Young men, those aged 18-25, are developmentally and criminogenically, different to the broader adult offending population. Corrections Victoria, Australia, in recognising this reality, has taken the opportunity to customise a unit called Ripley, within a medium security prison facility in the state of Victoria, to respond to the unique needs of this cohort. The goal is to improve not only their mental, physical, and psychological health, but to support smoother transition into the broader prison population in an effort to interrupt the possible contaminating effect of prison for vulnerable young men. The ultimate goal is to improve outcomes for these young adults when they are released from custody by recognising the need to manage their unique presentation responsively.
In 2024 Corrections Victoria released its Correctional Practice Framework1 in which a commitment was made to adopt “practices with demonstrable efficacy in engaging, motivating, and supporting the people within our system to make prosocial change allow(ing) us as a service to function with both human rights, and long-term community protection, at the centre of our efforts”. The development of the Ripley Unit is but one service initiative aimed at achieving these goals.
If we don’t adapt and act responsively to young men and their unique needs in prison environments, we run the risk of entrenching the criminal identity and pathway they are on. Our goal must be to help them interrupt this potential – for them, and for our communities. Continuing to apply a one-size fits all adult model to everyone over the age of 18 risks wasting one of the highest impact windows for change we have. The way we work with people can either interrupt a trajectory or accelerate it.
Issues unique to the 18-25 male cohort
Neurological Differences
Neurologically, the brains of this cohort remain ‘under construction’. Their executive functioning is continuing to develop, particularly their impulse control, emotional regulation, their future-oriented thinking, and their risk appraisal. “Executive function and emotional responses are not just less developed or different …: These two capacities are also less closely linked than in the typical adult brain. As a result, a (youth) may intellectually understand an issue and emotionally have a response to that issue, but those two processes may occur nearly in parallel rather than in dialogue. Emotional and executive functions must work together to bring about almost any kind of decision.” 2
By importing traditional behaviour change programs for use with this cohort; programs that rely on the capacity for abstract reasoning, delayed rewards, and insight-first change, we are potentially setting these young men up to fail. Rather than viewing disengagement or lack of motivation by this group in these programs as resistance, we can instead recognise that what we’ve created is a developmental mismatch. To be responsive to young men, our interventions and programs need to be concrete, experiential, and scaffolded, not just cognitively demanding3.
Fluid and Developing Identity
The self-identity of men aged 18-25 is still forming, as is their masculine self-construct, their moral framework, and their sense of belonging. From an intervention point of view, this means that their criminal identity is less entrenched, making change far more possible if the intervention strategies are targeted and empirically informed. This group is also massively influenced by peers4, making them highly sensitive to status, respect, shame, and perceived injustice. What this means is that work with this group must acknowledge and target prosocial identity formation, rather than simply risk management, to be effective.
The Impact of the Prison Culture
Unsurprisingly, young men are more vulnerable within a prison environment to intimidation and exploitation. As a result, some can attempt to adopt a hyper-masculine posture to ‘survive’. From an intervention standpoint, this means traditional ‘compliance-focussed’ approaches won’t work, as they will likely trigger defensive-based aggression, and entrench the ‘us versus them’ mentality. Rather, young men in these circumstances will do better with a focus on strong relational containment (rather than behavioural control).
Differences in Risk Profile
Research indicates that young men are disproportionately represented in violent and impulsive offending5. They are more influenced by peers than personal values and are more likely to desist if the right supports are in place. Desistance theory comes to the fore here: young men haven’t yet ‘failed’ repeatedly as adults. They are more open to alternative futures, which means that the concept of hope still works. Interventions for this group therefore need to be bedded in relational learning, and focus on future roles and possibilities, competence and mastery, and finding non-criminal sources of status and ‘respect’.
Motivation
Motivation works differently for this group. Given their developmental stage, setting shorter-term, tangible goals works better than long term goals. A focus on skill-building rather than insight development works best, and with all behaviour change efforts, the interventions need to be both strengths-based and collaborative.
Ripley Unit
Corrections Victoria’s Ripley Unit is a 16-bed structured intervention unit, staffed by 11 specially trained allied health and custodial staff, with two trained mentors (adult incarcerated men). It has a mixed model for intervention delivery, allowing participants to engage in therapeutically focussed groups and activities within the unit, and access to external programs (within the broader prison) as individually indicated. Placement within the unit is voluntary, and the environment is considered a therapeutic one, with an immersive focus on strong prosocial (peer-focussed) relational engagement. All staff and mentors are committed to the approach and are encouraged to engage and deliver therapeutic content. Role modelling (prosocial and healthy, mature masculinity) is considered a key therapeutic driver for building agency, personal values, and problem solving. Self-determination is considered key to success.
Clinical framework
A clinical model aimed at creating a structured, scaffolding approach to those idiosyncratic issues identified earlier is underway. The foundation of which will be prosocial identity formation informed by an understanding of each individual through orientation derived case formulation. Unit ‘values’ modules will be delivered to orient residents to the prosocial nature of the environment and help them begin to identify their own values and goals (both short- and longer-term). Short, offence-related program offerings will cover content such as impulse control, emotional regulation, relationships, masculinity, and identity formation.
A structured day approach allows for a paralleling of ‘life on the outside’ with expectations for both behaviour and engagement, that targets those factors unique to a youth cohort, including education (literacy, numeracy, digital literacy), vocation, physical activity, and skill development.
Given the goal of the unit is to support transition and begin the pathway to desistance from crime, Ripley caters for young men on remand, those who are sentenced, and for people with varying lengths of sentence. It is an opportunity to begin the change process.
Conclusion
Being responsive to people within the Victorian correctional system to achieve the most efficacious outcomes is integral to correctional success. The operationalisation of the Ripley Unit is demonstratable evidence of this commitment. The unit recognises the unique needs of the youth cohort within an adult system and aims to promote immersive therapeutic engagement through participation in education, wellbeing, and rehabilitative activities while fostering a safe and respectful environment that supports growth, resilience, and preparation for successful reintegration into the larger prison environment and then the broader community.
Questions? Contact Simone.shaw@justice.vic.gov.au
References
[1] Correctional Practice Framework.pdf
2 Pustilnik & Henry (2012). Adolescent Medical Decision Making and the Law of the Horse. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, 15, 1-14
3 National Conference of State Legislatures (2023). Adolescent brain development and youth justice. Adolescent Brain Development and Youth Justice
4 Gardner & Steinberg (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Developmental Psychology; 41(4): 625-35.
5 Australian Bureau of Statistics (23-24/24-25). Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021). Australia’s youth: Crime and violence.
