Youth Who Are Caught, But Not Criminally Charged, Can Be Sent to Intervention Camps to “Reset” Their Behaviour

Frontline- Ray Payne OAM

Identifying youth on the wrong side of the law early and diverting them from a path of crime is essential to making Queensland communities safer. David Crisafulli’s recent proposal to introduce youth intervention camps holds promise, but if this initiative is to succeed, it must be carefully structured and comprehensive. In my view, there are three critical elements that policymakers need to consider: expanding eligibility, ensuring sufficient program duration, and providing practical, employable skills for participants.

Youth intervention camps can serve as a crucial tool to reset the behaviour of at-risk youth before they escalate to more serious criminal activity. By allowing parents, police, schools, or social workers to refer youths to these camps, the program can provide an effective early intervention mechanism. However, I believe that limiting these camps to youths who have not yet had contact with the criminal justice system would be a missed opportunity.

Judges and law enforcement officials need alternative sentencing options for low-level offenders who are not best served by incarceration. Currently, many low-level youth offenders avoid significant consequences due to the belief that prison will do more harm than good. Without alternative pathways, these youths often evade punishment entirely, perpetuating a cycle of criminal behaviour with no fear of legal repercussions.

A key element of these intervention camps should be the involvement of ex-service members in running and controlling the centres. Veterans possess the discipline, leadership, and life experience necessary to be effective mentors for troubled youth. Their structured approach to problem-solving, combined with a strong sense of duty and accountability, can help instill positive values in participants. Ex-service members can model resilience, perseverance, and respect, providing a steadying influence on youths who may lack stable role models in their lives.

Moreover, employing veterans in these roles would have the added benefit of providing meaningful employment opportunities for ex-service personnel, many of whom struggle with reintegration into civilian life. This dual-purpose initiative would not only help at-risk youth but also support the veteran community.

In my opinion, for youth intervention camps to have a lasting impact, the duration of the program must be adequate to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. A one-to-three-week camp may be sufficient to offer a brief reset, but it is unlikely to produce lasting change. Policymakers should consider longer-term programs that provide consistent mentorship, counselling, and skill-building opportunities.

The failure of the previous Newman government’s boot camp trial in 2015 highlights the dangers of underestimating the time required to effect meaningful behavioural change. To avoid repeating past mistakes, intervention camps must offer sustained engagement with at-risk youth, giving them the time and tools they need to make positive life changes.

One of the most effective ways to reduce recidivism is to equip youth with the skills they need to become productive members of society. Intervention camps should not only focus on outdoor activities like canoeing and abseiling but also offer vocational training in areas such as automotive technology, building trades, agriculture, and hospitality.

Programs like California’s Rancho Cielo rehabilitation ranch have demonstrated the value of this approach. By providing at-risk youth with practical, employable skills, Rancho Cielo has reduced recidivism rates from 40% to 15% over two decades. Participants leave the program with the qualifications and confidence needed to secure employment, reducing their likelihood of reoffending.

Intervention camps that focus on practical skill-building and mentorship are not only effective but also cost-efficient. The average cost of detaining one person in a Queensland youth detention centre for a year is approximately $669,000. In contrast, rehabilitation programs like Rancho Cielo operate at a fraction of this cost and produce far better outcomes.

Reducing recidivism rates through early intervention will save taxpayers millions of dollars in the long term while improving community safety. The social and economic benefits of keeping youth out of the criminal justice system cannot be overstated.

Research shows that violent offending is often linked to factors such as substance abuse, poor parental supervision, and negative peer influences. Intervention camps must address these root causes through comprehensive support services, including substance abuse counselling, family engagement programs, and social skills training.

Preventing escalation to more serious crime requires a proactive approach to tackling anti-social behaviour early. By intervening at the right time and providing youth with the tools they need to succeed, policymakers can break the cycle of crime and give young offenders a second chance.

In my opinion, the introduction of youth intervention camps is a welcome step toward improving community safety in Queensland. However, to be truly effective, the program must be designed with long-term impact in mind. Expanding the scope of eligible participants, extending the duration of the camps, and providing practical, employable skills will ensure that these camps achieve their intended purpose.

Furthermore, involving ex-service members in running these camps will bring valuable discipline and mentorship to the program while providing meaningful employment opportunities for veterans. This comprehensive approach will not only divert youth from a path of crime but also equip them with the tools to become productive members of society.

Queensland’s policymakers must seize this opportunity to implement a robust and effective intervention program that addresses the root causes of youth crime and helps build safer communities for all.