Agenda item

(1)    Mr Hill introduced the decision report and stated that the drivers for this were partly the need to make savings, but also to explore other ways of delivering services.  There had been wide consultations with young people, colleagues in Districts and other partners.  Locality Boards, or other Member groups, had been asked for their agreement to the direction of travel at an early stage and following further discussions, each Locality Board or Group of Members had endorsed the plan for their area. He stated that it was intended to do more work at Locality Boards and that the localist approach had worked very well for the development of youth service proposals, although it had been resource-intensive.

(2)    Mr Baker set out the process that had been followed to reach the stage of having a plan for each District which had been endorsed at the local level.  He explained the detailed plans set out in Appendix A and gave examples of a number of changes to the original plans for areas such as Dover, Canterbury and Dartford which had been made following consultation.   In relation to Ramsgate it had been agreed that as part of the commissioning process, providers would be sought to deliver youth services from the existing youth centre in Ramsgate in addition to the directly delivered service that was planned to take place from the existing Quarterdeck Youth Centre in Margate. This kind of adjustment was also taking place in other parts of the county following comments received through local consultation.    Appendix A also included the amount of money allocated to each area from the commissioning budget.  He explained that 80 – 85% of the key principles and outcomes for youth work would be the same for every area with Appendix A setting out the local priorities for each area.   The timeline in the report set out how this would be achieved in advance of implementation on 1 January 2013.

(3)    Mr Hill anticipated taking the decision on 2 May 2012 and there was an extensive communications plan in place to get the message out to the public and stakeholders.  He asked for Members’ assistance to reinforce the message in their areas that the intention was to produce a better youth service across Kent.

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

·  A Member commended the process of engagement with District Council colleagues and the work done to achieve agreement on the plan for the area. 

·  In relation to a question on how the Locality Boards would be involved in the commissioning process, Mr Baker explained that there would be ongoing engagement with Locality Boards regarding progress with commissioning in their area, which would allow them to assess the outcomes that were being achieved for the money allocated. There was also an internal process for monitoring outcomes from providers which may be reported to this Committee in future. 

·  Mr Baker pointed out that some Districts would continue to deliver services for young people in their area using local funds, but that this work would be designed to align with future provision designed through the Transformation model. 

·  Regarding timescales for commissioning, Mr Baker stated that there would be a conference on 10 May 2012 in Ashford for potential youth work providers. Following this there would be training sessions to help interested providers with the first stage of the commissioning process.  Commissioning would be launched by the end of May, with the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) being open for at least four weeks.  Members asked that the process should be made as streamlined as possible to encourage small local organisations to be involved.

·    Mr Baker confirmed that it was intended that one provider would take responsibility for the services to be provided from a specific building.  They would be required to provide the youth work and work with the community to enhance the offer.

·  Mr Baker explained that the timescale had been designed so that it would be possible for a current member of staff to continue to apply for a post under the new structure but would also have the opportunity to be part of the tender process by keeping their options open and submitting a PQQ in May.  Appointments to posts would be made by July in most cases at which time a KCC employee who was successful in securing a post might decide to withdraw their PQQ.  If they were not successful they could pursue the PQQ and commissioning route.

·  Mr Hill confirmed that work was ongoing to obtain funding for youth services from various sources. Mr Baker stated that in theory it would be possible for organisations such as Parish Councils to come forward with funding for specific youth service provision in their area.  If a large amount of funding became available for Youth Services generally, the resource allocation model would be applied so that each District would get their proportionate share.

·  In relation to a question on youth service provision in Faversham, Mr Baker stated that an approach to local schools for joint funding for a Youth Tutor had not been successful.  Youth provision was about delivering a 21^st Century service and achieving positive outcomes.  It was possible to have a range of ways of delivering services within an area including street based work. 

·  Regarding the involvement of young people in the commissioning process, Mr Baker explained that they would be would be involved in the specifications, in interviewing providers as appropriate and in assessing the work supplied by providers.

(5)       Mr Hill thanked the Committee for their very positive contribution.

(6)       RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member decision to confirm the detail of a local youth work offer in each District/Borough across Kent, combining a directly delivered service from Kent County Council with a range of other youth work provision using a newly-developed commissioning fund, be endorsed.