Agenda item

 – Nigel Baker, Head of Integrated Youth Services, was in attendance for this item)

(1)       The Cabinet Committee received an update report on the progress made to implement the new model for the delivery of youth work services in the county since January 2013.   The report set out for the Committee a summary of the new delivery model, and provided an analysis of quantitative and qualitative performance for both direct delivery and commissioned services during Quarters 1 and 2 of 2013-14. 

(2)       The Cabinet Committee were also asked to consider and either endorse or make recommendations on the Cabinet Member Decision to proceed with the construction of a new Youth Hub for the Dover District, to be located in Deal.

(3)       The Cabinet Member introduced the report stating that it had been delayed in order to ensure that it took account of the full evidence of the Youth Service Transformation.  He reported that the quantity of services being delivered exceeded targets set and the quality of those services was also good, although it in some areas, work continued toward this end.  He and the Corporate Director had recently visited a number of commissioned services in East Kent and were pleased to report that the work being undertaken was encouraging. 

(4)       Mr Baker spoke to the item and reported the following information to Members:

(i)        The transformation had been launched on 1 January 2013 and had been a joint venture with young people, staff and borough and districts for two years before that.

(ii)       The new service was ‘owned’ by the County Council but with vastly increased commissioning of services.  KCC now delivered fewer services directly but instead, engaged with 23 groups to provide and commission services, all but one of which were Kent based. 

(iii)      KCC delivered a core service which was the same in each district.  There was one hub in each area as well as school based and street based services. In addition county wide services such as Outdoor Education Centres and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards were also provided.  These services were overlayed by a commissioning budget of £1.6m which is not equally distributed throughout the County.  This was now completely awarded.

(iv)      The hubs were usually housed in an existing building, many of which were refurbished, however in one areas (Dover) a new building was commissioned. 

(v)       Street based youth workers now had state of the art mobile facilities to support their work.

(vi)      The services, whether they were directly delivered by KCC or commissioned, were both quality assured in the same way.  Each project had quantitative and qualitative performance targets captured on a single Information Management System.  Observations were carried out by both officers and young people.  Observations were undertaken by visits and currently there had been 106 visits by officers and 28 by young inspectors.  The visits by young people were unannounced and recorded their impressions of the service as a ‘first time’ user, the officer visits provided professional opinion of what the services should look like and where they should be.  

[The results of the 28 visits carried out by the young people are attached to these Minutes for information].

(vii)    Quantitative measures were in place looking at attendance and outcomes such as certificates and qualifications.  There had been a 30% increase in attendance and a 13% increase in outcomes across the county since the service launched.

(viii)   Quality assurance work had lead to immediate impacts, one of which was the requirement to produce session plans and record the outcomes of that plan; KCC was currently working with providers in this area.  In addition work was being undertaken to identify outcome opportunities more easily.  Young people’s comments had also resulted in actions for providers.  Importantly differences were not reported between KCC delivered and commissioned services.

(ix)      Members of Kent Youth County Council (KYCC) and young people across the county were all taking part to improve the quality of the service.

(x)       KYCC elections were held last month and had attracted 23,000 votes.  This was now a fully online process and was almost back to levels achieved in the past when votes were collected by hand by officers from secondary schools countywide, a system which had proved unsustainable.

(xi)      Improvements continued to be seen in the number of Duke of Edinburgh Award golds being achieved and in Outdoor Education provision, usage was rising.  Youth Advisory Groups were being chaired by elected members and meeting successfully.

(5)     The Chairman congratulated Mr Baker and officers on the successful work of the transformation to date.

(6)       In response to comments and questions from Members, Mr Hill and Mr Baker confirmed the following information relating to the transformation:

(i)        Mr Hill agreed with a Committee member that the provision of services in rural areas had a large part to play in the transformation process but needed to begin in the areas themselves via outreach workers and volunteers with support from KCC as it was not possible to set up permanent centres in all villages.

(ii)       Mr Baker reported that by its nature street based work was flexible.  He described an example cited by an Ofsted Inspector’s visit to Eccles one evening where a street based mobile unit had been set up in a bus stop with lights and hot drinks etc.  The Inspector reported that it was the best street based work she had ever encountered.  The street based youth worker had not planned to set up in the bus stop and the whole event had been intuitive.  He was slightly concerned by the street based scores, however a large proportion of this work was commissioned and therefore new, and it would take time to establish links with young people.

(iii)      Mr Baker described the hubs as the core of youth work provision across each district and the only element still delivered by the local authority.  Support staff and team managers were based there alongside other agencies such as KIASS .  He emphasised the importance of hubs as a youth service first and an administrative base second.  

(7)       The Committee continued to consider the proposed decision element of the report before them relating to the new hub at Deal.

(8)       The Cabinet Member described the proposed decision to construct a new youth hub for the Dover District to be based in Deal. 

(9)     Mr Baker shared the following information:

(i)        In relation to comments received from a Committee member earlier in the debate he spoke about the closure of Archers Court and the provision of a new hub.  Following consultation the location of the proposed hub had been moved from Dover to Deal but the hub as reported previously would not be the sole provider of youth work in the district.  Outreach and other commissioned work would continue and this would include the Buckland Estate. 

(ii)       Funding was now in place for the construction of the hub and Dover District Council had confirmed a contribution of £200,000 and provision of a site adjacent to the Tides Leisure Centre.  He hoped it would provide an excellent amenity for young people.

(iii)      Services would continue to operate from the existing Linwood Youth Centre until the new hub was built to ensure that there was no cessation of services.

(10)   It was RESOLVED that: the update report on Youth Services be noted and the proposed decision of the Cabinet Member to proceed with the construction of a new Youth Hub for the Dover District, to be located in Deal be endorsed.