the work is actually done with the parents and families. It is not the parents that have committed the offence and therefore it is not fair to impose a program condition on them.

The fact that parents and families set the goals means that a lot of the work is around helping people access services and sort out the necessities of everyday life. Ms McCoy states that few of their clients are connected to universal services, so there is a lot of practical work around housing, health and income support.

The strengths based approach was also considered integral in engaging Indigenous families. Mr Narkle explains that most of the families have had extensive involvement with child protection services and other institutions that have reinforced low self worth and blame. Instead, they work from the perspective that ‘families are doing the best they can’[209] and build on resilience and strengths that they may not have even acknowledged themselves.

Through the ATA, ISP has the capacity to work with some broader community issues which impact on the offending behaviour of individual Indigenous young people. For instance, feuding between different groups with the Indigenous community was identified as a problem for a number of young people on the program. A lot their offences were assaults related feuding or carrying weapons for protection. One young person carried a machete with him at all times to protect himself based on quite real fears that he was at risk of serious harm from others. Obviously carrying a weapon was in breach of his order and could have led to an escalation of conflict and serious assault charges. In order to try and diffuse the situation, Mr Narkle worked closely with Aboriginal Elders and Police in the community to reduce family feuding and violence at a systemic level, to communicate that ‘feuding is fighting, not culture.’[210]

ISP does not specifically target Indigenous young people with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues although they have worked with quite a lot of young people with these issues. In particular, they estimate a large proportion have had mental health issues, brought on by high levels of trauma and resulting in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Mr Narkle believes that the effects of the Stolen Generation as well as abuse and neglect in their own lives perpetuates profound trans-generational trauma for Indigenous young people.

ISP staff believe that the program is flexible enough to work well with the needs of these young people and have had success in assisting families develop more confidence and awareness about cognitive disability. At the same time, they have also worked with the Disability Services Commission to teach them to be more culturally appropriate through the expertise of the Aboriginal Team Advisors. Cognitive disability is also a factor for families, with high levels of deficit and disability amongst parents often due to substance use.

For instance, Mr Narkle and Ms Rochester recounted one case of an Indigenous young man they worked with who presented with Tourettes Syndrome as well as psychotic symptoms. Through the combined expertise of the Aboriginal Team Advisor and clinician, the intervention was able to look at the cultural and spiritual reasons for the episodes leading to a traditional spiritual cleansing process, as well as the medical and neurological reasons. This approach recognised the:

fine line between looking at cultural reasons and making sure an organic mental condition is diagnosed and treated.[211]

Mr Narkle comments, ‘it’s not rocket science, it’s just sitting down and looking at the problem and thinking of some solutions.’[212] However, it seems that enough consideration and hard work has taken place to bring some good results to Indigenous young people.

top | contents

Endnotes

[157] A list of consultations can be found at Appendix 1.
[158] Milroy, H., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 22 March 2007.
[159] Stopher, K., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 19 March 2007.
[160] Stopher, K., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 19 March 2007.
[161] Raphael, B., Swan, P. and Martnek, N., “Trauma for Australian Aboriginal People”, in Danieli (ed), International Handbook of Multigenerational Legacies of Trauma, Plennum Press,1998, pp327-339.
[162] Griffis, D., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 27 April 2007.
[163] Brown, S., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 1 March 2007.
[164] Gornall, D., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 19 March 2007.
[165] Narkle, P., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 March 2007.
[166] Milroy, H., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 22 March 2007.
[167] Royal Australian College of Physicans, Health of Children in Out of Home Care, RACP, Sydney, 2006, available at http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/index
[168] Royal Australian College of Physicans, Health of Children in Out of Home Care, RACP, Sydney, 2006, available at http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/index
[169] Royal Australian College of Physicans, Health of Children in Out of Home Care, RACP, Sydney, 2006, available at http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/index
[170] Royal Children’s Hospital, Australian Early Development Index: Building better communities for children , 5 March 2008, available online at: http://www.rch.org.au/australianedi/edi.cfm?doc_id=6211, accessed 25 March 2008.
[171] Sarra, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 16 April 2007.
[172] Sarra, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 16 April 2007.
[173] Sarra, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 16 April 2007.
[174] Gould, J., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 18 April 2007.
[175] Gould, J., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 18 April 2007.
[176] Gould, J., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 18 April 2007.
[177] Sarra, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 16 April 2007.
[178] Gould, J., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 18 April 2007.
[179] Sarra, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 16 April 2007.
[180] Sarra, C., ‘Stronger Smarter School Outcomes through Aboriginal perceptions of being Aboriginal’ (2006) 11 Griffith Review.
[181] Sarra, C., ‘Stronger Smarter School Outcomes through Aboriginal perceptions of being Aboriginal’, (2006) 11 Griffith Review.
[182] Sarra, C., ‘Stronger Smarter School Outcomes through Aboriginal perceptions of being Aboriginal’ (2006) 11 Griffith Review, 2006.
[183] Sarra, C., ‘Stronger Smarter School Outcomes through Aboriginal perceptions of being Aboriginal (2006) 11 Griffith Review.
[184] Sarra, C., ‘Stronger Smarter School Outcomes through Aboriginal perceptions of being Aboriginal’ (2006) 11 Griffith Review.
[185] Sarra, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 16 April 2007.
[186] Bamblett, L., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 March 2007.
[187] Bamblett, L., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 March 2007.
[188] Corning, L., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 March 2007.
[189] Cunneen, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 19 April 2007.
[190] Seymour, M., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 3 April 2007.
[191] Blagg, H., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 22 April 2007.
[192] Rothman, C., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 2 March 2007.
[193] Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), s32.
[194] Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), s32.
[195] Bamblett, A., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 April 2007.
[196] Perlinski, A., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 March 2007.
[197] Perlinski, A., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 March 2007.
[198] Fishburn, K., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 7 March 2007.
[199] Report provided to author on 29 April 2007.
[200] Report provided to author on 29 April 2007.
[201] Report provided to the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office on 29 April 2007.
[202] Bamblett, L., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 April 2007.
[203] Bamblett, L., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 April 2007.
[204] Victorian Department of Justice, Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement Phase 2, Melbourne, June 2006.
[205] Bamblett, L., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 30 April 2007.
[206] Department of Corrective Services, Interim Intensive Supervision Program Evaluation Report, November 2006, provided to the author.
[207] McCoy, M., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 April 2007.
[208] Narkle, P., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 April 2007.
[209] Rochester, T., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 April 2007.
[210] Narkle, P., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 April 2007.
[211] Rochester, T., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 March 2007.
[212] Narkle, P., Communication with the Social Justice Commissioner’s Office, 20 March 2007.