Ms ROSOL – Minister, I’d like to ask some questions about the $3.7 million election commitment the government made to JCP Youth. Was this commitment based on any advice from the Department for Education, Children and Young People?
Ms PALMER – Thank you very much for the question. The government has certainly upheld its commitment to support diversionary programs for at‑risk young people with the JCP Youth funding agreement signed on 3 February 2025, as you say, funded to a $3.7 million over three years to expand its engagement with at‑risk young people statewide through its established Beast program. These are the sort of programs that we need to be investing in. This is working in the preventative space. This is making sure that we are able to reach out to young people and really support them through programs like this.
The funding directly supports 54 program placements from the Department for Education, Children and Young People, which will be equitably distributed across the south, the north and the north-west and there will be flexibility to prioritise areas of greatest need.
In addition to this, this investment provides resources that enable JCP Youth to engage a further 36 community-based referrals, broadening the program’s reach and impacting of course, JCP’s diversionary programs which are targeted at young males aged 11 to 17 who may be demonstrating some of that at-risk behaviour that we know can lead to contact with the youth justice system.
Ms WEBSTER – The department had been working with JCP Youth for some time before that. Again, it was before my time, but I am happy to hand to the deputy secretary in terms of the process of the work of JCP Youth.
Ms ROSOL – I am particularly asking whether the commitment was based on advice from anyone in DECYP, or any advice at all to support the decision to fund JCP Youth with $3.7 million.
Ms PALMER – That needs to go to the deputy secretary to talk about the department’s engagement at that time.
Mr WHITCOMBE – Simply put, our service had been, as has been mentioned, engaging with JCP on a fee-for-service basis, and it has been certainly my experience when I speak with staff across the service that they’re incredibly grateful and there are strong relationships in the way that our frontline youth justice and child safety practitioners work alongside JCP.
We have worked closely with JCP in the development of the contract and the specs and the obligations we have to Child and Youth Safe Standards and continue to work closely with JCP and, in particular, the support that they provide to some of our most vulnerable young people in the community.
Ms ROSOL – Can I clarify then there wasn’t any advice from DECYP because nothing any of you have said suggests there was advice from DECYP for that funding. Can I assume then that was a Liberal Party decision to provide that $3.7 million funding?
Ms PALMER – I wasn’t the minister at the time, so I, obviously, wasn’t engaged in those conversations, but I do believe that the department has clearly outlined that there was already a relationship, that they were working with this organisation and seeing outcomes for young people. It wasn’t an organisation that was new to the department, but you’re asking a question that I don’t believe the department can answer and I can’t answer because I wasn’t the minister at the time.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you, Chair. Minister, I’d like to come back to JCP. Documents obtained by the Greens under RTI show that JCP had previously sought government funding and been unsuccessful, I think on two occasions. One email from a department official stated:
To date, I have no indication that the operational areas are seeking the BEAST service response.
Perhaps through you to the deputy secretary, minister, did that change? We do know there was work under way for a very small, limited service in the north‑west, but any point before the announcement, did operational areas in DECYP express that they wanted the BEAST service response to receive significant statewide funding support?
Ms PALMER – I think that the issue we have with this is that I wasn’t the minister at the time, the secretary wasn’t the secretary at the time, and we didn’t have Peter, our deputy secretary, either. I don’t have knowledge of that information to be able to share with you. All I can say is that, prior to that election commitment, I’m informed by the deputy secretary that JCP was not new to them, they were already in that space in accordance with what the deputy secretary put on the record before.
Ms ROSOL – I suppose it’s interesting because there would have been many organisations that DECYP was working with, and they weren’t offered $3.7 million in funding despite doing some quite amazing work with young people. I don’t know if you know the answer to this question, but how was the $3.7 million figure arrived at? Do you know if it was a suggestion that came from JCP Youth as a figure?
Ms PALMER – I will seek some advice on that. I apologise. We simply were not involved, any of the three of us, in this portfolio at that time.
Ms ROSOL – Okay, I understand that. Is there anyone else in the room who would have knowledge of that who might be able to come to the table and speak to it?
Ms WEBSTER – From a general basis, the public service would not be involved in election commitments or commitments from any other – whether it’s the current government or opposition at the time. These things are outside of the public service. We are not involved in election commitments. We implement government policy.
Ms ROSOL – You’re saying this was an election commitment that didn’t come up through DECYP as a suggestion; is that what you’re confirming?
Ms PALMER – If your questions could come through me.
Ms ROSOL – Is that what you’re confirming there, through you, minister?
Ms PALMER – We’ve made it really clear that no one here at the table was involved in that so we can’t answer the questions that you’re asking because we simply do not have knowledge of that. I don’t as a minister, the secretary and the deputy secretary don’t either. What I can speak to is the fact that JCP Youth’s BEAST Program fits with the diversionary approaches and the direction that we want to go in. We know that it works in an area where they have a contact point with young males between the age of 11 and 17 who quite possibly could be heading towards an interaction with the youth justice system and we’re trying to ensure that we are investing in those preventative measures.
The program that’s being funded certainly fits within what we’re wanting to do in that diversionary space.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you, minister. I find it concerning that something that’s such a large amount of money in the public interest, that that knowledge seems to have been lost because of a change of positions. That’s troubling from a public-interest perspective. Thank you.
Ms JOHNSTON – Minister, when we should be doing all we can to keep young people out of the court system and out of detention, our youth diversion rates in Tasmania are almost 40 per cent down on what they were 10 years ago and it’s one of the lowest youth diversion rates in the country. Why is this? Why are we continuing to decline in youth diversion rates across all areas?
Ms PALMER – We’re certainly committed to developing a youth justice system that does achieve better outcomes for young people and for their families and, of course, balancing that with keeping our community safe. This includes implementing a range of early intervention, prevention and diversion programs and options and supporting children and young people who are on bail. The government is investing $1.5 million to support innovative local initiatives and partnerships that target the root causes of youth offending in local communities and that are engaging children and young people certainly in education, in training across employment, sport is a big one, and of course the arts.
The Youth After‑hours Diversion Service pilot began on 7 May from the Glenorchy Police Station, as an example, delivering an after‑hours engagement and referral service through the community sector to children and young people who are coming into contact with police. The Youth Justice Diversionary Services Framework was released in June of this year, and it sets out requirements for funded diversionary services in Tasmania that are aligned to the youth justice model of care, contemporary evidence and best practice. Of course, this does align with commission of inquiry recommendation that the government develop a Youth Justice Diversionary Services Framework and begin delivering that framework by 2020.
I will see if the secretary has more to add to that.
Ms WEBSTER – Thank you. The key is that we now have a more holistic approach to youth justice diversion with the youth justice reform taskforce – that was commenced in the Department of Premier and Cabinet – now having come back to the Department for Education, Children and Young People. It is a much more holistic picture than what we have, and I think what we’ve probably seen, and I can’t speculate on the reasons why that is, but I can say that we need a system that’s actually joined up. I think the taskforce and the Youth Justice Blueprint provides an opportunity for us to have a holistic service.
You have to have the service providers to divert those young people, too, successfully. With the Youth Justice Framework, it clearly sets out what our expectations are for those diversionary services and what we expect to implement over coming years. This is an opportunity for us to do that in a holistic way, whereas I’m not sure that we have done that in the past. We’ve had a lot of interventions, but I think now we’ve got a joined-up process of interventions.
Ms ROSOL – I’m following up on JCP Youth. In an email from a principal policy and project officer from DECYP on 24 June 2024, the officer asked JCP to provide them with a written proposal reflecting what they intended to use the $3.7 million for. The document then provided in response by JCP was also dated June 2024. To be clear, four months after the funding commitment was made, that was the first time that there was a written proposal that was laid out for how this money would be spent. Are you able to confirm that at all?
Ms PALMER – I will have to seek some advice on that. No, sorry, we don’t have that information here at the table. I caution myself making assumptions, but one would assume that there would’ve needed to be correspondence and engagement with that funding envelope around how many young people could be part of that program, perhaps?
Ms ROSOL – I understand that you weren’t the minister at the time, so it’s difficult for you to have that information if you haven’t been briefed on it. I note that you’ve been able to seek information for questions for other people at the table today to get that information back. Is it possible that you could do that in relation to these questions, or take them on notice?
Ms PALMER – I will seek some advice, and I will get back to you on that. I think the issue is that you’re asking questions of the minister who wasn’t here, a secretary who wasn’t here and a deputy secretary who wasn’t here. That’s just a different level of complexity.
Ms ROSOL – Hopefully there’s some knowledge somewhere.
Ms PALMER – We will see what information we can get for you. Chair, we are not taking that on notice. That is information we will provide before the end of the session.
Ms ROSOL – A question coming forward in time, and perhaps there’s someone at the table who was working in this area at the time. When the funding agreement was signed on 3 February 2025, had the department conducted any site visits, inspections and/or audits of JCP operations at that time?
Ms PALMER – I will have to refer back to the department.
I will hand that question to our deputy secretary.
Mr WHITCOMBE – I wanted to go back to your earlier question about the contract and make sure we understand specifically what that question is. I believe it is a normal part of communication to be working with an organisation around the funding commitment, the stretch of that resource and how far that will go for children and young people who are involved in that service. Then, building up what the contract needs to look like and what expectations around that contract need to look like. It’s a normal backwards‑and‑forwards correspondence process. Then there are checks and balances around the contract that ultimately lands in terms of approval processes through me and the secretary and the procurement committee. There needs to be the ability to have those conversations and communications.
Ms ROSOL – I guess my question goes to the timing of it, because it seems that the $3.7 million was committed before any of those conversations had happened, before any of the working out what would be offered and how much it might cost and what would be needed. So, the questions are around the timing.
Ms PALMER – What would be best is – I’m going to seek some advice around this. It was an election commitment – which we see across the board, be it from government, opposition, different parties involved – but I’m just going to seek some clarification so that I can come back to you with an answer.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you, minister.
Ms ROSOL – Chair, before I begin my next round of questions, the question that I asked in the previous round wasn’t answered. There was no attempt to answer it. That was, if at the time of the funding agreement being signed on 3 February, the department had conducted any site visits, inspections or audits of JCP operations. If I could get an answer to that before moving on to my questions for this round, please?
Ms PALMER – Thank you. I will refer that question to the deputy secretary.
Mr WHITCOMBE ‑ Through you, minister, and I apologise for not responding earlier. Again, I don’t have a perfect answer, but I have met with the JCP team, the leadership, and that was prior to the contract being signed. In addition, Tiffany Black, the executive director, has spent some time shadowing the service and observing directly what occurs in practice on a day-to-day level.
Ms ROSOL – You met with them before the signing? Not an inspection or site visit, so much as a meeting with them before it was signed?
Mr WHITCOMBE ‑ It was meeting with leadership and staff within the service.
Ms ROSOL – And the executive director has been out and done it now. Thank you.
Ms PALMER – Through you, Chair. I have an answer to a question from Ms Rosol that I committed to get back to her on. This is on the same topic around the funding to JCP. So, the commitment was made at the 2024 election to invest $3.7 million in JCP Youth over three years to support at‑risk Tasmanians. It was a commitment that was made at the election under caretaker provisions and did not involve the department. The decision was made to invest in this initiative to divert and prevent young people from offending.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you. Just a question: RTI documents that the Greens obtained show that, in early 2024, DECYP created a referral pathway for children on care and protection orders to JCP and emails from department staff said there would be an arrangement that would see up to five young people on these orders in the north‑west being supported by JCP. Can you explain how that arrangement works, and is JCP effectively replacing the support that would otherwise be provided directly through the department?
Ms PALMER – I will hand that question to the deputy secretary.
Mr WHITCOMBE ‑ Through you, minister. I am familiar – in terms of the capacity, both of JCP as a service and in terms of its footprint in the north‑west, north and south. We have worked to a particular volume or number of children and young people who we’re working with. At times that volume has exceeded what’s within the contract. Where there’s been specific needs for specific children and young people, we’ve still utilised a fee-for-service basis.
In terms of the referral process, we have a moderation panel that comes together and meets. It’s a mixture of our practice staff leadership and JCP staff. That’s about making sure that there’s a good fit in terms of the service and, secondly, that we are working with the children who need it most.
What I would say in terms of their service, in their logo, it’s a jigsaw piece, and it talks to their service being one part of a jigsaw and that they work alongside, whether it be Health or Education or Child Safety and Youth Justice, or other professionals in the sector, they are part of a team‑based approach to the care. It would never mean that there’s a withdrawal of services if they’re needed from a Child Safety or Youth Justice perspective, but we would work with them and do work with them in a team‑based approach.
Ms ROSOL – I suppose my question gets to whether JCP is being used as a replacement for understaffing within the department. What triggered the decision to approve JCP as a service provider and referral pathway for children and young people? Was it a huge lack of child safety officers in the north-west that were a factor in that?
Mr WHITCOMBE – Through you, minister, no.
Prof RAZAY – To change tack here. We all recognise the rise in mental health disorders from an anxiety to ADHD, depression, autism, and we know the impact of that on their learning, on their social behaviour, on their offending as well. These are quite important, and they’re growing.
The amount of time children spend on social media and gaming is growing and digital technology has become part of life of many children of all ages, even infants. This raises important questions for parents regarding whether children and youth are spending enough time outdoors and whether children and young people prioritise screentime over outdoors, which is detrimental to their overall physical and mental wellbeing.
What initiatives are available to address digital addiction in children and young people? How is the government tackling the issue of children spending increasing amount of time in front of screens instead of playing outdoors?
Ms PALMER – There’s probably two parts to answer your question. One part I will refer to the secretary around what we try to do to give different opportunities to young people. But this is probably the reason that we’ve seen the action from the federal government around what they are calling the delay of social media access for children under the age of 16. This is a federal government initiative.
The secretary and I at the last education ministers’ meeting that we attended were involved in a presentation around this. It was quite horrifying to hear about some of the impacts of social media on our young people. For me, as a mum, I hate phones. I love it when I can hide them from my children. Probably, to be fair, they actually hide my phone from me at times as well, if I’m completely honest.
That has been a massive thing, and there are many other countries around the world that are watching what Australia does. That’s also quite complex because I’m totally in agreement with really restricting access to social media for children under 16. But we also have to ensure there’s a whole generation of children who’ve grown up, and that this is their communication space. We’re actually taking away something from them which I think is really great. However, we do have to make sure that we are putting supports in place, to offer them other ways of communicating with each other.
I’m tempted to share with you some stories about my children and their reaction to this, but I’m not going to. They’re having to learn how to talk on a phone as opposed to communicating over different ways. That has been something that the federal government has done and we’re supportive of that. We’re certainly trying to roll out information now to families and to young people about what will be off-limits to them and putting the responsibility back onto those big companies that have huge profits at the expense of our children. I will see if the secretary has any more to add?
Ms WEBSTER – Thank you. Particularly in this space where we have vulnerable children and families, it’s important to have a balance. I think there’s a lot to unpack in your questions. First, providing opportunities for children and young people who are in care, who are in detention, or on the cusp of those things, with opportunities and families with opportunities, outdoor activities, that they wouldn’t normally get to do is a really important part of building their future.
Some of the things that we are doing around banning mobile phones in schools, for example, is to allow them to focus on learning. Mobile phones and social media can sometimes be a really important connection for kids in care, vulnerable kids, or kids who might be subject to family violence. It’s a really interesting space and it’s a balancing act. It could also be a way for those kids to keep in contact with their caseworker, for example, when they’re older. It’s really interesting.
When we look at youth diversion and providing opportunities that are just not indoor screen‑based opportunities: what are the opportunities for kids to get out into the open? I know that in many other countries they do this. They have a very strong connection to outdoor activities. That’s the sort of model that we’re trying to build with the youth justice framework and the diversion. The challenge that we have in Tasmania – and having been in this space in a previous life – I know that the service capacity is limited. We’ve got to build that capacity. We have to make sure that the organisations have the people and that we’re working with them and we’re co-designing some of those things with our children and young people because I’m of a certain age that might have a very different idea of what might be cool than one of our young people. I think there’s a real opportunity here for some co-design for some of these projects and some of the policies.
Ms ROSOL – Our RTI documents show that in the discussion about JCP Youth as a referral pathway, the Director of Children and Families from DECYP stated that and I quote, ‘JCP can’t safely support females yet’. Why was it determined that JCP Youth couldn’t safely support females, and as of now, does the department have any current concerns about JCP’s ability to provide a safe program for female participants?
Ms PALMER – Their service is not for female participants. Their service is for young males aged between 11 and 17.
Mr WHITCOMBE – I know that there is work under way to be able to see their service expanded to support young women. If we were to look at the the data in Ashley Youth Detention Centre, for example, we’ve seen a lift in numbers of young women in that offending area. We know there is a real need. There will be issues in having the appropriate gender-based workforce in place for them to be able to provide the appropriate service.
Ms ROSOL – Is that the only issue in terms of gender?
Mr WHITCOMBE – I’m not aware of any other issues on that front.
Ms ROSOL – In minutes from the May 2024 Community Youth Justice meeting, staff raised a whole range of concerns about JCP youth. They included concerns and all these are quotes.
- JCP requesting a photo of a young person in a referral
- JCP buying gifts for children
- discouraging participation in other programs and activities including school lack of understanding of trauma informed practices
- perpetuating hypermasculine gender ideals,
- camps that purport to break down a young person,
- reports of JCP not following through for cases that proved too hard to manage which can harm a young person and leave them without support.
Those were all concerns that were raised in a community youth justice meeting. What’s been done in response to those concerns, minister. Since May 2024 have department staff raised any further concerns about JCP Youth’s operations? Are any of these issues outstanding?
Ms PALMER – To the second part of your question, I will refer that to the secretary in a moment with regard to any outstanding matters.
What I can tell you is that the department is working with JCP Youth to ensure it’s supported to meet all the requirements of its funding agreement over the next three years while continuing to grow as an organisation. This includes ensuring that JCP Youth continues to operate within a child safe framework with all workers and volunteers appropriately cleared through working with vulnerable people, registration and police checks in line with ongoing requirements for engaging with young people.
The JCP Youth Funding Agreement includes the standard Tasmanian government contract requirements as well as detailed measures of program success, reporting requirements and outcome measures to ensure that JCP Youth based actively contributes to diverting at risk young people from the youth justice system.
As part of its contract, JCP Youth must escalate all reportable incidents and where necessary, incidents will be investigated thoroughly through Tasmania Police and the Office of the Independent Regulator.
Ms ROSOL – If I could follow up there because you’ve mentioned them having working with vulnerable people cards and having to report conduct. Are you aware of any concerns about JCP Youth staff engaging in reportable conduct? Have any JCP Youth staff or volunteers had their working with vulnerable people registration suspended?
Ms PALMER – I will refer that part of that question and the other part of your other question to the secretary.
Ms WEBSTER – If it was our staff, I’m not going to comment on individual matters and that is a matter for the individual organisation, whether it be JCP Youth or another organisation that we work with. What I can say in all cases, there would be any complaint about an organisation or a member of an organisation working with our young people we would be required to do a concern notice as an entity that, and I have I think 48 hours or 72 hours I think it is, on that basis to report that. That would be my requirement to do that. The organisation as we do with our staff would be required to investigate that person and then that is overseen by the Office of the Independent Regulator.
Ms ROSOL – Can I clarify; you’re saying that you can’t comment here today on whether any of that has happened with JCP Youth?
Ms WEBSTER – I’m not going to comment on individual matters, no.
Ms ROSOL – Sorry, there was another bit of the question the minister was going to refer.
Ms PALMER – Can you just read it, was the second half of your question –
Ms ROSOL – Since May 24, have the department staff raised any further concerns about JCP Youth’s operations or any of these issues outstanding?
Mr WHITCOMBE – I am not aware of further concerns and alongside those matters that you raise, I think it’s appropriate in terms of our staff and their staff coming together and talking about the issues that they might be worried about. Sometimes it’s about addressing and learning as an organisation and as a system. Sometimes it’s also about myth busting those things that might be assumptions in that space around what is happening.
Ms ROSOL – Are you suggesting these are myths about JCP, some of these things?
Mr WHITCOMBE – I’m suggesting that it’s really important to get to the bottom of whatever the issue is and things are, with many situations, not always as it seems. You’ve raised questions about photos and social media –
Ms ROSOL – I’m actually quoting from minutes from a meeting.
Ms PALMER – Through you Chair. If the deputy secretary could finish his answer, please.
CHAIR – Please, Ms Rosol.
Mr WHITCOMBE – I have assurance that the staff at JCP on a four-weekly basis have a day’s worth of training. Part of that training is through external organisations around trauma‑informed care. I have had direct conversations with JCP about data and about consent in terms of photos, and have assurance on those fronts that appropriate consents are sought and that data is captured in safe and secure ways for young people within the JCP service.
Ms ROSOL – Minister, in 2024, the Rockliff government commissioned Dr Morag MacSween to develop a reform paper on child sexual abuse. Dr MacSween was a great choice by the government to do this work. She has decades of experience in the area and she’s highly respected.
In a submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the recommendations of the COI, Dr MacSween raised a number of significant concerns about JCP Youth. She described a senior JCP figure as having, quote ‘An alarming lack of understanding about appropriate professional boundaries, particularly when working with highly vulnerable children.’ Does this kind of commentary from an eminent independent expert concern you? Did the department raise this matter with JCP?
Ms PALMER – I think what I would need to say in response to that is that the services that JCP are supplying, that they have been funded to supply, we know they are working in a space where I don’t think there are many others working. What we have done following on from the election commitment that was made is to be really tight around governance, around reporting, around supporting JCP to be really accountable back to the department.
I certainly accept and take on board those comments that you’re referring to from Dr MacSween through the commission of inquiry process. However, we have worked closely with JCP and we know that the work that they are doing is really important in ensuring that we are engaging with young people before they get to a point where they are engaging with the youth justice system.
I accept the comments that you’re making. However, I’ve looked at this with the department and looked at how we are supporting JCP in the work that they’re doing. I will check if there’s any more from the secretary.
Ms WEBSTER – Thank you, minister. In terms of the outcomes for some of the young people that are engaged through JCP Youth now, I want to say that for 16 of these 18 participants, we know internally that there’s been a reduction in their offending. There has been no new offending since they commenced the program. Sixteen of the 18 participants have re‑engaged, maintained or increased their educational attendance; 11 per cent of the participants have gained employment within the first three months of their engagement with the program; and all young people have shown positive engagement with JCP as a service provider.
JCP is actively supporting an independent evaluation process that is being overseen by the department and that will assess the BEAST program’s outcomes in the lives of young people and value for money. This is part of our standard process. We make sure that we meet with JCP through Peter’s area on a scheduled monthly basis as part of the governance of the contract. That is one part. We also need to make sure that we are working with them around the service provision and contract compliance and those sorts of things, but most importantly how they’re interacting with those young people. They’re a registered entity under the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act. The deputy secretary and I met with the new chair of JCP Youth last week and made our expectations clear as I meet with lots of entities and more so the deputy secretary.
I want to be really clear that we are engaged with them. There have been early indications of some good outcomes with these young people. I think it’s important to note that. It’s important that we continue to monitor them, like any organisation, and we are actively undertaking independent evaluation.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you, minister and secretary. It is important to note those things. It’s also important to note the concerns. Dr MacSween isn’t the only person who has raised concerns. Human rights expert, Carolyn Frohmader, has also raised concerns. I’ve also heard from people working in the non‑government sector, and from other people in the community who are concerned.
You’ve talked about the importance of oversight. You’ve talked about governance and reporting. I wonder if you could provide us with an outline of the specific requirements that you have around governance and reporting, please.
Ms PALMER – In terms of –
Ms ROSOL – Well, you’ve said that you’ve increased –
Ms PALMER – the contract? Is that what you’re referring to?
Ms ROSOL – Yes, you’ve said that you have met with them. You’ve said that you are requiring governance and reporting. Could you outline what that is? There are significant concerns in the community, and I think it would be useful to hear the specifics of what reporting needs to be done, what’s being monitored, and how often it’s being monitored.
Ms PALMER – Yes, for sure. I can make a start on that. The department meets with JCP on a scheduled monthly basis as part of the contract governance. These meetings are attended by key departmental staff to discuss the current service provision, risks and contract compliance. There’s weekly operational oversight that also occurs, where the department is in contact with JCP personnel about individual young people in the program.
JCP Youth operates two safe houses – one in the north of the state and another one in the southern region. These safe houses are visited quarterly by the statewide youth practice manager, as part of operational engagement and oversight with JCP. These safe houses may also be accessed by Community Youth Justice staff for the purposes of engagement with young people while they are present at the safe house.
JCP provide quarterly reporting to the department on its obligations under the contract. One quarterly report has been provided since the commencement of the contract and the next report, I’m advised, is due to be provided at the end of 2025. The quarterly reporting schedule is aligned with the timeline of participant commencement with the BEAST program, and the quarterly reports for 2026 will likely be required in March, June, September and December, to align with a February 2026 intake.
JCP Youth utilises a comprehensive data management system and program, the department does not access this database, as it is internal to JCP Youth processes, but I’m advised that as part of the contract, JCP needs to be recording and feeding into that data management system.
I will check if there’s anything else the secretary would like to add.
Ms WEBSTER – Through you, minister. The contract also includes, as the minister said, quarterly reporting on outcomes, annual reports throughout the agreement’s duration, as well as those quarterly reports, program evaluation requirements, key performance indicators, compliance with the Child and Youth Safe Organisations Act, coordinated referral process, an alignment with key frameworks such as the Youth Justice model of care, the Youth Justice blueprint, the commission of inquiry recommendations, and the diversionary services framework.
I also encourage, if people have specific complaints, they can go to the deputy secretary and me, and we will address those complaints. We do that with anything.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you. Can I just check – we’ve talked about the BEAST program. They offer other programs that are deeply concerning. Is there an expectation that all programs at JCP Youth should comply with child‑safety principles?
Ms WEBSTER – Yes.
Ms ROSOL – Thanks.
