https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420929416
Criminal Justice Policy Review
2021, Vol. 32(5) 469–483
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0887403420929416
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp
Article
Working With At-Risk
Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse Young People in
Australia: Risk Factors,
Programming, and Service
Delivery
Stephane M. Shepherd1 and Godwin Masuka2
Abstract
Young people from particular culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds
are overrepresented in Australia’s criminal justice system. Many possess the typical
risk profiles of justice-involved young people. However, there are unique sociocultural
factors that may affect a CALD young person’s ongoing contact, and interactions
with the justice system. There exists little published research on these factors, and
how service providers can best address the needs of justice-involved CALD young
people. This article endeavored to fill this gap in our knowledge and advance policy
development in this critical space. First, a number of key environmental and pre/post
migratory stressors were identified that may be implicated in pathways to offending.
Second, despite regular calls for culturally responsive programming, few programs
have been developed, and no evaluations of such programs were detected in the
extant literature. Third, several programming recommendations were articulated
based on available expertise. One approach included building the capacities of
culture-based community service providers to strengthen their ability to work with
justice-involved CALD youth.
1Swinburne University of Technology, Alphington, Victoria, Australia
2Public Service Officer & Community Advocate, Williams Landing, Victoria, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Stephane M. Shepherd, Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology,
1/582 Heidelberg Rd., Alphington, Victoria 3078, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
929416 CJPXXX10.1177/0887403420929416Criminal Justice Policy ReviewShepherd and Masuka
research-article2020
470 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
Keywords
culturally and linguistically diverse, young offenders, risk factors, desistance, crime
reduction
Half of the Australian population is first or second generation and one fifth speaks
language other than English at home (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2017).
Moreover, the fastest growing migrant groups are from non-English-speaking backgrounds (Simon-Davies, 2018), often referred to as CALD (culturally and linguistically diverse) populations. Australia has also received significant numbers of CALD
arrivals through humanitarian intake programs, including refugees from Sudan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Myanmar over the past 15 years (ABS, 2018a), many
resettling in Victoria. CALD communities are heterogeneous; they comprise people
with diverse cultural norms, practices and traditions, languages, religions, family
structures, and life experiences. Equally, premigration, postmigration, and resettlement experiences differ widely. The premigration and postmigration challenges
encountered by migrants to Australia are well documented. Settlement and integration
experiences may be complicated by financial hardship, cultural differences, labor market access, limited social supports, barriers to services, limited English language proficiency, assimilation stress, discrimination, and premigration adversity (Australian
Parliament, 2017; Bartels, 2011; Centre for Multicultural Youth [CMY], 2014b;
Murray et al., 2008; Office of Multicultural Interests, 2009; Shepherd, 2016). For
humanitarian entrants, this is often compounded by untreated traumas, instability,
family fragmentation, and psychological distress (Australian Domestic & Family
Violence Clearinghouse, 2013; CMY, 2014a, 2014b; Saunders et al., 2015; Shepherd,
2016; Shepherd et al., 2017; State of Victoria, 2011; Tempany, 2009). While not all
migrants experience integration difficulties, the above obstacles can induce disenfranchisement, community disengagement, isolation, frustration, and family disharmony
(CMY, 2014a, 2014b; Deng, 2016; Shepherd, 2016; Shepherd & Ilalio, 2015).
Moreover, the risk or potential for drug and alcohol misuse and/or justice involvement
can escalate, if these postmigratory challenges are not adequately addressed.
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 nonnative 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
Shepherd and Masuka 471
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 justiceinvolved 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
472 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
which can include vilification and 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 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:
1. Culturally specific manifestations of illness and cultural idioms of distress,
differing explanatory models of health and traditional remedies that may
require accommodation in conventional health care settings;
2. Precarious migration experiences and how they underpin contemporary social
circumstances;
3. A cultural group’s family structures, social hierarchies and religious/spiritual
conventions and how these may shape community/familial expectations and
responsibilities;
Shepherd and Masuka 473
4. Partnering with community/faith leaders: Who may be valued in the community, who are the respected persons, and the significance of elders for that
community;
5. Resistance or hostility in therapeutic or justice settings because of mistrust,
fear, and perceived discrimination as a result of historical injustices committed
in similar settings;
6. Experiences of racism which may affect self-esteem, distress levels, cooperation with authority, adherence to clinical recommendations, threat perception,
feelings of safety, access to services, and vulnerability to antisocial peer group
membership;
7. A need for interpreters or having bilingual staff. Even if a young person speaks
English well enough to function on an everyday level, they may not possess the
language skills to communicate complex problems. The year of arrival in
Australia and preferred language should be routinely collected;
8. The cultural context of behavior. Is placing the young person in a foreign environment by itself leading to symptoms? This involves taking into account
diverse cultural backgrounds and practices while recognizing the young person’s experiences of living in Australia.
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 evidencedbased 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.
474 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
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)
Shepherd and Masuka 475
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,
476 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
generic, noncultural-specific programs of a similar variety may be preferred by some
CALD youth to a culturally responsive iteration.
Service Providers
Culture-based community organizations (CBCOs), which are run by and for individuals from those communities are often best placed to oversee programming for justiceinvolved 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, handson, 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
Shepherd and Masuka 477
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.
The management of CBCOs may not be receptive to the idea of merging with
GMOs. 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 CBCO would retain its name, identity, sites, and full suite
478 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
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. A fourth option is for governments to fund GMOs as
auspice organizations for community-led initiatives. The Victorian Government funds
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 the support of
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 bestpractice 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
Shepherd and Masuka 479
be managed and directed by culture-based community 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.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
ORCID iD
Stephane M. Shepherd https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3078-9407
Note
1. It is also important that community-based cultural organizations (CBCOs) do not engage in
within-group segregation, whereby particular subgroups within the broader cultural group
are unduly prioritized.
References
Abt, T., & Winship, C. (2016). What works in reducing community violence. https://www.usaid.
gov/sites/default/files/USAID-2016-What-Works-in-Reducing-Community-ViolenceFinal-Report.pdf
Abur, D. W. (2018). Settlement strategies for the South Sudanese community in Melbourne:
An analysis of employment and sport participation [Thesis submitted in fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy]. College of Art and Education,
Victoria University.
Adusei-Asante, K., & Adibi, H. (2018). The “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse” (CALD)
label: A critique using African migrants as exemplar. Australasian Review of African
Studies, 39(2), 74–84.
African Think Tank. (2019). African Australians settlement and integration 2030: Opportunities
and challenges conference (12–13 November 2018).
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2007). The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human
service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence. The Canadian
Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49, 439–464. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cjccj.49.4.439
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (Eds.). (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.).
Matthew Bender.
Armytage, P., & Ogloff, J. (2017). Youth justice review and strategy meeting needs and reducing offending (Appendices, Executive Summary, part 1–3). Department of Justice and
Regulation.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). 2071.0—Census of population and housing: Reflecting
Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~
Main%20Features~Cultural%20Diversity%20Data%20Summary~30
480 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018a). 3417.0—Understanding migrant outcomes—Insights
from the Australian census and migrants integrated dataset, Australia, 2016. https://www.
abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/3417.0Main+Features22016?OpenDocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018b). 4517.0 Prisoners in Australia, 2018. https://
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0~2018~Main%20
Features~Country%20of%20birth~9#targetText=Victoria%20had%20the%20highest%20
proportion, born%20prisoners%20or%20340%20prisoners)
Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. (2013). Improving responses to refugees with backgrounds of multiple trauma.
Australian Parliament. (2017). No one teaches you to become Australian: Parliamentary Joint
Standing Committee on Migration. Parliament of Australia.
Bartels, L. (2011). Crime prevention programs for culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia. Research in Practice Reports (No. 18). Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Benier, K., Blaustein, J., Johns, D., & Maher, S. (2018). “Don’t drag me into this”: Growing
up South Sudanese in Victoria after the 2016 Moomba “riot” [Full report]. Centre for
Multicultural Youth.
Centre for Multicultural Youth. (2014a). Fair and accurate? Migrant and refugee young people, crime and the media.
Centre for Multicultural Youth. (2014b). Migrant & refuge young people negotiating adolescence in Australia. https://brycs.org/clearinghouse/5320/
Centre for Multicultural Youth. (2019). CMY submission to the royal commission into Victoria’s
mental health service system. https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.
vic-rcvmhs.files/1915/6574/2512/CMY.pdf
Colucci, E., Minas, H., Szwarc, J., Paxton, G., & Guerra, C. (2014). Barriers to and facilitators
of utilisation of mental health services by young people of refugee background. https://refugeehealthnetwork.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Barriers+and+facilitators+pdf+final.pdf
Deng, S. A. (2016, December 5–7). South Sudanese youth acculturation and intergenerational
challenges. Proceedings of the 39th African Studies Association of Australasia and the
Pacific (AFSAAP) Annual Conference, 2016, The University of Western Australia.
Douglas, K. S., Cox, D. N., & Webster, C. D. (1999). Violence risk assessment: Science
and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(2), 149–184. https://doi.
org/10.1348/135532599167824
Drake, D., Fergusson, R., & Briggs, D. (2014). Hearing new voices: Re-viewing youth justice
policy through practitioners’ relationships with young people. Youth Justice, 14(1), 22–39.
DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How
effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(92), 57–91.
Fagan, A. A., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). What works in youth violence prevention: A review of
the literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 141–156.
Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Epidemiology of juvenile violence. Juvenile Violence,
9(4), 733–748.
Forson, M. (2019). The experiences of African Victorian young people [Findings and recommendations report]. African Australian Community Taskforce.
Halsey, M., & Deegan, S. (2015). Young offenders: Crime, prison and struggles for desistance.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration. (2017). Migrant settlement outcomes. http://parlinfo.
aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committ
Shepherd and Masuka 481
ees%2Fcommjnt%2Ff5f46b23-8d7e-440c-bcbe-1c48b1f63c76%2F0002;orderBy=priority
,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3AcomJoint;rec=13;resCount=Default
Liddell, M., Blake, M., & Singh, S. (2016). Over-represented and misunderstood: Pacific young
people and juvenile justice in NSW. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
50(4), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816666614
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytical overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573
Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral
programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6. https://campbellcollaboration.org/better-evidence/criminal-offenders-cognitive-behavioural-programmes.html
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American
Psychological Association.
Maruna, S., & Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “knifing
off” and desistance from crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(1), 104–
124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986206298951
McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V., & Shark, M. (2016). The future of youth justice: A communitybased alternative to the youth prison model. https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/
files/content/ntcc_the_future_of_youth_justice.pdf
Moore, K. E., Stuewig, J. B., & Tangney, J. P. (2016). The effect of stigma on criminal offenders’ functioning: A longitudinal mediational model. Deviant Behavior, 37(2), 196–218.
Muhammad, D. (2019). A positive youth justice system. National Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform.
Murray, K. E., Davidson, G. R., & Schweitzer, R. D. (2008). Psychological wellbeing of refugees resettling in Australia. The Australian Psychological Society.
New Zealand Government. (2016). Youth mentoring [Evidence brief]. https://www.justice.govt.
nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Youth-mentoring.pdf
Noetic Group. (2017). Youth justice: Effective practice guide.
Office of Multicultural Interests. (2009). “Not drowning, waving”: Culturally and linguistically diverse young people at risk in Western Australia. Office of Multicultural Interests,
Government of Western Australia.
Omar, Y., Kuay, J., Tuncer, C., Wriedt, K., & Minas, H. (2015). Emotional wellbeing and
access to culturally appropriate services: A comparative study of Muslim men of refugee
background from the Horn of Africa, living in the inner-northern suburbs of Melbourne.
Victorian Transcultural Mental Health.
Onsando, G. (2019). Experiences and perspectives of African-Australian prisoners in Victoria.
Gerald Onsando Consulting.
Parliament of Victoria. (2018). Inquiry into youth justice centres in Victoria: Final report.
Ravulo, J. (2016). Pacific youth offending within an Australian context. Youth Justice, 16(1),
34–48.
Ravulo, J. (2019). The role of holistic approaches in reducing the rate of recidivism for young
offenders. The Judicial Review Journal, 14(2), 125–145.
Renzaho, A. M. N., Dhingra, N., & Georgeou, N. (2017). Youth as contested sites of culture: The
intergenerational acculturation gap amongst new migrant communities: Parental and young
adult perspectives. PLoS ONE, 12(2). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0170700.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Harvard University Press.
482 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(5)
Saunders, V., Roche, S., McArthur, M., Arney, F., & Ziaian, T. (2015). Refugee communities intercultural dialogue: Building relationships, building communities. Institute of Child
Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University.
Shepherd, S. M. (2016). Criminal engagement and Australian Culturally and linguistically
diverse populations: Challenges and implications for forensic risk assessment. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 23, 2256–2274.
Shepherd, S. M., & Ilalio, T. (2016). Maori and Pacific Islander overrepresentation in the
Australian criminal justice system–What are the determinants? Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 55(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1124959
Shepherd, S. M., Luebbers, S., Ferguson, M., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Dolan, M. (2014). The utility
of the SAVRY across ethnicity in Australian young offenders. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 20(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033972
Shepherd, S. M., Newton, D., & Farquharson, K. (2017). Pathways to offending for young
Sudanese Australians. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(4), 481–501.
Shepherd, S. M., Singh, J. P., & Fullam, R. (2015). Does the youth level of service/case management inventory generalize across ethnicity? International Journal of Forensic Mental
Health, 14, 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2015.1086450
Simon-Davies, J. (2018). Population and migration statistics in Australia. https://www.aph.
gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/
rp1819/Quick_Guides/PopulationStatistics
Simon-Kumar, R. (2019). Ethnic perspectives on family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand
(Issues Paper 14). Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of Auckland.
State of Victoria. (2011). Refugee status report: A report on how refugee children and young
people in Victoria are faring. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
State of Victoria. (2018). Youth Parole Board Annual Report 2017–18. Department of Justice
and Regulation.
Tempany, M. (2009). What research tells us about the mental health and psychosocial wellbeing of Sudanese refugees: A literature review. Transcultural Psychiatry, 46(2), 300–315.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461509105820
Vaughan, L., Schubert, L., Movoa, H., & Fa’avale, N. (2018). “Hey, we are the best ones at
dealing with our own”: Embedding a culturally competent program for Māori and Pacific
Island children into a mainstream health service in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Racial
and Ethnic Health Disparities, 5(3), 605–616.
Vergara, A. T., Kathuria, P., Woodmass, K., Janke, R., & Well, S. J. (2016). Effectiveness of
culturally appropriate adaptations to juvenile justice services. Journal of Juvenile Justice,
5(2), 85–103.
Victoria Legal Aid. (2016). Is our youth justice system really broken? Castan Centre for Human
Rights Law Conference. https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/node/610#is_our_youth_justice_
system_really_broken
Weber, L. (2018). “Police are good for some people, but not for us”: Community perspectives on young people, policing and belonging in Greater Dandenong and Casey. Monash
Migration and Inclusion Centre, Monash University.
White, J., te Riele, K., Corcoran, T., Baker, A., Moylan, P., & Manan, R. A. (2019). Improving
educational connection for young people in custody. Victoria University.
Williams, B. (2019). Melbourne under siege. New Holland Publishers.
Wooditch, A., Tang, L. L., & Taxman, F. S. (2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most
important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use? Criminal Justice and
Behaviour, 41(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503543
Shepherd and Masuka 483
Author Biographies
Stephane M. Shepherd is an associate professor of Forensic Psychology at the Centre for
Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology and the Victorian Institute
of Forensic Mental Health (Forensicare). He conducts research on risk factors for justiceinvolvement across multi-cultural populations.
Godwin Masuka is a community advocate and Victorian Public Service officer. He has worked
across both the youth justice and multi-cultural affairs sectors.