Working With At-Risk Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Young People in Australia: Risk Factors,Programming,and Service Delivery

Involvement of Young People From CALD Backgrounds in the Criminal Justice System

Australian offender demographics indicate that Australian-born individuals comprise the majority of prisoners (81%. ABS, 2018b). They also reveal that offenders born in countries such as Sudan, New Zealand, Vietnam, Samoa, Afghanistan, and Lebanon are overrepresented in the prison population (ABS, 2018b). Victoria has the highest proportion (25%) of overseas-born prisoners, nationwide (ABS, 2018b). At the youth justice level, almost one quarter of the Victorian youth custodial population are non-native English speakers (State of Victoria, 2018) and more than one third self-identify as CALD (Shepherd et al., 2015). CALD youth contact with the justice system is often underreported as Victoria Police do not record an alleged offender’s ethnocultural group beyond the “country-of-birth” descriptor (Joint Standing Committee on Migration, 2017). However, estimates from other sources (i.e., Youth Parole Board) indicate that young people from African (19%, predominantly South Sudanese) and Maori and Pasifika backgrounds (15%) are overrepresented in custody (State of Victoria, 2018), an increase from previous years. Given these figures, it is necessary to generate a “what works” literature for justice-involved CALD young people in Australia. This article aims to assemble what we currently know; the offending trajectories and unique experiences of CALD young people; the effectiveness of programs tailored to CALD young people; and the recommendations from both the literature and community to best address CALD young people’s involvement in the justice system.

Pathways to Offending

Several decades of research have identified a concert of risk factors (i.e., substance use, peer delinquency, low level of educational obtainment, antisocial attitudes) that have been statistically shown, if present, to increase the likelihood of an individual committing future violence or other offending behaviors (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Douglas et al., 1999; Farrington & Loeber, 2000). It is likely that migrant offending patterns are similarly underpinned by such dynamics. Justice-involved CALD young people in Australia typically possess risk profiles that approximate those of justice-involved Anglo-Australian young people (Shepherd et al., 2015). Youth offenders from CALD backgrounds, like their Anglo-Australian peers, typically come from environments of dysfunction and social strain, exhibit antisocial attitudes, use illicit substances, have disengaged from school, and associate with delinquent peers.

Recent trends in youth offending have noted increases in group-based, calculated offending, and violence, coordinated on social media (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). Late-onset group–based violence has also been linked with particular CALD groups (Joint Standing Committee on Migration, 2017; Liddell et al., 2016; Williams, 2019). Generally, young people are likely to offend with peers of their cultural background or ethnicity. However, any findings attributed to the CALD “umbrella” descriptor should be approached with caution, given the vastly differing cultures and ethnicities, and the intersections of gender, disability, life experiences, and sexuality represented within CALD cohorts (Adusei-Asante & Adibi, 2018). In addition, the visa category/stream into Australia—humanitarian (asylum seekers and refugees), skilled migrant, international student, or family reunification—can influence the process of settlement, postsettlement experiences, and support required (African Think Tank, 2019).

Nonetheless, there are additional challenges facing CALD groups in Australia that contextualize CALD justice involvement. These include, but are not limited to, acculturation/culture shock, intergenerational discord/family breakdown, financial and housing challenges, unemployment, limited access to services, mental health concerns and help-seeking behaviors, educational readiness and performance, disengagement from school, cultural attitudes and norms, and experiences of racism/discrimination which can include vilification/sensationalized reporting by the media (Abur, 2018; Benier et al., 2018; Deng, 2016; Ravulo, 2016).

In addition, some young people from CALD communities may have limited awareness and understanding of the Australian law (including their rights and obligations), and a fear or distrust of authorities because of negative experiences in their country of origin. Others have expressed concerns of being excluded and “locked out” of the system (Victoria Legal Aid, 2016), while others feel overpoliced and subjected to racial profiling (Weber, 2018).

Programming

There have been repeated calls to develop culturally responsive programs to address the unique needs of justice-involved and at-risk CALD young people (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Forson, 2019; Onsando, 2019; Ravulo, 2019; Shepherd & Ilalio, 2016). Recent comprehensive reviews into Victoria’s youth justice system noted the distinct lack of targeted programs for CALD young people (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Parliament of Victoria, 2018). Moreover, to the authors’ knowledge, there exists no literature nationwide on the effectiveness of culturally responsive programming for justice-involved CALD young people. This is likely due to the small number of available programs, the lack of funding and support for such programs, and the subsequent inability to ascertain their utility and scalability through rigorous evaluation (Bartels, 2011; Noetic Group, 2017; Vergara et al., 2016). Given the absence of an evidence base with regard to effective interventions, it is necessary then, to consider the extant literature on pathways to offending and recommended best practice for working effectively with this population.

We know that a suite of risk factors, which have been identified in the literature over several decades, tend to generalize, regardless of cultural background (Shepherd et al., 2014). However, the unique broader socialcultural concerns are, nonetheless, worthy of acknowledgment and are useful to grapple with when considering the experiential reality and sometimes sociocultural contexts that CALD youth inhabit and navigate—it is plausible that the integration-related social challenges listed above amplify or provide fertile ground for the established criminogenic risk factors.

Unique sociological-environmental experiences may need to be considered when working with CALD young people to enhance effective client-provider communication and program delivery with specific regard to the following:

An important caveat to the above is that CALD communities are heterogeneous with varying levels of acculturation, biculturalism, and identity. While ethnocultural considerations may be of importance to some individuals, they may bear little relevance to others. As such, it is prudent to avoid having preconceived notions of an individual based on their supposed cultural background. An individual’s culture comprises numerous components ranging from peer group culture, neighborhood culture, personal interest/hobby culture, political/religious culture, all of which may interact with, or perhaps trump their ethnoculture (which may only be superficially held). Young people are often influenced by their peer groups and so their friendship group “culture” will likely be favored. Brokering a “connection” to their parent’s ethnoculture as a treatment option may not be enticing to every young person. Some CALD young people have noted a disconnect between their parents culture and their own biculturalism in prior research, describing their parents as failing to understand the issues they face in Australian society (Omar et al., 2015; Renzaho et al., 2017). Other young people may have a conflictual relationship with their families and have no connection with their ethnic community or cultural group.

This does not mean that facilitating an interest in one’s cultural background may not be appreciated, but again some caution is urged, given the varying levels of cultural interest and if such initiatives supplant or overshadow a focus on addressing evidenced-based criminogenic needs. It is also important to note that in some cases with CALD youth, their involvement in the justice system may engender stigmatization and ostracism from their own families and communities resulting in diminished support networks, greater levels of distress, susceptibility to negative peer influence, and problem behaviors as well as a greater risk of homelessness (Moore et al., 2016; Onsando, 2019; Ravulo, 2016). The extent to which reconnection is possible depends on the community context and the young person’s relationship with their community.

Research indicates that programs should target the changeable characteristics of young offenders that are linked to offending, such as substance use, antisocial attitudes, and anger management (Andrews & Bonta, 2007; Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). Initiatives with research support include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches; individual/ group counseling, family therapy/multisystemic therapy (MST) and interpersonal skills training (Lipsey et al., 2007). Justice-involved youth (particularly those in custody) would benefit from intensive clinical supervision. This may involve developing special treatment units for higher risk youth, the purpose of which is remedial with a commitment to sustained behavioral change (Lipsey, 2009; McCarthy et al., 2016). Although psychological concerns are not necessarily causing young people to offend, they do render correctional management difficult and they may prevent young people from benefiting from other interventions (i.e., drug treatment, vocational/educational programs). Moreover, such interventions are most effective when (a) part of a risk/needs/responsivity framework, (b) are delivered by clinically trained staff, and (c) have longevity beyond 6 months (Abt & Winship, 2016; Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Fagan & Catalano, 2012; Lipsey, 2009).

Cultural issues (if relevant) should be considered when rolling out interventions to engender legitimacy among clientele—that is, same-culture clinical/program staff, renaming programs to avoid cultural stigmas, and negative connotations associated with “treatment” or “mental illness,” employing culturally relevant forms of clinical interaction (i.e., discussing symptoms/feelings rather than explicit references to mental illness; understanding that many CALD individuals attribute an external locus of control for their behaviors which has ramifications for treatments focused on individually motivated behavior modification), including family members where possible and if safe to do so, and including cultural activities (or activities of interest) as complimentary, rapport-building exercises. Some young people/clients may prefer to work with staff from their own cultural backgrounds, whereas others prefer to see staff from a different cultural background to their own (CMY, 2019; Simon-Kumar, 2019). In many cases, bicultural staff members are preferred as they are often perceived to be able to “relate” to younger clientele, and possess an understanding of, and strategies to, successfully navigate both mainstream and cultural minority societies (Forson, 2019; White et al., 2019). It is important that staff cultural flexibility is available, where possible.

Confidentiality may need to be explicitly assured for some CALD clients who may be concerned that members of their community will discover their involvement in the justice system or discreet utilization of legal, mental health, family violence, or health services. In fact, family or community concerns may be the reason why the client is seeking assistance. Practitioners must be clear about the information they will keep on record and under what circumstances they will be expected to break confidentiality. Such caution should also be undertaken when enlisting a translator, who may be a member of the client’s community (Colucci et al., 2014). As such, certain aspects of the interventions may need to be “culturally fine-tuned” to accommodate the above, but this should not deviate the program from its core components. And of course, not every CALD youth will require (or necessarily respond better to) a culturally modified version of a particular intervention. In fact, providing separate programs/services for young people from CALD backgrounds may amplify their “difference.” Many of them want to be treated as individuals and not have their culture, religion, or migration pathways determine how the system responds to their needs (CMY, 2019).

Desistance

A key part of the desistance process involves disassociating with delinquent acquaintances and establishing prosocial relationships (Maruna & Roy, 2007). As such, engaging in routine structured prosocial activities in combination with therapeutic programs may offer an alternative to regular delinquent peer group congregation (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Wooditch et al., 2014). At-risk CALD youth require ongoing support through structured programming and mentorship to offset relapses. Evidence shows that mentoring programs which are well structured, with clear goals and expectations and implemented as part of a suite of interventions, are most effective (DuBois et al., 2011; New Zealand Government, 2016). There may be generative roles for older adolescent CALD youth (peer-to-peer networks), including young people—some who may have been involved in the youth justice system themselves and have successfully rehabilitated—to offer support and guidance to younger at-risk peers which in turn can be therapeutic for both parties (Maruna, 2001). The outcome of any program needs to be appealing to young people who undertake it. Therefore, some collaboration between young people and their communities when designing and implementing programs will be necessary to create relevant/appropriate initiatives. Interventions or programs have more integrity and cultural credibility if they are designed and delivered (in partnership with community members or community leaders; Shepherd & Ilalio, 2015; Vaughan et al., 2018). Intrinsic motivation is essential for treatment readiness and desire to change—and so identifying a young person’s desired prosocial goals, aspirations, and skillsets helps create a personally meaningful treatment plan.

Finally, visits to CALD youth in custody from same-culture community members and organizations may help facilitate connections with (and back to) the community and extended family. This is occasionally arranged through sporting/music/cooking/religious activities with additional counseling, mentoring, and personal support. For at-risk youth in the community, school mentoring, homework clubs, volunteer tutoring services, cross-cultural parenting/family support initiatives, migrant/refugee youth leadership programs, peer support programs delivered with community service groups and schools, free legal assistance and opportunities to improve legal literacy through community legal centers, sports/recreational clubs, and migrant-specific labor market intermediaries can all assist with skills development, networking, community integration, and employment preparation. The effectiveness of many of these programs, however, is unknown, given their short-termism (often reliant on small council and philanthropic funding mechanisms) recent adoption and lack of formalization (Bartels, 2011). Perhaps some combination of these programs with evidence-based approaches (CBT, individual/family-based therapy) may be worthy of consideration. Again, generic, noncultural-specific programs of a similar variety may be preferred by some CALD youth to a culturally responsive iteration.

Service Providers

Community-based cultural organizations (CBCOs), which are run by and for individuals from those communities are often best placed to oversee programming for justice-involved youth from CALD backgrounds (Forson, 2019; Muhammad, 2019). For example, CBCOs will often have inroads into, and have gained the trust of, a particular cultural group within the community. They are typically led by a respected individual who is often a member of the specific cultural group (or similar cultural group) and as such, may be viewed as more credible, less judgemental, possessing cultural knowledge, and having a better understanding of the local clientele. Moreover, and critically, CBCOs may be approvingly viewed as providing a more accessible, flexible, hands-on, informal, and intimate service—and more importantly, perceived to be ostensibly operating outside of government agencies or larger bureaucracies which may engender distrust or suspicion within some CALD communities. This may reduce the perception that projects/programs are “done to” them (CALD communities) by outside agencies, rather than “done with” them (Vaughan et al., 2018). Therefore, effective youth justice practices should not only consider “what works” but also “who works” with young people (Halsey & Deegan, 2015). The relationship between the young person and the practitioner is key to successful practice and thus needs greater focus (Drake et al., 2014). In many respects, CBCOs have a “head start” or unique advantage over generic mainstream organizations.

The strengths of CBCOs, however, are often compromised by a number of limitations, which can preclude their ability to effectively deliver services/programs, receive ongoing funding, and take a leading role in direct case management. First, although often led by a capable member of the community, CBCOs have limited professional diversity to ensure that their operations (governance, finances, marketing, program monitoring, and evaluation) are expertly managed. Such roles are often juggled by the CEO and transitory community/family members or student volunteers.

Second, the dearth of professional diversity can inhibit innovation, business strategy, the identification and procurement of funding opportunities, the development of mainstream networks and strategic partnerships, and subsequent social and political influence. These deficits will often discourage government (and philanthropic) funding bodies from allocating CBCOs substantial ongoing amounts of funding, instead choosing to fund larger, generic mainstream organizations (GMOs) which are perceived to possess stronger “back of house” infrastructure and possess a proven track record of receiving funding and delivering projects. Often, GMOs have resources to employ or to engage external consultants to conduct program evaluation and to prepare tendering submissions/applications; hence, they stand a better chance of winning grants and tenders compared with CBCOs. The flipside for GMOs is that they will often struggle to command community trust within specific CALD communities, and may not be flexible enough, nor have the cultural expertise, to anticipate or address pressing issues with the necessary cultural nuance required (even when they employ some CALD staff to run the funded projects). To put it crudely, CBCOs are more likely to have the cultural knowledge and community trust but are operationally limited, while GMOs are more likely to be operationally stable but lack the cultural capital and trust from CALD community members.

Can Both Models Coexist?

The merging of both models warrants some consideration. CBCOs would indeed benefit from mainstream guidance and competencies and an opportunity to expand their services. It is important that CBCOs do not silo or culturally self-segregate themselves from mainstream/majority institutions and opportunities—the very pathways that their clientele are often disconnected from. ¹ However, a clean amalgamation of CBCO and GMO services, though potentially possible, is often challenging for a number of reasons. Some CALD clientele may be reluctant to seek assistance from a generic mainstream service, even if the service recruits respected members from that community. The community perception may be that the service is too unwieldy, inflexible, and bureaucratic and loses its informality, intimacy, and cultural authenticity. Moreover, the autonomy of a culture-specific team within a larger service may be restricted or diluted as the leadership, oversight, and strategic direction will be likely governed by the larger GMO.

Moreover, the management of CBCOs may not be receptive to the idea of merging with CBOs. Many have served their communities for a long time and have established trust and strong relationships. Some of them were previously employed by GMOs or government agencies before they established their own organizations to respond to service gaps they identified in their community. They are also aware of some of the limitations (as well as strengths) of the mainstream service providers (discussed above).

The Way Forward

There are some avenues to attaining the right balance. One is to actively support CBCO capacity building to ensure that such services develop the necessary professional expertise to complement their local/cultural expertise. Initiatives to recruit mainstream professionals and postgraduate students from a variety of professional backgrounds to work directly for CBCOs for an extended period of time would greatly assist the functioning and stability of CBCOs. Options may include (a) course credit (e.g., MBAs and criminal justice degrees) for undertaking service learning project roles addressing real-life concerns in the community, (b) secondments from partner organizations, (c) funding streams dedicated to financing these positions rather than grant bodies distributing nonspecific multipurpose monies directly to the organization, and (d) volunteering from retired corporate professionals, or early career professionals looking to develop their skillsets.

A second option is to incorporate the CBCO into a larger GMO, but retain its independence. For example, the CCBO would retain its name, identity, sites, and full suite of existing services, yet would exist under the auspices of a GMO (ideally with shared values) which would oversee the CBCO’s finances. The potential downside is the loss of financial independence and control of budgetary matters; however, this may resolve any uncertainty the CBCO has over immediate sustainability which can be a heavy burden for a CEO with a small number of staff.

A third option is for funding agencies (government in particular) to include in their funding agreements, a requirement for GMOs to partner with CBCOs and develop their capacity, particularly for projects and programs targeted at CALD communities or at-risk CALD youth. For example, the Victorian Government funded Community Support Groups (CSGs) to support at-risk young people and their families and to respond to local community issues and needs. Two services, the Centre for Multicultural Youth and the Wyndham Education and Community Centre, manage CSGs in four locations: Melton, Brimbank, Dandenong, and Wyndham (CMY, 2019). The CSGs, codesigned with CALD community groups and run with support of a Community Reference Groups have been successful in linking young people and their families to a range of services and programs (CMY, 2019). Continued funding is necessary if these programs are to have a long-term positive impact on the community.

A final, yet critical point is the need for services, regardless of their configuration, to align their programs with the scientific evidence base. Services must draw best-practice concepts from disciplines that focus on justice involvement (i.e., forensic psychology, criminology and criminal justice, law, public health). Initiatives must be informed by programs that have been regularly shown (using rigorous evaluative methods) to reduce recidivism in literature. Programs should not be instituted based solely on face validity, conventional wisdom, or anecdotal evidence. Moreover, all services must be externally evaluated to ensure that they are effective and are conducted with fidelity. CBCOs with their limited resources are often unable to evaluate their services which can affect their ability to receive funding.

Conclusion

While not all migrants experience integration challenges, some endure multiple obstacles and stressors which can increase the likelihood of justice involvement if such concerns remain unaddressed. This article outlined a number universal and unique risk factors associated with justice involvement for CALD communities and how service providers should tailor approaches to offset offending trajectories. Nuanced approaches that consider key responsivity issues such as age, culture, gender, readiness, and motivation to engage by the young person may be required. This article also identified the paucity of such programming and notably, that no Australian studies have evaluated the effectiveness of culturally responsive programming for justice-involved CALD individuals.

Existing programs targeting justice-involved CALD young people must undergo empirical evaluation as should offerings from other agencies that encompass a suite of services for multicultural youth in the community including those who are justice involved. Case management for justice-involved CALD young people could potentially be managed and directed by community culture–based organizations to facilitate meaningful engagement and culturally responsive desistance initiatives. However, capacity building strategies will first be necessary to ensure that CBCOs have the infrastructure and stability to effectively oversee these responsibilities.