ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA provision FCS.pdf · THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND...
-
Upload
truongquynh -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA provision FCS.pdf · THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND...
1
A6
THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA
FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
CABINET - 23 APRIL 2009
REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORKING
GROUP ON YOUTH PROVISION AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES
This report summarises the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Working Group on youth provision and sets out the Working Group’s recommendations to Cabinet members.
FOR DISCUSSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Following a motion to full Council in April 2008 which called
into question the funding and performance of youth support services within the Royal Borough, an FCS OSC Working
Group was formed in order examine the workings of the Royal Borough’s Youth Support and Development Service (YSDS).
The Working Group undertook a review of the policy, practice and effectiveness of YSDS as well as its financial
underpinning.
2. THE WORKING GROUP
2.1 The Working Group comprised Councillor David Lindsay
(Chairman), Councillor Catherine Atkinson, Mr John O’Donnell, Chairman of Governors at Sion Manning School and Mr Zino
Benatia, Parent Governor at Avondale Park Primary School.
2
2.2 The Working Group met on seven occasions. It was supported
in its deliberations by Ms Karen Tyerman, Director of Community Learning, Mr Brendan O’Keefe, Head of Services
to Young People and Mr Jerome Treherne from Governance Services. Evidence was taken from professionals in the field of
youth support and a range of documentation considered.
3. FINDINGS
3.1 The Working Group heard evidence that YSDS performs well
against a range of indicators including levels of participation in activities, reduction in rates of young people not in education
or employment, reducing teenage pregnancy and participation in sports and health related programmes. Full details are
contained within the body of the report.
3.2 The Working Group heard evidence that effective partnerships
had been established by YSDS both internally and with the voluntary sector. Good practice principles in relation to youth
support were also observed to be applied in practice.
3.3 The Council’s funding commitment to YSDS for 2009 – 10 is £5.19m. A further £3.36m of external (mostly government)
grants is managed by YSDS making a total budget of £8.6m. External funding is scheduled to reduce by £592,000 in 2010
– 11 to £2.8m, and to run out all together in 2011 – 12. Whether or not external grants will be replenished or replaced
will of course depend upon government policy of the day and the state of public finances. These figures make no
assumptions about levels of Council funding.
3.4 YSDS has begun a review of services in relation to budget
variations (the scope of the review is detailed in paragraphs 3.13 and 3.17 in the main report). Budget variations of this
magnitude are certain to result in a reduction in service output and potentially in the loss of entire youth programmes
and/or centres. Given that potential, the Working Group recommends that the policy and practice implications of the
review and the potential impact of budget reductions be brought to the attention of Members when available.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 YSDS should produce a report that details the impact of and
risk associated with, projected funding shortfalls. The report
should consider measures to ensure efficient use of resources
3
as well as opportunities for acquiring alternative sources of
funding. The report should include a consideration of the impact of a charging system.
4.2 Applications and funding processes for Council funding to
voluntary sector services should be further streamlined in order to reduce the amount of time spent on bidding to
separate funding streams.
4.3 YSDS should prioritise increasing weekend opening in its business planning. This should be accompanied by improved
marketing as part of business planning.
4.4 Services should be aligned to increase opportunities for young people in the 10 – 13 year age group to take part in activities.
4.5 YSDS services to LAC should be extended to age twenty-four.
4
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The Family and Children’s Services OSC Working Group on
Youth Provision was established with the intention of examining the location, strategic and policy direction and
financial underpinning of youth support services in the Royal Borough. Its creation followed a motion to full Council in April
2008 in which the funding, performance and location of youth support services was brought into question. The Working
Group's terms of reference were as follows:
To make an assessment of, and recommendations to improve, the effectiveness of youth provision in Kensington
and Chelsea
To review the scope of current provision and how well it meets both local needs and legislative requirements,
including the range of youth support services on offer and location
To review value for money and the use of resources (including fees)
To review performance against key outcomes and indicators of effectiveness, and
To review the appropriateness of the Integrated Youth Support Strategy and future direction of travel of youth
provision in Kensington and Chelsea To benchmark standards against best practice both in the
UK and abroad
1.2 The Working Group comprised Councillor David Lindsay
(Chairman), Councillor Catherine Atkinson, Mr John O’Donnell, Chairman of Governors at Sion Manning School and Mr Zino
Benatia, Parent Governor at Avondale Park Primary School. Councillor Shireen Ritchie and Councillor John Cox were in
attendance at some meetings of the Working Group. The Working Group was supported in its deliberations by Ms Karen
Tyerman, Director of Community Learning, Mr Brendan O’Keefe, Head of Services to Young People and Mr Jerome
Treherne from Governance Services.
1.3 The Working Group met on seven occasions between October 2008 and March 2009. In addition to considering a range of
documents, the Working Group heard evidence from professionals in the field of youth support, both from the
voluntary and statutory sector. Members of the Working
Group also undertook visits to youth support facilities.
5
1.4 The Working Group’s deliberations were confined to youth support services as managed by the Youth Support and
Development Service (YSDS) located within the Community Learning Directorate of the Family and Children’s Services
Business Group. Specifically:
Youth Services (including youth centres and outreach youth work)
Youth Sports Development (including two watersports centres, a range of sporting opportunities supported
through coaching, the London Youth Games, sports qualification opportunities)
The Schools Sports Partnership (encouraging participation in sport in schools)
Connexions (information, advice and guidance to young
people in terms of education and careers opportunities) Healthy Lifestyles Programmes (including the Teenage
Pregnancy programme, substance misuse education, prevention and treatment programmes. The Healthy
Schools programme) Youth Arts programmes (arts, dance and drama
opportunities) Accredited programmes for young people (including the
Duke of Edinburgh Award programme) Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) a programme of
activities for vulnerable young people and those at risk of offending/antisocial behaviour
Youth participation and consultation and the Borough’s Youth Forum (including the ‘Hear by Right’ programme
designed to increase youth involvement in the Council’s
decision making processes) Education Business Partnership (work experience
placements and business enterprise training for young people)
Early intervention programmes (KICKz – a football based intervention programme and Targeted Youth Support)
The KC Central Website (website specifically for young people)
Youth support services commissioned via the voluntary sector
1.5 The Working Group considered in addition, performance
against key indicators, the ability of youth support services to attract the most ‘hard to reach’ young people and the
incorporation of best practice principles into the work of youth
support services.
6
2. POLICY CONTEXT
2.1 The principal aim of YSDS is to provide young people with
enjoyable activities, opportunities for personal development and to prepare them for responsible adulthood. A strong
emphasis is placed on citizenship, understanding the democratic process, community cohesion, user participation in
planning services and the acquisition of skills and qualifications. There is a strong focus on reducing antisocial
behaviour and encouraging young people to take part in positive activities. DCSF defines positive activities as activities
designed to promote enjoyment, learning and personal development. This definition includes attendance at youth
centres, partaking in sports and the arts, joining clubs and
societies and volunteering,
2.2 There is an increasing Government focus on the manner in which local authorities and their partners deliver support
services for young people. There is an expectation, supported through recent legislation, that local authorities will increase
opportunities for young people to take part in positive activities.
2.3 The youth green paper, ‘Youth Matters’ was published in 2005.
It was written as a companion document to ‘Every Child Matters’. Central to the theme of Youth Matters was the
development of a local ‘Youth Offer’ designed to ensure young people meet the five key outcomes of Every Child Matters1.
The Youth Offer is in essence a statement of the opportunities
available to young people to take part in positive activities in a given area. Local authorities are now legally obliged to
publish their Youth Offer.
2.4 Youth Matters has been succeeded by a further DCSF paper ‘Aiming High for Young People: A ten-year strategy.’ Both
papers emphasise the need for high quality youth support services, delivered by a well trained and committed
workforce. In addition, both papers highlight the need for the integration of youth support services in order to provide a
coherent model of service delivery. There is a particular emphasis on providing targeted youth support for young
people at risk of detachment from mainstream society.
1 ‘Stay safe; enjoy and achieve; attain economic well being; be healthy; make a positive contribution
7
2.5 The Royal Borough’s Youth Support and Development Service
(YSDS) was created in 2002. It combined a number of separate services under one line management structure. Its
formation anticipated the integrated model of delivery outlined by Youth Matters. The integrated model of YSDS
allows for:
Joint planning and pooling of resources Seamless delivery of youth support
Access to a wide range of services (often on one site) Collaborative work across organisational boundaries
2.6 In order to ensure that YSDS is in a position to meet increasing
local and governmental expectations, an Integrated Youth Support Strategy (IYSS) 2008 - 11 has been produced. The
strategy was developed following widespread consultation
with staff, young people, key stakeholders and voluntary sector colleagues. The strategy has been endorsed by the
Family and Children’s Service Strategic Partnership (now the Children’s Trust). The IYSS strategy sets out key performance
indicators through which the Council will evaluate its performance in relation to the Youth Offer. The document also
describes how youth support services in the Royal Borough interrelate with key partners in order to improve the quality
and range of services available to young people. It defines key strategic objectives and financial imperatives. It
concludes with an operational plan.
3. YSDS STRUCTURE AND FINANCIAL UNDERPINNING
3.1 The Council has four maintained youth support centres (i.e. Council funded and run) operated through YSDS:
Lancaster Youth Centre
Golborne Youth Centre Canalside Watersports and Activity Centre
Cremorne Watersports Centre
The latter has recently opened and was built with a combination of Big Lottery and Council funding.
3.2 In addition voluntary sector youth organisations are supported
by the Council through commissioning and grant funding. This ensures comprehensive coverage across the borough,
particularly in areas of high youth population and evident
need.
8
3.3 YSDS employs a variety of staff with an array of skills and experience. Approximately 1302 staff are employed on a full
time, part time or sessional basis. This includes youth workers, careers and education specialists, sports coaches,
health specialists, arts and drama tutors and others. The staffing structure of YSDS is designed to ensure that the bulk
of resources are located at the point of service delivery. Consequently, 91% of the workforce undertakes frontline,
face to face duties.
3.4 YSDS staff are deployed in a variety of settings including schools and colleges, youth clubs, sports centres, looked after
children’s teams, disability support teams, health teams, specialist adolescent’s teams, the Youth Offending Team and
others.
3.5 In the past, YSDS experienced problems in recruiting staff,
particularly at basic grades. Entry-level salaries for staff in youth support services rarely attract applicants from outside
of London. Consequently, YSDS has pursued an active policy of recruiting local young people from within its own service
user group. A typical career path might begin with a service user acting as a volunteer. If sufficient promise and
commitment is evident, an offer of sessional work (part-time, non-contract work), can result. This places young people at a
competitive advantage when applying for permanent contracts. It has the added advantage that young people with
localised knowledge can be recruited to the ranks. In some youth centres, 25% of the workforce has been recruited in
this way.
3.6 The Council’s committed budget for YSDS activities for 2008-9
was £4.8m. The budget commitment for 2009-10 is £5.19m. This figure includes central recharges for finance, payroll,
personnel and IT support services. The figure for 2008-9 includes £90,000 of new growth dedicated to early
intervention projects targeting ‘at risk’ young people. A further £800,000 of Council funding (2008-2009
commitment3) goes direct to the voluntary sector in order to commission youth support services.
3.7 Just under £3.36m (2009–10 figure) of Government and
London Development Agency (LDA) external funding is
2 Equates to approximately seventy-five full time equivalents
3 The figure for 2009-10 will be of a similar order. Current contracts allow for an extension to 2010
dependent upon performance
9
managed through YSDS. This pays for a variety of youth
support services such as Connexions, the Teenage Pregnancy programme, the Healthy Schools programme, Positive
Activities programmes, Youth Opportunity and Youth Capital Funds and others. The LDA contribution amounts to £178,000.
Combining Government and Council funding streams within one service allows budgets to be pooled and services to be
aligned in a manner that allows for greater efficiency and effectiveness as well as reducing overheads.
3.8 From the beginning of the financial year 2008-9, £2.3m of the
external funding mentioned in the paragraph above was paid into the Council’s Area Based Grant (ABG). The ABG is a
flexible budget which gives the Council powers to allocate funds in relation to local priorities. This figure of £2.3m is
therefore included in the figure of £4.8m in paragraph 3.6.
The fact that a number of YSDS external budgets are payable into the ABG provides both a threat and an opportunity as the
Council can decide to increase or decrease the proportion of the ABG dedicated to youth support.
3.9 A table showing projections for Government and other
external funding is included as appendix one to this report. External funding for youth support services is projected to
reduce by approximately £592,000 by 2010 - 11. This could alter if funding streams are extended beyond their current
allotted lifespan or if new streams emerge. With this degree of uncertainty it is prudent to plan for a significant reduction in
government funding streams by 2010 - 11 and beyond.
3.10 It is possible to make comparisons with other local authorities
in relation to levels of council funding through the National Youth Agency (NYA) survey of youth services. This annual
survey calculates the amount of money authorities devote to youth services as well as the level of participation by 13 – 19
year olds in council funded services. The latest available information places the Royal Borough as 6/138 authorities in
terms of expenditure per head on youth support4.
3.11 The NYA survey should however, be treated with some caution. Not all authorities take part, (it is not a requirement),
though most do. The survey takes place mid year and relates to the previous year. Hence by the time the results are
published, they are more than a year out of date, (the figure above relates to 2006-7). Perhaps most significantly, the NYA
4 The calculation excludes Government or other non-council funding
10
guidance on what constitutes youth expenditure is open to
wide interpretation which inevitably leads to inconsistencies between authorities. This is due in part to the fact that youth
support services are configured differently from authority to authority making comparisons difficult. Nevertheless, the
Royal Borough regularly features in the ‘top ten’ in terms of local authority investment in young people’s services.
3.12 The Working Group noted the considerable reduction in
external funding for YSDS from 2009 onwards and in particular, 2010 – 11. Of particular concern is the reduction in
funding for the Connexions Service. Connexions is a high performing service, often dealing with some of the most
vulnerable and needy young people in borough. The Working Group asked to be assured that planning for this shortfall
should begin right away with consideration given to attracting
additional income, ensuring resources are used to maximum efficiency and if all else fails, that reductions are conducted in
a manner that mitigates the impact on the front-line and vulnerable groups in particular.
3.13 The Working Group was informed that YSDS has already
begun a review of services in anticipation of budget variations from 2010 onwards. The review will take into account
opportunities for income generation and ensuring services are operating at maximum efficiency. The potential for
amalgamating services will be examined. The review will examine policy and practice issues in order to arrive at
funding recommendations. The balance of universal services (open to all) against targeted services (aimed at the most at-
risk and vulnerable) will be considered. The review will also
consider whether spreading reductions across the Service or retaining a vital core and shutting down specific services
represents the best option. Bolstering the ability of voluntary sector partners to draw additional income from Trusts and
charitable sources remains a work in progress. The Working Group felt that the potential impact of the review was of a
magnitude that it ought to be subject to Member scrutiny. The Working Group therefore asked that the review findings be
reported to Members when available. Time imperatives dictate that this should be some time in the summer of 2009.
3.14 The review will also take into consideration the issue of
charging for services. Of the youth support services provided directly by the Council, only the Canalside Watersports and
Activities Centre charges for services. Even so, the charge
levied represents only a small proportion of overall costs. The
11
Working Group was advised that youth support services are
unlikely to attract a level of income through charging sufficient to make substantial difference to the overall cost
base. A significant charge is likely to diminish attendance, particularly among the hard to reach groups that the Service
is keen to attract.
3.15 Similarly with voluntary sector providers. Most offer services free at the point of delivery though some levy a small charge.
Again, the charge levied is heavily subsidised in relation to actual cost.
3.16 There is a debate to be had on this issue. There is no doubt
that some teenagers have considerable income at their disposal and that others do not. A charging system would
have to consider some means of assessing ability to pay. The
expense associated with developing such a system coupled with the cost of collecting and administering is unlikely to
represent value for money and adversely affect attendance rates. While some activities are undoubtedly popular, others
such as those designed to tackle antisocial behaviour, teenage pregnancy, and substance misuse are less attractive.
Nevertheless, the Working Group recommends an in-depth consideration is given to the relative merits of a charging
regime.
3.17 The policy implications of the service review could potentially encompass the following:
The introduction of a charging mechanism based on ability
to pay
A reduction in the universal (open to all) offer while protecting targeted work with the most vulnerable
Closure of a specific YSDS service as listed in 1.4 Closure of a specific centre or youth club
A reduction in the financial support given to voluntary sector youth organisations through commissioning
Further reductions in management and support functions
Any one of these options, singularly or together, could have unpalatable consequences for Royal Borough young people,
hence, the desirability of Member oversight.
4. PERFORMANCE AGAINST KEY OUTCOMES
4.1 Given the level of its expenditure on youth support services,
the Council can expect a high level of performance from YSDS
12
in relation to key performance indicators and against Ofsted
good practice principles. Performance against key targets is detailed in appendices two and three. Appendix three includes
comparisons with central London neighbours and national trends.
4.2 YSDS has been inspected twice by Ofsted since 2000. In
2002, Ofsted rated YSDS as providing a ‘satisfactory’ service that demonstrated ‘unsatisfactory’ value for money. This was
a doubly disappointing outcome. Critical weaknesses were observed in terms of the involvement of young people in
service planning, the availability of accreditation opportunities for young people and the ability of the Service to relate costs
to clear and definable outcomes.
4.3 The Service was inspected again in October 2006 (coinciding
with the Joint Area Review process for Family and Children’s Services). On this occasion the Service was assessed as
providing both a ‘good service’ and demonstrating ‘good value for money’. In the intervening period between inspections, the
Service had become a national leader in the involvement of young people in the decision making process, a youth
accreditation process had been created and a monitoring system was introduced to track progress against key
indicators. The latter allowed for accurate value for money assumptions to be made.
4.4 Due to the range of services offered through YSDS, reporting
is required on a multiplicity of indicators designed to measure performance5 - over two hundred in total. Consequently, a
sub-set of key performance indicators have been selected in
order to provide a clear sense of overall Service performance. Current performance against key indicators is recorded in
appendix two.
4.5 The Working Group noted strong performance against the following indicators:
NEET (not in education, employment or training) indicator.
NEET rates have dropped significantly, from 16.4% in 2002 to 5.9% as of March 2009. This figure is below the Central
London average which in turn is below the national average. The figure of 5.9% translates to 169 individuals. Though the
NEET trend has been downward since 2002, it has begun to plateau of late as the most hard to reach of the NEET group is
5 This is due in part to the fact that YSDS manages a large number of government funding streams
requiring separate reporting lines.
13
encountered. This has created the need for ever more
innovative programmes in order to make further progress in reducing NEET rates.
The Government has set a challenging target for authorities to
reduce rates of teenage pregnancy by 50% by 2010. The Royal Borough performance is one of the strongest performers
in the country with conception rates dropping from 46 per 1000 15-17 year olds, to 29.5 per 1000 since 2001. This is
well below the inner London average. Numbers however are small and large percentage fluctuations can be triggered by
minor variations in the population of the target group. To illustrate, the baseline figure from which the Royal Borough’s
performance is measured is 73 conceptions (the 2001 figure). The figure for 2007 (the latest available) is 57. The local trend
however is downward which contrasts with the national trend.
The YSDS Teenage Pregnancy programme is not confined to sex education and information about contraception.
Encouraging young people to delay the onset of sexual activity and promoting an understanding of the importance of
stable and loving relationships are key features of the programme. The Working Group debated the relative merits
of approaches to reducing teenage pregnancy, a debate that reflected a wide range of viewpoints.
DCSF sets a target of 25% of resident young people in the
age range 13-19 to be attending youth support services run by local authorities. The Royal Borough currently achieves
41%, ranking us 20th in the country. A target of 15% is set for young people actively participating in youth support services
(defined as attending a minimum of five times in a twelve
month period). Royal Borough performance is currently 21%. A good proportion of the youth population attend local youth
support services and a healthy number continue to attend over an extended period. Opportunities for young people to
take part in positive activities do of course extend beyond those provided by the Council. Many young people attend
arts, drama, sports and other activities run by independent organisations. Faith groups are very active in the borough and
provide a range of activities for young people to attend. Attendance at such activities is not included in the Council’s
youth participation figures as measured by DCSF. Nevertheless the participation figures show that
approximately 4200 of the borough’s 10,500 13-19 year olds attend services operated or commissioned by the Council. This
makes the Council by far the largest provider of positive
activities for its youth population.
14
YSDS is on course to meet Healthy Schools programme targets with 70% of local schools currently meeting the
Healthy Schools standard (target – 65% by December 2008 and 75% by December 2009). There has been an enthusiastic
engagement by local schools and all 26 primary schools , the four secondary schools, the Pupil Referral Unit and the
Chelsea Children’s Hospital school are participating in the programme. The programme has been extended to Royal
Borough’s special school, Parkwood Hall. Parkwood Hall has been credited with attaining the standard. The principles of
the Healthy Schools programme have been extended beyond the school’s environment and are being applied in youth clubs
and sports settings.
A measure of quality for youth support services is the extent
to which young people achieve recorded and accredited outcomes through their attendance at YSDS activities. (This
issue was highlighted in the motion to Council in April 2008) A recorded outcome refers to sustained involvement by a young
person in an activity which leads to personal development. An accredited outcome is an award from an external governing
body (such as the Duke of Edinburgh award). YSDS is measured on its achievement of recorded and accredited
outcomes through a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI). The BVPI requires that 30% of young people attending youth
support services receive an accredited outcome and 60% a recorded outcome. Performance in the first year of
measurement (2007 – 8) was below standard and compared unfavourably with statistical neighbours and the country in
general. Consequently, a considerable emphasis was placed
by YSDS upon improvement in this area. As a consequence, the BVPI target will be met for 2008 - 9. This is particularly
important as this BVPI measure is the sole indicator employed by the Audit Commission to measure value for money as
demonstrated by youth support services.
Four of the Council’s sixteen targets under the Local Area Agreement for 2006-9 are led by YSDS. This is a significant
responsibility for a single service. The Working Group noted good progress is being made in respect of reducing NEET, the
Healthy Schools programme, attaining sports qualifications for young people and participation in sports activities. YSDS is on
target to achieve all of its LAA targets which will accrue to the Council considerable sums in terms of the LAA reward grant.
15
The Schools Sports Partnership (SSP) has achieved a
substantial increase in participation by young people in sporting activity. In 2006, 50% of Royal Borough school
pupils took part in two hours or more physical activity in a given week. This has increased substantially, rising to 92% in
2008. This increase was achieved in part through a £100,000 injection of Council funds, thereby demonstrating a direct
relationship between increased funding and improved outcomes. The 2008 figure exceeds the national target of
eighty-five percent and our own LAA target of eighty-eight percent. The SSP plays an important role not only in terms of
increasing involvement in sport, it also impacts on levels of childhood obesity.
5. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES IN
YSDS
5.1 In order to further its understanding of good practice principles, the Working Group considered documentation
provided by the National Youth Agency (NYA). In addition, the Working Group interviewed Mr Chris Heaume OBE, Chief
Executive of Central London Connexions and Ms Annick Batimba, Youth Participation Coordinator for the Royal
Borough. Mr Heaume reported that there were five elements that needed to be in place for youth support work to be
effective:
Enabling young people to reflect on their current situation and plan for the future
A relationship with a reliable and trusted adult
Issues of concern are determined by the young person (as they can walk away from the relationship at any time)
Learning is planned and has a clear outcome (preferably educational) in mind
Style of intervention is varied to include individual meetings and groupwork
5.2 Ms Batimba described the Borough’s Youth Participation
Programme. Having been the first Council in London in London to attain the advanced standard of the NYA Hear by
Right programme – a programme that provides best practice guidance on the involvement of young people in the decisions
that affect their lives – the Royal Borough is acknowledged as a national leader in this regard. Ms Batimba reported that the
borough’s Youth Forum has over thirty members. The Youth
Forum meets on a fortnightly basis in order to plan its
16
activities and to ensure that young people have an
opportunity to influence the Council’s decision making process. All youth centres and local schools have youth
fora/schools councils which feed into the main Youth Forum. The Participation Programme has advanced to encompass a
much younger age group – from five years plus. The Royal Borough is the only Council in London developing in this
direction. The Participation Programme is seen as critical to acquainting young people with the democratic process and
enabling them to understand that they have the power to influence their own environment.
5.3 The Working Group was satisfied that best practice principles
were being applied through the Youth Support and Development Service. The Working Group was also informed
the IYSS strategy had been placed on the Association of
Principal Youth and Community Officers website as a best practice example of an integrated service. The Working Group
would like to see more evidence of good practice being shared with other local authorities – in both directions.
5.4 An issue in relation to working with 10 – 13 year old young
people was also highlighted. The primary target group for YSDS is 13 – 19 year olds. This is reinforced by the fact that
many of the funding streams upon which YSDS relies are specific to this age group. However, the 10 – 13 group, often
referred to as the ‘transition age’, can be unwittingly excluded as a result. The Working Group was reassured that through
joint work with colleagues in Extended Services, YSDS is increasing opportunities for the transition age group.
Currently 15% of users are in the transition age group. The
Working Group would like to see continued progress in this area.
5.5 The Working Group also noted the amount of work undertake
with looked after children (LAC). However, concern was expressed that services for LAC cease at nineteen (in line with
funding streams as mentioned the above). This is inconsistent with other Council services which extend support and
provision to LAC up to the age of 24. YSDS should therefore align with Council policy in this regard.
5.6 The Working Group was informed of the work undertaken by
YSDS with young people with a disability. Improving services to young people with a disability is a high priority. The
creation of the Disability Youth Forum, comprising Council and
voluntary sector providers, has improved both training for
17
staff and delivery of service to young disabled people. A
volunteer programme which matches young people with young people with a disability was of particular merit. This
programme, known as the ‘Buddy Project’, provides peer mentoring for disabled young people in order to promote
support and friendship. It has evidently been very successful with considerable benefits derived for both disabled young
people and their volunteer helpers. Young people with a disability are entitled to a service from YSDS up to the age of
twenty-four.
5.7 The Working Group was informed that outreach youth work teams exist in both the north and the south of the borough. In
addition, the Harrow Club is funded by the Council to undertake outreach work on the Travellers site in Stable Way.
The remit of outreach teams is to engage with young people
on their own territory – often the streets. The purpose is to engage hard to reach young people in mainstream activity.
The work is undoubtedly challenging and not without risk. The Working Group was informed that YSDS is currently
undertaking a review of outreach work with the intention of improving outputs and efficiency as well as providing
additional support for staff. A baseline survey of activity has been completed which is to be followed by a review of the
location of outreach teams, costs and training needs. The review sets out with the intention of increasing the amount of
outreach work undertaken. The Working Group was advised however, that caution needs to be observed. Due to the
intensity of the work and the small numbers of young people involved relative to other YSDS activities, outreach work does
not contribute substantially to volume-based targets. Value
for money considerations therefore have to be taken into account during the review.
6. RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS
6.1 The delivery of effective youth support services is dependent
upon the establishment of effective partnerships with other agencies. The Working Group therefore interviewed key
figures in four services in order to gain an overview of the quality of partnerships as operated within youth support
services. Two of the interviewees were from the statutory sector and two from the voluntary sector. They were:
18
Keith Napthine, Manager of the Royal Borough’s Youth
Offending Team Vicki Lavelle-Davis, Co-ordinator of the Dalgarno
Community Centre which incorporates the Dalgarno Youth Partnership
Helen Gulvin – Head of Social Work for Families for the Royal Borough
The Reverend Joe Moffat, Vicar of St Luke’s Church and Chairman of the East Chelsea Estates Youth Group
6.2 Witnesses were encouraged to speak candidly about the nature
of partnership work with YSDS, both in terms of strengths and opportunities to improve. Witnesses were then questioned by
members of the Working Group in relation to the following:
What positive outcomes do you feel are achieved for young
people through your partnership with YSDS?
Are you satisfied with the level of support and guidance you receive from YSDS staff?
Do you feel you are sufficiently well informed about funding
opportunities occurring through YSDS?
Are you able to make contact YSDS staff easily and do you receive responses in a timely fashion?
Do your staff have access to training and development
opportunities offered by YSDS?
Do you have any proposals for the Working Group in
relation to how the Partnership might be improved?
6.3 The witnesses spoke positively about the benefits that young people derive from partnership work with YSDS. Partnership
work with the YOT and with Family Support services ensured that young people who would not ordinarily access positive
activities could be targeted and supported. Partnership work with the YOT focuses on young people engaged in offending
and antisocial behaviour. Through working with YSDS, the YOT is in a position to engage young offenders in activities
designed to assist them to adopt more positive lifestyles. Partnership work with Family Services enabled additional
support for vulnerable ‘hard to reach’ young people including looked after children and young people with a disability.
19
6.4 Colleagues from the voluntary sector were equally positive
about the nature of partnerships with YSDS. Both reported that the partnership assisted them in respect of funding
opportunities, additional resources, support and training for staff and advice and guidance to management committees.
6.5 All four witnesses spoke of the desirability of stable and
sustained partnerships. However, it was acknowledged that this aspiration was at times at times subject to the vagaries of
funding regimes. Voluntary sector colleagues in particular noted the amount of time spent on funding applications and
asked that consideration be given to streamlining Council application forms and funding processes. The Working Group
responded that this would be likely to appear amongst it recommendations.
7. WORKING GROUP VISITS TO YOUTH SUPPORT
FACILITIES
7.1 Members of the Working Group visited the following youth support facilities:
Lancaster Youth Centre
Golborne Youth Centre The Youth Arts Team
Earl’s Court Youth Club Chelsea Youth Club
7.2 Members of the Working Group reported positively about the
visits they undertook. Particular mention was made of the fact
that young people were entrusted with the responsibility to escort Working Group members during their visits. Councillor
Atkinson was impressed by the fact that young people themselves were making funding applications for the type of
positive activities they wished to undertake thereby learning a new set of skills. Working Group members were also
impressed by the number of volunteers, particular young volunteers, assisting in youth support activities. Councillor
Atkinson asked to be reassured that volunteer’s time and efforts were duly acknowledged through an accreditation
process. This assurance was given.
7.3 Young people reported to members of the Working Group that they would like to see more activities scheduled at weekends.
Weekend activities do take place but the Working Group
expressed a desire for this to be given a higher priority.
20
Activities can be scheduled across seven days but without
significantly increasing costs, by reducing activities at less popular times and increasing them at times of higher demand.
The YSDS commissioning programme will also be weighted in favour of organisations offering weekend activities.
7.4 Young people also reported that they were not always aware
of the range of activities on offer. The Working Group asked therefore that particular importance be given to improved
marketing. YSDS does have a dedicated website for young people which is well used. However, a revamp of the site has
been delayed by technical problems. The current site is of reasonable quality but is somewhat outdated. A re-launched
site would add impetus to marketing positive activities. The upgraded site has been scheduled (tentatively) for a launch in
June 2009.
7.5 Young people also reported that they would like to be better
informed about forthcoming activities by way of a leaflet or brochure giving a timetable of activities. The Working Group
asked that YSDS take up this suggestion.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 YSDS should produce a report that details the impact of and
risk associated with, projected funding shortfalls. (As set out in paragraph 3.13 above). The report should consider
measures to ensure efficient use of resources as well as opportunities for alternative sources of funding. The report
should include a consideration of the impact of a charging
system.
8.2 Applications and funding processes for Council funding to voluntary sector services should be further streamlined, in
order to reduce the amount of time spent on bidding to separate funding streams.
8.3 YSDS should prioritise increasing weekend opening in its
business planning. This should be accompanied by improved marketing as part of business planning.
8.4 Services should be aligned to increase opportunities for young
people in the 10 – 13 year age group to take part in activities.
8.5 YSDS services to LAC should be extended to age twenty-four.
21
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORKING GROUP’S DELIBERATIONS:
i) The Royal Borough ‘Integrated Youth Support Strategy
2008 – 11. A strategy for the further integration of youth support services’
ii) ‘Guide to Youth Work in England’ National Youth Agency (2007)
iii) ‘Pursuit of Excellence. Strengthening the youth work curriculum’ National Youth Agency (2008)
iv) Performance monitoring information as provided by the FCS Policy and Performance Team
22
APPENDIX ONE – EXTERNAL FUNDING PROJECTIONS
YSDS External Funding Budget Projection 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11
LAA Funding £120,000 £120,000 £120,000
Youth Opportunity Fund (DCSF) £131,000 £131,000 £131,300 £131,300 £131,300
Youth Opportunity Fund (LDA) £77,499 £77,499
Youth Capital Fund (DCSF) £113,000 £113,000 £113,500 £113,501 £113,501
PAYP (DCSF) £355,000 £319,000 £324,811 £324,811 £556,291 £556,291
PAYP (LDA) £100,396 £100,396
Connexions (including careers contract) £1,657,010 £1,478,000 £1,512,200 £1,793,254 £1,702,315 £1,531,065
Connexions - Activities Agreement Programme £50,500 £50,462 £51,980 £52,000
Connexions - YOT/PA funding £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000 £18,000
ESF/Connexions £37,000 £37,000
School Sports Partnership £115,000 £173,000 £173,000 £173,000 £173,000
BIP £59,000 £51,000 £51,000
23
YPSMG £308,000 £323,000 £298,278 £298,164 £298,164 £298,164
Teenage Pregnancy £97,000 £91,000 £91,000 £91,000 £91,000 £91,000
Healthy Schools £22,000.00 £39,373.00 £44,600 £55,474 £44,566 £44,566
Youth Inclusion Programme £85,000 £85,000 Transferred to YOT
Positive Activities (publicity) £19,000 £19,000
Participation Budget £151,000 Maintained
Total £2,985,010 3,047,873 £2,946,351 £3,348,378 £3,358,032 £2,765,887
Colour code
DISCONTINUED
UNCERTAIN/UNCONFIRMED
LIKELY TO REDUCE
PAID INTO ABG
24
APPENDIX TWO: PERFORMANCE AGAINST YSDS HIGH LEVEL INDICATORS Indicator Source Method Target Current Performance The percentage of young people 13-19 in the cohort participating in structured positive activities (annual)
National Indicator Set (NIS) NI110
Tell us survey plus Connexions data
N/A
New indicator. 2008-9 baseline year
Percentage of 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment (NEET)
(NIS) NI117
Connexions impact data (also LAA target)
8.5%
March 2009 – 5.9%
The number of young people participating in sport as a percentage of the total number of young people aged 5-19
(NIS) NI157
Independent survey
2008-9 Baseline year to set target
N/A
The number of conceptions among girls aged under 18 resident in the authority area per 1,000 girls aged 15-17 years resident in the area in the current calendar year as compared to the 1998 baseline
(NIS) NI112
Teenage Pregnancy Unit
23.3 per 1000 by 2010 from a local baseline of 46.6 per 1000 in 2001
29.5 per 1000 (2007 – latest available data)
Participation in and outcomes from youth work: recorded outcomes
BVPI 221a
EYS
60%
60% (at the end of Q3 2008/09)
25
Participation in and outcomes from youth work: accredited outcomes
BVPI 221b
EYS
30%
29.2% (at the end of Q3 2008/09)
The percentage of schools achieving healthy schools status, as measured by the Healthy Schools Audit
LAA
LAA Monitoring
75%
65%
The percentage of young people participating in the School Sports Partnership programme that undertake at least two hours of high quality physical activity a week
LAA
LAA Monitoring
88%
92%
The number of young people obtaining accredited outcomes and qualifications as sports coaches per annum
LAA
LAA Monitoring
40
33
The percentage of 16-19 year olds leaving Young Offender Institutes that participate in education, training or employment
LAA
LAA Monitoring
65%
57%
26
The percentage of looked after children leaving care aged 16-19 that are in education, training or employment
LAA
LAA Monitoring
57%
47%
The percentage of teenage mothers aged 16-18 that are resident in the Borough and are known to Connexions that access education, training or employment and/or achieve accredited outcomes.
LAA
LAA Monitoring
65%
60%
No. of contacts per young person (as a percentage of the local youth population)
Local measure
EYS
25%
41%
Participation as a percentage of the borough's 13-19 yr age group
Local measure
EYS
15%
21%
Level of satisfaction with YSDS services
Local measure
Annual survey of users
90%
94%
27
Section 140 assessments are at 100%
Statutory requirement
CCIS
100%
100%
Increase the number of young people with a disability accessing YSDS services
Local measure
EYS
N/A
New target – 2008-9 baseline year
Increase the number of LAC in the borough accessing YSDS services
Local measure
EYS
N/A
New target – 2008-9 baseline year
28
APPENDIX THREE: YSDS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – LOCAL/NATIONAL COMPARISONS
NEET Young People 16-18 March 2009
5.1%
5.6%5.9%
7.0%
8.0%
9.4% 9.5%
7.1%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
Wandsworth Westminster Kensington Camden Islington Lambeth Southwark Central London
Average
16-18 NEET (LAA Target) Mar-09 %
Wandsworth 312 5.1%
Westminster 214 5.6%
Kensington 149 5.9%
Camden 341 7.0%
Islington 447 8.0%
Lambeth 347 9.4%
Southwark 382 9.5%
Central London Average 2,192 7.1%
29
Teenage Pregnancy Programme – conception rates
Conception Rates - Under 18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007p
Conceptions r
ate
per
1000 1
5-1
7 y
r old
s
Kensington and
Chelsea
Inner London
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007p
Kensington and Chelsea 46.6 47.6 30.6 27.4 32.6 33.3 29.5 Inner London 65.5 68.7 65.3 60.3 55.7 56 n/a
30
Number of young people aged 13-19 accessing council youth support services (NYA data)
LOCAL AUTHORITY Total contacts 13-
19 years Contact
benchmark % of
benchmark Rank Contacts vs benchmark
Camden 6,112 3,667 167% 15 of 138
Islington 5,825 3,308 176% 7 of 138
Kensington and Chelsea 3,842 2,480 155% 20 of 138
Southwark 6,460 4,931 131% 38 of 138
Wandsworth 3,433 3,913 88% 108 of 138
Recorded and Accredited Outcomes for young people – (NYA data)
LOCAL AUTHORITY Total recorded
outcomes
Recorded outcomes
benchmark
% of benchmark
Total accredited outcomes
Accredited outcomes
benchmark % of
benchmark
Camden 1,431 1,320 108% 522 660 79%
Islington 1,434 1,191 120% 315 595 53%
Kensington and Chelsea 283 893 32% 326 446 73%
Southwark 2,432 1,775 137% 1,877 887 211%
Wandsworth 1,615 1,409 115% 506 704 72%
LOCAL AUTHORITY Rank Recorded Outcomes vs benchmark
Rank Accredited Outcomes vs benchmark
Camden 48 of 138 60 of 138
Islington 34 of 138 93 of 138
Kensington and Chelsea 129 of 138 68 of 138
Southwark 19 of 138 3 of 138
Wandsworth 36 of 138 71 of 138
31
Satisfaction levels among YSDS service users (measured by annual survey)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
No. % No % No % No % No % No %
Satisfied 305 87.9 352 92.1 270 90.9 372 91.9 320 93 255 94.1
Neither 33 9.5 19 5 25 8.4 27 6.7 23 6.7 14 5.2
Dissatisfied 9 2.6 11 2.9 2 0.7 6 1.5 1 0.3 2 0.7
Total 347 100 382 100 297 100 405 100 344 100 271 100
32
APPENDIX FOUR: LIST OF YOUTH SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL OR COMMISSIONED FROM THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR
Service Location Activity
Air Force Cadets Chelsea Uniformed service, weekly activities
at base, camping and other residentials, rifle shooting, flying
Canalside Activity Centre
Canal Close Ladbroke Grove
London W10 5AY
Water Sports/Sports activities
Chelsea Youth Club
World’s End Estate Blantyre Street
London SW10 1EQ
Youth work Advice and Guidance, Arts and
Crafts, I.T/Internet, Sports and Trips.
Connexions Centre
125 Freston Road
London W10 6TH
Careers education.
Advice and Guidance and I.T/Internet
Cremorne Watersports Centre Cremorne Riverside Activities Centre Lots Road
SW10 0QH
Canoeing/Kayaking Watersports
Dalgarno Youth Partnership
Dalgarno Community Centre
1 Webb Close Dalgarno Way
London W10 5QB
Youth work
Outreach/detached work Advice and Guidance, Arts and
Crafts, I.T/Internet, Music, Fitness, Sports and Trips
33
Accreditations Team
Kensington and Chelsea College Hortensia Road
SW10
Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme/Youth Achievement
Award/ASDAN qualifications
Earl’s Court Youth Club
120 Ifield Road
London SW10 9AF
Youth work
Advice and Guidance, Arts and Crafts, I.T/Internet, Music, Outdoor
Activities and Trips
East Chelsea Team
The Hut
Alpha Place London
SW3 5SZ
Youth work
Outreach/detached work Advice and Guidance, Arts and
Crafts, I.T/Internet, Outdoor Activities and Trips.
Ebony Steelband Trust Unit 39 – Baseline Business Studios Whitchurch Road
London W11 4AT
Steel pan Music development
Golborne Youth Centre
2a Wornington Road
Swinbrook Estate London
W10 5QJ
Youth work
Fitness, IT/Internet, Music, Performing Arts, Sports and Trips.
Harrow Club
187 Freston Road
London W10 6TH
Youth work
Advice and Guidance, Arts and Crafts, IT/Internet, Performing Arts,
Sports and Trips.
Lancaster Youth Centre 128a Lancaster Road Youth work
34
London W11 1QS
Advice and Guidance, Arts and Crafts, Cookery, IT/Internet, Music,
Performing Arts, Sports and Trips.
Moroccan Community Welfare Group
7 Thorpe Close London
W10 5XL
Youth work Careers advice and guidance
Health and fitness programmes Activities and trips.
Rugby Portobello Trust Walmer Road W10 Youth work
Outreach/detached work Advice and Guidance, Arts and Craft,
Sports, Trips and Water Sports.
SPID Theatre Company
Kensal House Community Rooms
Ladbroke Grove London
W10 5QB
Performing Arts
Tamezin Club
1-2 Chelsea Embankment London
SW3 4LG
Arts and Crafts, Cookery, Music, Outdoor Activities, Performing Arts,
Sports and Trips.
Teenage Pregnancy Team(including Break 4U
programme
125 Freston Road London
W10 6TH
Advice and Guidance for professionals working with young
people and children and support for teenage parents. (23 and under)
The Video College
1 Thorpe Close London
W10 5XL
Film technology I.T/Internet and Performing Arts.
Wornington Green Detached c/o Golborne Youth Centre Outreach work
35
Youth Project
2a Wornington Road Swinbrook Estate
London
W10 5QJ
Advice and guidance
Youth Arts Team c/o Golborne Youth Centre
2a Wornington Road Swinbrook Estate
London W10 5QJ
Arts and Crafts, Music, dance and
Performing Arts.
Youth Sports Team Hortensia Road
SW10
Sports development and coaching
training