ANNEX C: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT The following table combines Noetic’s analysis of the financial, social and implementation impacts for each option considered in this paper. Option Financial Social Impact Implementation Summary Does not address AYDC’s Current longstanding staff Not feasible given it will not Reduces capital investment by Option 1: Upgrade current limitations may create barriers to lasting fundamentally address the maximising the re-use of AYDC facility cultural change strategic problems / objectives, The remaining outdated current facilities and the capital cost is not proportion of the facility Construction would create Greatest net savings, justified by commensurate would limit the effectiveness short-term safety and mostly from the reduction social benefits to young people of a through-care approach security issues that would in staff or the community need to be managed AYDC: see above AYDC could be seen as inferior Not feasible based on financial Reduces capital investment by Option 2: Maintain to the new purpose-built impacts A Hobart-based facility could maximising the re-use of AYDC and construct facility allow more direct links with Unlikely to deliver social benefits current facilities an additional facility family, community and due to the continued use of Moderate capital costs and in Hobart services for young people AYDC, which is not fit-for- increased operational costs based in or near Hobart purpose for 10+ years in running two detention facilities Greater rehabilitation Could be seen as prioritising Feasible as a preferred option Significant upfront capital Option 3: Single opportunities for young the needs of one Tasmanian given its strong financial cost for a new facility, ‘Purpose-Built’ people based nearby the region over others outcome (i.e. positive NPV regardless of its location Secure Detention chosen location value) and social benefits. The new service delivery Savings from sale of AYDC Facility (new facility However, it prioritises the needs Offers the opportunity to model would need to be (new facility only) and ongoing or completely of young people from one redefine the custodial youth carefully designed to place the operational savings, while rebuild AYDC) region above others so does not justice model, overcoming the needs of young people at the enhancing safety of staff and provide the same level of social current systemic issues at centre of the system residents benefits as Option 4 AYDC
ANNEX C: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT The following table combines Noetic’s analysis of the financial, social and implementation impacts for each option considered in this paper. Option Financial Social Impact Implementation Summary Option 1: Upgrade AYDC facility Reduces capital investment by maximising the re-use of current facilities Greatest net savings, mostly from the reduction in staff Does not address AYDC’s current limitations The remaining outdated proportion of the facility would limit the effectiveness of a through-care approach Current longstanding staff may create barriers to lasting cultural change Construction would create short-term safety and security issues that would need to be managed Not feasible given it will not fundamentally address the strategic problems / objectives, and the capital cost is not justified by commensurate social benefits to young people or the community Option 2: Maintain AYDC and construct an additional facility in Hobart Reduces capital investment by maximising the re-use of current facilities Moderate capital costs and increased operational costs for 10+ years in running two detention facilities AYDC: see above A Hobart-based facility could allow more direct links with family, community and services for young people based in or near Hobart AYDC could be seen as inferior to the new purpose-built facility Not feasible based on financial impacts Unlikely to deliver social benefits due to the continued use of AYDC, which is not fit-for- purpose Option 3: Single ‘Purpose-Built’ Secure Detention Facility (new facility or completely rebuild AYDC) Significant upfront capital cost for a new facility, regardless of its location Savings from sale of AYDC (new facility only) and ongoing operational savings, while enhancing safety of staff and residents Greater rehabilitation opportunities for young people based nearby the chosen location Offers the opportunity to redefine the custodial youth justice model, overcoming the current systemic issues at AYDC Could be seen as prioritising the needs of one Tasmanian region over others The new service delivery model would need to be carefully designed to place the needs of young people at the centre of the system Feasible as a preferred option given its strong financial outcome (i.e. positive NPV value) and social benefits. However, it prioritises the needs of young people from one region above others so does not provide the same level of social benefits as Option 4
99010_Custodial_Youth_Justice_Options_Paper_October_2016_-_Report_for_the_Tasmanian_Government.docx