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