How To Lobby State Legislators To End Juvenile Solitary Confinement

Young people held in detention should receive care, education and a genuine chance to return safely to their families and communities. Keeping a child alone in a cell for hours or days can intensify trauma, disrupt development and make rehabilitation harder. For families, the practice can feel like punishment without visibility, oversight or a meaningful way to challenge the decision.

A campaign to ban solitary confinement for juveniles needs more than strong moral arguments. It must give state legislators a clear policy, credible evidence, local voices and a practical path to implementation. Although the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Reform Coalition works in Louisiana, its focus on humane treatment, transparency and public accountability offers useful principles for advocates in Australia.

Define The Ban In Clear, Enforceable Terms

The first step is to establish what the proposed law would prohibit. Youth justice agencies may use terms such as “isolation”, “separation”, “room confinement”, “behaviour management” or “protective custody” instead of solitary confinement. A legal ban should cover any situation where a young person is confined alone and prevented from meaningful social contact, education, recreation or therapeutic support.

A strong bill should prohibit isolation as punishment, retaliation, coercion or a substitute for staffing and mental health care. It should also restrict emergency separation to situations involving an immediate and serious risk of harm. Any exception should be brief, authorised by a senior independent decision-maker, recorded in writing and reviewed frequently. A young person should retain access to health care, legal assistance, family communication, culturally safe support and an advocate.

Ask legislators to support measurable safeguards rather than broad promises. The law should define a maximum duration, require regular welfare checks by qualified staff, prohibit use with children experiencing acute mental distress and ban conditions that amount to isolation even when staff call them something else. A public reporting requirement should disclose each incident, its length, the child’s age, disability status, cultural identity, reason for placement and any injury or complaint.

Build A Coalition Beyond The Usual Advocates

State MPs are more likely to act when the campaign reflects a broad constituency. Bring together former detainees, parents, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, youth workers, lawyers, psychologists, teachers, disability advocates, faith communities and professional bodies. A coalition can show that ending isolation is a child-safety and public-health measure, rather than an issue belonging to one political group.

In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children remain heavily overrepresented in youth detention. That makes culturally safe advocacy essential, especially in places such as Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. A campaign should support First Nations organisations to set priorities and speak for their communities, rather than treating cultural representation as a decorative addition to a media release.

Personal testimony can be persuasive, but it must be gathered ethically. Obtain informed consent, explain where a story may appear and allow contributors to withdraw. Never pressure a child or family to disclose traumatic details to strengthen a campaign. A short account describing the effects of isolation, the loss of education or the difficulty of contacting staff may carry more weight than a dramatic narrative.

For groups working across borders, transparency about methods builds trust. The East Baton Rouge Parish Prison Reform Coalition describes its public-interest work through how the coalition works, including its emphasis on accountability and community participation. Australian advocates can apply the same principle by publishing their goals, funding sources, decision-making process and relationships with political parties.

Turn Evidence Into A Legislative Brief

A legislator needs a concise document that can be read between electorate appointments. Prepare a two-page briefing with the proposed ban, the evidence of harm, the groups supporting it, the safeguards for genuine emergencies and the changes required from the responsible department. Include a model amendment or bill wording if a parliamentary counsel or legal centre can assist.

Use authoritative sources such as coronial findings, inspectorate reports, ombudsman investigations, parliamentary inquiries, medical research and official youth justice statistics. Explain that adolescents are still developing emotionally and cognitively, and that isolation can worsen anxiety, depression, self-harm risk and distrust of authorities. Connect those outcomes to the state’s practical goals: safer facilities, fewer crises, better engagement with education and stronger post-release support.

Avoid overstating the evidence or claiming that every incident produces the same result. Legislators are entitled to ask how staff will manage immediate violence, serious self-harm or threats between detainees. Answer with a detailed alternative: trained conflict de-escalation teams, small therapeutic units, separation with human contact, clinical intervention, family involvement and independent review. A ban is more credible when it explains what replaces the prohibited practice.

Use language that fits Australian parliamentary debate. “Children in custody”, “youth detention”, “state parliament”, “electorate office” and “community-controlled organisation” will generally be more natural than American terms. When discussing policy communications or public campaigning, Australian advocates may also find it useful to examine local campaign messaging and consider how complex reform proposals can be made understandable without reducing them to slogans.

Meet MPs With A Specific Ask

Lobbying works best when every meeting has a clear request. Ask an MP to publicly support a bill, raise a question with the youth justice minister, attend a community forum, seek departmental data or refer the issue to a parliamentary committee. Do not leave the decision open-ended. Give the representative a short letter, a draft question for parliament and a date by which you will follow up.

Begin with the member who represents the relevant electorate, then approach ministers, opposition spokespeople, crossbench MPs and committee members. In Australia, electorate offices in suburbs such as Parramatta, Dandenong or Logan can be more accessible than parliament buildings in Canberra or a state capital. Call ahead, request a meeting with the adviser responsible for justice or child protection and bring no more than three or four speakers.

During the meeting, explain why the issue matters locally. A supporter from Perth can refer to concerns about Banksia Hill, while an advocate in the Northern Territory may discuss the long public debate around Don Dale. In Victoria, families may raise conditions at Parkville, and in New South Wales campaigners may point to the need for independent oversight across youth detention centres. Use verified, current information and distinguish between a known fact, a personal experience and a policy concern.

Keep the tone firm and respectful. Say, “We are asking you to support a statutory ban with narrow emergency safeguards,” rather than making a general request to “do something”. If an MP agrees, ask what action they will take and when. If they declines, ask what evidence or amendment would change their position. Send a brief thank-you note that records the commitment accurately, then publish a campaign update without misrepresenting a private conversation.

Create Public Pressure And Track Progress

A private meeting may open the door, but sustained public attention can keep the issue alive. Publish a plain-language campaign page, collect petition signatures, write letters to local newspapers and arrange community forums. In Australia, local radio and suburban papers can reach people who do not follow national political coverage. A respectful “have a yarn” style conversation at a community centre may build support more effectively than a highly technical online argument.

Coordinate public actions around parliamentary moments: the release of a budget, a youth justice estimates hearing, a committee inquiry or a ministerial statement. Supporters should contact their own MPs with individual messages rather than sending identical bulk emails. A useful message identifies the writer’s electorate, explains the human impact, states the requested reform and asks for a response.

Digital advocacy should protect young people’s privacy. Do not publish names, photographs, case details or identifying combinations of facts without informed consent. Moderate comments that blame children, encourage violence or reveal confidential information. Provide accessible materials for people with disability, translated information where communities need it and offline ways to participate for families with limited internet access.

Track every commitment in a shared register: the MP contacted, date, response, promised action, responsible campaigner and follow-up date. Invite supporters to join the coalition if they want regular updates, meeting notices or opportunities to contribute. A campaign becomes more durable when it turns one-off outrage into organised participation.

A successful bill still needs implementation. Press legislators to fund staff training, independent inspections, mental health services, family contact, education and post-release planning. Require public reporting after the law takes effect, with penalties or corrective action when agencies disguise prohibited isolation as another form of placement. Ask young people and families to help evaluate whether the reform is working in practice.

The practical path is straightforward: define isolation broadly, build a representative coalition, prepare a credible alternative, meet the right MP with one specific request, and follow every promise until it becomes enforceable policy. In every conversation, bring the focus back to a simple standard: no child should be left alone as a routine tool of punishment or control.