Agenda item

(1)       The Chairman welcomed, Mrs Dean, Mr Manning, Mr Cowan and Mr Lees (the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee to the meeting.

(2)       Mr Hill and Mr Baker introduced a paper which outlined the responses to the consultation and corresponding recommendations for the transformation of Kent Youth Service, also circulated were the supporting papers for the decision and the consultation responses from the Kent Youth County Council and District/Borough Councils.

(3)       Mr Hill reminded Members of the proposed mixed economy for Youth Services and the consultation that had been carried out over the summer.  The response received had been mixed and highlighted two main areas that needed to be addressed. These were the capacity of the voluntary sector and the concerns and confusion around the hub proposals.  There were a lot of responses from people defending their own Youth Centre building and a lack of understanding of the proposals. Regarding the voluntary sector, Mr Hill did not agree with the concerns raised regarding capacity.  There were examples across Kent of what the Voluntary Sector were capable of providing, he gave examples of voluntary sector youth facilities in Ashford and Cantrerbury which provided an excellent service for young people.   The proposals would be taken to Locality Boards to discuss the shape of the services for that area.     He stated that there had been strong support from Locality Boards so far for the direction of travel, but there were still details relating to the shape of services for area to be discussed with the Boards. He confirmed that he was confident that Locality Boards had the capacity to carry out this work. He stated that his aim was to save money and to leave the Youth Service as good if not better than it was now.

(4)       Mr Baker highlighted the outcome of the consultation carried out last year.  There had been 732 responses, two thirds of these had been via the on-line questionnaire and others were free responses in various forms, including rap songs and works of art.  To ensure that there were representative responses focus groups were held via an external agency.   What came through from the consultation was that young people were saying please keep our youth centre, which was expected as their connection was with the youth centre and not Kent County Council.

(5)       In relation to the responses from Districts/Boroughs Mr Baker explained that these had been diverse, including two who responded via their Locality Board.  Regarding the response from the Kent Youth County Council (KYCC), there was a statement from them as a group and also they completed the on line questionnaire, these gave different messages.

(6)       Mr Baker stated that the key messages from the consultation were firstly that there was clear support for the commissioning process, and secondly there was support for retaining a strong professional youth work core.  There was also a lot of correspondence about building based provision.  He confirmed that there was flexibility around developing the model of provision at a local level.

(7)       Mr Baker referred to the government strategy “Positive for Youth” and offered to circulate to Members a link to the executive summary.  The strategy recognised the key role for youth workers in supporting a young person’s personal development for example their role in reducing teenage pregnancy and substance abuse.  The government had made it clear that this was a pan government strategy which involved nine government departments.   The strategy reinforced Local Authorities’ statutory duty to provide sufficient education and leisure activities.  Guidance on the strategy was awaited. 

(8)       Mr Hill, Ms Honey, Ms Slaven and Mr Baker answered questions and noted comments from Members which included the following:-

·        Reference was made to the positive and imaginative suggestions coming from Ashford Borough Council for youth service provision in their area.

·        In response to a question on the difference between the two responses submitted by the KYCC, Mr Baker agreed that the contradictory responses were confusing.  A Member had contacted the chair of the KYCC who had stated that the KYCC did not agree with the proposals as hubs were not centrally located and there were access issues for young people.

·        Concern was expressed about monitoring of the voluntary sector providers to ensure that they provided good quality youth work on a day to day basis and that they undertook any improvements that were identified to services.  Mr Hill stated that it was vital that the work commissioned was delivered to agreed outcomes, how the outcomes were achieved was up to the organisations carrying out the work.  A robust in-house youth service delivery team would be retained to monitor the work. He confirmed that the ultimate responsibility for youth work either commissioned or delivered directly remained with him, responsibility was not being handed over to others outside KCC.

·        Regarding concerns expressed about the low level of response to the consultation, Mr Baker stated that every effort was made to ensure that there was an awareness of the consultation and an accessible way of making views known via the online survey.  He believed that the number of responses received were statistically viable.  He did not believe that more could have been done to inform people about the consultation.  The consultation had run for 90 days via a variety of mediums, and responses from District/Borough Councils submitted outside of the timeframe had been accepted.

·        A Member referred to the questionnaire responses which appeared to indicate that 56% of respondents did not support hubs. 

·        Members mentioned a number of responses in the form of letters and petitions that they were aware of which did not appear on the list of responses received.

·        In response to a question on what success there had been in attracting additional resources from other partners to contribute to the amount for commissioning, Mr Hill stated that the funding had been built up from £1.2m to £1.7m from other government grants and other possibilities were being explored, including resources in kind being provided by District/Borough Councils.

·        Mr Baker confirmed that all of the Youth Advisory Groups had received a briefing from officers on the proposal. 

·        In relation to the timetable for the commissioning process, and whether it could be speeded up, Mr Baker explained the processes that needed to be carried out which would mean that the earliest that commissioning could be implemented was January 2013.

·        A Member mentioned the need to ensure that KCC had a list of competent youth workers with a proven track record in the voluntary sector.  Ms Honey reminded Members that the Directorate had experience of commissioning services, for example for the Kent Drugs and Alcohol Team, and Supporting People.  She took on board Members points in relation to ensuring that officers used all their expertise and experience to ensure that they got the commissioning process right.

·        Concern was expressed about the access to youth service provision for young people in areas of high deprivation, such as Ramsgate, which was not due to be the hub for the area.  Mr Hill confirmed that no decision had been made on the shape of youth services for this area. Mr Baker explained that there would be comparatively more resources allocated to Thanet via the resource allocation model, the detail of how this funding would be used was up for further discussion. He understood the particular issues for Thanet and he welcomed the opportunity that the proposals gave to look at generational change in the provision of youth services. 

·        Disappointment was expressed at the loss of professional youth workers who made a difference to young peoples’ lives by helping them with issues that they may not be able to address at home or school. Mr Hill stated that from what he had seen, youth workers in the voluntary sector were equally capable of supporting young people.  He confirmed that youth services would be commissioned from professional organisations which would be required to deliver identified outcomes.

• Mr Baker undertook to circulate the amended version of Appendix B which had been placed on line.
• The opportunity for areas, via Locality Boards or other arrangements, to have an input into the design of youth services for their area was welcomed.  It was hoped that these services would be flexible enough to respond to changing needs quickly.

·        Mr Hill was thanked for listening and seeking local views on the proposals.

• Mr Baker highlighted the importance of mapping existing voluntary provision and engaging with small voluntary organisations to ensure that they have the opportunity to be part of the future of youth services. The challenge was to find a way to be as creative as possible in order to establish an open access provision for young people.
• Mrs Dean, chairman of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee was invited to speak and made the following points:
  • This item was only placed on the agenda when it was considered as a possible item for Cabinet Scrutiny Committee. Rather than call-in the decision, preferred option was for it to be considered by the Policy Overview Committee.  An issue for the new governance arrangements was ensuring that Key Decisions, such as this were considered by Members prior to the decision being taken.
  • She expressed concern about the level of paperwork available, including no reference to a number of petitions from youth centres which Members were aware of.  Also three Districts had 13 or fewer responses, which could not be indicative of the views of young people in the area.
  • The quality of consultations was an issue that needed to be looked at further, not just in relation to this proposal.  The Cabinet Scrutiny Committee had been aware of problems with consultation in other areas such as Highways.
  • The hub and spoke model was not in the decision notice but was a recommendation in the decision report.  Three District Councils had said that they did not consider the model to be appropriate and wanted to talk about other models. Confirmation was sought that the discussions with District Councils and Locality Boards would not just be around the hub and spoke model, but that alternative models could be considered.  Mr Hill explained that the hub and spoke model was what had been consulted upon, the decision did not refer to this model as account had been taken of the consultation response and he had taken a different view on how to proceed.
  • Regarding the timetable for implementation, if the contract was awarded in November 2012 and the services start in January 2013, this was a very short timescale especially for small voluntary groups who may have to take on members of staff and book rooms etc. Regarding the timescale for awarding the contract, Mr Baker explained that he was working closely with procurement colleagues.  They were looking for a flexible process so that it would be possible to get a mixture of providers, although it is possible that some contracts may go to organisations that the County Council already worked with.  Where the timescale would be more important was where an existing youth centre was taken over by a voluntary provider
  • Regarding Locality Boards, Mrs Dean was pleased to hear that Mr Hill was still working towards this in Tonbridge and Malling. Mr Hill confirmed that he was doing his best to establish Locality Boards in each District and acknowledged the challenge in Tonbridge and Malling.  If agreement could not be reached then another method of engaging on this matter would take place,

• Mr Hill confirmed that he had been to all Locality Boards to discuss the consultation. The way that youth service provision would be delivered in each area had not been decided, further discussions would take place on what form the provision would take in each area.
• In relation to the concerns expressed about the consultation process, Ms Honey stated that there was always scope for improvement. The officers involved with the youth service consultation had worked incredibly hard.  If there were pieces of information and petitions that had not been captured officers would work to ensure that the information was as comprehensive as possible.  She referred to Mr Burrows, the new Director of Communications and Engagement, who would be looking at KCC’s consultation process and ensuring that it was robust.
• Mr Cowan questioned the viability of the consultation response. He referred to the petition that triggered a debate at County Council in December 2011. 
• Mr Cowan expressed concern regarding what would happen to other organisations who use the youth centre premises if the youth centre closed.
• Officers undertook to provide Mr Cowan with a briefing note to clarify the latest position with regards to zero rate exemption for youth centres

·        Regarding the issues raised by Mr Cowan on the establishment of the Dover Locality Board. Ms Honey stated that there was a clear commitment on the part of Dover District Council to have a Locality Board.

• Mr Manning emphasised the importance of having a sound consultation to support the decision making process.  As the Chairman of Tunbridge Wells Youth Advisory Group he was aware of the mixed messages that had come through the consultation process.  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was supportive of the hub model but 75% of respondents stated that they did not want a hub. As only 2 or 3 young people from Tunbridge Wells responded he questioned whether enough had been done to get the views of those directly affected. 
• Mr Hill confirmed that there was adequate time for discussions with Locality Boards on the provision for their area. He believed that the timescale was achievable, but Locality Boards may need to be flexible about when they meet. It was necessary to move forward with the process and he hoped to have the new policy in place by January 2013.

(9)       RESOLVED that the contents and the comments made by Members be noted.