❓ A parliamentary question addresses the Disability Services Commission's role in placing a 17-year-old sex offender in care, focusing on risk assessment, information sharing, and family notification. The response clarifies the support model and responsibilities.
AnsweredQoN 588Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION — INCIDENT INVOLVING 17-YEAR-OLD IN CARE
When the decision was made by the Disability Services Commission to participate in a transitional arrangement with the Department for Child Protection to place a 17-year-old registered sex offender then in the care of the DCP into a shared residential facility funded by the DSC — (1) What clinical advice did the DSC rely on to determine the level of risk he posed to any others in the facility? (2) Was this clinical advice shared with the relevant non-government provider? (3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
When the decision was made by the Disability Services Commission to participate in a transitional arrangement with the Department for Child Protection to place a 17-year-old registered sex offender then in the care of the DCP into a shared residential facility funded by the DSC — (1) What clinical advice did the DSC rely on to determine the level of risk he posed to any others in the facility? (2) Was this clinical advice shared with the relevant non-government provider? (3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(1) What clinical advice did the DSC rely on to determine the level of risk he posed to any others in the facility? (2) Was this clinical advice shared with the relevant non-government provider? (3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(2) Was this clinical advice shared with the relevant non-government provider? (3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(1) What clinical advice did the DSC rely on to determine the level of risk he posed to any others in the facility? (2) Was this clinical advice shared with the relevant non-government provider? (3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(2) Was this clinical advice shared with the relevant non-government provider? (3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(3) What clinical support did the DSC provide to the relevant non-government provider to monitor the level of risk he posed once in the shared facility? (4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(4) What steps, if any, did the DSC take to ensure the non-government provider advised family members of those in the same shared facility of the risk they were exposed to? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(1) Contributors to the plan for the 17-year-old were the Department of Corrective Services, the Disability Services Commission, the Office of the Public Advocate, the Department for Child Protection and Western Australia Police. The support model developed was informed by advice from clinical psychologists from the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission who had worked with the 17-year-old for an extended period of time. (2) Yes. (3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(3) Support from clinical psychologists was available to the non-government provider through the Department of Corrective Services and the Disability Services Commission. (4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
(4) Ensuring families were advised was not deemed to be the responsibility of the Disability Services Commission as the non-government organisation was contracted by the Department for Child Protection. It is important to note that the model of support was not a shared residential facility, but a series of individual self-contained units in which the living arrangements were not shared.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.