Derbyshire County CouncilImprovement and Scrutiny Committee-People

‘A New Youth Offer’ Workshop Notes

Saturday 18 February 2012Members’ Room, County Hall

Present:Councillor Mrs Gill Farrington, Chair Improvement and Scrutiny Committee-PeopleCouncillor Garry Purdy, Vice ChairCouncillor Dave AllenCouncillor Alan CharlesCouncillor Stuart EllisCouncillor Martyn FordCouncillor Mrs Julie PattenCouncillor Pam ReddyCouncillor David Wilson

Councillor Barry Lewis, Cabinet Member for Young PeopleIan Thomas, Strategic Director for Children and Young PeopleSusanne Rauprich, Chief Executive, National Council for Voluntary Youth Services

Apologies:Councillor Mrs Juliette BlakeCouncillor Mrs Celia CoxCouncillor Mrs Sharon BlankCouncillor David Wilcox

Also in attendance were members of the public and representatives from local voluntary sector organisations involved in working with young people, advocacy services, uniformed organisations and Trade Unions.

1. Welcome and IntroductionCouncillor Farrington opened the workshop and thanked attendees for turning out on a Saturday morning. She asked that attendees take note of some ground rules, explained the format of the event, and explained that the workshop is separate to the public consultation meetings. Councillor Farrington then introduced Susanne Rauprich, Chief Executive of the National Council for Voluntary Services and invited her to talk about the national context of changes.

2. ‘The National Context’Susanne Rauprich, set out the national context of why youth services, nationally, are being reviewed by local authorities. Drivers for change include the current financial climate and subsequent availability of resources within Local Government; making authorities go back to fundamentals of how they deliver services. Costs are an issue in the current economic climate but should not be the only driver for changes. Another driver is national Policy: the Localism Act is allowing communities to have power over the way local services are delivered. This will require some adjustment in

Page | 1

the way local authorities operate. The Government’s ‘Positive for Youth’ agenda also sets out core principles for services for young people and makes it clear that young people must be involved in driving forward these changes.

There are some emerging models of delivering youth services differently but there are not many councils nationally that are looking to maintain the status quo. Camden Council have previously made changes to their Youth Service but have now stated that there will be no more cuts to their budget. Norfolk County Council have received some negative press and accused of slashing youth services and leaving no provision. However, Susanne stated that this is not the case as the delivery of youth services has been devolved to the voluntary sector.

West Sussex County Council has adopted a hybrid model and this is the closest to what Derbyshire are currently proposing. Islington Council have developed a very different model whereby young people are being put in the driving seat to commission services by becoming stakeholders in a private company, which will also bring in funds to the local authority. Croydon have developed a commercial model which uses community interest companies

Hammersmith and Fulham, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster City Councils have developed a tri-borough model which has seen neighbouring authorities combine forces, and resources to deliver youth services. The Royal Borough of Kensington have also created a mutual company where former employees have taken over the running of the service and in Lambeth a co-operative has been created to run their youth service.

Susanne Rauprich stressed the importance of the Council visiting different areas to see how different models are delivered and that changes to services will only be successful where:

Full consultation takes place; Council do not hold on to the familiar – it is not about what is best for in terms

of ‘costs’ or council employees but it is about what is best for young people; Partnership working is key and requires the collective functions which different

organisations have

In closing she stated that there is help available from different agencies: The National Youth Agency – which is running a Routes to Success

programme, NESTA (National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts) – which is

running a ‘Creative Councils’ programme to support in the design and delivery of new ways of providing new and existing services. They are an impartial body

National Council for Voluntary Youth Services have a voluntary sector network support programme.

3. ‘A New Youth Offer for Derbyshire’Councillor Barry Lewis, Cabinet Member for Young People acknowledged the issue has raised some debate and recognised the Youth Service is held in high regard. There had been five public consultation events to date with two more planned along

Page | 2

with targeted consultation events for people with disabilities/vulnerable groups. The Council have received 1,900 responses to its consultation so far.

Councillor Lewis set the context for the ‘New Youth Offer’. The Council have provided a youth service for 40 years and over time some patches have appeared across the County where there is no provision. Some services in some areas have closed over the years without any consultation with the public. At present, the County Council provides 30% of youth services compared to around 70% in the Voluntary, Community and Independent (VCI) sector. Recent review has shown that Mobile Youth Service units are not being used as effectively as they should and Councillor Lewis questioned whether this was an effective use of tax payers’ money. Councillor Lewis went on to state that the cost of the Council’s Youth Service is six times higher than for VCI services.

Councillor Lewis then provided some information on the ‘numbers’ that have informed the proposals to date. These related to performance against Government measures, and economic pressures.

Based on statistics for 2010/11, the following figures were provided in relation to contact and participation in Council run Youth Services in Derbyshire:

Government target for councils to achieve 25% of young people having 1 contact or completed a contact form with a youth service is 27.9% in Derbyshire

Government target of achieving 10+hours, or 5 x 2hr sessions, of contact is 27%, in Derbyshire just 8.9%

Youth Standard 8 – 2hrs outcome contact per week or 96hrs per year, the target is 15%, Derbyshire is achieving just 0.43%, 0.38% if mobile provision is excluded.

The financial savings that need to be achieved were stated as: During 2012/13 need to achieve £7.6million savings across the CAYA

department of which £800k has been ear-marked from Youth Services The Budget for the Council’s Youth Service was broken down as:

£1.4m for targeted activities £900k for owned and leased buildings (£110k of which for

maintenance) £67k for mobile unites £1.3m for part time youth workers posts

Councillor Lewis stated that his vision is for Derbyshire to be positive for Youth; young people need opportunities to help fulfil their potential and make Derbyshire a good place to live and work and that young people need, and want, to influence decision making.

The Council is also looking at tackling health issues effecting young people, such as binge drinking, sexual health, and teenage pregnancy, through closer working with Health Services. Closer working with Police will also be needed to tackle crime caused by young people and look at preventing young people from being victims of crime. There is a need to turn round popular misconceptions of young people and placing young people at the heart of this process will work towards this.

Page | 3

Councillor Lewis expanded on his earlier comments on the on-going public consultation. At present there had been approximately 1,900 responses but the figures being provided here related to 1,600 responses.

55% of respondents have never accessed a Council run Youth Club; 74% of respondents have never accessed any youth service; 83% of respondents stated that important that activities exist for young

people; 62% of respondents would like activities to be available during school

holidays; 130 expressions of interest have been received from VCI organisations

In closing Councillor Lewis stated that he is proud that Derbyshire County Council is daring to be different.

4. Question and Answer Session:Councillor Farrington opened the meeting up for a questions and answer session.

Councillor Alan Charles, Member of the Improvement and Scrutiny Committee and County Councillor for Killamarsh, posed the following questions:

Q) Question to Susanne Rauprich, the West Sussex model appears closest to the Derbyshire proposals what has been the response from different communities to changes in that area?

A) Susanne Rauprich responded by stating that the Derbyshire proposals are not exactly the same as West Sussex just that there are some similarities and that it is not fair of any organisation to assume that if public services go voluntary groups will step in. She stated that there is a crisis in adult volunteering nationally, particularly amongst uniformed organisations and the Department for Communities and Local Government are targeting investment towards such organisations that are suffering shortages in volunteering. She also challenged the misconception that the voluntary sector is made up purely of volunteers; this is simply not the case as many voluntary organisations employ people. To take things forward a mixed economy is needed that looks at young people, their needs and their outcomes. Working together is the key, you cannot rely on volunteers to pick up and deliver services.

Q) Referring to an article from May 2010 in ‘Children and Young People Now’ it was noted that in Northamptonshire the voluntary sector has been pulled apart by the adoption of a contracting model for delivery of youth services and as a result the voluntary sector have become more business focussed.

A) Susanne responded that lessons have been learnt in Northamptonshire about the capacity and support building of the voluntary sector. It is a big shift for voluntary services and they need to be supported.

A) Councillor Lewis stated the Council were aware of the shortcomings in this area and is keen to learn from this example.

Q) Questions to Councillor Lewis:‘Contact’ data appears to be the main thrust for closing services – if there is poor contact why has the method used to calculate it been changed as at each meeting so far there is a different figure reported. For the benefit of the Committee what guidance is being used?

Page | 4

A) Councillor Lewis - All data will be published on the council’s website in the next week so people can see what the figures are and how they have been calculated. The Education and Inspection Act 2006 is the basis for definition of ‘contact’ and the Council also uses the Best Value Performance Indicator BV221a&b as a measure.

Q) The Committee needs to see the ‘contact’ data coming from the Voluntary Sector – can this be provided and can assurances be given to the Committee that no youth club or facility will be closed before alternative provision is in place?

A) Councillor Lewis stated that no club will be closed if suitable alternative local provision cannot be found.

Q) It has been reported at a previous stakeholder event that training staff had been given notice of redundancy – how will training be delivered if there will be no staff?

A) Ian Thomas in response to points raised by Councillor Charles reiterated that the council’s proposals are not similar to Northamptonshire’s nor has the Council changed the way data is recorded. Training will not diminish, it is true that one Member from the Council’s SMASH [Substance Misuse, Alcohol & Sexual Health] Team has been given redundancy notice but this will not affect training provision for youth services.

Q) Saira Ali, Chair of the Council’s Voluntary, Community and Independent (VCI) GRID Reference Group and an advocate for Young People in the High Peak, commented that the adult agenda appears to supercede young people and questioned whether they really are being ‘consulted’. Specifically whether there are plans to bring together parties from all sectors and are young people going to drive that?

A) Councillor Lewis stated that young people are being given opportunity to influence the proposals. He stated that no consultation will ever be perfect and someone will always be missed. However, through consultation so far there are lots of keen organisations wanting to get involved as partners with the council.

Q) Councillor Julie Lowe, Chesterfield Borough Council, queried the financial savings stated at start of meeting – was £96million to be cut from the departments’ budget now, of which £30million is from the Youth Service?

A) Councillor Lewis responded – no, the Council has got to save around £50million over the next 5 years and the budget for all children’s services including schools, social care and youth services is £100million.

Q) A representative of young people with learning disabilities in the Erewash area stated that the Cantelupe Centre in Ilkeston was a well-used facility by people with learning disabilities. A brother and sister whom she knew had been using the centre for a long time and it is the only independent outlet for social activity in their life, they are devastated at the idea it will be closed. Staff members at the centre provide them with a support network and one of the volunteers there used to attend as a young person with a learning disability. There are a lot of excluded or forgotten people with a learning disability in Derbyshire who need these services.

Page | 5

A) Councillor Lewis responded by assuring the meeting that the Council is working with targeted groups and vulnerable people to get their views and will also ensure that whatever the future is staff are trained to a high standard to provide quality services.

Q) Val Graham, representing Chesterfield Trade Unions stated that there is a general concern about young people and youth unemployment and that a lack of suitable provision for young people was attributed to some of the rioting in London last year. She commented that the youth service is already a partnership and that the achievements to be made from the proposals appear very ambitious. What other authorities have you visited and what have they managed to achieve? How will you replace and enhance lost capacity?

A) Councillor Lewis acknowledged that there is partnership working already within the County but that it is patchy with some very good areas and some bad areas. With regards to capacity building the Council will ensure this is achieved through a commissioning model.

A) Ian Thomas stated that there is a lot of money currently locked into the buildings that the Council owns and leases that could be better utilised in providing youth services; £900k is a large amount of money that is not being used effectively.

A) Susanne Rauprich commented that an analysis of capacity in the voluntary sector now would identify what is needed and prove to be good forward planning. She was concerned by the suggestion that unit costs of voluntary sector provision were so much lower (six times) than Council provision. Quality services, which voluntary sector can provide, are not necessarily going to be cheaper.

Q) Paul Vaughan, member of the public, queried whether the existing youth service provision would be scrapped before alternatives had been put in place and asked if the Cabinet Member and Director would look at the existing provision again? He also asked if a risk assessment had been carried out on the proposals and if that was going to be published on the council’s website. Mr Vaughan also queried the validity of the voluntary sector figures mentioned by Councillor Lewis and wanted to know how the Council will ensure this data is collected if the proposals go ahead. Mr Vaughan’s final question related to an earlier comment from Ian Thomas on Youth Standard 8 which in his view has never been Government Policy and asked why it is being used as a measurement by the Council. In closing he stated that there appears to be only two options for the future of the service and was that really the case?

A) Councillor Lewis responded by stating that the final proposals will be based on consultation outcomes and this will include any transition arrangements. With regards to the voluntary sector information the consultation is providing information to help map existing and potential provision of youth services.

A) Ian Thomas responded to the point regarding Youth Service 8 by stating that this is the only guidance available to the Council currently. He acknowledged that BVPIs were out dated but were still a useful reference point.

Mr Thomas stated that current statutory duty (which is being reviewed) is loose in its prescription of youth services which has allowed some areas to decimate their youth service provision. Mr Thomas then quoted Part 1, Section 6 of the Education and Inspection Act 2006: 'A Local Authority in

Page | 6

England must so far as reasonably practical, secure for qualifying young persons in the authority's area access to:- (a) Sufficient educational leisure-time activities which are for their improvement of well-being, and sufficient facilities for such activities, and (b) Sufficient recreational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of their well-being, and sufficient facilities for such activities"

Q) Teresa Croft, from Youth for Hatton, stated that the whole consultation process was going over most people’s heads. The young people she works with in her area are not interested in filling in forms or willing to speak to the Council. She started a service in her area because there was no provision and it is now thriving because of the hard work and commitment the volunteers put in but they need to be supported to do their jobs and need training to be provided locally not just at Matlock – will this be part of the new proposals?

A) Councillor Lewis admitted that the consultation was not perfect but the Council are aiming to speak to as many groups on a face-to-face basis as possible and suggested a member of staff come out to her group and speak with young people. Through the councils proposals there would be more support for groups like this one. The VCI Passport will provide training for staff in a number of key areas such as safeguarding. A VCI Youth forum is being created for interested groups to come together and identify and fill the gaps in training and service provision.

Mrs Potter, member of the public from Ilkeston, asked a number of questions on behalf of residents from Erewash. It was agreed that due to the number of questions and the time left for meeting the questions be submitted to the Improvement and Scrutiny Committee and be answered outside of the meeting (see Appendix 1).

A) Councillor Lewis provided a brief response in regards to a question on quality assurance by stating that council would create a quality assurance framework as part of its commissioning process.

Councillor Martyn Ford, Committee Member and County Councillor for Repton, commented that after 40 years of youth services in Derbyshire there is a clear message coming to the Committee that the Council needs to start doing different things in different ways but the Council need to deliver what young people want. Councillor Ford also stated that there is just one Council owned facility in South Derbyshire – an imbalance compared to the rest of the County and that the excellent work of the voluntary sector in that area from groups like Youth for Hatton and Willington Action Group need to be looked at examples of good practice.

Councillor Dave Allen, Committee Member and County Councillor for Birdholme, stressed the importance of the Committee being able to see the youth service figures for the voluntary sector. From the consultation events he had attended there was no support for the proposals and questioned what support exists for them? Councillor Allen also commented that it would have useful to receive a presentation from someone on the other side of the proposals and that having heard comments to date it was looking like a mixed model was the best solution for Derbyshire.

Page | 7

Q) Councillor Cheryl Pidgeon, County Councillor for Sawley, asked Councillor Lewis how many people are there in Derbyshire aged between 13-19 and how many of the 1,900 respondents to the consultation to date are in that age group? Councillor Pidgeon also stated that there is an existing frustration in the voluntary sector whereby a lot of people’s skills are being directed towards securing funding and away from the services they want to provide - is there a danger of these proposals doing the same?

A) Councillor Lewis responded to the first point by stating that there are approximately 67,000 young people aged between 13-19 in Derbyshire, but he did not have the figures to hand regarding the number of 13-19 years responding to date to the consultation.

Joe Russo, Chief Executive of the Enthusiasm Trust in Derby, commented on the perception being created by delegates that the Voluntary Sector is second best compared to public services and that it is simply not true; there are some excellent services provided through the voluntary sector. Nationally Local Authorities seem to be cutting external funding to the voluntary sector and bringing services back in-house, the Derbyshire proposals for youth services should be welcomed. Councillor Lewis commented on the excellent work that the Enthusiasm Trust is delivering in Derby City in working with disadvantaged young people.

Q) Jo Smith, Chief Executive of South Derbyshire CVS, questioned what the arrangements for supporting the voluntary sector would be where any assets would be transferred in to their ownership.

A) Councillor Lewis responded by stating that his Department would work with the Council’s Corporate Property Service to create proposals to assist organisations looking to take on Council assets.

Q) Nick Ferrara, a parent and carer for a young person with a disability, questioned why, in all the consultation documents, it stated that the Youth Service was for 13-19 year olds when it provides a service for people with a disability up to the age of 25. How will these young people be included in the consultation?

A) Councillor Lewis responded by stating that there is some targeted consultation taking pace for people with a disability and that the new youth offer will be for people up to the age of 25 and the Council will ensure that all staff ultimately involved in youth services are trained appropriately. Councillor Lewis also clarified that the Peter Webster centre is not part of DCCs consultation, only a provision of services out of the centre are.

A local resident spoke to the meeting and stated that he was staggered that the Council can put on events like the one today and put out documents like it has with the word ‘Consultation’ on when the decision has already been taken. Councillor Farrington corrected this statement by reminding the speaker that the event being held was a fact finding event and this was stated at the beginning of the meeting, it was not part of the consultation meetings.

Councillor Pam Reddy, Committee Member and county Councillor for Buxton North and East, spoke in relation to an earlier point about voluntary sector data. As someone who provides a voluntary service it has to be run professionally and the children’s group that she runs could easily provide facts and figures on ‘contacts’ and

Page | 8

what services are provided and how well they used. Councillor Reddy also challenged a perception that all young people are thugs waiting to strike, they are not but a lack of good provision for them or inappropriate provision is not helping this perception.

Councillor Farrington then stopped the question and answers session and asked delegates to discuss the proposals with the Committee Member(s) on their table. The questions and comments arising from these discussions are provided at Appendix 2 with a further set of comments provided outside the meeting (Appendix 3).

The workshop closed at 12:30pm with Councillor Farrington assuring everyone that the discussions from today and any questions left behind on tables would be reported and answered by the Council and that the Committee would be discussing the issue further at its next formal meeting on Wednesday 7 March.

Page | 9

APPENDIX 1

Derbyshire County Council Improvement and Scrutiny – People Committee Workshop Saturday 18th February 2012

Questions submitted by Ilkeston residents

1. Could the Scrutiny Committee please look at other local councils’ experience of decommissioning Council-run Youth Services? Some councils have had a bad experience after closing down their Youth Service and letting voluntary organisations run everything and have decided to bring it back in-house?

2. Has the Council thought about campaigning to the Government to make Youth Services a priority Council commitment – this could then lead to more money being available from Government to councils?

3. How will Safeguarding and Child Protection issues be picked up if the Council no longer has a Youth Service and lets the Voluntary Sector run everything.

4. Are the Scrutiny Committee considering why people are starting petitions, holding rallies, attending consultation events in high numbers, writing letters to the papers and starting Facebook groups against this plan?

5. Are the Youth Council fully involved in looking at this proposed plan and can influence any decisions?

6. Targeted Youth Service provision and Universal provision are 2 distinct aspects of the statutory Council-provided Youth Service. How will DCC ensure that the targeted work is done e.g., often for more complex situations, young people who have problems, teenage pregnancy advice, disaffected young men people with learning disabilities, Outreach and Street Work etc.

7. Your plan means that there will no longer be a Universal directly-delivered Youth Service. The Council will no longer directly provide any front-line activities. The Voluntary Sector do a wonderful job but this is not like the solid foundation and safety net statutory service that we have with the Youth Service. Voluntary Sector organisations in Ilkeston want to work with the Council but do not feel that they can possibly replace the Youth Service. They say they can enhance the services on offer but CANNOT ever replace them. Does the Council have a detailed plan about how voluntary organisations in Derbyshire will fill the gap left by the Youth Service let alone go on to provide additional activities which you want them to do?

8. How can the Council ensure that the national guidelines that exist for the provision of services to young people will be adhered to if there is no longer a statutory professional Youth Service in Derbyshire?

9. How will DCC ensure that the voluntary sector staff/volunteers who you want to take over the running of the all the youth services are as appropriately qualified and trained as the public sector Youth Work staff are that you will be making redundant?

10. Will the councillors on the Scrutiny Committee be visiting all the youth clubs and talking to the young people?

11. This workshop is welcomed so that questions can be received about these plans, but are inevitably not appealing to young people. Have members of the Scrutiny Committee been attending the consultation events taking place at the moment throughout Derbyshire to gather evidence, as by all accounts the ones that have taken place so far have been packed out with young people and parents and have been very heated.

Page | 10

APPENDIX 1

12. If DCC had not received less money from the Government for its budgets to run our services, and hence their excuses that they now need to make “savings” (cuts!), would the Council be keeping the Youth Service in-house and intact?

Page | 11

APPENDIX 2

Derbyshire County CouncilImprovement and Scrutiny Committee-People

‘A New Youth Offer’ WorkshopQuestions and Comments from Round Table Discussions

Questions: If the mobile service provision has been as badly deployed as you suggest,

why have you and your manager not done something about it? If you want to reach more young people in more places mobile provision is a very good way but you will have to accept that you will get less registration than you will in building-based provision

Adults with Learning Disabilities are not consulted one they pass 25 years of age. Where will people with Learning Disabilities go? Do people with Learning Disabilities want to change? I think not

The Cantelupe Centre is marked for closure, why? Lots of people with disabilities in their 20s and 30s go there! The building is central, next to the church, and well used! So why are you closing it?

How are people with a learning disability, who are not able to read or write, able to get their point across? Derbyshire County Council is not becoming proactive and contacting the relevant charities that will help people with a Learning Disability fill in the consultation.

Would Councillor Barry Lewis be agreeable to attend the Cantelupe Centre in Ilkeston on club night and give a talk?

In the consultations with young people, can you ask if they would be interested with support in running youth work provision?

Whilst there are other providers available will youth services remain affordable and accessible?

When are the partners (Private, Voluntary, Independent) going to meet to discuss delivering the ‘offer’ with Children and Young People?

Knock-on to local Councils, Will South Derbyshire District Council still be able to provide its youth services if plans go ahead? Will funding come from the County Council for this?

Will the CVS be monitoring organisations for governance, safeguarding and quality?

How will property be transferred – leased, given away, or sold? How will equipment be transferred – given, sold, rented? Will it available to all

or those who are qualified to operate it e.g. climbing wall? Why not to look to increase user numbers at youth centres where they are

currently low before closing? Are vulnerable groups going to get continued support once proposal go

through (support that is currently provided by the council)? Is there equality of access for potential users under the proposals? Why is mobile provision being scrapped when the Council is responsible for

its mismanagement? Why not work towards some pilot projects rather than thinking of closing a

whole service?

Page | 12

APPENDIX 2

Comments: It’s broken – break it down and build it all better. Take the risk, use

volunteering and support them with funds, specialist skills and coordination. Make it as easy as possible for groups to rent or buy Derbyshire County

Council buildings. I am concerned about strings attached to funding – heavily targeted grant pots

etc. Get all interested young people and stakeholders in to discuss what could be

done. Some VCI sector organisations are ready and perfectly placed to deliver

universal offer. The VCI sector can also deliver targeted and specialist services.

There is strong leadership in the VCI sector but new offer will need good commissioning system.

The consultation is destroying partnerships between the VCI sector and Derbyshire County Council which have taken years to build.

Training for volunteers needs to be delivered on site. Volunteers have other responsibilities, time constraints etc. Training could be given alongside running of sessions, making groups more efficient and increases sustainability.

Fund raising is a serious benefit in teaching self-sufficiency and getting away from the benefits culture.

There is insufficient capacity now to meet youth need; my village is reliant on both voluntary and council run provision. I do not think the ‘playing-off’ of the voluntary sector and Council services are helpful at all.

Please ensure inclusivity of young people from families on low incomes. Closer contact with service providers for the voluntary sector. Community and voluntary organisations need to be talking together. Three is a lack of understanding about your Portfolio – there is no relationship

between the Council’s Cabinet and young people. The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater to save fuel. There is a lack of evidence for your actions – it is a massive gamble with no

research into your capacity. Look at club by club and area by area to see the diverse culture that exists,

rather than one cure for all. Consultation document is flawed as vulnerable people are being ignored. We need a mixed economy for youth service provision. The age range for provision, 13-19, is too narrow. Young people are drivers yet reach of the consultation is not going far enough

out to young people. 10-13 year olds need services as well. Need to look at young people’s skills,

knowledge, and outlook as these have evolved in recent years. Need to consider the provision of youth services compared with the transport,

community safety, and access issues as well as costs of getting to services. Youth Clubs and provision for disabled people cannot be separated as the

whole interaction between the two groups is a vital aspect of the service.

Page | 13

APPENDIX 3

Email from a member of the public to Councillor David Wilson

Hello Councillor Wilson, I was sat on the table with you on Saturday at the scrutiny meeting. Here are a few of my thoughts. The consultation questionnaire was not young people friendly. I tried to do it with some young people but they found it boring. The council said they are still going to do targeted work with young people through the MAT [Multi Agency Teams] teams. All young people are vulnerable and hard to reach at some time. MAT Youth workers can only reach those referred to them which in reality will be young people from deprived areas. What about the young people in more wealthy areas they still see and experience Domestic Violence, drug use, criminal activity, bad parenting but come to the attention of services less as they are the hidden young people. Youth club workers can reach these young people. At the meetings I have been to the council has not fully explained the exact model they want to follow as regard to youth provision. As the speaker on Saturday showed many authorities use a combination of provision providers. How will quality of provision be monitored? Are the council going to set up some sort of quality assurance team? What happens if the council thinks standards are not being met? What happens to the geographical areas where the voluntary sector don't want to work in? Who fills the gap for YP? How will the council MAKE the voluntary sector access training? I know there is the training for the Volunteer passport but this is basic information. How will the voluntary sector communicate with each other? i.e. a youth provision in one village recognising a stranger targeting young women and need to share that information with a neighbouring village. What is the contingency plan if the voluntary sector doesn't take up as much of the provision as envisaged? I realise that in these times there has to be change and budget savings but I feel that this proposal has not been logically thought out. I also feel that the 'Stakeholder' meeting I went to at Arkwright was a token meeting and that the participants were listened to but not heard. It was in a location that was difficult for non-car drivers to access as there is limited public transport from the relevant villages nearby; therefore Young People had to rely on adults to attend. Thank you for taking the time to read these thought Name supplied but withheld.

Page | 14

APPENDIX 3

Submission to Derbyshire County Council Scrutiny Committee

Ref: Derbyshire Youth Service

Unfortunately I am unable to attend the public meeting on 18th February due to family commitments in the North East, but would respectfully ask the Scrutiny Committee to accept this written submission that outlines my views on the proposed changes to the youth service.

I was Head of Derbyshire Youth Service from 2004 until my early retirement in March 2011 and prior to that I have 25 years service with Derbyshire County Council youth service.

Throughout my career, the Derbyshire Youth Service and the Voluntary Sector have worked hand in hand to deliver a range of youth work provision, but the County Council’s Youth Service has always taken a Leading Strategic role in the development of youth work and this has always been valued by the voluntary sector.

The Youth Service’s strategic role has provided the voluntary sector with free access to qualification training; attendance on curriculum development conferences and seminars; subsidised use of youth service mini-buses; free access to youth service mobile units, climbing wall and skate n ride unit, subsidised use of youth centres, free use of youth service equipment, access to professional support, guidance and advice, access to District team and planning meetings.

The County Council’s proposal to commission the voluntary sector to deliver youth activities through grants will effectively remove all of the support mentioned earlier, thus leaving the voluntary sector to work in isolation of any strategic planning with no subsidised or free access to resources and no-one to turn to in their hour of need.

The voluntary sector in Derbyshire freely admits to being made up of a diverse range of voluntary organisations with no countywide structure. Over the years it has proved impossible to establish a single voice or planning structure for voluntary organisations as they are all unique in their own right. Each and every one of them makes a valuable contribution to young people’s lives but they are individual organisations and they can’t do it all and neither they nor the youth service can do it alone.

Whilst awarding grants to some voluntary organisations for specific pieces of work is commendable, these grants can only be successful and effective if they are part of a coherent youth policy that should be determined, developed and managed by the County Council to help meet its wider social agenda.

A Youth Service with professionally qualified youth workers working in partnership with voluntary organisations is the County Council’s best option to ensure standards of provision, quality of service and coherent planning is maximised. Without a professional youth service overseeing a youth policy, the County Council could well

Page | 15

APPENDIX 3

face public criticism of inconsistent practice and inadequate service for young people.

There is much debate about value for money and very often the debate polarises the voluntary and statutory sectors as one being cheap and the other expensive. Pound for pound both sectors will at times provide value for money yet both could equally be challenged to find efficiency savings.

One fact that is often overlooked is that the County Council has an exceptionally talented workforce who is dedicated to their work, passionate about young people and gives as many voluntary hours as they do paid hours.

Voluntary organisations are usually wholly dependent on grants to cover the full cost of an activity and any diversion or addition to the contracted activity that incurs additional cost will either not be carried out because the organisation can’t afford it or the grant giver will be asked for more money. Either of these actions would seem perfectly reasonable for a voluntary organisation with limited financial flexibility.

If the County Council was to rely solely on the voluntary sector to deliver youth activities through a grants scheme, then it’s highly likely that at some point during the contracted period, other young people related issues would emerge that the County Council would wish to respond to, but the voluntary organisation would require additional funding to do the additional work.

In my experience as Head of the Youth Service, there have been numerous occasions where young people related issues have been raised by community groups and Elected Members have sought a quick solution. On every occasion a youth worker or youth work team has immediately been assigned to the issue and the appropriate support, action or rescheduling of resources has addressed the issue, more often than not this action has saved money for the County Council and other public bodies whilst at the same time preserving the Elected Members standing in their constituency.

The County Council and Elected Members would lose this flexibility to secure a quick response if they adopt a grant scheme to voluntary organisations for the delivery of youth activities at the expense of having its own flexible youth service.

I’m aware of the creation of Multi-agency teams and some people may say it’s the job of the MAT to respond to young people issues, but the reality of the Multi-agency team is that they are expected to give a significant amount of time and energy to the more vulnerable young people (rightly so) and those with a CAF. The youth workers within the MAT would find it incredibly difficult to prioritise other activity at the expense of the social care aspect of their work.

Elected Members will know that most of the issues raised with them by their electorate are not social care issues, but issues about young people on the streets or seen as potentially involved in petty crime or anti-social behaviour. These are the

Page | 16

APPENDIX 3

issues that require a response and involvement of a well trained youth service. I’m afraid a grant scheme to the voluntary sector will not adequately address this and the issues may escalate and prove to be even more costly.

The County Council has a long tradition of providing a well funded, well trained youth service and over many years has been acclaimed by Government Departments and National Youth Organisations as one of the best in the country. Although some Elected Members seem to have belittled the statistical evidence of having worked with over 30% of Derbyshire’s young people, this amounts to in excess of 18,000 young people and is by far and away more than any other organisation in the County.

The value of the mobile units should not be underestimated as these have proved to be very efficient and effective with taking services to those young people who would not ordinarily go to a youth club. I have personally witnessed youth workers working from one of the mobile units on a Friday evening at a park in Chesterfield frequented by young people consuming alcohol. For the entire 2 hours that the youth workers were there, the young people refrained from drinking alcohol and engaged in serious discussion about their lifestyle and the reasons for their drinking with some positive options for their involvement in other youth service activity.

This type of work undoubtedly helps to keep young people out of the criminal justice system but it would not be achieved through a grant scheme approach to youth work.

I would urge Elected Members to give some thought to the contribution its youth service makes to inter-generational work, reducing anti-social behaviour, teenage health, the youth council and improving educational achievement in schools.

Regards,

Gordon Savage

Page | 17