SCRUTINY REVIEW INTO COUNTY COUNCIL YOUTH PROVISION … · Resources Scrutiny Committee Scrutiny Review into County Council Youth provision for 13-19 year olds in Hertsmere Ref RES/12

Resources Scrutiny Committee Scrutiny Review into County Council Youth provision for 13-19 year olds in Hertsmere

Ref RES/12/ 1

RESOURCES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

SCRUTINY REVIEW INTO

COUNTY COUNCIL YOUTH PROVISION FOR 13-19 YEAR OLDS IN HERTSMERE

CONTENTS 1 Foreword by the Scrutiny Review Councillors 2 Summary 3 Recommendations 4 Objective of the Scrutiny Review 5 Background 6 Conclusion

Appendices: Appendix A – Question List Appendix B – Attendances by Hertsmere Residents Appendix C – Hertsmere Youth Work Team Appendix D – Terms of Reference of the Youth Network Timeline: November 2012 Resources Scrutiny Committee (RES/12/25) December 2012 Executive (EX/12/...)


Ref RES/12/ 2

1. Foreword 1.1 The Resources Scrutiny Committee would like to present their review into

the County Council youth provision for 13-19 years olds in Hertsmere. 1.2 We undertook this review as we were aware of specific, excellent projects

run by the County but we did not know the total scope of the provision, in terms of coverage, attendance numbers and value for money.

1.4 We had a number of meetings with Hertsmere Officers and Youth

Connexions staff and visited a number of Youth Connexions venues. The visits in particular were very rewarding and we did see at first-hand some excellent work and met enthusiastic workers and young people. We also compiled a register of third sector providers of youth facilities 13-19yrs across the 5 settlements in the borough to ascertain the spread of provision.

1.5 We would like to thank the following people who helped us during the

course of our work: Martin Cooke – Youth Connexions Team Manager (Welwyn-Hatfield

and Hertsmere).

Scrutiny Review carried out by:

Councillor Strack Councillor Hoeksma Councillor Parnell Councillor Winters Lead Member

2. Summary 2.1 It has been hard to get a clear overview of what is being provided and so

no certainty of adequate Borough-wide coverage or that Hertsmere’s young people are receiving value for money. The recommendations reached by this Scrutiny Review will, if adopted, encourage better partnership working and keep Hertsmere Councillors properly informed of youth provision in the Borough. This will lead to improved services to Hertsmere’s young people and assure both County and Hertsmere Councillors that needs are being met and value for money is being achieved.

2.2 The Executive is asked to consider our recommendations and the reasons

behind them, and ask Officers to liaise with Youth Connexions and the relevant County Council Portfolioholder to take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations.

http://192.168.61.20/democracy/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=613


Ref RES/12/ 3

3. Recommendations The Resources Scrutiny Committee recommend to the Executive:

3.1 that Youth Connexions provide an Annual Performance Table to Hertsmere councillors on the projects it is delivering in Hertsmere. The Annual Performance Table should set out the project name, summary of the activity being delivered, location, opening hours, headcount of individual attendees, number of attendances, running costs and contact person for the project. Where provision is delivered in partnership, it should set out who has delivered what within that partnership. [see para 5.3, 5.5, 5.18, 5.20, 5.26 - the Annual Performance Table would be a key tool for reassuring councillors about the coverage, relevance and value for money of the provision. It was important that the Table should only list activities that Youth Connexions directly funds and delivers, as we experienced some confusion around double counting (eg a youth project was moved at the request of police community support officers from the One Stop Shop to Farriers Way – but it had then been counted twice as separate projects].

3.2 that the Executive explore how the Community Infrastructure Levy could provide funds for youth facilities. [see para 5.5, 5.6]

3.3 that the partners involved in the 96 Shenley Road project check

whether the design could be reconfigured to provide self-contained facilities for the youth service. [see para 5.7] UPDATE: Since we concluded this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that a design review meeting has taken place and that the venue will for integrated multi-purpose usage by all partners.

3.4 that working with partners to produce a joint comprehensive

programme is essential and, notwithstanding any work done with the Youth Network, the highest priority was for Youth Connexions to work with Hertsmere Council and Hertsmere Leisure to devise a programme that eliminates duplication and shares expertise. [see para 5.25]

3.5 that a performance indicator be developed to record the percentage of

attendance by Hertsmere residents, to measure how the provision is reflecting the needs of local young people and not catering primarily to out-of-Borough attendees. [see para 5.4, 5.19 - from the information presented to us and the site visits undertaken, we were not confident that the County Council’s youth provision was adequately targeting Hertsmere’s young people. For example, whilst Bushey Wheels is an excellent project, it can only accommodate a limited number of attendees. In the past twelve months 47% (27 out 57) of attendees were from outside of Hertsmere.]

3.6 that expensive projects such as Bushey Wheels, which is resource

intensive and requires almost 1-2-1 staffing, should recoup the cost from other Area Teams who send their young people to Bushey Wheels or be funded from some other budget. [see para 3.5 - funds that are allocated for Hertsmere young people are being spent on other regions.


Ref RES/12/ 4

For example, Bushey Wheels cost £11 000 to £ 13 000 per year, half of which was spent on young people from outside of Hertsmere.]

3.7 that Youth Connexions advertise for youth workers in Hertsmere

publications and organisations (eg Hertsmere News, Community Action Hertsmere, My Bushey News). The County Council’s contract with Manpower (or any subsequent contractor) should not impair the effective working of an important people-facing service, therefore if such contracts continue to be a barrier to efficient services, then County Council should consider reviewing its recruitment advertising policy. [see para 5.11] UPDATE: Since we concluded this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that the Manpower contract has been retendered and that Youth Connexions is now utilising local publications.

3.8 that Youth Connexions contact Hertsmere Leisure to explore options for using Threeways Community Centre to provide indoor youth activities alongside the planned outdoor activities. [see para 5.5b]

3.9 that, as schools are cutting their careers service, Youth Connexions

track the gap in provision and report back to Hertsmere’s Resources Scrutiny Committee about any impacts and how they are being addressed. The Committee would also like an update on the other response to the 2010 scrutiny, namely an update on the portfolio of services that will be sold to the County’s Education service as of September 2012. [see para 5.27] UPDATE: This recommendation has been addressed; since we concluded this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that schools across the County have reviewed their Information, Advice & Guidance provision, 90% of schools and colleges have contracted Youth Connexions, some have taken the service in-house and a few have contracted a different provider.

3.10 that the Paddington Housing Association funded project in Bushey be continued with Locality or WIIS money, depending on what attendances and outcomes the project delivers. [see para 5.5d]

3.11 that Youth Connexions should review the need for provision in Shenley and consider options such as using the Village Hall as a base to supplement their detached work. Any provision would need to account for two separate communities (new estate at Porters Park and established Shenley). [see para 5.5f]

3.12 that Youth Connexions look at how the One Stop Shop venue presents itself and ensure it looks open for business. [see para 5.5b]

3.13 that, as per best practice in other major organisations, staff who accept sponsorship for training should sign a contract to remain in their post for 2-3 years after qualifying or pay back the money. [see para 5.14]


Ref RES/12/ 5

3.14 that overcoming the barrier of travel preventing young people from accessing services should be one of the key strategic aims of the County’s youth service. [see para 5.5f]

3.15 that this report be submitted as the Resources Scrutiny Committee’s response to Youth Connexions’ consultation with County Councillors (in February 2012) about provision in Hertsmere. [see para 5.27] UPDATE: Since we finished this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that the County Council scrutiny process has been concluded.

4. Objective of the Scrutiny Review 4.1 The Scrutiny Review into County Council youth provision for 13-19 year

olds was undertaken in response to Resources Scrutiny Committee receiving a presentation on the youth service at a meeting in January 2012 and realising that Hertsmere councillors could add value by getting a clearer picture of the service.

4.3 Therefore the Committee set up a Scrutiny Review to:

- establish a clear overview of the nature and spread of provision. - ascertain how value for money was being achieved.

4.4 The Scrutiny Review drew its conclusions in the light of the County

Council‟s Strategy for youth provision in Hertsmere, as presented to Resources Scrutiny Committee in January 2012:

1. Prioritise Borehamwood as identified area of need 2. Working to offer 96 Shenley Road as an excellent resource to

young people in Hertsmere 3. Develop the work in identified communities via flexible use of

resources – new short projects. 4. Working in partnership with HBC, Housing Trusts, Police & Fire

and Rescue. Responding to needs. 5. Provide support to build capacity in the Voluntary Sector through

Pro-Action (umbrella group for voluntary youth groups) 6. Bring agencies and voluntary/third sector groups together to plan

and support delivery 7. Developing Hertsmere-focussed solutions 8. Coordinated approach to the delivery of activities to young people 9. Sharing of physical resources 10. Joint working 11. Preventing duplication of provision.

5. Background NATURE AND SPREAD OF PROVISION

5.1 We considered the spread of provision across the Borough. We asked

Youth Connexions for a list of activities that they delivered.

5.2 Looking through the responses, we were not confident about the level of youth provision in Hertsmere. We were mindful that this might be a matter


Ref RES/12/ 6

of perception because the responses we had received were not always easy to follow and seemed incomplete to us.

5.3 So we concluded that a useful first step would be to annually inform Hertsmere Councillors about what activities were happening in Hertsmere and provide a contact point for finding out more about the provision available for Hertsmere‟s 13-19 year olds, of which there are approximately 8500 in the borough. Such an “Annual Performance Table” would be a key tool for reassuring councillors about the coverage, relevance and value for money of the provision. Hopefully it would identify the less effective projects early on, such as the Borehamwood Library Homework Club which had continued running despite its unviable attendance levels (we had been to Borehamwood Library and seen only one attendee at the homework club on three occasions). The data would also help County Councillors to monitor how well they were meeting their strategic objectives for Hertsmere (ie “coordinated approach to the delivery of activities” and “preventing duplication of provision”). [see Recommendation 3.1] UPDATE: Since we concluded this scrutiny review, County Officers has told us that they will provide termly updates to district and County councillors.

5.4 From the information presented to us and the site visits we undertook, we were not confident that the County Council‟s youth provision was adequately targeting Hertsmere‟s young people. For example, whilst Bushey Wheels is an excellent project, it can only accommodate a limited number of attendees. In the past twelve months, 47% (27 out 57) of these attendees were from outside Hertsmere. Therefore, we believe that a performance indicator should be developed to record the percentage of attendance by Hertsmere residents, to measure how the provision was reflecting the needs of our local young people and not instead catering primarily to out-of-Borough attendees. Introducing such an indicator would enable the County to meet its strategic objective of „developing Hertsmere focussed solutions‟. [see Recommendation 3.5]. Moreover it is reasonable to have a geographical-based performance indicator given that the County Council has organised its management structure and budgets on a geographical basis. Even though the rationale for this structure and budget allocation was not made clear to us (see Appendix A, question 1), we consider it a necessity to have indicators to measure how well such a geographical-based structure is meeting local needs.

5.5 We invited feedback from our fellow councillors and discussed with Youth Connexions the youth provision across the six „settlements‟ in Hertsmere:

a. Potters Bar: Elm Court owned by County Council, so activities are well established. Although some youth activities at Elm Court attract young people from across the Town, the net needs to be wider to include

young people from further afield. Transport is a problem, as identified in consultations run by Youth Connexions and by Hertsmere Council.

b. Borehamwood: Farriers Way and One Stop Shop (Manor Way). Sexual Health Counselling well established but we were not clear about what else happens here. We were aware that the One Stop Shop often looks closed because its shutters are drawn. We suggest


Ref RES/12/ 7

that Officers look at how the venue presents itself and ensure it looks open for business. From our knowledge of our wards, we were concerned about the level of youth provision in south Borehamwood. In particular we believe that the outdoor activities currently planned by Youth Connexions were at risk of not being delivered as they had not identified a venue which had toilets or shelter from poor weather. We suggest that a way forward would be for Youth Connexions to contact Hertsmere Leisure to explore options for using Threeways Community Centre to provide indoor youth activities alongside the planned outdoor activities. [See Recommendations 3.8, 3.12]

c. Elstree: No provision at all. The Community Centre had been leased by Hertsmere Council to a nursery. No indoor space for young people to meet. Elstree and Borehamwood Youth Council is run by and paid for the Town Council [Youth Connexions‟ joint work with the Youth Council was not established in that a Youth Connexions Officer had attended some Youth Council meetings, but only to take the register].

d. Bushey: Bushey Wheels was well established but only has 8 places at a time. A course for girls is planned for summer 2012 to vary take-up. A project with Paddington Housing Association attracted about 20 attendees but as this was only a short-term project, the funding from Paddington is no longer available. We thought this project could be continued with Locality or WIIS money, depending on what activities the project delivers. [see Recommendation 3.10]

e. Radlett: no base for activities. Youth Connexions is unlikely to put in building-based long term projects but could do fixed term projects. They were also working with the newly formed Youth Council.

f. Shenley: no base for permanent activity. We were told that detached work is available but there had been no take up. A Shenley councillor told us that County had said Shenley young people should go to Potters Bar for activities. However, whilst those living in South Mimms could make such a journey, the bulk of the residents are in the village of Shenley, which has no transport links or connections with Potters Bar, so young people would not even consider Potters Bar as an option. The councillor was clear that Shenley could do with some regular provision and help from Hertsmere or the County. We suggest that Youth Connexions look at using Shenley Village Hall for a base. [see Recommendation 3.11] Provision would need to account for two separate communities: new estate at Porters Park and established Shenley. This feedback is mirrored in the 2011 Youth Connexions survey, which showed that non-users of the youth service had identified travelling as a barrier to participation. This feedback is valuable and we believe more work is needed to identify what aspects

of travel (cost, distance, lack of routes, frequency etc) are preventing young people from accessing the services. Once this is identified Youth Connexions can reconfigure its offer to overcome this barrier. The same feedback about travel was also given to Hertsmere Be There Do It consultation on what barriers young people faced. We suggest that overcoming the logistics of travel should be one of the key strategic aims of the County‟s youth service. [see Recommendation 3.14]


Ref RES/12/ 8

5.6 We were told that the facilities being built at 96 Shenley Road were excellent, particularly the training kitchen. However there was no ball-play space (though it could accommodate football training, weights, etc). We were told that the current One Stop Shop has no sport space, so this was not a new issue and could be resolved by using playing fields on an ad hoc basis. We thought the Community Infrastructure Levy might be a route for funding provision across the settlements and addressing the lack of ball-play space at 96 Shenley Road. [see Recommendation 3.2]

5.7 We were told that the other drawback at 96 Shenley Road was that the

first floor cannot be locked off which means that other users can access the area where the young people are going to be. It would have been better to have it sealed off with its own entrance. The youth service had been a key stakeholder in the planning of the Shenley site and it was a County project, so it should be possible for the County‟s youth service to get facilities that matched their needs. The project had its beginnings as an integrated, multi-use community facility. If the intention was to now create a self-contained youth facility which meant that other community groups would have no access for 3 days a week, then this would have to be discussed by those who had been party to the initial agreements for the site. If the need to have self-contained activities was essential, then we suggest that the partners involved in the 96 Shenley Road project check whether the design could be reconfigured to provide self-contained facilities for the youth service, as Youth Connexions said they would be unable to use the venue as much as they had envisaged if other users were able to come into contact with the young people whilst youth activities were taking place. Youth Connexions said there was a problem of adults who were not CRB-checked coming into contact with young people and this would constrain their use of 96 Shenley Road. [see Recommendation 3.3] UPDATE: This recommendation has been addressed; since we concluded we concluded this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that this has been resolved. New designs have been produced and the intention to create a multi-use facility confirmed.

5.8 We are aware that Youth Connexions consulted County Councillors in

February 2012 about their views on provision in Hertsmere. The consultation was in response to the County‟s own scrutiny in 2010 and 2011 into youth provision. We submit this report as our comments on Hertsmere‟s needs and we would like a report to Hertsmere‟s Resources Scrutiny Committee on the outcome of the consultation. We would also like an update on the other response to the 2010 scrutiny, namely an update on the portfolio of services that will be sold to the County‟s Education service as of September 2012. UPDATE: Since we finished this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that the County Council scrutiny process has been concluded.

EFFECTIVENESS

5.9 We were told that Youth Connexions‟ customer survey in 2011 showed

positive feedback and high satisfaction from attendees. This was a


Ref RES/12/ 9

positive endorsement and also reflected the good work we had seen on our site visits to Bushey Wheels and Elm Court.

5.10 We were made aware of the 25-70% vacancies for youth workers in

Hertsmere. This was a long-standing problem which had been highlighted

in the County‟s own scrutiny report in 2010 [para 4.3 of County report: “Members were concerned that in the past there had been vacancies in the Youth Connexions service in areas particularly close to London as London authorities pay a higher salary and a larger London weighting”]. We were disappointed that the vacancies remained unresolved from Feb

2010 to Jan 2012 and question whether long-term vacancy levels of 25-

70% is an effective service for Hertsmere’s young people. 5.11 We were also disappointed that Resources Scrutiny Committee‟s

suggestion in January 2012 to advertise for youth workers in Hertsmere publications and organisations (eg Hertsmere News, Community Action Hertsmere) had not been followed up. However on our recent site visits we not only saw some positive activities taking place, but we were told that more varied recruitment methods were now being used (Youth Connexions had complained to Manpower about the lack of recruits and had been refunded monies and had since advertised in the Hendon times and Hertsmere Community Shop). [see Recommendation 3.7]

5.12 We were told that the County‟s recruitment contract with Manpower

impeded recruitment, a new contract was to be awarded shortly under the same terms. Given that £500 must be paid to Manpower even if the recruitment is via another route, we believe Youth Connexions should be proactive and advertise through all available routes. It is worse to have vacancies than let Manpower (or its replacement) provide an inadequate service. Minimising the impact on Hertsmere‟s young people is more critical than holding the view that it is down to Manpower (or its replacement) to identify potential recruits. We are concerned that County Council‟s contract with Manpower (and any subsequent contract) seems to be impairing the effective working of an important people-facing service. Given that the contract is a barrier to efficient services, we feel that the County Council should consider reviewing its recruitment advertising policy. UPDATE: since completing this scrutiny review, County Officers have told us that there will be a new contractor from April 2013.

5.13 We were told of changes to the third tier of the staff management structure

– a staff member had left and been replaced by a trainee from the fourth tier, who would be sponsored on the job to attend university and gain qualifications via day release. Their salary is at a lower level than the previous postholder to offset this investment.

5.14 We suggested that in future, those accepting sponsorship for training

should sign a contract to remain in their post for 2-3 years after qualifying or pay back the money. Otherwise the Youth Service has lost its investment should the newly qualified officer leave – in this case Hertsmere has now lost staff from the fourth tier (as the trainee has been promoted from the fourth tier, which is already carrying vacancies) and


Ref RES/12/ 10

resources allocated to Hertsmere would be lost again should the trainee leave the third tier once they are qualified, ie Hertsmere young people will not have received a return on the investment and will have lost out during the course of the investment due to the increased vacancy level in the fourth tier. [see Recommendation 3.13]

5.15 We remained unclear on how many people have been recruited to the

fourth tier vacancies. We were told that recruits were sought for 10 hours per week, as that gave the most efficient allocation and reduced costs spent on recruitment. In practice they were hired for shorter time periods. Part-time staff could be better deployed than full-timers as they could be used for all evening sessions, whereas full-time staff had a JNC agreement that limited them to eight evenings in a fortnight (inc 1 weekend evening).

VALUE FOR MONEY

5.16 Youth Connexions was funded by Hertfordshire County Council, with a

total budget of approximately £10 million. We were told that each borough has £10k to spend on projects (hiring venues, coaches, subsidising tickets, printing brochures etc). Salaries account for another £170-£180k in Hertsmere. We are not quite certain of the budget for Hertsmere as we have received different figures (see Appendix A, 1-3, which works out at £253k plus shared services). County Officers told us that Youth Connexions is not the sole provider of youth services and is not resourced to be a universal provider. Resources are for a county-wide service, offering opportunities across the County for young people from Hertsmere. They do not allocate resources in this way.

5.17 We are aware that the officers had clearly spent time getting the

information together for us, unfortunately the responses had, overall, failed to answer the questions we posed. So we were unable to establish whether it was value for money because the data was not as informative as we had hoped for. Some responses were not particularly comprehensive or clear to a layperson (see Appendix A, 1, 3, 5, 6, 25).

We had similar conflicting data regarding attendance levels (unique attendance of 1212 between 1 April 02011 and 31 March 2012 is less than the 1420 attendances between 1 April 2011 and 31 December 2011). We were told that Hertsmere‟s population of 13-19 years olds was about 9000, however the era of a hundred young people attending projects is no longer the norm. Attendances tend to be 6-8, even for the popular projects like the Bushey Wheels Club. We are not clear whether the smaller attendances are due to the attraction of the activity on offer, the already identified barrier of poor travel logistics or that some activities can only allow for small attendance due to the supervision levels required for the activity (Bushey Wheels).

5.18 We also requested a table of all activities provided in Hertsmere. Whilst

the response was useful in some respects, it did not provided sufficiently detailed information on the exact nature, costs and performance of each of


Ref RES/12/ 11

the youth projects. It was unclear to us how much value for money was provided by the service, especially as attendance figures were for „times attended‟ rather than for „individuals‟. Furthermore, during the course of our scrutiny we noted that some projects/activities were labelled as County provision, when they were in fact run by other organisations (for example Elstree & Borehamwood Youth Council) with little active input from Youth Connexions.6.3.12 County Officers have told us that Youth Connexions targets are to work with vulnerable young people. Projects are not all designed to attract large numbers. Other projects are delivered by the voluntary sector, commissioned by Youth Connexions. This partnership approach is the basis on which Youth Connexions works. Partnerships bring added value to the total youth offer, with partners taking specific lead roles at different times. [see Recommendation 3.1]

5.19 We did become aware of costlier projects such as Bushey Wheels, which

is resource intensive and requires almost 1-2-1 staffing. We believe that such resource-intensive projects should recoup costs from other Area Teams who send their young people to them, otherwise funds that are allocated for Hertsmere residents are being spent on other regions. The annual cost for Bushey Wheels is £11 - 13 000, half of this money was spent on young people from outside of Hertsmere because last year only 53% of attendees were from Hertsmere (30 out of 57 attendees. The project is a costly one – but twice as costly if half the attendees are from another region. Recouping costs ensures value for money. [see Recommendations 3.5 and 3.6]

5.20 Therefore we suggest that the running cost for each of the projects should

be included in the Annual Performance Table, as if you cannot work out your costs how do you evaluate value for money? In these times of reduced resources, expenditure should be monitored to see what outcomes it delivers. [see Recommendation 3.1]

WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP

5.21 It is important to minimise duplication given the decreasing resources in

local government. Partnership working is critical to achieve this, whether by publishing a joint booklet on summer activities or working with local housing associations to advise them on where their funding grants would be best spent.

5.22 The Youth Network was established in the spring 2012, but its role in

coordinating youth activities across partner organisations did not succeed in summer 2012. Youth Connexions said this was due to the short notice cancellation of an essential meeting, at which the summer activity booklet was to be finalised for print. A replacement meeting did not happen and so the chance to coordinate activities was lost. In retrospect Youth Connexions thought perhaps it should have been more proactive. As a result of missing the opportunity to work in partnership and not meeting the deadline for coordinating a joint summer programme, Youth


Ref RES/12/ 12

Connexions had to produce their own booklet, which meant a shortfall on their budget plus loss of staff time in producing a booklet on their own. This wastage of a limited budget to produce a duplicate booklet – as well as the resources redirected to produce the booklet and correct the errors - meant that Youth Connexions said they would be sure to avoid the same situation next year.

5.23 We were disappointed that a joint booklet had not been produced. Not

only was it confusing for young people to receive the same information from multiple sources, the information was not actually correct or comprehensive because the Youth Connexions‟ booklet contained inaccuracies of cost/place and incomplete signposting to partners‟ events. We were told that Youth Connexions was sometimes slow to respond/provide information and had badged other organisation‟s projects as theirs. Equally we could understand Youth Connexions‟ frustration at a meeting being cancelled at short notice.

5.24 However, the focus should now be on ensuring effective advertising to

young people, so we are keen to see the Youth Network regroup and work together to minimise duplication and support each other‟s provision. To help maintain focus, a councillor from this Scrutiny Review would be available to attend the Youth Network to help the partnership work get underway.

5.25 We are aware that Be There Do It officers had asked County to let them

know of any barriers to joint working. We suggest that Hertsmere‟s Be There Do It officers and Youth Connexions meet outside of the Youth Network to sort out specific initiatives, such as the activities booklet. This will make a repetition of this year‟s mix-up less likely as only two organisations will be getting together to resolve one discrete task. It is important to get this in place so that the autumn booklet can be jointly printed and publicised in school assemblies alongside the Police‟s diversionary activities. At the moment this did not look likely, so we urge both partners to identify what the barriers are so that they can be addressed. Joint working is the way forward in a time of shrinking resources. Youth Connexions, Hertsmere Leisure and Hertsmere Council – as the three major provider of youth activities - must work more closely together outside of the Youth Network to jointly work of coordinating and publicising their activities. We feel the Youth Network is more suitable as a forum for providers, large and small, to share ideas. It cannot be tasked with creating a coordinated programme of activities as there are too many varied stakeholders to reach a consensus (see its terms of reference at Appendix D). We feel the priority is to make sure the three major providers work more closely together. [see Recommendation 3.4]

5.26 We saw from the Youth Connexions presentation to Resources Scrutiny Committee in January 2012 and in responses to our questions, that it had a number of partnerships which are no doubt working fruitfully. We feel that the Youth Connexions may have also included other organisations‟ initiatives in their own statistics. Whereas we are aware of two partnerships that require a bit more proactive investment in order to be


Ref RES/12/ 13

called truly „joint working‟. Firstly, close working with Be There Do has been missing, as mentioned above. Secondly, Youth Connexions has referred to work with Elstree & Borehamwood Youth Council, but the Town Councillors are clear that the Youth Council is a Town Council initiative and that Youth Connexions‟ engagement with it has been to attend some meetings to take the register. We really want to know about the proactive work that Youth Connexions undertakes with its partners, not where it is an observer, on an „invitation‟ basis, of activities provided by other organisations as opposed to working in „partnership‟ with them. Hopefully the Annual Performance Table will clarify where the partnership working is fully fledged and where the work is happening side-by-side. [see Recommendation 3.1]

5.27 County Council‟s scrutiny report in February 2010 (para 4.5/rec 2.45) has

not been fully met: “Members heard that the establishment of Youth Connexions had improved communications at strategic level; however there remain issues at a local level around communications with some district councils. They also heard that communication through District Children’s Trust Partnership (DCTP) arrangements is variable.” We are aware that Youth Connexions has been completing various actions requested by the County Scrutiny Report, in particular they asked Hertsmere County Councillors (in February 2013) about local youth provision. We would like our own scrutiny report to be submitted as a response. [see Recommendations 3.9, 3.15]

6. Conclusion 6.1 This has been a useful scrutiny review because it showed us the positive

work happening at the various projects run by Youth Connexions. It also showed that Youth Connexions must work in closer partnership with Hertsmere Council so that limited resources are not wasted through duplication and to keep councillors better informed about the activities being delivered in the region. Doing this will make the service more accountable to local councillors and will ensure that Youth Connexions continues to receive positive feedback in its user surveys.

6.2 The Resources Scrutiny Committee will review the effectiveness of the response to its recommendations in April 2013.

Report produced by Councillors Hoeksma, Parnell, Strack and Winters on behalf of Resources Scrutiny Committee, September 2012


Ref RES/12/ -

14

APPENDIX A – QUESTION LIST SENT TO YOUTH CONNEXIONS

Hertsmere Council scrutiny review into

HCC youth provision for 13-19years olds in Hertsmere. To: Martin Cooke, Councillors Button and Roberts

We have drafted the following questions to assist our scrutiny into the above provision. We would be grateful if you could send us the answers by the 4 April 2012. Once we have looked through the answers it maybe useful for us to have a meeting on any subsequent queries, in which case we will ask our officers in Democratic Services to contact you for your diary availability. Thanking you in advance

1. At County-level, how do you plan your provision for each district – in terms of: a. funding level b. types of youth provision c. geographical spread of provision?

Budget is set by County Councillors; Senior Managers within Childrens Services allocate budgets to departments and then onward down to team level.

2. What outcomes do you aim for?

There needs to be a clear rationale for all Youth Connexions projects and it needs to be in line with the service priorities

Young people in a locality of need e.g. area of high deprivation, high levels of anti-social behaviour or where there is a high risk of young people engaging in risky behaviour

Vulnerable young people as identified in the Children and Young People Plan

Youth engagement such as youth forums, youth councils, volunteering, steering groups

Providing Youth work/positive activities on a Friday and Saturday evening

3. How do you measure the success of achieving these outcomes and what was your performance for 2011-12?

Data is collected from across the county and collated and analysed

This process is not finalised for the year 2011-12. 4. At the Hertsmere-level, how have you planned your provision – in terms of:

a. funding level b. types of youth provision


Ref RES/12/ -

15

c. spread of provision across the Hertsmere settlements (ie Elstree & Borehamwood, Radlett, Potters Bar, Shenley, Ridge, South Mimms, Bushey, Aldenham)?

All double district teams conduct a planning process exercise in the autumn reflecting back on the previous work and making use of survey information/responses from young people to plan the following years work.

Resources are allocated to the areas of greatest identified need and where we have (or access to) suitable premises and facilities.

5. Do you have a particular set of outcomes/targets for Hertsmere? If yes, what

are they?

Targets and outcomes are set in line with Service priorities (see above, Q2)

To make contact with 25% of young people in our target age range 13-19

To ensure that15% of the target population participate in planned programmes of work

Achieve recorded outcomes with 60% of those who participate

Achieve accredited outcomes with 30% of those who participate

6. Please set out in a table the projects and services that are provided in the Hertsmere area and the total running cost and number of Hertsmere attendees/users per project/service.

Attached

In addition to this youth workers have delivered short pieces of focussed work and support delivery in schools.

7. What is the youth provision budget for the Hertsmere area?

The budget for the Youth Connexions Welwyn Hatfield and Hertsmere Districts are not separate items and includes all the IAG (Information Advice and Guidance) work and premises costs as well as the Youth Work/Positive Activities programme, however I have been able to extract the following:

Full time staffing £155,500

Part time staffing £88,000

Curriculum Development Budget £10,000 (supports the delivery of youth work)

8. What is the budget breakdown (ie by budget heads for staffing, consultants,

projects, supplies, etc) for the Hertsmere area? See above. The double district budget heading „Supplies and services‟ for the past year was £35,600,

This includes the £10,000 Curriculum Development Budget for Hertsmere and

£10,000 for Welwyn Hatfield,

Leaving £15,600 available.

See previous response 9. What proportion of the budget is spent on back office costs? (please explain

what aspects of the service would be termed as back office).


Ref RES/12/ -

16

It is not possible for me to break down the back office costs as they are covered by HCC corporate spending or by central office spending.

The budget for the past year allowed for 0.9 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) admin support in Hertsmere and covers both areas of work, IAG and youth work.

10. What data have you got on your service users?

We use a data system based on information provided by schools used by both youth workers and Personal Advisors in Youth Connexions with access protocols for data security. We therefore hold data on:

Name, address, age, gender, ethnicity, last school attended, records of interventions made by PA‟s in school/one stop shops/other venues and post school destinations information, attendance at youth projects and any outcomes gained by the young people, separated into Accredited or Recorded outcomes.

We record whether the young people with whom we are in contact have additional needs.

11. What is the total head count of Hertsmere clients using the County youth

services?

1,212* young people with Hertsmere addresses attended Youth Connexions sessions within the period 01/04/11 – 31/03/12 (as extracted from the data systems on 4th April 2012)

12. How many 13-19 year olds are there in the Hertsmere area and what is their

distribution across the Hertsmere settlements?

7,333* young people are recorded as being Hertsmere residents (as extracted from the data systems on 4th April 2012)

13. How do you identify whether clients are from the Hertsmere area?

By Postcode

14. Are there geographical or other variances, or does the data show equitable provision?

There are geographical differences in the level of provision across the Hertsmere Borough, this is linked to

Service priorities (see response to Q2)

Indentified need,

Available physical resources and premises e.g. the existence of Elm Court YC in Potters Bar with its supportive management committee and long connection with HCC Youth Services/Youth Connexions provides a useful operating base for youth work in Potters Bar. The development of a similarly important venue in Borehamwood at 96 Shenley Road will benefit our service delivery.

There is no similar venue in Bushey, other than the Motorcycle project at the Falconer school site.

Detached and Outreach work is one response to working where there are no physical resources but this generally requires more experienced staff


Ref RES/12/ -

17

The Hertsmere team has a number of part time vacancies and although we have successfully filled vacancies those new staff are still undergoing training and are not yet ready to take on the role of detached work.

In financial year 2012-13 we will have made significant further progress in recruiting and training the new staff team. We can then expand the service delivery.

New outreach projects will be commencing after Easter, using the Elm Court facility as a base.

15. Has your monitoring flagged up any hard-to-reach groups in Hertsmere? If yes,

who are they and what measures are you taking to engage with them? Yes, we record young people who are NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) or at risk of becoming NEET, CLA (Children, Looked after), LDD (Learning Difficulty, Disability), BME (Black, Minority, Ethnicity), Young Travellers.

Our data shows that we are working with a higher proportion of BME young people than there are in the general population in Hertsmere.

We work across the double district in supporting LDD projects.

We actively encourage Young Travellers to attend our projects when they are in the area.

242* young people identified as being from vulnerable groups have been contacted to date (as extracted from the data systems on 4th April 2012)

16. How do you monitor attendance levels?

By recording attendance at youth projects, logging it into the database system and then running and analysing regular reports generated by the database.

17. How do you evaluate whether the attendance level was a success or not?

Reports (see previous answer) can provide average attendances over given periods allowing us to monitor attendance (up/down/static).

However, attendance at youth projects is only one measure of success. Outcomes gained for young people and change of behaviour is important. This is not always measurable at the time and may only be apparent at a later date

18. What is your assessment of attendance levels of Hertsmere residents?

Two projects have very low attendances and are therefore under review, other projects continue to improve and generally there has been a rise in attendances that matches the increase in staffing following our ongoing recruitment drive.

There are examples of focussed projects where we are at capacity.

As we continue recruitment and as the new staff members gain the skills and experience to deliver the work, we will be able to further expand the operation across the district and we shall increase our contact with young people and our attendances will increase and we will be able to provide more and better opportunities for young people.

The new development in Shenley Rd will significantly increase our ability to work within Borehamwood


Ref RES/12/ -

18

19. How do you find out what 13-19year olds want from your service?

There is an ongoing consultation process that takes place between our staff and our users,

Twice a year we carry out a more formal consultation process with young people, during the Summer Programme and during the autumn.

The analysis from all the consultations is fed into our planning process for the following year.

20. How many Duke of Edinburgh schemes did Youth Connexions run in the past

two years? How many customers did they serve and what was the total spend?

As stated at the Scrutiny panel meeting the Hertsmere team will be offering Duke of Edinburgh Award during the year 2012-13.

Although the Hertsmere team has not run schemes in the preceding two years Youth Connexions holds the Hertfordshire operating licence for DofE and supports schools and voluntary groups to deliver DofE. Currently Youth Connexions are supporting 10 groups in Hertsmere (or in the case of Chancellors school where a number of pupils live in Hertsmere).

In the last two years 912 young people aged 13-25, from these 10 groups, were enrolled onto the DofE Award.

Attached is example of costs for young person on Bronze Award. 21. What new initiatives have you introduced in Hertsmere in the past 5 years?

How did you measure their success?

The development of the Saturday night work at Hertswood Centre,

Healthy Living Projects with young people at the One Stop Shop,

The work at Farriers way Centre in Borehamwood,

The short project at Wayside in Potters Bar,

Short project at Shenley (response to police request)

Support to Shenley voluntary led youth project

Radlett outreach work

Elstree „Musicians estate‟ outreach and detached work

Potters Bar detached work project

Bushey Alcopops project – response to police request

Time specific project working with Young women

Time specific project working with Young parents

Time specific projects working with NEET (most recent in March 2012)

Satellite One Stop Shop project in Leeming Road

Time specific project supporting young people leaving care

Elstree cricket club pavilion – supporting young people who helped repaint the building in return for access.

The re-introduction of Friday night work at Elm Court

Outreach work will soon start in Potters Bar and Borehamwood and short project work is planned for Bushey.

My team has recently begun to discuss work with supporting Aldenham Youth Council and work in Radlett at the Battlers Green estate with the Aldenham Parish Council.

This work at Battlers Green is likely to be a partnership project with Affinity Sutton housing.


Ref RES/12/ -

19

22. How can Hertsmere help you to recruit youth workers?

An article appearing in the publication highlighting the range of work of Youth Connexions across the borough and asking for residents to consider volunteering or paid work with us might make an impact.

If HBC Cllrs have other channels of information, including the HBC websites to publicise and promote our need for suitable adults that would also be helpful or by promoting opportunities at public meetings, consultations, ward meetings.

23. What is the extent of your partnership work with Hertsmere Council? What

room is there for improvement?

The partnership work with Hertsmere is currently primarily around the development of the new Shenley rd building

We have a consistent partnership involvement and key deliverers with the „Be There! Do it!‟ programme.

Partners in the Herts youth Network which is due to be re-launched

Active participation with the Youth Conference

Active participation with the Young Researchers Project

Active participation and support of consultation activities in conjunction with Hertsmere Borough Council

Our partnership with the Borough was much stronger some years ago when the Borough arts and sports officers worked with our Youth work team to provide a range of jointly funded and managed programmes.

24. What can Hertsmere Council do to assist you in delivering further

improvements to youth provision?

Access to venues where there is currently no or limited provision would be great help – the imminent loss of access to the Hertswood Centre facility in Borehamwood on Saturday nights will have an impact on our work, especially in the Autumn/Winter months.

As Hertsmere Leisure delivers the contract to manage the Hertswood building on behalf of HBC, perhaps HBC can encourage Hertsmere Leisure to allow us access again during the coldest of the winter months?

Working with Youth Connexions to ensure that young people get adequate priority within the new Shenley Road development

25. Who are your other partners in the Hertsmere region? What is the nature of those

partnerships? How can Hertsmere Council add value to those partnerships?

We work closely with the police in Potters Bar

Aldenham Parish Council

Health

Targeted Youth Support Service

Child Uk

Pro- Action

Affinity Sutton Housing Trust

Secondary schools/Academies within Hertsmere Martin J. Cooke, Team Manager Youth Connexions, Welwyn Hatfield & Hertsmere. April 2012


Ref RES/12/ -

20

APPENDIX B – ATTENDANCES BY HERTSMERE RESIDENTS

JANUARY 2012: • sessions delivered – 541 • attendances – 3,982 • total participants: 2,359 • individual young people:1,421 • individuals who earned recorded outcomes:372 • individuals who earned accredited outcomes:241 • income generation - £5,000 during holiday programmes to re-invest in

programme delivery activities and equipment

Unique Young People who live in Hertsmere who attended a Youth Work Session during the period 01/04/11 and 31/03/12

Age

Cl_Town 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total

Barnet 1 1

Borehamwood

16 55 76 88 96 103 69 47 21 13 2 1 2 1 590

Bushey

5 17 42 59 30 30 23 20 10 4 2 1 1 1 245

Elsetree

1

1

Potters Bar 1 2 5 15 45 91 59 39 23 12 8 2 1

303

Radlett

7 8 12 7 9 7 4 2 1 1

58

St Albans

1

1

Stanmore

1

1

Watford

2 2

1 4

1

1

1 12

Grand Total 1 2 26 96 174 250 194 186 122 84 41 22 6 2 3 3 1212

Age

Ward_Name 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total

Aldenham East 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 15

Aldenham West

2 6 6 4 6 1 2 1

1

29

Borehamwood Brookmeadow

3 9 18 14 19 17 9 9 2 2

1 103

Borehamwood Cowley Hill

4 11 13 29 20 37 18 15 5 1

1

154

Borehamwood Hillside

7 21 24 27 28 28 22 12 7 6 1

183

Borehamwood Kenilworth

1 12 16 14 21 17 13 9 7 6

2

118

Bushey Heath

1 3 5 10 1 4 1 2 1 1

29

Bushey North

1 6 6 11 11 15 7 7 2 4 1

1 1 73

Bushey Park

1 1 8 17 5 4 6 2 3

1

1 49

Bushey St. James

2 8 25 21 13 9 9 10 4

1

102

Elstree

1 2 3 4 6 3 6 2

1

28

Potters Bar Furzefield 1 3 5 10 33 25 8 12 3 1 2

103

Potters Bar Oakmere

1 4 15 27 14 9 8 7 2

87

Potters Bar Parkfield 1 1 1 5 18 28 20 22 3 2 5

1

107

Shenley

5 5 5 4 6 5 1 1

32

Grand Total 1 2 26 96 174 250 194 186 122 84 41 22 6 2 3 3 1212


Ref RES/12/ -

21

APPENDIX C – HERTSMERE YOUTH WORK TEAM

• 2 x full time youth workers (inc team leader) • 1 x worker in training • 1 x One Stop Shop manager • 2 x part time ‘workers in charge’ • 10 x part time youth support workers (majority of whom work 6-10 hrs). • 6 vacancies of 7hrs each • 5% of the staffing budget is reserved to boost holiday projects.


Ref RES/12/ -

22

APPENDIX D – TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE YOUTH NETWORK (HYN)

The HYN shall: 1. Eliminate duplication of meetings and events through a singular forum

meeting for whole of Hertsmere area.

2. Act as an exchange for information upon youth issues/events relating to 9

– 19 year olds in the borough of Hertsmere.

3. Will be a platform where youth issues, priorities and needs can be

highlighted.

4. Report identified targets and needs to the LSP Children and Young

People Group (member level), the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), and

to relevant bodies such as the LSP Health and Wellbeing Board.

5. Act as an advocate for youth within relevant meetings, in local publications

and through public events/activities; helping to protect current services

and develop further provision.

6. Pilot new projects and initiatives, working in partnership to provide best

practise to young people.

7. Continually monitor young people through consultation and out reach

work, ensuring their voice is heard and understood.

8. Have the ability to actualise key aims and objectives. The HYN should be

able to make key priority decisions and act as a consortium to draw

funding for youth projects in Hertsmere.

9. Develop models for working/consulting with young people for non-youth

providers who may wish to work with Youth in Hertsmere.

10. The group shall meet on a regular basis. It is envisaged that the meetings

shall be every 8 weeks, hosted by Hertsmere Borough Council.

Documents

SCRUTINY REVIEW INTO COUNTY COUNCIL YOUTH PROVISION … · Resources Scrutiny Committee Scrutiny Review into County Council Youth provision for 13-19 year olds in Hertsmere Ref RES/12