Detention Systems

When systems respond late, children often meet enforcement before they meet support. Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children should not be subjected to cruel or degrading treatment, and that detention should be used only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. This right recognises a simple but important principle: Even when children come into contact with the justice system, they remain children first. In practice, however, the pathway into youth justice is often shaped by earlier unmet needs. Many children who enter the system have experienced instability, exclusion from education, unmet mental health needs, or involvement with multiple services over time. Their behaviour may be visible. But the context behind it is not always fully addressed. By the time a child reaches custody or formal justice interventions, opportunities for early support have often already been missed. And the response they receive can reinforce this shift. Systems designed to manage risk and maintain public safety can, at times, prioritise control over understanding. Children may experience environments that are highly structured, restrictive, and focused on compliance, with limited space for relational support or recovery. For some groups of children, this experience is not evenly distributed. Patterns within youth justice data have consistently shown disparities in who enters the system, raising wider questions about how behaviour is interpreted and responded to across different communities. Article 37 reminds us that detention is not intended to be a default response. It is a last resort. And even when it is used, it must be accompanied by dignity, care, and a continued focus on the child’s development and future. Responding to harm should not come at the cost of recognising the child. Where early support is absent, systems risk stepping in later with consequences rather than care. This right touches the work of police, youth justice services, social workers, educators, safeguarding teams and policymakers responsible for how children are responded to across systems. If children are rights-holders in law, it’s worth asking how visible those rights are in practice. What would change if children were consistently recognised as children first, even at the point of enforcement? #ChildrensRights #UNCRC

**Major new Amnesty report** documenting how five years on from the territorial defeat of Islamic State, tens of thousands of people remain arbitrarily and indefinitely detained in north-east Syria for perceived IS affiliation. Many are held in inhumane conditions and have been subjected to torture. Hundreds have died preventable deaths. Women and their children are being unlawfully separated. Among those indefinitely detained are Yezidi survivors of IS atrocity crimes, and large numbers of other victims of IS trafficking in persons. A staggering 30,000 are children - most under 12. 800 of these boys are held in adult detention facilities. While the detention system is run by the Autonomous Authorities of NE Syria, the US government in particular has contributed to establishing and expanding this system of largely unlawful detention, and must work with others to find just solutions and end the torture. Congratulations Nicolette Waldman, Janine Morna and Lauren Aarons on this landmark report! I was very glad to join Jayne Huckerby and Fionnuala Ni Aolain in supporting with the external review. https://lnkd.in/e47-z4re

A new era of ICE. This isn’t just a change in administration — it feels like a change in philosophy. Over the last few months, we’ve seen clear signs that ICE is evolving beyond its traditional role. And as immigration attorneys, we’re seeing the effects play out in real time. 1. Broader enforcement targets. ICE used to focus primarily on individuals with serious criminal records. That’s shifting. Now we’re seeing: - International students detained over technical status issues. - Green card holders stopped at the border due to paperwork disputes. - Business owners questioned or detained during I-9 audits. These aren’t theoretical concerns — they’re happening to real people, many of whom are contributing meaningfully to our communities and economy. 2. Discretion is narrowing. Much of the case-by-case judgment once exercised by CBP, consular officers, and USCIS appears to be shifting toward ICE. That centralization brings urgency — but it also means many individuals are ending up in detention without proper risk assessment, simply due to lack of resources or time. 3. ICE is growing — and that has ripple effects. While other agencies face hiring freezes and shrinking budgets, ICE is expanding. With that expansion comes increased pressure to justify funding: more audits, more detentions, more aggressive enforcement. We may start to see more I-9 site visits and financial penalties, not just removals. Takeaways for the legal community: - Be proactive. Even minor violations can now lead to detention. - Don’t assume discretion will be exercised the way it used to — especially at the border. - Prepare clients for worst-case detention scenarios, even if their risk appears low on paper. I’m not sharing this to sound the alarm — only to reflect what we’re seeing on the ground. This might be temporary. Or it might mark the start of a longer-term shift in how immigration enforcement is prioritized. Either way, it’s worth paying attention. #ImmigrationLaw #ICE #EnforcementUpdates #USImmigration #AILA

ICE detention often strips people’s access to medical care, but not their right to it! Attorneys have tools to challenge what’s happening. I think it’s to no one’s surprise that medical care is increasingly failing at ICE detention centers. Litigation is often the only effective intervention when ICE fails to provide adequate care for our clients. Here are key takeaways practitioners should keep in mind: 1️⃣ Build the record before you litigate! Pre-litigation advocacy is imperative. Clearly notify ICE of the client’s medical condition: • Provide prescriptions to the Deportation Officer • Submit letters from pre-detention doctors explaining diagnoses and required care • Document specific failures (missed meds, lack of specialists, interruptions during transfers) 2️⃣ Know the constitutional framework Immigration detainees are civil detainees, not prisoners. Courts have repeatedly held that they are entitled to equal or greater constitutional protections than convicted individuals. Due process is violated when DHS: • affirmatively places someone in danger, or • acts with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious medical risk 3️⃣ Consider Accardi-based claims ICE is required to follow its own regulations and detention standards. Failure to comply with mandatory provisions (particularly those designed to protect health) can support claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. Courts have recognized that when ICE ignores its own guidelines, detainees can suffer substantial harm, implicating due process. 4️⃣ Habeas corpus may be an option, depending on your circuit The Supreme Court has left open whether habeas can be used to challenge conditions of confinement, and the circuits are split. Some circuits allow conditions-based habeas claims; others do not. Where available, habeas has been used successfully to challenge deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and, in rare cases, to secure release. Lots of cases like that during COVID for example. Even where conditions claims are not clearly cognizable, release pendente lite may be possible in extraordinary circumstances, particularly where untreated medical conditions would leave someone in serious peril. 5️⃣ Don’t overlook the Rehabilitation Act For detained clients with disabilities, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is a powerful and often underused tool. Key steps include: • Establishing the client is a qualified individual with a disability • Documenting functional limitations and denied accommodations • Showing how detention conditions impede access to care or participation in proceedings ICE often resists accommodations based on “operational necessity,” BUT the law requires modifications unless they pose an undue hardship. As detention keeps expanding, poor medical care is going to remain a serious problem. Practitioners: litigate early, document aggressively, and use every available statutory and constitutional tool to protect detained clients!

Pleased to share the perspective of the International Committee of the Red Cross - ICRC on the modernization of prison infrastructure and use of technology places of detention in the most recent edition of JUSTICE TRENDS Magazine. "The modernisation of prison infrastructure and technology must be a priority for all. But there may also be a need to go back to basics at the same time. Ensuring humane treatment, decent living conditions and equal access to services would be also a form of modernisation in many prison systems.   At the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) we speak from experience. During 2564 visits to 865 places of detention in over 75 countries conducted in 2023, our teams saw the consequences of severe overcrowding, inhumane treatment and poor living conditions for persons deprived of liberty.   According to World Prison Brief, the global prison population grew at an alarming rate of 24% over the past two decades, resulting in 59% of prison systems exceeding capacity. For prison modernisation efforts to succeed, the number of people detained must be reduced substantially.   Recognising that the building of new prisons should be a last resort, the ICRC’s 'Towards Humane Prisons' recommends a “principled and participatory approach to prison planning and design” be applied when new infrastructure is envisioned. Commitments to ‘do no harm’, maintain a maximum of normality, promote health and personal growth, and maintain strong connections to society must be the cornerstone of any planning and design modernisation programme.   Similar principles should also apply to the modernisation of technological and digital solutions while ensuring strong legal and ethical safeguards to protect persons deprived of liberty. Decision makers must be acutely aware that technology and especially AI is not being applied to a clean slate.   Rather the interplay between technology and existing systems, power imbalances, and other social constructs within a place of detention need to be assessed to mitigate any potential compounding impacts on the rights or dignity of detainees. This includes proactive assessments of risks associated with design and data-related bias, the black box of machine learning and challenges related to traceability of decision making, transparency and redress. Furthermore, technology must not be seen as the panacea to staffing shortages. Any modernisation must be built on the foundation of meaningful human interaction. To be sustainable and effective, any modernisation initiative needs to ensure the inclusion of persons deprived of liberty or those with lived experience from the onset. This ensures a critical understanding of the potential impacts on the dignity and humanity of those detained." Read the full article here 👇

Today, the Washington Post published an investigation into the use of force in ICE detention centers, based on a trove of leaked ICE records. They also released much of the data behind their story (more outlets need to do this). As ICE’s crackdown on illegal immigration has flooded detention centers with record numbers of detainees, guards inside those facilities have increasingly resorted to acts of physical force. Douglas MacMillan, Andrew Ba Tran, Drea Cornejo and Luis Melgar found 4 main things... 1. During the first year of Trump’s second term, guards used physical force and chemical agents on ICE detainees 37 percent more times than the previous year. 2. Nearly 1,330 detainees were subjected to force last year, a 54 percent increase from the prior year, as facilities increasingly used force against multiple detainees at a time. 3. Since the beginning of 2024, at least 106 detainees have been injured as a result of use-of-force incidents, including seizures, dislocated shoulders, broken arms, head injuries and eye injuries. 4. In several of the incidents covered by the reports, chemical agents were used on large groups of detainees who were demanding things to which they are legally entitled, including adequate water and medical care. These findings are based on 1,460 summaries of use-of-force reports contained in ICE emails known as the Daily Detainee Assault Report. They span incidents reported January 2024 through February 2026 by 98 detention facilities which held 86% of all ICE detainees during that time. This is a must-read article based on TONS of data and analysis. Grateful to this team for incredible reporting and their commitment to methodological transparency. https://lnkd.in/eZ5iUYdg

Punitive systems don’t fix behaviour, they just delay it. Across schools, leaders are rethinking what actually improves behaviour, attendance and classroom climate. And one pattern is clear: Punitive systems create compliance in the moment. Supportive systems create resilience in the long term. This isn’t about “tough” vs “soft”. Schools aren’t choosing kindness over control. They’re choosing between systems that drive long-term change… and systems that simply recycle the same behaviours again and again. ❌ Punitive Behaviour Systems Designed to control behaviour. They typically rely on: → Detentions → Isolation rooms → Escalating sanctions → Zero-tolerance language → Public tracking (names on boards, red/green charts) Short-term impact: → Students comply to avoid punishment. → Behaviour appears “fixed” quickly. Long-term cost: → Increases anxiety and disengagement. → Hits SEND students hardest. → Erosion of relationships and belonging. → Lowers intrinsic motivation. → Creates a revolving door of repeat behaviours. → Higher teacher workload from repeated crises. Punitive systems look efficient… until you look at recurrence data, pastoral load, attendance trends, and teacher workload. ✅ Supportive Behaviour Systems Designed to understand and strengthen behaviour. They prioritise: → Clear routines and pre-correction  → Pre-correction and proactive support → Emotional regulation and co-regulation → Safe adult relationships Restorative conversations that actually teach repair Consistent systems instead of consistently high sanctions Universal strategies + targeted support Short-term impact: → Fewer escalations → Calmer classrooms → Predictability and psychological safety Long-term impact: → Stronger self-regulation and executive functioning → Higher attendance and engagement  → Better relationships with staff → Increased resilience and readiness to learn → Dramatically reduced teacher workload through fewer crises Supportive does not mean permissive. It means the system teaches the behaviour you want, rather than punishing the behaviour you don’t. Schools don’t need “tougher rules.” They need smarter systems that make positive behaviour predictable, learnable, and relational. 💡 A simple test for your school: If your behaviour system disappeared tomorrow… Would students still know how to behave, or just what happens when they don’t? I help leaders redesign behaviour systems that reduce crises and increase capacity. Happy to share more if useful.

In my work, I see too many young people placed in juvenile detention—often before any adjudication—at the very moment when their brains are most open to growth, learning, and healing. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s recent blog is a powerful reminder that detention reform is not only urgent but possible: it reduces harm, improves safety, and opens new pathways for young people. This connects deeply to adolescent brain science, powerfully described in Thrive—the new book by my boss, Lisa Lawson. Adolescence is a period of extraordinary brain plasticity: with the right supports—relationships, school, mentoring—young people can thrive. But detention strips away those supports and replaces them with stress and isolation, increasing the risk of long-term harm. That’s why the principles of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) remain so critical: 🔑 Use detention only when absolutely necessary 🏡 Provide safe, community-based alternatives that keep youth connected to family, school, and supports ⚖️ Eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in detention decisions 📊 Hold systems accountable for outcomes, not just processes 🧠 Center adolescent development to ensure long-term success Juvenile detention reform isn’t just a justice issue—it’s a science-informed investment in young people’s futures. Now is the time for leaders, policymakers, and funders to put these principles into action nationwide so every young person has the chance to thrive. #JuvenileJustice #AdolescentDevelopment #Thrive #YouthJustice

In NSW, new bail laws have increased the number of Aboriginal young people in custody by nearly 22% in just one year. Youth incarceration costs $2,814 per child, per day in NSW and $1,834 per day in Queensland. Meanwhile, Queensland's newly elected government is launching "Regional Reset" and "Staying on Track" programs aimed at early intervention and post-detention rehabilitation—promising to address the state's 91% recidivism rate. What's Missing in This Picture? These statistics and policy announcements reflect decisions made about young people, not with them. When Premier Chris Minns defends the increasing incarceration of Aboriginal children by stating "it's important that the public know that we are prepared to make change," we must ask: which public? And what kind of change? Similarly, when Queensland Premier David Crisafulli speaks of "pushing the reset button on young lives," we should question: who is doing the pushing, and do those young people have any say in the direction? What would our approach to youth justice look like if we centred the experiences of: - Young people in the system who understand firsthand what led them to offending and what might have prevented it - Families struggling with poverty, housing instability, and lack of support who watch their children enter a system that may further traumatize them - First Nations communities who continue to see their children disproportionately represented in detention - Frontline workers who see the daily reality of what works and what doesn't beyond political soundbites The Queensland Family and Child Commission report described the current detention model as "the most expensive and least effective solution to youth crime that we have designed." Yet we continue to invest hundreds of millions in expanding this model while evidence-based alternatives receive comparatively little attention or funding. What if we created spaces where: - Young people with lived experience helped design intervention programs - Community-led initiatives received the same level of investment as detention facilities - Success was measured not just by recidivism rates but by young people's wellbeing, education outcomes, and community connection - Media coverage highlighted stories of rehabilitation and resilience rather than focusing exclusively on criminal incidents As governments across Australia continue to invest billions in youth justice, perhaps the most important question isn't whether we should be "tough" or "soft" on crime, but rather: How do we ensure that those most affected by youth justice policies—young people themselves, their families, and their communities—have a meaningful voice in shaping solutions that actually work? Until we create platforms for these voices to be heard and valued, we risk continuing to invest in expensive systems that fail to address the root causes of youth crime or provide genuine pathways to rehabilitation and community safety.