The current rostering system does not allow for effective handovers to ensure to ensure the continued safety of residents and staff The layout of ADYC makes emergency procedures and responses, staffing and risk mitigation difficult Government’s broader strategic objectives is limited due to AYDC’s location A joined up service approach across DHHS staff located in Hobart is limited due to the requirement to travel long distances to visit AYDC model, centre philosophy and through-care support model The change management plan should also address overlaps and gaps in services through lack of coordination between different agencies and service providers, through reviewing current agreements across government Risks Risk of (re-)traumatising young people through ineffective or ill-informed approaches Increased recidivism as the custodial model fails to meet young people’s needs Reduced safety of ADYC residents, staff and the community due to ineffective interventions during detention Loss of connectedness to community, education, health interventions and employment Further considerations for DHHS Consider investment in supported bail programs including alternative non-secure accommodation options for low-risk young people to ensure detention is actually used as a last resort Scope electronic monitoring in conjunction with home detention (and day release opportunities) for low- risk young people to build pro-social pathways Sell underutilised parts of AYDC’s surrounding property and use the funds to invest in early intervention and community youth justice programs
Geographically aligned in Hobart Integrated with existing community services and could deliver localised through-care support in Hobart Increased skilled workforce supply available in Hobart Enhanced business continuity given increased access to two centres and two cohorts of staff to deal with peaks and troughs in numbers at each location Infrastructure Ability to cater for surge capacity and future changes in capacity between the two facilities The standard of facilities at both sites would be quite different in the short term Full benefits limited to Hobart site Refurbishment of AYDC would not comprehensively address current issues Young people sentenced to AYDC would still struggle to maintain links to family, community and services Risks AYDC could be seen as an inferior facility to a new purpose-built facility due to historical concerns raised and as a location for north and north-west residents Investment in a large scale capital project could jeopardise funding for other youth justice initiatives in the short term Inadvertent increased isolation and compromised programming ability and increased staffing levels (for smaller groups) could occur as less young people reside at the centre over time Indicative Timeframes26 Construction: two years Refurbishments: one year Staff changes throughout 20 years as resident volume changes Dependencies Ongoing operational savings from staff reductions, while maintaining a 1:1 staff ratio 26 These timeframes are highly dependent on the scope and footprint of an option and should not be used to forecast a timeframe for actual design and construction. This would be considered in detail as part of the development of a Functional Brief and costing for the preferred option.
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)
community services as well as specialist youth services Better connections to family and community, allowing young people to develop and maintain pro-social relationships Increased skilled workforce supply in Hobart or Launceston Ability for DHHS to instil best- practice culture, governance, staffing, capability, risk management and a therapeutic response in a trauma-informed way at two new centres, which would not be possible at AYDC without addressing long standing historical culture and practices Greater opportunity for succession planning and fresh eyes, new ways of thinking with a diverse range of ages, cultures and diversity amongst the workforce alleviate boredom and minimise unintended isolation Ability to cater for surge capacity and future changes in capacity and model Option 4 would allow DHHS to completely redefine all aspects of the custodial youth justice service delivery model Fit-for-purpose facilities, in conjunction with higher staff capabilities and enhanced operational procedures, can improve resident and staff safety More diverse education and vocational opportunities are available in higher population areas, with the opportunity to maintain these networks after release This option allows integration with care, child protection, family violence support, health, community youth justice and education services in two key population areas This option also allows for integration with mainstream education and health services (for low-risk young people only) Risks Community acceptance of new facilities and underlying service delivery model Spike in detention demand outside of projected capacity requirements Implementation of significant changes to service delivery model on time, within budget Indicative Timeframes31 Scoping and design: one year Construction: two years Dependencies Sale / re-purposing of AYDC site Ongoing operational savings from staff reductions Shared Services Hub Based on our preliminary assessment, Option 4A – Two purpose-built facilities (with 12 beds each) has been recommended. However, DHHS may wish to consider the Shared Services Hub (Option 4B) further in the next stages of feasibility and design. 31 These timeframes are highly dependent on the scope and footprint of an option and should not be used to forecast a timeframe for actual design and construction. This would be considered in detail as part of the development of a Functional Brief and costing for the preferred option.
NEXT STEPS Noetic recommends that DHHS consider the following actions to better define and present Option 4 to Government.32 Short term (within six months) Medium term (within twelve months) Long term (within two years) Develop a Functional Brief for Option 4 that would: describe the detailed essential requirements and desired outcomes at the two new facilities including the requirements for functional spaces and compliance with statutory requirements inform the strategic infrastructure assessment, concept planning and detailed infrastructure for both facilities be used in the development of the project assurance framework’s strategic assessment business case documents consider whether bail support could be expanded, including options for supported accommodation consider whether electronic monitoring would complement a new custodial youth justice model consider the merits and private sector demand for a public-private to offset some for DHHS the for a new youth model, including any legislation changes required and its integration with non- Define the new custodial youth justice model in detail, including changes to workforce requirements, standard operating procedures and the scope of services provided, as part of the broader Youth at Risk strategy Identify and assess potential partnership options for construction of new facilities Identify the detailed design and construction requirements for the Hobart and Launceston facilities, including appropriate site locations Develop detailed design specifications for the new facilities Develop the procurement model and phase Monitor the implementation of the new service delivery model to ensure the benefits articulated in the change management approach are realised 32 These timeframes are highly dependent on the scope and footprint of an option and should not be used to forecast a timeframe for actual design and construction. This would be considered in detail as part of the development of a Functional Brief and costing for the preferred option. private
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
ANNEX E: SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Social Impact Assessment Summary The financial costs and savings notwithstanding, the options are also intended to provide social benefits to youth at risk, as well as the broader Tasmanian community. Our summary assessment is that any refurbishment of AYDC is unlikely to drastically improve the therapeutic environment of the detention centre to the level required or improve opportunities to enhance safety for its workforce. A new purpose-built facility, supported by the right mix of staff and youth workers, is going to provide the level of therapeutic care required to get better outcomes for young people and the community. Depending on the locations for any new facilities, the improvement in access to family and community services, and as a result the effectiveness of through-care support, is a significant factor to consider in assessing each option. Table 9: Social impact summary Options Alignment with Strategic Objectives Social Benefits Social Costs Option 1: Upgrade AYDC facility Minimal improvement given current design constraints, age of the facilities and the centre location (access to community services) Minimises the upfront costs and may deliver some minor improvements to the therapeutic approach through improved facilities Some social impacts of unemployment as AYDC staff requirements reduces52 Option 2: Maintain AYDC and construct an additional facility The construction of a new facility in Hobart will provide improved access to community services and families for some detainees, however, existing AYDC issues are not fundamentally addressed A new facility offers the chance to completely redefine the custodial youth justice model, resulting in enhanced rehabilitation and safety for residents and staff based at this facility, as well as the community Partial implementation of therapeutic approach, which only applies to the facility in Hobart due to improved access to community facilities and services Job creation in Hobart Efficiency loss in running ADYC and another youth detention facility Some social impact of unemployment as a result of staff reductions (partially offset by the benefits of alternative employment as they become more productive in other jobs53) 52 Deloraine staff are unlikely to all find new jobs. 53 Ibid.
Option Alignment with Strategic Objectives Benefits Social Costs / Disadvantages Option 2: Maintain AYDC and construct an additional facility The continued use of AYDC will result in the same problems outlined in Option 1 The new purpose-built facility would be located in Hobart. DHHS could deliver a model that aligns with the strategic objectives for a new custodial youth justice system, focused on the holistic and specific needs of young people, leveraging more direct links to family, community and services A new facility in Hobart would allow more direct links to family, community and services for young people in the South, allowing more intensive tailored interventions for approximately half the residents in detention A proper through-care approach could be delivered in Hobart, allowing young people to maintain key relationships with service providers after their release Young people in Hobart would have access to significantly enhanced education, medical, allied health and community support services Young people could be moved between the two facilities if they needed access to particular services or where conflict between residents threatened their safety Potential reduction of recidivism as a result of a more therapeutic approach and improved through-care support Larger workforce across the two sites means greater opportunities for workforce planning, including more staff to call on if a major incident occurred Economic benefits of current employees contributing in new alternative employment (after leaving AYDC), and employment of new staff in Hobart The refurbishment of AYDC would not comprehensively address current issues at the facility Young people sentenced to AYDC would still struggle to maintain links to family, community and services The standard of services at the two facilities would be quite different in the short term Hobart-based service providers could prioritise young people in Hobart over AYDC, due to resource and time constraints Social costs of unemployment, as Deloraine staff are unlikely to all find new jobs
Option Alignment with Strategic Objectives Benefits Social Costs / Disadvantages Option 4: Two ‘Purpose- Built’ Secure Detention Facilities The scope of services within local will be critical to the success of this option New secure facilities meet the objective DHHS would be able to refine its model from first principles, which would be a significant undertaking This option allows DHHS to focus on the specific needs of young people by providing access to a broader range of services. However, the services on offer may not be consistent across both sites This option provides the most direct connections with young people’s families and communities DHHS could also redefine how it works with other agencies across government to deliver services for young people in detention, given it will have access to agencies and service providers in Tasmania’s two largest population centres Opportunity to provide support to maintain pro-social pathways that may commence before detention (e.g. community service order work, sport, study, work) and could continue while in detention This option could increase young people’s links to the community if they can access additional services while in detention and maintain key relationships after release Locations in Hobart and Launceston would increase young people’s access to family, community, services, education, recreation and legal representation A broader range of therapeutic options is available with this option DHHS could deliver an effective model, as young people would have the opportunity to build and maintain key relationships with service providers during and after detention DHHS could provide community access to facilities such as a gym DHHS would have access to a broader pool of appropriately skilled youth workers in Hobart and Launceston Potential reduction of recidivism Economic benefits of current employees contributing in alternative employment, and employment of new staff This option has the potential to exacerbate unintended isolation for smaller cohorts unless this is carefully managed e.g. very young children, girls This option could potentially further compound the current issues around the scalability of high-cost, fixed assets servicing the needs of a small number of at-risk children and young people A new facility based in an urban area would not be able to provide the range of outdoor recreational and vocational activities that could be delivered (but are not currently on offer) at Deloraine Social costs of unemployment, as Deloraine staff are unlikely to all find new jobs
Option Risks Timeframes Financials different policies and practices for each facility Redundancy payments due to the reduction of staff, in line with the reduced number of residents Additional running costs from maintaining two facilities including education, medical, administrative, catering and management teams for each site Construction costs (and land) of a ew detention facility Refurbishment cost of AYDC Option 3: Single ‘Purpose- Built’ Secure Detention Facility (new facility or completely rebuild AYDC) Investment in a large scale capital project could jeopardise funding for other youth justice initiatives in the short term (all options) This option prioritises the needs of young people in the community where the new facility is located in above other regions in Tasmania (all sub-options) The financial viability of this option depends on: the sale of the AYDC site in a timely way (Options 3A – C) identifying an appropriate, site in Hobart or Launceston (Options 3A – C) DoJ’s agreement to a joint facility that includes 18 – 21-year-olds (Option 3C only) designing and implementing a collaborative service delivery model with DoJ (Option 3C only) New facility to be used for at least 20 years (all options) Construction to occur across two years (Options 3A – C) or three years (Options 3D) DHHS would continue to run the AYDC facility while the new facility is being designed and built (Options 3A – C) DHHS to sell AYDC once the new facility is operational (Options 3A – C) Reduced salaries from reduction in staff, in line with the reduced number of residents (all sub-options) Redundancy payments due to the reduction of staff, in line with the reduced number of residents (all sub-options) Salaries for new staff (Options 3A – C) Construction costs (and land) of a new detention facility (Options 3A – C) Other running costs estimated to be similar to AYDC (Options 3A – C) Some revenue from selling AYDC (Options 3A – C)