20.34 The well-being and rehabilitation of young people in detention depend to a large extent on the living conditions, services and programs provided for them. Living conditions encompass the physical standard of buildings and other facilities, levels of hygiene, food and clothing, classification of detainees, contact with family and friends and privacy. Programs and services include case management, counselling and drug and alcohol programs, general and mental health services and educational, employment and vocational programs. The legal processes within detention centres also affect the operation of these programs. The Design Guidelines and QOC Standards deal with many of these issues.
Differences in detention centres
20.35 Conditions in detention centres vary greatly both within and between jurisdictions. Their natures and sizes differ. For instance, some detention centres accommodate only a few children. Others, such as Mount Penang in NSW, at present the largest detention centre in Australia, can accommodate up to 160 children. Most centres hold males only or a mixture of males and females. Yasmar in NSW is the only centre which caters exclusively for girls. Some detention centres are categorised according to minimum, medium and high security classifications. Some provide for detainees of certain ages. Some hold a mixture of both remanded and sentenced young offenders.
20.36 Juvenile detention centres in some jurisdictions are located in both metropolitan and rural areas. However, some States and Territories have all their centres located in or near capital cities. For instance, all juvenile detention centres in Western Australia are located in Perth, both centres in South Australia are located in metropolitan Adelaide and both centres in the Northern Territory are located in or near Darwin. This creates difficulties for young offenders and their families from rural and remote areas.
20.37 Many detention centres attempt to provide for adequate living standards in their policies and procedures documents. For instance, the Western Australian policy document emphasises ‘normalisation’. This requires a living environment which avoids labelling and stigmatisation, encourages individuality and self-respect and allows expression of cultural identity, the practice of religious beliefs, privacy and personal space. Queensland’s policy document also emphasises the importance of de-institutionalising the living environment to enhance rehabilitation of offenders. It has implemented the Design Guidelines about small group sizes by providing that the living environment and work practices must be responsive to the gender, geographical origins, cultural, religious, developmental and individual needs of children. However, evidence received during the Inquiry indicates little or no implementation of these policies in practice.
20.38 The Inquiry visited a number of detention centres across Australia. The physical standards within centres varied widely. Some, such as the Don Dale Centre in Darwin and the Cavan Education Centre in South Australia, were of a high standard. Others, such as Longmore Detention Centre in Perth and the John Oxley Centre in Brisbane, were sub-standard, reflecting past policies that built juvenile centres as youth prisons. Longmore and Riverbank detention centres in Perth are to be replaced by a new detention centre now under construction.
20.39 The existence of inadequate living standards in detention centres has been recognised in a number of jurisdictions. In NSW a program of improvement of detention centres was commenced in 1992 because it was recognised that
[m]any of the detention centres were poorly staffed, the standard of accommodation was most unsatisfactory and, more importantly, the level and quality of programming was not of the standard required.
Three years later, in October 1995 the NSW Community Services Minister announced that Minda Detention Centre was so substandard that it would be closed. However, it is still operating, two years later.
20.40 The report of the NSW Ombudsman’s Inquiry into Juvenile Detention Centres in 1996 identified many shortcomings with the operation of centres. In some centres basic requirements such as clothing and food were found to be substandard and privacy and respect for individual and cultural differences were commonly ignored. The Ombudsman said that the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice was falling substantially short of best practice standards in the humane confinement of juvenile offenders and that nearly every centre needed its physical environment improved. The Ombudsman found
dilapidated buildings and a generally oppressive atmosphere
reliance upon dormitory accommodation which is generally not conducive to detainees’ safety or their privacy
food which does not meet children’s basic nutritional needs
clothing that is ‘substandard and ill-fitting’
unduly onerous restrictions on the type and amount of personal possessions, including letters, that detainees may retain.
20.41 The concerns raised by a number of submissions to the Inquiry indicated that these problems are not confined to one jurisdiction. One submission quoted some recently published comments of a former employee of the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Detention Centre in Queensland about conditions in that centre.
The conditions in the Sir Leslie Wilson Youth Detention Centre are atrocious. The staff are apathetic and poorly trained, and more concerned with surviving their shift than watching the kids. The kids have nothing to do, confined in an atmosphere of deprivation and abuse. The atmosphere in the centre is cold and oppressive, and not at all conducive to promoting mental health. It is no wonder that the children who are incarcerated in this hell hole reach such a point that they feel that their only escape is death.
20.42 The provision of proper living standards in detention is an important factor in the rehabilitation of young offenders. The Design Guidelines set out standards for this. They promote a sense of normality in the centre, while addressing the issues of control, security and economy of space. They state, among other things, that family contact and community involvement in the detention centre should be encouraged, that the centre must be designed to reduce the chances of escape while also allowing flexibility for differing levels of risk and that detainees should retain a sense of personal space and privacy. The Design Guidelines make recommendations in relation to these issues and recognise the particular needs of certain groups of detainees, such as young people with disabilities, young women and Indigenous young people. The draft QOC Standards supplement these guidelines by setting out provisions about food quality standards. The Inquiry endorses these provisions.
Case management process
20.43 Case management emphasises rehabilitation of child offenders through individual attention from a caseworker. It provides structured educational, vocational and recreational programs tailored to the needs of the individual child. The aim is to involve the child in decisions about suitable programs while he or she is in detention and to provide co-ordinated services managed by one identified officer. This approach has proved very successful in the rehabilitation of young offenders.
20.44 Case management is integral to rehabilitation. The findings of the NSW Ombudsman’s Inquiry highlight this link.
The Inquiry has found that the introduction of case management has had, and continues to have, a fundamental and beneficial impact on the way in which services are provided to young people in detention. The two most important factors in this change are the growth in co-ordination of services that focus on the needs of the young person during their detention and the move away from a strictly punitive custodial culture within juvenile justice.
As the Youth Justice Coalition recommended in its 1990 report on children, case plans should be used to inform decision making in relation to young people in detention, such as in relation to leave, transfers, programs and release.
20.45 Policies and procedures documents in all jurisdictions provide for the development of case management plans for detainees and programs covering a range of areas, including education and vocational skills, recreation, sport, health and social development. However, the quality and application of those plans and programs vary across different States and Territories. In some jurisdictions, a time frame is set for development and review of the plans, with the time periods differing across jurisdictions. Others provide for development and review of case plans but do not set a time frame.
20.46 Submissions from community and legal bodies raised serious concerns about case managed rehabilitation in practice. They pointed to problems stemming from inadequate resources, inappropriately trained staff and lack of communication resulting in professional staff working towards different goals. Another submission noted that issues of confidentiality, continuity of support and burnout of youth workers also needed to be addressed. The NSW Ombudsman’s report noted that many caseworkers have limited qualifications or training and that there is a lack of consultation between staff in relation to case plans.
20.47 The draft QOC Standards address some of these issues. They indicate that case management provides both rehabilitative and restorative functions. They recognise that young people and their families have a right to participate and negotiate outcomes in the case management process and that case plans should reflect the individual needs of the young person, including cultural and religious identity. The standards set out the stages of case assessment and provide for review of plans on a regular basis, with objectives set during weekly supervision sessions.
20.48 The draft QOC Standards set out high quality, comprehensive requirements in this area. However, the Inquiry considers that they should provide, in addition, time frames for the development of a case plan for each detainee to ensure that his or her needs are met as soon as possible after admission.
Recommendation 258 The national standards for juvenile justice should provide that a detailed case plan should be developed for each detainee by a detention centre caseworker in conjunction with the young person, within 7 days of entry into detention or within 14 days for a sentence of more than 6 months. The case plan should be reviewed and updated regularly.
Case plans: needs of particular children
20.49 Case plans should address the individual needs of each child. Some jurisdictions provide specifically for particular children in their detention policies and procedures documents, including those from a non-English speaking background or other cultural or religious community, those with a disability or medical condition and previous users of drugs or alcohol. Others generally state that case plans should respect specific needs, such as ethnicity, culture and gender, but do not state how these needs should be reflected. There is insufficient focus in case management procedures in some jurisdictions on the needs of specific groups of children in detention, including children from rural or remote areas, gay and lesbian young people, children from the care and protection system and the different needs of boys and girls. The needs of Indigenous children also are often not specifically addressed.
20.50 The draft QOC Standards state that case management should incorporate the young person’s religious and cultural identity. However, they do not address the specific needs of particular groups of children which encompass wider issues, such as dislocation from family, past abuse, gender differences and sexuality. The standards should also refer to groups with these particular needs.
Recommendation 259 The national standards for juvenile justice should provide that case plans should address the specific needs of particular groups of children including boys, girls, Indigenous children, children from non-English speaking backgrounds, young people in care, gay and lesbian young people and children from rural and remote areas.
Educational and vocational programs
20.51 Educational and vocational programs are important in the rehabilitation of young offenders, particularly for their re-integration into the community. All children have a right to an education. The UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 affirm that right for juveniles in detention. They require that education and training in detention be integrated into the mainstream education system and that these programs take account of different cultural backgrounds and the special needs of detainees with literacy or learning difficulties. The importance of education in assisting young offenders to re-integrate into the community upon release is widely acknowledged.
[I]f young people in institutional care are to break the cycle of failure, lack of employment, and detention, then strategies must be developed to increase their chances of employment and education.
20.52 Detention centres in all States and Territories provide educational and vocational programs. The structure and quality of these programs vary across jurisdictions and centres. They usually include life skills, literacy and numeracy courses, matriculation and other recognised educational qualifications. Vocational courses generally cover metalwork, woodwork and automotive skills. Some centres allow for continuation, through distance education, of courses commenced before detention.
20.53 As in the general community, attendance at class is compulsory only for those detainees aged under 15. Those aged 15 to 18 can choose whether or not to attend class. However, many detention centres encourage detainees to participate in educational programs by making various privileges contingent on attendance. For instance, Malmsbury Juvenile Justice Centre in Victoria operates a system whereby detainees can earn small financial bonuses if they complete a certain number of hours a week in TAFE programs. The report of the Senate Employ-ment, Education and Training References Committee’s Inquiry into Education and Training in Correctional Facilities in 1996 commended Malmsbury on its outstanding approach to the education and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.
20.54 Many factors make education and training for children in detention prob-lematic. The Senate Committee report noted that most children will not remain in detention for the time needed to complete a course, children may be transferred from one detention centre to another before a course is completed and many young people who enter detention have had very negative experiences with school and education. Some may not have attended school for several years or may have attended only intermittently.
20.55 A number of submissions expressed concern about the disruption to education caused by transfer or release of young people in detention. They noted that disruption could be reduced by day release and referral back to main-stream education, provision of correspondence courses and teachers for the full calendar year, not simply the academic year, and clear communication between the detention centre and relevant State education authorities. Young people in focus groups emphasised that children should be able to get credit for classes taken in detention centres when they return to the mainstream school system.
20.56 The Senate Committee report also noted that the diversity of racial and cultural backgrounds which may co-exist in any one detention centre sometimes makes it very difficult to provide for individual educational needs. In NSW, for example, it was found that young people in detention from 1991 to 1993 came from over 60 ethnic and cultural groups. The report expressed particular concern about slow progress in the provision of educational and training opportunities for young Indigenous people in custody. Most centres now include a course on Aboriginal studies in the curriculum and some have an Aboriginal resource worker or liaison officer to assist in the programs. Riverina Juvenile Justice Centre in NSW offers courses in Aboriginal languages, literature, art, music and dance. However, a number of submissions expressed concern that educational programs do not provide sufficiently for Indigenous children to study their own culture.
20.57 Submissions suggested a broad range of approaches to the appropriate mix of educational, vocational and training courses for children in detention. One submission emphasised that programs should focus on giving children basic life skills which will enable them to reintegrate into society. Other submissions suggested that programs should target literacy and vocational training.
20.58 The endorsed QOC Standards address some of the issues raised in submissions. They provide for a level of uniformity of standards, assessment processes and learning plans, a curriculum framework based upon the National Key Areas of Competencies, consideration of the needs of detainees and continuation of education and vocational training after release. The QOC Standards also provide for a curriculum which reflects cultural diversity and provides for cultural understanding. The QOC Standards fulfil a number of requirements under CROC and the Beijing Rules.
20.59 DRP 3 proposed that detainees should be invited to participate in decision making about their specific needs for education and training. This has also been addressed in the endorsed QOC Standards. They provide for a forum for young people to discuss their ideas and issues related to the learning environment as part of a consultative process. They also provide the educational and vocational assessment process to be determined in conjunction with young people. However, implementation of these provisions in practice must also be ensured.
Recommendation 260 OFC should monitor compliance with the national standards for juvenile justice in relation to the provision of education and training programs in detention. In particular, it should encourage adoption of appropriate mechanisms in juvenile detention centres in each State and Territory for young people to participate in decision making about education and employment programs.
Physical and mental health services
20.60 Evidence to the Inquiry emphasised the importance of providing specialist psychiatric services in detention. Some pointed out that many detention centres do not have the resources or expertise, such as trained psychiatric nurses, to deal with children with a mental illness.
20.61 The endorsed QOC Standards provide a comprehensive set of provisions relating to health services for young people in detention. They include an assess-ment protocol for early identification of drug and alcohol abuse problems, a crisis management strategy for detainees with substance use problems, preventive strategies and post-release arrangements for drug and alcohol abuse. They also provide that each juvenile detention centre is to have a Health Care Policy and Standard Procedures for health care services and that physical and mental health assessment and screening mechanisms should be used.
20.62 Access to mental health services are set out in the QOC Standards. The standards provide that screening mechanisms are to be administered when a young person is admitted to the centre, that data collected in that process is to form the basis for referral to mental health professionals for further assessment and that clear procedures and protocols for referral to mental health professionals are to be established and regularly reviewed. The Inquiry considers that these standards, if implemented, will ensure high quality mental health services to detainees.
Recommendation 261 OFC should monitor compliance with the national standards for juvenile justice in relation to the provision of specialist psychiatric assessments for detainees. In particular, these assessments should be available to detainees before they are brought before court.
Family and community contact
20.63 Rehabilitation and reintegration of young people into the community is assisted by support structures within the wider community. Regular contact with family and community is the best way to ensure this. Most detention centres recog-nise the right of detainees to visitors and correspondence and to privacy. However some centres have adopted strict limits on contact and strict censorship guidelines.
20.64 Most jurisdictions allow detainees to have supervised visits from family during specific visiting hours and uncensored written correspondence. Corres-pondence is usually only inspected or visits refused in certain circumstances, for instance, where the security, safety or good order of the detention centre is likely to be adversely affected. Phone calls by detainees to family and friends generally require approval of the youth worker on duty. In the Northern Territory, phone calls are limited, in normal circumstances, to 10 minutes. In NSW, the making of unauthorised phone calls constitutes a ‘minor misbehaviour’.
20.65 Most jurisdictions treat phone calls and correspondence between the detainee and officials such as the minister, the ombudsman and HREOC and his or her legal representative as confidential. In special circumstances, for instance, where a family crisis has occurred or a visitor has travelled a considerable distance to visit a detainee, visits will usually be permitted outside the set hours. However, there is little national consistency.
20.66 The draft national QOC Standards attempt to introduce basic requirements and a degree of consistency between jurisdictions. They provide, among other things, that policies and procedures of detention centres are to ensure a detainee’s right
to receive visitors, subject to the limitations necessary to maintain order and security and the well-being of the young person
to a reasonable amount of privacy
if mail is censored, to natural justice, to be notified of the reasons for the action and provided with the opportunity to appeal the decision or make a complaint.
20.67 The needs of Indigenous young people, those from a non-English speaking background and those from remote areas are also reflected to some extent in the draft QOC Standards. Individual young people in detention may have special visiting requirements. The Standards provide that detention centres should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate them. However, the standards do not provide for detainees to participate in these decisions or a mechanism for assisting family and community contact.
20.68 The Inquiry considers that assistance should be given to detainees in maintaining contact with their families and the community through provision of a family and community liaison officer in each detention centre. This was also recommended in reports by the Youth Justice Coalition and Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia.
Recommendation 262 Detainees should be permitted to participate in decision making about the most appropriate arrangements for family and community contact.
Implementation: National standards for juvenile justice should include this requirement.
Recommendation 263 The national standards for juvenile justice should provide that relationships between detainees and their families and communities should be supported through the appointment of family and community liaison officers in detention centres.
Implementation:National standards for juvenile justice should include this requirement.
 A new centre in Perth is planned which will hold up to 200 children. See L Atkinson ‘Juvenile correctional institutions’ in A Borowski & I O’Connor (eds) Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections Longman Melbourne 1997, 409.
 Some, eg Kariong in NSW, are high security while others, eg Cobham, Worimi, Riverina, Reiby and Minda in NSW, are medium security and others, eg Keelong, Mt Penang and Broken Hill in NSW, are minimum security institutions: L Atkinson ‘Juvenile correctional institutions’ in A Borowski & I O’Connor (eds) Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections Longman Melbourne 1997, 408–9.
 eg in Vic the Melbourne Juvenile Justice Centre caters for males aged 15 to 16, Malmsbury Juvenile Justice Centre for 17 to 20 year old males and Parkville Youth Residential Centre for 10 to 20 year old females and 10 to 14 year old males. In WA, Longmore Detention Centre is for males up to 15 years old and females up to 17 years old and Riverbank Detention Centre is for males aged 16 and 17: L Atkinson ‘Juvenile correctional institutions’ in A Borowski & I O’Connor Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections Longman Melbourne 1997, 408–9.
 eg Don Dale Centre in the NT, Magill Training Centre in SA, Ashley Youth Detention Centre in Tas and Quamby Juvenile Detention Centre in the ACT. The ACT and Tas have only one juvenile detention centre each: L Atkinson ‘Juvenile correctional institutions’ in A Borowski & I O’Connor Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections Longman Melbourne 1997, 408–9.
 L Atkinson ‘Juvenile correctional institutions’ in A Borowski & I O’Connor (eds) Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections Longman Melbourne 1997, 409. The Wilderness Work Camp Detention Centre in NT is located 170 kilometres from Darwin. There was a centre in Alice Springs until 1991.
 See paras 20.117–118.
 WA Ministry of Justice IP Submission 184.
 The Integrated Approach: The Philosophy and Directions of Juvenile Detention Qld Corrective Services Commission Brisbane 1997, 22–23.
 L Atkinson ‘Juvenile correctional institutions’ in A Borowski & I O’Connor (eds) Juvenile Crime, Justice and Corrections Longman Melbourne 1997, 409.
 L Maher ‘Policy and trends in relation to juvenile detention’ (1991) 3 Current Issues in Criminal Justice 185.
 NSW Ombudsman Inquiry into Juvenile Detention Centres vol 1 NSW Ombudsman Sydney 1996, iv.
 id iii–ix.
 eg Aboriginal Legal Service of WA IP Submission 75; Aboriginal Justice Council of WA IP Submission 79; Youth Advocacy Centre IP Submission 120; Townsville Community Legal Service IP Submission 181; Australian Association of Social Workers IP Submission 207; Church Network for Youth Justice IP Submission 212.
 Youth Advocacy Centre IP Submission 120.
 Church Network for Youth Justice IP Submission 212.
 Personal Communication Corrective Services Commission Qld 17 September 1997.
 Guiding Principles 1.30–1.36, 15–16.
 Design Guidelines May 1996 Guidelines 5.508–6.709.
 Draft QOC Standards7.4.1.–7.4.6.
 NSW Ombudsman Inquiry into Juvenile Detention Centres vol 1 NSW Ombudsman Sydney 1996, 281.
 Kids in Justice: A Blueprint for the 90s Youth Justice Coalition Sydney 1990 rec 208.
 eg Quamby Detention Centre Policy & Procedures Manual ACT Youth Justice Services Canberra 1997— development of the plan must commence during the first week of custody and be accompanied by weekly monitoring and full reviews each month; Secure Care Standard Procedures SA Dept of Family and Community Services Adelaide 1997— a draft case plan is to be prepared and presented at a case planning meeting held within 4 weeks of the young person receiving their order, review by a Youth Worker every 2 weeks and a formal review every 8 weeks.
 Juvenile Justice Centre Operations Manual Vic Dept of Health and Community Services Melbourne 1994.
 Townsville Community Legal Service IP Submission 181.
 Law Society of NSW IP Submission 209.
 Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic) IP Submission 129.
 NSW Ombudsman Inquiry into Juvenile Detention Centres vol 1NSW Ombudsman Sydney 1996, 284–287.
 Draft Standards 2.1.2; 2.2.1–2.2.4; 2.3.1; 2.4.9–2.4.12.
 Draft Standards 2.4.12–2.4.13.
 This is supported by NSW Ombudsman DRP Submission 80; NSW Government DRP Submission 86.
 The Integrated Approach: The Philosophy and Directions of Juvenile Detention Qld Corrective Services Commission Brisbane 1997, 20.
 eg Secure Care Standard Procedures SA Dept of Family and Community Services Adelaide 1997.
 See paras 4.52–53, 20.117–118.
 Gay and lesbian young people experience particular problems stemming from discrimination, vilification and violence. They also have higher rates of suicide: Burnside IP Submission 214. See also para 9.58, rec 22.
 See paras 4.42–50.
 See para 20.127.
 See paras 4.58–60, 20.119–124.
 CROC art 28.
 UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty arts 38, 39.
 T Cairney et al ‘Literacy and youth’ in L Atkinson & S Gerull (eds) National Conference on Juvenile Detention AIC Canberra 1993, 164.
 eg Rangeview Remand Centre, Riverbank Detention Centre and Longmore Detention Centre Program Manuals; attachment to WA Ministry of Justice IP Submission 184.
 Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee Report of the Inquiry into Education and Training in Correctional Facilities Senate References Committee Canberra 1996, 52–53.
 id 51. See also paras 10.52–62.
 eg Australian Association of Social Workers IP Submission 207;Law Society of NSW IP Submission 209.
 Australian Association of Social Workers IP Submission 207.
 Church Network for Youth Justice IP Submission 212.
 Law Society of NSW IP Submission 209.
 Focus Group Canberra 6 May 1996.
 I Graham ‘Managing cultural diversity — the NSW experience’ in L Atkinson & S Gerull National Conference on Juvenile Detention AIC Canberra 1994, 41-42. See also Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee Report of the Inquiry into Education and Training in Correctional Facilities Senate References Committee Canberra 1996, 52
 Senate Employment, Education and Training Reference Committee Report of the Inquiry into Education and Training in Correctional Facilities Senate References Committee Canberra 1996, 51.
 eg Rangeview Remand Centre, Riverbank Detention Centre and Longmore Detention Centre Program Manuals: attachment to WA Ministry of Justice IP Submission 184.
 eg ibid; Vic Government IP Submission 213.
 B Baikie ‘Programming for Aboriginal youth in custody: What works and barriers to success’ Paper Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice: Towards 2000 and Beyond Conference AIC Adelaide 26–27 June 1997, 4–8.
 eg Aboriginal Legal Service of WA IP Submission 75; Church Network for Youth Justice IP Submission 212.
 Townsville Community Legal Service IP Submission 181.
 SA Dept of Family and Community Services IP Submission 110;Australian Association of Social Workers IP Submission 207.
 Australian Association of Social Workers IP Submission 207.
 Standards 3.2; 3.4; 3.10–3.12; 3.16; 3.18–3.21; 3.23. The specified needs of detainees include age, gender, duration of stay, cultural diversity, specific learning needs, interests and vocational capacities.
 Standard 3.2 fulfils the objectives of CROC art 12. The standards also meet a number of the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. They provide for access to appropriate educational programs under r 39. Standard 3.4 partially fulfils r 38 and Standard 3.23 fulfils r 42.
 Standards 3.2, 3.16.
 eg Office of Juvenile Justice Minutes of Meeting Newcastle 14 May 1996.
 Standards 1.1–1.17; 4.1–4.27; 5.1–5.21. The standards emphasise that the young person is to be informed of the screening and assessment process.
 Standards 5.1–5.3.
 eg Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 1995 (NSW) reg 26; Ashley Youth Detention Centre Manual (draft)Tas Community and Health Services Hobart 1997; Detention Centre Procedures Manual (draft) NT Corrective Services Darwin 1997.
 eg Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 1995 (NSW) reg 27; Secure Standard Procedures SA Dept of Family and Community Services Adelaide 1997 procedure 25.
 Detention Procedures Manual NT Corrective Services Darwin 1997; Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Minutes of Meeting Darwin 16 July 1996; Secure Care Standard Procedures SADept of Family and Community Services Adelaide 1997 procedure 25. Some procedures manuals did not have a written policy in relation to phone calls: eg Juvenile Justice Centre Operations Manual vol 1 Vic Dept of Health and Community Services Melbourne 1994.
 Detention Centre Procedures Manual (draft) NT Corrective Services Darwin 1997.
 Under Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (NSW) s 21(1) these punishment options include a caution, restriction for participation in sport or recreation for up to 4 days, additional duties for up to 7 days or confinement for up to 3 hours, or for those over 16, up to 12 hours.
 eg Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 214(2); Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 1995(NSW) regs 19, 28; Detention Procedures Manual NT Corrective Services Darwin 1997; Secure Care Standard Procedures SA Dept Family and Community Services Adelaide 1997 procedure 25.
 eg Quamby Youth Detention Centre Policy and Procedures Manual ACT Youth Services Canberra Pt 5.6.1; Detention Procedures Manual (draft) NT Corrective Services Darwin 1997.
 Draft QOC Standards 3.1.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.8.
 The standards provide that policies and procedures are to be accessible to ethnic groups, either in their own language or through provision for access to interpreter services (3.1.8); that community organisations and specialist community workers from Aboriginal and ethnic groups are to be encouraged to visit young detainees (3.2.3); access to an interpreter service is to be sought when required for families and young people from a non English speaking background (3.2.4); contact between young people and their families is to be facilitated if distance prohibits visiting (3.2.5).
 eg the standards provide that visits are to be allowed to occur outside normal visiting hours when it is deemed to be in the best interests of the young person and/or of their visitor (3.4.2). This was also recommended by NSW Youth Justice Coalition Kids in Justice: A Blueprint for the 90s Youth Justice Coalition Sydney 1990 rec 56.
 NSW Youth Justice Coalition Kids in Justice: A Blueprint for the 90s Youth Justice Coalition Sydney 1990 rec 58.
 Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia Background Paper on Ethnic Youth Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia Sydney 1991, rec (ii).