further away from their The complete rebuild of AYDC lack of appropriately families and community would be very disruptive for skilled staff currently (Options 3A – C) staff and residents over an employed at AYDC – extended period (at least three significant industrial If the single facility remained years), which could exacerbate relations’ challenges to in Deloraine, mobile service existing safety and security redefine qualifications of options could be concerns (Option 3D) youth workers and/or incorporated into AYDC’s retrain existing staff as service delivery model to well as alter the reduce some of the barriers organisational structure, to implementing a full governance and rosters therapeutic approach e.g. lack of connection to family accommodation on mainstream and site and transport service; specialist services due to (Option 3D). However, AYDC’s location significantly greater cultural resistance is expenditure would be highly likely in required to support an implementing a effective therapeutic therapeutic approach approach as part of Option at ADYC 3D, which relies on strong An increased in skilled connections to family and workforce supply would be community available if based in Hobart or Launceston: DHHS may choose to define a new benchmark for the qualifications required for youth workers – this may limit redeployment of current staff at AYDC (Options 3A – C) Risks Investment in a large scale capital project could jeopardise funding for other youth justice initiatives in the short term (all options) This option could be seen as prioritising the needs of Hobart or Launceston (depending on site location) above other regions in Tasmania (Options 3A – C) The Tasmanian Government would need to define and manage the local impacts caused by closing or repurposing AYDC (Options 3A – C) The financial viability of this option depends on: the timely sale of the AYDC site (Options 3A – C) identifying an appropriate, cost-effective site in Hobart or Launceston (Options 3A – C) designing and implementing a collaborative service delivery model with the Department of Justice (Option 3C only) DHHS would need to design the operating model for Option 3C carefully to avoid perpetuating current issues at AYDC or blurring the distinction between children, young people and adults (who are subject to different legislation and justice principles) Local communities may be resistant to a new secure facility in their area (Options 3A – C)
further away from their families and community (Options 3A – C) If the single facility remained in Deloraine, mobile service options could be incorporated into AYDC’s service delivery model to reduce some of the barriers to implementing a full therapeutic approach e.g. family accommodation on site and transport service; (Option 3D). However, significantly greater expenditure would be required to support an effective therapeutic approach as part of Option 3D, which relies on strong connections to family and community The complete rebuild of AYDC would be very disruptive for staff and residents over an extended period (at least three years), which could exacerbate existing safety and security concerns (Option 3D) lack of appropriately skilled staff currently employed at AYDC – significant industrial relations’ challenges to redefine qualifications of youth workers and/or retrain existing staff as well as alter the organisational structure, governance and rosters lack of connection to mainstream and specialist services due to AYDC’s location cultural resistance is highly likely in implementing a therapeutic approach at ADYC An increased in skilled workforce supply would be available if based in Hobart or Launceston: DHHS may choose to define a new benchmark for the qualifications required for youth workers – this may limit redeployment of current staff at AYDC (Options 3A – C) Risks Investment in a large scale capital project could jeopardise funding for other youth justice initiatives in the short term (all options) This option could be seen as prioritising the needs of Hobart or Launceston (depending on site location) above other regions in Tasmania (Options 3A – C) The Tasmanian Government would need to define and manage the local impacts caused by closing or repurposing AYDC (Options 3A – C) The financial viability of this option depends on: the timely sale of the AYDC site (Options 3A – C) identifying an appropriate, cost-effective site in Hobart or Launceston (Options 3A – C) designing and implementing a collaborative service delivery model with the Department of Justice (Option 3C only) DHHS would need to design the operating model for Option 3C carefully to avoid perpetuating current issues at AYDC or blurring the distinction between children, young people and adults (who are subject to different legislation and justice principles) Local communities may be resistant to a new secure facility in their area (Options 3A – C)
99010_Custodial_Youth_Justice_Options_Paper_October_2016_-_Report_for_the_Tasmanian_Government.docx