❓ A Member of Parliament questions the Department of Corrective Services regarding a review of youth services funding, including the review process, stakeholder involvement, and funding cuts. The response details the internal review, rationale for decisions, and reallocation of funds.
AnsweredQoN 2183Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Department of Corrective Services review of its requirements for youth services that it funds across the State, and I ask -
(1) How was the review conducted and will its findings be made public?
(2) Were any of the existing youth services given an opportunity to participate in the review?
(3) If no to (2), why not?
(4) Have funding levels been cut to any existing services?
(5) If yes to (4), -
(a) which services; and
(b) by how much?
(1) How was the review conducted and will its findings be made public?
(2) Were any of the existing youth services given an opportunity to participate in the review?
(3) If no to (2), why not?
(4) Have funding levels been cut to any existing services?
(5) If yes to (4), -
(a) which services; and
(b) by how much?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
4 May 2010
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Corrective Services
Response time
34 days
(1) Subsequent to the recent realignment of Community Youth Justice division and revision of CYJ operational models, an internal review was undertaken of the Community Funding Program. This is a DCS program providing funding to service organisations for diversionary services to young people who have offended or are at risk of offending.
Key internal stakeholders revised the existing program service model to update the specifications and rationalise the funding levels and locations of service provision, informed by Police Caution and Juvenile Justice Team data identifying the areas of need.
Due to the changes to the scope of the program and to the service provider pool, it was decided to test the market with an open tender process. The findings of the internal review will not be made public, however providers were made aware of the review process during the tender brief.
(2) No.
(3) In order to ensure probity, it would have been inappropriate for existing providers to partake in the internal review about the specifications, funding levels and location of services given that an open tender process will be taking place.
The impending changes and rationale were communicated to all providers in October 2009 and March 2010.
(4) A few existing service providers will not receive further funding, however, the overall amount of funding that will be available for Community Programs in this area will increase from $1.643 million to $1.694 million.
(5a-b) The youth service providers in the metropolitan area that will receive no further funding are located at:
- Belmont, which received 2009/10 annual funding of $106,016; and
- Bassendean which received 2009/10 annual funding of $128,482.
This funding will be redirected to other locations that will benefit from an increase in their annual funding level.
The regional youth service provider that will receive no further funding is Avon, which received 2009/10 annual funding of $75,541.
The Geraldton locality will now receive $41,423 less than the 2009/10 annual funding level. Meanwhile, other regional service providers will receive increases to their funding levels to develop more consistency within these regional areas.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Key internal stakeholders revised the existing program service model to update the specifications and rationalise the funding levels and locations of service provision, informed by Police Caution and Juvenile Justice Team data identifying the areas of need.
Due to the changes to the scope of the program and to the service provider pool, it was decided to test the market with an open tender process. The findings of the internal review will not be made public, however providers were made aware of the review process during the tender brief.
(2) No.
(3) In order to ensure probity, it would have been inappropriate for existing providers to partake in the internal review about the specifications, funding levels and location of services given that an open tender process will be taking place.
The impending changes and rationale were communicated to all providers in October 2009 and March 2010.
(4) A few existing service providers will not receive further funding, however, the overall amount of funding that will be available for Community Programs in this area will increase from $1.643 million to $1.694 million.
(5a-b) The youth service providers in the metropolitan area that will receive no further funding are located at:
- Belmont, which received 2009/10 annual funding of $106,016; and
- Bassendean which received 2009/10 annual funding of $128,482.
This funding will be redirected to other locations that will benefit from an increase in their annual funding level.
The regional youth service provider that will receive no further funding is Avon, which received 2009/10 annual funding of $75,541.
The Geraldton locality will now receive $41,423 less than the 2009/10 annual funding level. Meanwhile, other regional service providers will receive increases to their funding levels to develop more consistency within these regional areas.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.