Agenda item

Mrs V Tovey, Senior Commissioning Manager, and Ms W Jeffreys, Consultant in Public Health, were in attendance for this item.

1.            Mrs Tovey introduced the report and explained that the current provider was performing well against key performance indicators (KPIs) and that the current contract would end in September 2020, so was being reviewed with a view to taking advantage of an option in the current contract to extend it for another two years. Mrs Tovey and Ms Jeffreys then responded to comments and questions from the committee, including the following:-

a)    a view was expressed that ‘forming inappropriate or abusive relationships’ should instead be worded ‘being a victim of inappropriate or abusive relationships’ in the list of risks to young women who had previously had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Mrs Tovey advised that young people who found themselves in such a situation might be deterred from coming forward and accessing the service due to stigma. There may be more demand beyond the average 250-case workload which the service worked with annually. Counsellors were very aware that the first step for young people approaching such a service was always the hardest;

b)    asked about the criminal nature of sexual relationships with young people under the age of 16, and if the service would report such activity to the police so perpetrators could be prosecuted, Mrs Tovey advised that the service included a safeguarding element and worked with schools and youth clubs on initiatives such as ‘stay safe online’;

c)    another view was expressed that it was important to achieve a balance between making young women feel able to approach the service safely and of dealing with the criminal aspect of under-age sex without making them any more of a victim.  Mrs Tovey acknowledged that the balance to be achieved was delicate and added that, if young women felt that engaging with the service would lead to criminal investigations, they would be less likely to seek help;   

d)    asked about the age range of the service and if this could be extended to include 16-18 year olds, Mrs Tovey advised that deciding a cut-off point for a service was always a challenge, and as the budget for the service for 2020/21 was not yet known, it was not possible at the moment to consider any extensions to the age group. Ms Jeffreys added that young women up to 25 had been identified as a high-risk group so would benefit from the service if it proved possible to extend it. Being able to address relationship issues early in adulthood would help later in life;

e)    asked how the service linked to schools, and how this could be improved, Mrs Tovey said the School Health Service used a triage process to refer students on to other professionals but had to make a judgement about when and to where a referral was appropriate. It was important that the service was as easy to approach and use as possible;

f)     a view was expressed that the KPIs used to measure performance did not take account of cases involving young people with more complex needs. Mrs Tovey explained that involvement with any young person would normally be for a maximum of 12 weeks, but this could be adjusted to suit their needs; many needed a shorter and less intense involvement. The individual nature of the support given was a key part of the service and the provider would always be asked to be as flexible as possible;

g)    volunteer mentors would be recruited from among other professionals who were experienced at working with families, for example, Headstart, and were rigorously trained before taking on this specific role with the RSE service;

h)    asked if a similar service was available to boys and young men who had had similar experiences, Ms Jeffreys explained that girls had been identified as having a greater need for the service, both in terms of the incidence of the type of relationship it dealt with and the mental health difficulties which could arise from it.  Dealing with teenage pregnancy was also an issue which boys did not face in the same way. She advised that there were similar programmes available in Kent for young men but these were not commissioned by the County Council but by bodies such as Porchlight;

i)     asked for more detail of services for boys, and if boys tended to be more reluctant or ashamed to report sexual abuse, Mrs Tovey explained that, as part of Headstart, there was a programme for young men who had experienced domestic abuse.  Ms Jeffreys added that a pilot programme in Thanet sought to identify and respond to boys experiencing abuse;

j)     asked how referrals were usually received by Barnardo’s, what signposting took place and if some young people were deterred from approaching the service, Mrs Tovey explained there was a range of ways in which a young person could refer themselves to the service online, for example, by using email or clicking on the website, and that they could choose to have a one-to-one meeting with a support worker wherever they felt comfortable, for example, at school, at a youth club or sports centre. She added that the uptake of the service across districts would be looked at when the extension to the contract came up for consideration, to check that access across the county was as even as possible; and

k)    a comment was made that a young person’s background and home situation - birth family, foster family, etc - would have a bearing on how abuse would be handled, and some young people without a supportive home set-up would be more vulnerable than others to experience and struggle to cope with abuse. Young people from different backgrounds would also learn from each other’s experiences at school. Mrs Tovey advised that schools were aware of the risk factors to look out for, and would of course know pupils’ home situations, and would know the referral process.  Pupils who were not in mainstream school but attended a pupil referral unit, for example, would also have teachers who knew their situation and the process.

2.         It was RESOLVED that the performance of the contract and the initial findings of a review of the service, which will inform a commissioning decision in March 2020, be noted.