Youth crime prevention programs face axe as Victorian government funding dwindles
It comes as Labor's controversial 'tough' bail laws edge closer to passing parliament on Thursday, amid ongoing debate over what some have labelled a 'youth crime crisis' in the state.
When announcing the new bail laws last week, the premier, Jacinta Allan, said her government had already made 'substantial reform' to the youth justice system in 2024, which was accompanied with 'additional resources for programs that are focused on looking at what more can be done to divert young people away from crime'.
But those working in crime prevention are now sounding the alarm about dwindling funding for programs addressing the root causes of youth offending.
Jesuit Social Services has warned the organisation will be forced to cut an after-hours program for young people with criminal justice system involvement unless the government provides additional support in its May budget, while two other programs aimed at curbing youth offending are also expected to end in June without further funding.
The Victorian government has slashed resources for community crime prevention programs in recent years as it works to bring its budget under control, with only $12.9m allocated in 2024/25, a 46% reduction from the previous financial year. It opted instead to allocate $6.6m to police to run an early intervention program and $34.4m for a two-year trial of ankle bracelets, which was panned by legal groups.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The Department of Justice and Community Safety awarded just one grant in 2024/25, despite awarding $126m to 1,729 projects since 2011 through its Community Crime Prevention Program. The 14-person team that previously administered the grants was disbanded last year.
The opposition leader, Brad Battin, said he was deeply concerned that the root causes of crime were not being addressed by the state government.
'In the past 18 months, the government has cut more funding for crime prevention – only to see crime increase. And now, we'll see more young people in prison, costing Victorian taxpayers even more,' he said.
Battin said while the Coalition supported stronger bail conditions, there needed to be more investment in intervention programs for youth at risk of entering the justice system.
'We need to ensure these young people go back through the education system, have employment opportunities, or get access to the services they need – especially for mental health support,' he said.
The Youth Junction's Youth Umbrella Project Wyndham was the sole recipient of new funding from the Department of Justice and Community Safety in 2024/25, receiving a $195,500 grant. But two other programs at the centre – the Youth Behavioural Change Program and NorthWest Safe – have only continued using cash reserves and are expected to end in June unless further investment is secured.
Eamon Brockenbrough, program manager at the Youth Junction, said the programs 'welcome young people facing tough challenges – many caught up in court matters involving family tensions or making risky choices'.
He said 84% of participants stayed clear of further offending, with 73% engaging in prosocial activities.
'Rather than defining them by these moments, we see the whole person – their strengths, their dreams, and their capacity for positive change,' Brockenbrough said.
Positive outcomes were also seen at Living Free, a project in Frankston that ended in June 2024 due to lack of funding.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
The project, which worked with girls at risk of criminal justice involvement or sexual exploitation, wrote to both the state and commonwealth governments for funding throughout 2023 and 2024 but received no support.
Sarah Covill, general manager for youth justice programs at Jesuit Social Services, said the organisation's after-hours program has provided intensive support to 60 young people aged 10–21 involved with the criminal justice system since 2019.
She said it offers practical support, a sense of community belonging and 'opportunities to build a positive, non-offending identity'.
But funding constraints have limited the service's ability to meet demand and it is currently able to support only 40% of the young people in need across metropolitan Melbourne.
Without additional funding beyond 30 June, the after-hours program will end, creating a 'critical service gap' that could have 'significant impacts' on young people most at risk of reoffending and their communities.
While Anglicare has been spared from recent cuts, its chief executive, Paul McDonald, expressed concern about the lack of funding for evidence-based programs that reduce contact with police and the justice system.
He said while the government has piloted such models leading to a 'reduction in arrests and offending from many of the young people involved', it had been 'shy or resistant' to invest in proven programs that could make a difference 'at scale'.
The Victorian Greens justice spokesperson, Katherine Copsey, said if the premier was concerned about improving community safety and not 'the optics', she should 'listen to the evidence and fund these programs we know are proven to work'.
In a statement, the minister for police, community safety and victims, Anthony Carbines, said the government was providing police with 'the resources they need to protect Victorians and prevent crime' including 'programs that address the root causes of reoffending'.
'The justice system will be resourced adequately in response to the expected increase in remand numbers from our law changes,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- The Guardian
Victoria could save nearly $500m over 10 years by scrapping greyhound racing, estimates show
The Victorian government could save almost half a billion dollars if it follows Tasmania in phasing out greyhound racing in the state, according to independent analysis. A policy costing by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), to be released on Thursday, estimates the government would save $451.6m between 2025–26 and 2035–36 if it stopped subsidising greyhound racing and closed the industry. The figure is based on an estimated $687.4m drop in government spending on the industry over the decade, offset by a $235.8m loss in revenue, as Victorians would no longer be able to bet on greyhound races held in the state. The analysis said the government 'increased ongoing support' to the entire Victorian racing industry, which includes thoroughbred and harness racing, in 2024. This was through a higher point of consumption tax on wagering revenue, which was increased to 15% from 10%, with half of the revenue going to racing, and a funding deed providing $90m annually. The PBO analysis didn't factor in the 'risk or cost of potential legal claims against the Victorian government' from breaking agreements, such as current racing club or racecourse licences or its wagering contract with Tabcorp. Sign up: AU Breaking News email The report was commissioned by Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell, who said she was 'not surprised' but 'absolutely appalled' to learn how much the Victorian government was subsiding the industry. 'For this government to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars supporting the greyhound racing industry while they fail to fund the operation of new women's crisis shelters, fail to meet their Gonski requirement, fail to adequately fund mental health care and fail to properly support regional Victorians is frankly astounding,' Purcell said. She said according to the Coalition of Protection of Greyhounds, which collects publicly available stewards' reports after meets, 29 dogs have died on racetracks in Victoria this year. 'Meanwhile, Tasmania has made a principled and ethical decision after one dog, their Greyhound of the Year, was killed on July 28,' Purcell said. 'It certainly says a lot about the direction of the Victorian Labor government when even the Liberals are doing better than them on animal protection.' The Tasmanian premier, Jeremy Rockliff, on Sunday announced his Liberal government would end funding for greyhound racing in the state by 2029, effectively winding up the industry. In May, a report by economist Saul Eslake into the Tasmanian greyhound industry found the state government funded the sport 'more generously than any other jurisdiction, to the tune of $12.70 per head of population in 2023-24'. This includes by returning 80% of revenue from its point of consumption tax to racing. Eslake told Guardian Australia greyhound racing 'likes to style itself as an industry' but relies on the 'public purse' in most states. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'We don't talk about the football industry or the basketball industry or the tennis industry,' he said. 'Racing likes to call itself an industry, so maybe its claims ought to be tested in the same way as when another industry comes along wanting a handout. It should be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny.' The Victorian racing minister, Anthony Carbines, on Monday said he had no plans to end greyhound racing in the state, describing the Tasmanian government's announcement as a 'desperate' attempt to secure the support of crossbench MPs after failing to win a majority at the recent state election. 'No one's safe in Tasmania. Throw everyone overboard to form a majority,' Carbines said. He said greyhound racing generated $850m a year in economic activity and employed almost 5,000 people in full-time work in Victoria. 'The government here in Victoria backs greyhound racing,' Carbines said. In 2018, the ACT banned greyhound racing. New South Wales proposed a ban in 2016 before then premier Mike Baird backflipped after a backlash. Last year, an inquiry into the industry in the state was called, following allegations of widespread animal abuse.
Telegraph
17 hours ago
- Telegraph
Australia's crackdown on free speech makes Britain look moderate
It seems Australia's headlong rush into nanny-state authoritarianism continues unabated. Following on from its vaunted under-16s social media restriction legislation last year, the Labor government led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is extending the ban to YouTube under the guise of 'protecting children'. There is a significant body of research that suggests social media is driving a mental health crisis in young people. Cyberbullying is causing children tragically to take their own lives. In fact, Facebook's own internal research, leaked by a whistleblower, concluded that 'Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rate of anxiety and depression … This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.' However, banning it totally for everyone under 16 amounts to a wrong-headed approach to a problem, a Trojan horse for something much more sinister. How the legislation is drafted amounts to the creation of a backdoor to controlling the internet, and gives sweeping powers to an unelected bureaucrat – the e-Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant – to decide what is 'reasonable' for platforms to collect and enforce. Inman Grant is the last person to whom any extra power should be given. A US House Judiciary Committee report in June accused her of coordinating with major advertisers and national governments through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) to 'silence American speech', particularly targeting Right-of-centre viewpoints, suggestions that Grant has denied. In a speech given to the World Economic Forum in 2022, Inman Grant asserted: 'We're going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online, from freedom of speech to the freedom […] to be free from online violence.' Challenged about this afterwards, American-born Inman Grant responded dismissively by stating that 'the First Amendment doesn't apply in Australia.' Last year, she tried to institute a worldwide ban of video footage of the terrible stabbing attack on Assyrian Christian Bishop Mari Emmanuel while he was giving a sermon to his congregation in a suburban Sydney church, only backing down after an international outcry. Just a couple of weeks ago, Inman Grant had a significant loss in Australia's Administrative Review Tribunal, when Canadian man Chris Elston (more commonly known as 'Billboard Chris') successfully stopped her from censoring him on X. Her attempts to impose a $782,500 fine on X for alleged 'cyber abuse' were also thrown out. In handing down its decision, the Tribunal delivered a subtle rebuke to Inman Grant, declaring: 'The role of the Tribunal is not to assess the merits of what the applicant posted, or to agree or disagree with the views he expressed.' Now, on her recommendation, the Albanese government wants to ban YouTube for kids under 16. This is despite Communications Minister Anika Wells saying back in 2022 that it was a great way to keep her kids entertained. To enforce this ban, the supposed 'voluntary' digital ID will not be so voluntary after all. Australians will be asked to upload personal documents, submit facial scans, and hand over sensitive data to unaccountable third parties to prove their age. Thanks to the UK Online Safety Act, we are getting a working demonstration of how, hidden behind the concerns for children's welfare, there is in fact what could be described as a politicised attempt to radically extend government control over platforms which shape social discourse. The Online Safety Act, designed to supposedly 'protect kids from porn by asking them to prove their age', has been used to censor political discussion by British adults. As noted by the Spectator, the Act 'is not being used to shut down Pornhub or xHamster for adolescents, but to silence discussion – or even basic news – about those topics most awkward for the British government: Pakistani rape gangs, illegal immigration, protests about asylum hotels.' Seemingly that is how politicians and bureaucrats view social media – as a place to propagate their politics and manipulate voters. They know that most people under the age of 35 get their information and views not from traditional media, but from social media. Navigating these sites is a matter of parental choice – and parents should not be outsourcing their responsibilities to the government. As it is, the word 'parent' isn't even mentioned once in the Australian social media ban legislation. If the government really was interested in doing something positive to address social media addiction, it would look at tackling the algorithms, which are often designed to get kids addicted. We have no idea how these algorithms work, what content they promote, or how they are impacting young people. This ban is less about online safety for kids and more about online safety for the political and bureaucratic class. An unacceptable dystopia awaits Australia in December.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Use of AI could worsen racism and sexism in Australia, human rights commissioner warns
AI risks entrenching racism and sexism in Australia, the human rights commissioner has warned, amid internal Labor debate about how to respond to the emerging technology. Lorraine Finlay says the pursuit of productivity gains from AI should not come at the expense of discrimination if the technology is not properly regulated. Finlay's comments follow Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah breaking ranks to call for all Australian data to be 'freed' to tech companies to prevent AI perpetuating overseas biases and reflect Australian life and culture. Ananda-Rajah is opposed to a dedicated AI act but believes content creators should be paid for their work. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Productivity gains from AI will be discussed next week at the federal government's economic summit, as unions and industry bodies raise concerns about copyright and privacy protections. Media and arts groups have warned of 'rampant theft' of intellectual property if big tech companies can take their content to train AI models. Finlay said a lack of transparency in what datasets AI tools are being trained on makes it difficult to identify which biases it may contain. 'Algorithmic bias means that bias and unfairness is built into the tools that we're using, and so the decisions that result will reflect that bias,' she said. 'When you combine algorithmic bias with automation bias – which is where humans are more likely to rely on the decisions of machines and almost replace their own thinking – there's a real risk that what we're actually creating is discrimination and bias in a form where it's so entrenched, we're perhaps not even aware that it's occurring.' The Human Rights Commission has consistently advocated for an AI act, bolstering existing legislation, including the Privacy Act, and rigorous testing for bias in AI tools. Finlay said the government should urgently establish new legislative guardrails. 'Bias testing and auditing, ensuring proper human oversight review, you [do] need those variety of different measures in place,' she said. There is growing evidence that there is bias in AI tools in Australia and overseas, in areas such as medicine and job recruitment. An Australian study published in May found job candidates being interviewed by AI recruiters risked being discriminated against if they spoke with an accent or were living with a disability. Ananda-Rajah, who was a medical doctor and researcher in AI before entering parliament, said it was important for AI tools to be trained on Australian data, or risk perpetuating overseas biases. While the government has stressed the need for protecting intellectual property, she warned that not opening up domestic data would mean Australia would be 'forever renting [AI] models from tech behemoths overseas' with no oversight or insight into their models or platforms. 'AI must be trained on as much data as possible from as wide a population as possible or it will amplify biases, potentially harming the very people it is meant to serve,' Ananda-Rajah said. 'We need to free our own data in order to train the models so that they better represent us. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'I'm keen to monetise content creators while freeing the data. I think we can present an alternative to the pillage and plunder of overseas.' Ananda-Rajah raised skin cancer screening by AI as an example where the tools used for testing have been shown to have algorithmic bias. Ananda-Rajah said the way to overcome any bias or discrimination against certain patients would be to train 'these models on as much diverse data from Australia as possible', with appropriate protections for sensitive data. Finlay said any release of Australian data should be done in a fair way but she believes the focus should be on regulation. 'Having diverse and representative data is absolutely a good thing … but it's only one part of the solution,' she said. 'We need to make sure that this technology is put in place in a way that's fair to everybody and actually recognises the work and the contributions that humans are making.' An AI expert at La Trobe university and former data researcher at an AI company, Judith Bishop, said freeing up more Australian data could help train AI tools more appropriately – while warning AI tools developed overseas using international data may not reflect the needs of Australians – but that it was a small part of the solution. 'We have to be careful that a system that was initially developed in other contexts is actually applicable for the [Australian] population, that we're not relying on US models which have been trained on US data,' Bishop said. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is also concerned by the lack of transparency around the data AI tools use. In a statement, she said tech companies should be transparent about their training data, develop reporting tools and must use diverse, accurate and representative data in their products. 'The opacity of generative AI development and deployment is deeply problematic,' Inman Grant said. 'This raises important questions about the extent to which LLMs [large language models] could amplify, even accelerate, harmful biases – including narrow or harmful gender norms and racial prejudices. 'With the development of these systems concentrated in the hands of a few companies, there's a real risk that certain bodies of evidence, voices and perspectives could be overshadowed or sidelined in generative outputs.'
