PTSD Risk 20 Times Higher for Offshore Detention Detainees

Groundbreaking Research Reveals Mental Health Consequences of Australia’s Immigration Detention Systems

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers funded by MQ at the University of New South Wales in Australia has unveiled alarming evidence regarding the detrimental psychiatric effects associated with both onshore and offshore immigration detention systems. This extensive analysis represents the largest study of its kind, shedding light on the profound mental health challenges faced by individuals subjected to these systems.

The findings indicate that refugees who have been detained offshore, regardless of the duration, are at a staggering 20 times higher risk of developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other severe mental health issues compared to those who faced less than six months in onshore detention. This stark contrast highlights the urgent need for reevaluation of existing policies regarding immigration detention.

Researchers from UNSW Sydney have also identified similar mental health impairments in individuals who endured prolonged stays in onshore detention facilities. Notably, these adverse effects persisted long after individuals were released and reintegrated into the community, indicating a lasting impact on their psychological well-being.

The research team published their findings in a letter to the editor in the British Journal of Psychiatry, detailing a survey conducted with 990 adult refugees and asylum seekers residing in Australia between 2011 and 2018. Among this group, 215 individuals had previously experienced some form of detention before successfully integrating into the Australian community.

The researchers emphasize that this survey provides “unique insight into the long-term psychological effects of offshore processing,” underscoring the critical need for awareness and reform in immigration policies.

Lead author, MQ Scholar Dr. Philippa Specker, a researcher and clinical psychologist at UNSW’s School of Psychology, asserts that this study represents the most extensive dataset currently available concerning the intersection of offshore processing and mental health.

“Due to legal and logistical challenges in contacting individuals held in Australia’s offshore detention centers on Manus Island and Nauru since 2012, research can only be conducted once individuals have been released,” she explains.

“This survey data enabled us to assess for the first time whether prior experiences of offshore detention influenced an individual’s risk of developing serious long-term mental health conditions once they began living in the community, by comparing them to individuals who had been detained onshore for less than six months.”

The research conclusively demonstrated that such experiences significantly impacted mental health.

“We found that individuals who had been in onshore detention for more than six months, or offshore detention for any duration, exhibited a markedly increased risk of developing subsequent PTSD, depression, or suicidal ideation—findings that genuinely astonished us,” Dr. Specker stated.

“Individuals were found to be between 17 and 20 times more likely to report symptoms of PTSD if they had spent an extended period in onshore detention or had any experience in offshore detention.”

Additional statistics revealed that individuals subjected to any form of detention were twice as likely to exhibit probable PTSD, 2.5 times more likely to experience probable depression, and nearly twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts when compared to refugees and asylum seekers who had not gone through immigration detention. Specifically, offshore detainees were found to be 2.71 times more likely to develop probable PTSD than their onshore counterparts.

The heightened mental health risks persisted despite adjustments for variables such as age, gender, duration of stay in Australia, and marital status. This indicates that the trauma associated with detention adversely affected mental health beyond the influence of these critical factors.

 

Understanding the Detrimental Effects of Detention on Mental Health

Researchers have long acknowledged that onshore detention can have destabilizing effects on the well-being of asylum seekers. However, the recent analysis highlights that these negative consequences are even more pronounced in the context of offshore detention.

“Being forcibly relocated to another country by the government from which one is seeking asylum can severely undermine one’s sense of safety, autonomy, and certainty about the future. It is entirely understandable that such practices could carry serious and long-lasting psychological repercussions,” Dr. Specker explains.

“With over 117 million people forcibly displaced globally due to conflict, persecution, and human rights violations—38 million of whom are classified as refugees—never has there been a larger population of individuals displaced by war and persecution. Simultaneously, we are witnessing first-world nations implement increasingly restrictive immigration policies aimed at deterrence,” she continues.

Despite these challenges, Dr. Specker emphasizes a critical opportunity to address the plight of displaced individuals seeking refuge through practical, humane measures rather than punitive policies.

 

Strategies for Reforming Asylum Seeker Policies

“We recognize that when someone arrives in a new country seeking asylum and initiating an asylum claim, it necessitates a certain degree of administrative processing,” Dr. Specker notes.

“What our findings indicate is that the treatment a person receives while their asylum claim is being processed can significantly influence their mental health outcomes.”

The researchers advocate for a reevaluation of asylum seeker policies that rely on detention. They stress the need to reconsider the use of offshore detention, noting that Australia is one of 145 signatory nations to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention, which establishes a humanitarian obligation to protect individuals fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Given the data indicating high rates of PTSD, depression, and suicidal ideation among individuals who have experienced offshore detention, it is challenging for any government to justify such policies as humanitarian.

“Our findings underscore the psychological toll of offshore detention and contribute to a broader body of research revealing the shortcomings of immigration detention and processing policies,” Dr. Specker adds.

“For instance, studies on migration patterns have demonstrated that immigration detention and offshore processing are ineffective at deterring individuals from seeking asylum. Furthermore, the UNSW’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law has calculated that the cost of holding someone in offshore detention is 5550 times greater than allowing them to reside in the Australian community while their claim is processed.”

Secondly, the researchers emphasize the need for timely processing of asylum claims. They discovered even worse mental health outcomes among individuals who remained in onshore detention for extended periods compared to those released within six months. Considering that, as of July 31, 2024, the average duration of onshore detention was a staggering 545 days (1.5 years), there is an urgent necessity to expedite processing times and ensure that individuals are not subjected to detention while their claims are being evaluated.

 

Global Lessons on Immigration Detention Practices

Researchers highlight that this year, the British parliament approved the Rwanda Immigration Bill, which advocates for offshore detention—a practice that the new Labour government has pledged to repeal. With Australia being one of the few nations employing offshore immigration detention, researchers hope their recent findings will serve as a crucial warning to other countries regarding the severe psychiatric consequences of such policies.

“It is not too late for Australia and other governments contemplating similar offshore processing and immigration detention models to instead consider evidence-based alternatives,” Dr. Specker concludes.

 

You can read the full findings in the British Medical Journal here.

 

Further Reading on the Impact of Immigration Detention