Youth Services in Hounslow

A Scrutiny Review of Partnership Arrangements for the Voluntary and Community Sector

Final Report of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel – February 2012

CYPP_Report_Nov2011 final.doc

Contents Introduction 2 Terms of Reference 4 1. Executive Summary and Recommendations 5 Table of Recommendations 2. Context 8 A. Legislation. B Requirements. C Background

3. Methodology 11 4. Preliminary Analysis 12 A Objectives. B Youth Services Activity and Service Provision. C Customers and Stakeholders.

5. Further Analysis 29 A. Data and Information, Communication and Publicity. B Advice and Guidance, Support and Training

6. Conclusions 37 Appendix 1 Timetable of Meetings 42 Appendix 2 Summary of Issues that Emerged from Interviews with Officers and Partners 43 Appendix 3 Questionnaire Response from Chris Edwards, Funding & Monitoring Manager

Brentford Football Community Sports Trust received on 2nd September 2011 50

Appendix 4 Youth Service Trust and Shared Management Arrangements 53

Appendix 5 More Details about VCS Grants for Youth Activities 55 Appendix 6 More Details of Hounslow’s performance against the 6 National Indicators that

are used to measure the work of the Targeted Youth Services 57

Appendix 7 List of Relevant Sources of Information 58 Appendix 8 Details of Views of local Voluntary and Community Youth Service and

Activity providers 59

Appendix 9 Forum for the Voluntary Sector 62 Appendix 10 Mapping Information 63 Appendix 11 Youth Website 64

Appendix 12 Advice and Guidance, Support and Training 65 Appendix 13 Progress of Recommendations made in respect of the 2003 Scrutiny Panel Review

2

Introduction Cllr Balvir Sond Chair of Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel

This authority is committed to bright futures for its young people, developing places for them to go and things for them to do. Population projections, economic and social changes suggest that the needs of young people will grow at a time when underfunded youth services faces even more resource pressures. Within this report, young people and voluntary and community sector youth service and activity providers have expressed their needs, wishes and frustrations about current service provision. Panel members have considered these matters and other issues; including the resource constraints that the provision and delivery of youth services, and the authority has a whole has to face at the current time. The recommendations are designed to underpin the authority’s commitment to bright futures for its young people. The Panel are convinced that many resource constraints can be overcome if Hounslow’s Early Intervention Service and other LB Hounslow functions embrace emerging corporate values and place a renewed emphasis upon corporate and partnership working. Hounslow youth service provision and delivery has been beset by many challenges over the years and it has responded to them well. I am confident that it can do so again. On behalf of the Panel, I would like to express thanks to all the partners and officers who attended meetings and took part in discussions with Panel members and scrutiny officers.

3

Membership of the Panel, Terms of Reference and Acknowledgements

Chair

Cllr Sond

Cllr Botterill

Cllr Bruce

Cllr Collins

Cllr Davies Cllr P.Dhillon Cllr Lynch Cllr Vaught

Cllr Wilson

Co-optees – Reverend David Coleman; Mrs Jacqui Corley; Iman Iftikhar; Robert Was, Kulvinder Lal, Roshni Mehra. The Panel would like to express its thanks to all officers and partner representatives who contributed to the review. These are listed in appendix 1.

4

Terms of Reference In March 2011, a meeting of Children & Young Person Scrutiny Panel cooptees indicated that they wished to explore the relationship between LB Hounslow and Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) in respect of youth service provision, particularly in the light of budget savings cuts. The item was included within the Scrutiny work programme at the Panel meeting on 17th May 2011 and the following formal terms of reference agreed on Tuesday 5th July 2011.

‘To review the relationship between LB Hounslow and the voluntary and community sector (vcs) to ensure effective, inclusive and joined up services are provided for young people.’

5

1. Executive Summary and Recommendations 1.01 This scrutiny investigation has reviewed the relationship between LB

Hounslow and the VCS to ensure effective, inclusive, and joined up services are provided for young people in Hounslow.

1.02 Proportions of young people in the borough are growing significantly,

as are their needs and requirements. Young people want sports and youth clubs, safe places to go, and better publicity about where they can go.

1.03 Despite resource constraints, Hounslow’s administration is committed

to developing places for young people to go to and things to do that young people enjoy.

1.04 Hounslow has well respected ‘trust’ partnership arrangement with the

VCS. However, it is a small service and it has been further downsized following a recent reorganisation into locality based intervention teams.

1.05 In addition, there are a whole range of youth focused contracts, grants,

activities, and initiatives which involve multiple LB Hounslow functions. 1.06 Panel members would like some reassurance that LB Hounslow

functions are working closely together – in the spirit of emerging corporate values (one aim; innovating – learning from experience; getting it right – going the extra mile) – and that LB Hounslow’s Early Intervention Service is playing a leading role in coordinating the authority’s commitment to Bright Futures for the Borough’s young people.

1.07 Renewed efforts should be made to collect and record basic data about

contacts, participants, and outcomes so that resources can be targeted to maximum effect.

1.08 Panel had concerns about the authority’s service support to vcs

partners in the following 2 areas:

1. data and information, communication and publicity; 2. advice and guidance, support and training.

1.09 Following their preliminary discussions, particularly with VCS partners,

Panel members asked Scrutiny Office to carry out more research on their behalf. As a result, Panel members consider that Hounslow Early Intervention Service:

• should produce an updated mission statements for youth services that embraces the authority’s youth service provision, its contracts and grants, and its coordinating role in wider initiatives;

• should organise a LB Hounslow Youth forum

6

• lead on the development of locality profiles based on local intelligence about youth issues and service needs and improve data recording and information gathering;

• explore the advantages and disadvantages of developing and maintaining a LB Hounslow Youth website, aimed at young people.

• explore other ways to publicise youth service provision through schools, and work with partners to find ways to encourage the engagement of NEETS;

• work with other Hounslow functions to improve communication to vcs youth activity providers;

• work closely together and with partners to maintain a corporate and consistent approach to the delivery of the authority’s young people priorities.

1.10 Panel members consider that Cabinet members, senior management,

and the relevant functions need to ensure advice and guidance, support and training is provided to VCS youth activity partners.

Table of recommendations

No Recommendation

1 Hounslow Early Intervention Service needs to provide an updated mission statement for its duty as the Council’s lead agency for young people, and develop its primary ethos as a facilitator and coordinator for Hounslow’s youth activity and provision. This should embrace the authority’s provision and delivery of youth services, its contracts and grants, and its coordinating role in wider initiatives.

2 The authority needs reassurance that Hounslow’s functions are working closely together and with other partners – in a spirit of emerging corporate values - to maintain a corporate and consistent approach to the delivery of the authority’s young people priorities – as expressed through the authority’s youth service provision, its contracts and grants, and its coordinating role in wider initiatives.

3 Youth activity and service provision data recording and arrangements need to be strengthened to measure service take up and to enable better targeting of resources. This should be achieved by tightening requirements associated with locality service plans, service level agreements, contract, grant and other funding regimes etc.

7

4 Hounslow Early Intervention Service should organise a LB Hounslow youth forum in 6 to 9 months time. This forum should investigate a range of matters, many of which are highlighted in this review. The principle purpose of the forum should be to discuss how LB Hounslow and its vcs partners should work closely together in the future to meet and fulfil the borough’s young people priorities.

5 Relevant LB Hounslow functions, led by LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service, should work together to consider the issues involved in producing information on facilities, data and indexes, i.e. developing ‘locality’ profiles that provide data and intelligence about youth service need and activity, ‘mapping’ etc.,.

6 LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should explore ways to publicise youth service provision and activities, seeking to encourage the engagement of NEETS through community halls, and better promotion of youth services and activities through schools. LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should explore further the advantages and disadvantages of developing and maintaining a LB Hounslow Youth website, aimed at young people.

7 LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service, CCICU, etc. to work closely together to ensure such communication to vcs youth activity and service providers is improved.

8 There needs to be a meeting led by the relevant cabinet members, senior management, with the relevant functions to ensure advice and guidance, support and training is provided to VCS youth activity partners.

8

2. Context

A Legislation 2.1 Councils have a statutory duty to ensure the provision of leisure-time

activities and advice, information and guidance for young people and they have strategic responsibilities in relation to youth support. 1

2.2 Each local authority can determine how best youth services are

provided. The primary responsibility for fulfilling the legislation falls within the remit of the Director of Children’s Services and the Lead Member for Children’s Services.2

B Requirements 2.3 National Youth Agency has described high performing local authority

youth services as having the following characteristics:

• A service enjoying the full support of the local council, with the council providing strategic direction, funding it adequately, and having realistic expectations of it;

• clear direction based on local and national priorities;

• A curriculum framework based on a detailed analysis of the needs of young people;

• An effective system of supervision and performance management;

• A comprehensive range of high quality, well attended provision, secured with a range of partners;

• Building-based open access provision complemented by specialist projects, detached and outreach work;

• A stable mix of open-access and universal provision planned against population and delivered by a relevant mix of providers;

• An efficient management information system providing intelligence used by front line youth workers and managers;

• A marketing strategy so that all young people know what is available;

1 Statutory Guidance on Section 507B Education Act 1996, Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2008. 2 From Vision to Reality: How Local Government can Shape Services for Young People: National Youth Agency

2004.

9

C. Background

2.4 In 2003, a Young People’s Scrutiny Panel reviewed Young People’s Facilities within the borough.3

2.5 The 2003 review described the long decline over decades in youth

service capacity and provision. It documented a chiselling away of basic funding over many years by successive council administrations leading to a reduction in the numbers of operational buildings and youth clubs as year on year piecemeal budget reductions took effect. It cited a National Youth Agency Survey carried out in 2003 which placed Hounslow as the second lowest spending London Borough on youth services, and the 14th lowest in the country.

2.6 The 2003 review found that whilst there were pockets of good practice

and enthusiasm, there was a massive under investment in the Youth Service and young people’s facilities and a chronic lack of general youth club provision. There was a corporate failure to effectively communicate, consult with, and coordinate facilities for, young people.

2.7 As part of its investigations in 2003, the Panel realised that there was

no one place that it could go to obtain a list of youth facilities in the Borough.

2.8 So the Scrutiny and Performance Unit obtained details of 322 facilities,

services and organisations within the Borough. Information was obtained from each organisation as follows:

name of organisation; contact details; address; type of activity; age of attendees; date and time of activity; cost; how the activity is funded; size of the group; whether it is provided by a voluntary organisation; provided all year, term time or vacations only.

2.9 The information was indexed and then mapped according to category

using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology onto maps. 2.10 The Panel was aware that such data becomes out of date quickly so

one of its recommendations was that the authority should maintain it and keep it updated. This recommendation was accepted by the administration but not implemented – using lists of relevant organisations are currently held on the authority’s website.

2.11 The 2003 review also recommended the development of a strategic

youth strategy, that the Youth Service assume the role as the Council’s lead agency for young people, and develop its primary ethos as a facilitator and coordinator. It advocated that more support should be provided to voluntary and community sector, particularly voluntary sector sports providers, to help them bid for resources, and that a sports development strategy be developed. It recommended

3 Report of the Young Peoples Facilities Scrutiny Panel – Executive – 5th August 2003 and 6th January 2004; Report of the Young Peoples’ Facilities Scrutiny Panel – Response of the Executive – 3

rd February 2004

10

strengthening the role and influence of young people in decision making and service delivery.

2.12 At the time, Cabinet did not accept all of the recommendations

although some were embraced and implemented. For example, in 2004, Young People’s Strategy was developed with the following objectives:

• Advocacy for young people;

• A wide range of activities delivered by professionally trained staff;

• A broad curriculum offer;

• Involvement of young people in service planning and delivery;

• Promoting equality and diversity;

• Partnership work with other statutory and voluntary agencies.

2.13 Key Site One section 106 monies has been fully committed to sports projects in youth centres and schools recently. A Physical Activity and Sports Strategy has recently been introduced. However, Hounslow Youth Partnership didn’t get off the ground. The influence of young people over decision making has not dramatically altered.

2.14 Some more details on the progress of the 2003 scrutiny review

recommendations can be seen in appendix 13 at the end of this report.

11

3 Methodology 3.1 The Panel has:

• Gathered data through emails, interview notes, etc.;

• Held discussions with witnesses at Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel meetings of 5th July, 11th September, 1st November 2011 and 19th January 2012;

• Had feedback from Scrutiny Office daytime meetings and a questionnaire from a range of officers from LB Hounslow and Statutory Partners (see appendix 1,2 and 3);

• Had direct feedback from Hounslow Youth Council representatives about a survey of youth activities and facilities they have undertaken over the summer months.

3.2 The evidence above has been examined and interpreted using

corporate strategy and business planning models. 4

4 Exploring Corporate Strategy – Gerry Johnson and Kevan Scholes Prentice Hall International 1993

12

4 Preliminary Analysis

A Objectives

i) Government 4.01 Positive for Youth: A new approach to cross-governmental policy

for young people aged 13 to 19 was published on 19th December 2011. 5The statement brings together all of the Government’s policies for young people aged 13 to 19. It covers a wide range of issues – from education and youth services, to health, crime, housing and more.

4.02 Positive for Youth sets out a shared vision for how all parts of

society – including schools, charities, and businesses – can work together in partnership to support families and improve outcomes for young people, particularly those who are most disadvantaged or vulnerable.

4.03 The Government will publish annually national measures of

young people’s positive outcomes, and an audit at the end of 2012 of overall progress towards creating a society which is more positive for youth.

4.04 The Government will retain the duty on councils to secure young

people’s access to sufficient activities and services to improve their wellbeing, including their duty to seek and take account of young people’s views in decisions about these activities. It will consult shortly on new much shorter and clearer statutory guidance.

4.05 The Government believes that councils’ have a key strategic

role, but they cannot realise the vision on their own. They will need to work with young people, families, and communities, and with local partners such as charities, schools, health services, and the police to assess needs and coordinate local resources.

4.06 They also state that the country’s financial situation creates

significant pressures. Working together to integrate services, reduce duplication, and share resources, is a better approach than simply cutting existing services to fit reduced budgets.

4.07 The above highlights the Government’s wider economic and

social issues and funding for youth services is proving vulnerable in the face of the requirements to deliver statutorily financed services such as social care and child protection. Part

5 Positive for Youth: A new approach to cross-governmental policy for young people aged 13-19 – Department of

Education – 19th December 2011

13

of the reasoning for the decline in youth funding is well established and long standing. Youth Services financing has a non-statutory status. There is no ‘floor – level’ of minimum financing.

ii) LB Hounslow 4.08 Nevertheless, key extracts from LB Hounslow’s 2011 Children &

Young People Plan, The Council’s 2011/12 Corporate Priorities and ‘Hounslow Together’ Sustainable Community Strategy restate a commitment to youth services and include a commitment to: bright futures for the borough’s young people, developing places to go and things to do that young people enjoy. Extracts also state:

‘We will prevent crime committed against or by young people and intervene early to reduce the number of young people offending for the first time. We will promote physical activity, better diet and healthier lifestyles for children, young people and adults, helping us to increase our healthy lifespan. We will be active citizens involved in volunteering and engaged in our strong, vibrant and united community. We will increase numbers regularly doing voluntary work.’

4.09 It is clear there are overlapping elements in Government and LB Hounslow objectives; in particular, working together in partnership. This approach potentially offers improvements in service outcomes but also financial benefits, i.e. integrating services, reducing duplication, sharing resources.

14

B. Youth Services Activity and Service Provision

i) Hounslow’s Service Provision 4.10 Youth Service Activity and provision can be considered in terms

of 3 elements: a) LB Hounslow provision and delivery of youth services; b) Contracts and Grants; c) Wider provision in the borough.

4.11 These differing elements mean that a range of local authority

functions and close statutory partners have involvement in the provision of youth activities and services, viz:- Corporate Community Investment & Cohesion Unit (CCICU); Leisure and Cultural Services; Health & Well Being; Youth Offending Service (YOS), etc.

a) LB HOUNSLOW PROVISION AND DELIVERY OF YOUTH SERVICES

Mission Statement and Purpose

4.12 Until its recent reorganisation, Hounslow Youth Service mission was previously described as follows: ‘ Hounslow Youth Service aims to provide a high quality service that empowers young people to maximise their potential and enables them to respond creatively and critically to their experience in order to shape their own lives within the context of their communities’.

4.13 CSLL managers have undertaken to provide an updated mission

statement in the light of its reorganisation but it has not yet been received.

Current and Future Delivery of Service Provision

4.14 LB Hounslow website describes youth services as follows: ‘The Council’s youth service works with young people aged 11-25 and provides a range of informal educational activities. It helps young people become involved in ‘citizenship’ and engages young people at risk of crime or dropping out of education, training, or employment. The Youth Service also plays a coordinating role, across partners, providing information and advice, sharing experience and evaluating projects.’

4.15 Currently, there are 4/5 hubs. These are broadly in ‘trust’, or other ‘shared’ arrangements or co-located in ‘Children’s

15

Centres’. They include: Hanworth, Hogarth, Hounslow Youth Centre, The Hub, and Southville. (More details about the arrangements are provided in Appendix 4)

4.16 Hounslow’s Citizenship and Participation Team supports a

variety of opportunities for young people to take part in local democracy and consultation. It is based at Hounslow Youth Centre.

4.17 Youth service provision also links into the Education Business

Partnership which supports young people to develop skills for the workplace. Support is delivered through the youth clubs and there is a good record of helping young people to develop business skills. This is one of the key ways in which young people are able to volunteer for projects.

4.18 A significant number of volunteers have come through the youth

service in the past and Hounslow has won a number of awards for projects involving volunteers that are funded by Hounslow.

4.19 Hounslow also works with army barracks and the army welfare

service and there are projects which integrate with the police, army and fire brigade. The Training & Quality Assurance Officer has indicated that they could work more closely with uniformed group in the future.

4.20 At their July meeting, Panel Members heard that the quality of

youth service provision at Hounslow was good (Hounslow is only 1 of 2 services in the country to have received a good OFSTED rating. Its provision for children with disabilities had received wide recognition) but it is a small service – and current provision is the smallest that it has ever been.

4.21 At the same meeting, the value of Hounslow’s building based

and detached arrangements was explained by the Centre Director of one of the Trust Model Partners (Hay). She stated that:

‘Initial contact with young people in the community by the ‘detached’ element of the Youth Service provided an opportunity to build trust before introducing them to more activities at a youth centre.’

4.22 She had confidence in this mix of service provision. Also, the

partnership model offered additional advantages:

‘Young people had more confidence in voluntary and community sector youth services than the Council services. Families and young people often prefer to engage with voluntary and community sector providers rather than the council because of

16

reluctance to reveal data and information about themselves and their families.’

4.23 At the July Panel meeting, Assistant Director, Targeted and

Locality Services outlined how future structural arrangements would work. The locality based intervention teams will incorporate youth centre and specialist youth work as well as Detached and Outreach Teams.

4.24 As part of 2011/12 savings proposals, all LBH Youth Service

activity would be limited to:

• Youth Centres – each will have 1 full time youth worker plus 25 hours part time support. Hounslow is contractually committed to providing this as part of local trust arrangements at Hanworth Youth Centre and Hogarth Youth Centre;

• 4 Detached Youth Workers plus 12 hours part time support worker;

• The Young Carers Project (1.5 fte);

• Special Needs Youth work (0.5 fte).

4.25 Structure charts subsequently forwarded by the department has shown details of established posts including 2 youth worker posts supporting Citizenship & Participation Team described earlier. In addition, the charts describe a whole range of non established grant funded or sponsored posts are listed, as follows: Hogarth (10), The Hub (3), Hanworth (12), Southville (6). It is presumed the posts are funded from elsewhere and not by LB Hounslow’s current arrangements. It would be helpful to have confirmation of this.

4.26 At the July meeting, Assistant Director – Targeted and Locality

Services also indicated that meeting young people population pressures and needs will require youth services to be run and delivered not only through youth clubs, but also by undertaking targeted work through schools as a more cost effective way of delivering services.

17

b) LBH CONTRACTS AND GRANTS 4.27 The Voluntary Sector Funding Strategy 2011-15 spells out the

Council’s priorities for funding the voluntary sector through a variety of funding streams. 6

4.28 The Voluntary Sector Strategy is led by the CCICU working with

Hounslow Together partners and other LB Hounslow departments. Contract tenders and grant projects are assessed by Panels of officers and recommendations made to the Leader and the Corporate Investment Advisory Panel respectively.

Strategic Voluntary Sector Commissioning

4.29 This applies to all contracts in excess of £15K per annum. Supporting Young People is designated as a priority where significant funding is provided. Commissioning specifications set out what the council expects and organisations are asked to provide a 4 year service plan to be discussed and agreed with the CCICU Team. In return, they are allocated 4 year funding.

For Supporting Young People in 2011-15, 3 contracts have been awarded to Brentford FC Community Sports Trust, HAY Hounslow Action for Youth Association – The Hanworth Centre, and Waterman’s in a competitive process (Contract value over 4 years for each contract - £60K). HAY were awarded a tender to provide Education, Employment and Training (EET) services to young people at the Hanworth Centre.

Hounslow Community Grant

4.30 This provides a single community projects pot for annual applications to meet new, emerging community needs and/or innovative new proposals from voluntary and community organisations themselves. Qualifying criteria include: Volunteering, Community Cohesion, Community Pride, Equality and Inclusion, Building Social Capital, Safety, Environment.

Several community sector youth activity providers received funding. Hogarth Youth and Community Trust received £15K funding for 2011/12. Qualifying criteria was Community Cohesion.

7

Spartans Youth FC received £7750. Qualifying criteria was Community Pride. Hounslow PHAB received £10K. Qualifying criteria was Equality.

8

6 Page 26 –LBH Corporate Community Involvement & Cohesion Unit – Voluntary and Community Sector Strategy

2011-2015 7 Hounslow Community Grants 2011/12 Community Investment Advisory Panel 14

th February 2011

8 Hounslow Community Grants 2011/12 Community Investment Advisory Panel 7

th December 2011

18

Community Youth Fund 4.31 The aim of the fund is to support practical, community run local

initiatives for young people in the age groups 8-13 and 13-21. It is expected that young people could lead as well as participate in projects.

The following organisations were collectively awarded £18,250 in 2010/11: Cranford Support Group, Isleworth Explorers, Rotary Club of Hounslow, Special Connections, West London Reti. See appendix 5 for further details.

Strengthening Communities Grant

4.32 This was established in 2010 to enhance and strengthen community cohesion in Hounslow. Areas that were felt to require additional support and funding included ‘intergenerational barriers’ and ‘challenging violent extremism’.

There are 2 projects which have links to Children & Young People – ‘Many Voices’ (£6K) and Hounslow Xreme Football Plus Intergenerational Project (£8900). See appendix 5 for further details.

Rainbow Project

4.33 This was launched in autumn 2008. It has provided Hounslow Homes residents and groups with the opportunity to improve their community and local environment. Refurbishment of community buildings/facilities and activities for young people have been funded. The Rainbow Project is delivered by CCICU on behalf of Hounslow Homes under a 3 year service level agreement. This funds a dedicated officer to the project (Community Development & Grants Officer) who works with potential applicants, as well as administering the scheme.

Rainbow project will give away grants of £1.435m in grants of up to £100K.

9

Grants have been approved for a range of projects likely to benefit young people. See appendix 5 for further details.

4.34 Panel members note the wide array of LB Hounslow functions

and officers involved considering and approving these contracts and grants. Panel members seek reassurance that the new Hounslow Locality Intervention Teams and CCICU are working closely to ensure the Young People Priorities are being properly reflected in a corporate and consistent approach to the authority’s award of such contracts and grants.

9 See page 27 Voluntary and Community Sector Strategy 2011-15

19

c) WIDER PROVISION IN THE BOROUGH 4.35 This is a wider provision of youth services in Hounslow

expressed through various initiatives and organisations that don’t fit neatly into the 2 categories already listed.

Extended Schools activities and Schools Sports Partnerships

4.36 These take place as part of individual schools after school programmes during term times and in holidays. These cover a wide variety of activities: sports, arts, drama, dance, ICT, self defence, sexual health, youth clubs, community choir, friendship/self esteem groups, bike clubs, community safety programmes, mentoring/young leaders’ programmes, healthy lifestyles and family learning activities.

One more detailed example outlined by a VCS youth activity partner included Isleworth Youth Action Partnership (IYAP). The Partnership’s aims are:

• To foster partnerships in order to provide a more joined up and effective provision for children, young people, their families and the wider community;

• To increase the range of activities and services for children, young people and their families in the Isleworth area, and to widen access, particularly for those living on estates;

• To support the aims of the Every Child Matters agenda.

IYAP partners included representatives from local schools, Hounslow Homes, VSOs, Brentford Football Club Community Sports Trust, local Somali organisations, Metropolitan Police.

Brentford Football Community Sports Trust (BFCST)

4.37 BFCST delivers sports and leisure-based youth inclusion projects across Hounslow. It uses sport and leisure activities to engage with marginalised young people aged 8-18 years of age living on key housing estates across the borough. The Trust provides sports sessions and youth clubs, opportunities to volunteer and gain accredited qualifications and educational workshops for young people to make informed lifestyle decisions;

Physical Activity and Sports Strategy

4.38 The Borough’s new Physical Activity and Sports Strategy is designed to increase the number of people in the borough being physically active. The Council’s Leisure and Cultural Services section is working through The local Community Sports and Physical Network (CSPAN) with a range of sport and community organisations to identify ways of promoting greater participation. The strategy is also designed to increase the numbers of people in the borough volunteering to undertake supportive and leadership roles that promote participation in physical activity and sports.

20

Hounslow London’s 2012 Olympics Project (HOTS) 4.39 ‘Together We Create’ runs HOTS. The HOTS project uses

computer based sports gaming to improve English and ICT skills and to impact on training and sports take up.

Study Support Services and the Hounslow summer university programme

4.40 An annual event that actively engages 14-19 year olds through music, combining taster activities in arts, dance, and sport to develop arrange of skills with some accreditation;

Hounslow African and Asian Youth Association (HAAYA)

4.41 HAAYA is an ethnic minority led voluntary organisation based in Hounslow, and concerned with the aspirations and achievements of young people aged from 10 to 25. HAAYA provides a range of educational, leisure and cultural activities to all young people. HAAYA’s activities and services are concerned with the education, welfare and physical development of young people mainly from the Asian and African communities, particularly those who are underachieving.

Isleworth Explorers Club

4.42 The aim of the youth club is to promote the physical and mental well-being of children and young people in the local community so they can grow into self confident and responsible adults. The club has a junior and senior youth club, a youth club for children with disabilities, and other activity clubs.

Volunteering

4.43 There are three broad streams which help 16-19 year olds with career development through volunteering. The retail customer service scheme, Seizing the Opportunity – Brentford Football Club’s Youth Counselling Service and Job Centre Plus/The Princes Trust.

Docking Station

4.44 During 2010-11, CCICU was successful in securing funding to establish with partners the Docking Station, an innovative social enterprise examining new models of working with NEET young people and providing an enterprise development hub. Docking Station now has 4 long term volunteers who are undertaking training to get back to work as well as employing NEET young people and is extending its reach to create new partnerships with local charities and organisations. 10

4.45 Panel members took note of the wide range of provision taking

place, i.e. Hounslow Youth Service provision, contracts and

10 IAgenda Item 5 Social Enterprise Support Update – Community Investment and Advisory

Panel – 7th December 2011

21

grants, wider initiatives and organisations involving a range of Hounslow function and autonomous VCS partners. Panel members seek reassurance that Hounslow’s functions – CCICU, Health & Wellbeing, Leisure and Cultural Services, Locality Early Intervention Teams, etc. are working closely together and with other partners to maintain a corporate and consistent approach to the delivery of the authority’s young people priorities and that the Hounslow Locality Early Intervention Teams are providing a coordinating role.

4.46 Panel members consider that the basis for any activity or

provision is a clear mission statement. Hounslow Early Intervention Service should embrace their role as the Council’s lead agency for young people, and develop its primary ethos as a facilitator and coordinator – as identified in the 2003 Scrutiny Review.

Recommendation 1

Hounslow Early Intervention Service needs to provide an updated mission statement for its duty as the Council’s lead agency for young people, and develop its primary ethos as a facilitator and coordinator for Hounslow’s youth activity and provision. This should embrace the authority’s provision and delivery of youth services, its contracts and grants, and its coordinating role in wider initiatives.

Recommendation 2

The authority needs reassurance that Hounslow’s functions are working closely together and with other partners – in a spirit of emerging corporate values - to maintain a corporate and consistent approach to the delivery of the authority’s young people priorities – as expressed through the authority’s youth service provision, its contracts and grants, and its coordinating role in wider initiatives.

22

d) SERVICE STATISTICS, COMMUNITY STATISTICS AND

PERFORMANCE General 4.47 National benchmarks indicate that data on take up of specific

youth services or projects and young people’s involvement is not just about young people attending clubs but in achieving outcomes. Data has been collected in terms of the following national benchmarks:

1. Number of contacts; 2. Number of participants; 3. Number of recorded outcomes; 4. Number of accredited outcomes. 11

4.48 One local view was that:

‘the effectiveness of youth services was measured in the short term by how it reduced issues on estates, reduced crime and prevented anti-social behaviour and in the long term by young people becoming volunteers and being involved in providing youth services and running projects.’12

4.49 There is also ‘context’ data and statistics. For example, there are

6 National key pis for targeted youth services (these, of course, and not direct measures of youth services activity and provision). 1. Improved attainment; 2. Reduction in those not in education, employment or training; 3. Reduction in under 18 conceptions; 4. Reduction in youth offending; 5. Reduction in substance abuse; 6. Reduction in pupil absence.

4.50 There are also community statistics – socio- economic data, crime statistics, etc.

4.51 Local authorities that have reviewed their youth service provision

have highlighted the practical difficulties in measuring take up for day to day activities. One highlighted that they do not have the resources to always measure ‘take up’ but that young people vote with their feet, and, if a project or service is not being attended, this will soon be identifiable. 13

11 Overview & Scrutiny – Para 4.2.13 pages 15/16 Review of Youth Provision Youth Offer and Positive Activities –

Young Nottingham Select Committee – September 2008 12 Hounslow Homes views expressed at July Panel meeting.

13 As 10. Nottingham YMCA

23

Hounslow Statistics 4.52 In terms of measuring take up of resources and who is

accessing what, there is not a great deal of available data. 4.53 In 2010/11 Budget Information Proforma (red book), reported on

the following:

17.66% of 11-25 year old population were contacted by Youth Service. This nationally ranked Hounslow at 33

rd of 90.

38.85% of 13-19 year old population were contacted by Youth Service. This nationally ranked Hounslow at 17

th of 126.

The Percentage of young people aged 13-19 gaining accredited outcomes compared to the percentage of young people who participate in youth work in the local area: the result of 44% has exceeded the 2008/09 target of 36% and the LAA stretch target.

4.54 At a January 2011 meeting, Panel members were informed that

150 young people attend the Southville club sessions, 45/50 at each of the 3 routine sessions held for their junior, intermediate and senior participants.

4.55 Additional information is available through the annual report

produced by Hanworth (HAY), although others, BFCST, HAAYA, Hogarth, Isleworth Explorers, produce few current statistics publicly available on their websites or in current annual reports.

Hanworth Hounslow Junior Youth Inclusion Programme (JYIP) - work intensively with children and young people aged from 8 to 13. Referrals range from youngsters with challenging behaviour to the most vulnerable young people in society with numerous complex needs. In 2010/11, JYIP worked with 45 young people and had 320 event and activity days during the year. Feltham and Bedfont JYIP – worked with 27 young people and had 177 event and activity days during the year. Junior Youth Club (7-11 years) - 99 registered Intermediate Youth Club (11-13 years) – 39 registered Senior Youth Club (12-19 years) – 230 registered Friday Night Project – 93 members. Connexions – 2598 contacts made – 13 attended short courses, 26 moved into employment, 17 moved into education or training, 171 received information, support, advice or guidance.

14

4.56 Assistant Director – Locality and Targeted Services provided

details of Hounslow Targeted PI statistics. Please see appendix 6 for more details.

4.57 There is also community statistics, particularly deprivation data

at ward level. CCICU has signposted relevant websites that enables information about Hounslow to be downloaded. For a

14 HAY Annual Report year ending 2010-11

24

list of relevant sources identified during interviews please go to appendix 7.

4.58 In general, notwithstanding problems already mentioned, Panel

members felt that youth activity and service provision data recording and arrangements need to be strengthened to measure service take up and to enable better targeting of resources. This might be achieved by various means by tightening requirements associated with locality service plans, service level agreements, contract, grant and other funding regimes etc.

Recommendation 3

Youth activity and service provision data recording and arrangements need to be strengthened to measure service take up and to enable better targeting of resources. This should be achieved by tightening requirements associated with locality service plans, service level agreements, contract, grant and other funding regimes etc.

25

C Customers and Stakeholders i) Young People a) PROFILE

4.59 Children & young people under 19 constitute a quarter of the total population of Hounslow. Evidence suggests that by 2030 almost a third of Hounslow’s population will be under the age of 19. In the short term, numbers are expected to increase from 60,000 approximately in 2010 to 62,000 in 2015.

4.60 45% of residents feel that teenagers hanging around in the

street were a problem in the local area although the proportion of young people involved in criminal conduct is relatively small. 15

4.61 Serious violence and gang related activity among young people

has increased in 2010/11 after a decline in the preceding 2 years. 16 Partnership Inspector and Metropolitan police representative have confirmed that there is a small, but growing problem with gangs of young people in Hounslow, although it is nothing like as serious as in some other London Boroughs (see appendix 2).

b) VIEWS AND EXPECTATIONS

4.62 Youth Council and Youth Parliament representatives fed back to

the current review on several occasions. In July, they informed the Panel that they were aware that many youth facilities had closed down. They felt that they should be included in consultations about future changes and that they would be carrying out a survey over the summer to establish whether there were sufficient safe and welcoming places for young people to go to. They felt that young people should be represented on the Scrutiny Panel and that they would be willing to take up those positions from September. Young Person cooptee positions on the Panel have now been taken up.

4.63 In November, Youth Survey report back confirmed:

• Not all young people in Hounslow engaged in youth activities; those who did were generally positive about them and attended regularly; 44% of young people were not aware that activities were available, 32% thought that activities were available;

15 Hounslow Residents Tracker Panel Survey – November 2010

16 Children and Young People’s Plan 2011/12

26

• The facilities that most young people wanted were sports and youth clubs;

• They wanted places they considered safe with adult supervision and friendly youth workers who know the area, providing a safe environment to enjoy youth activities; more work needed to be done in promoting youth services; it was thought that better promotion of youth activities could be better publicised through schools and a youth website.

ii) Partners and Partnerships 4.64 There is a range of voluntary and community sector partners

involved. 4.65 They can be categorised as follows:

(a) TRUST PARTNERS; (b) LARGER LOCAL VCS PARTNERS AND/OR PROVIDERS OF YOUTH ACTIVITIES; (c) SMALLER LOCAL VCS YOUTH SERVICE AND ACTIVITY PROVIDERS.

(a) TRUST PARTNERS 4.66 These are 2 local organisations, Hanworth – Hounslow Action

for Youth (HAY) and Hogarth. The authority works closely with each trust partner providing leased buildings and staff resources – particularly youth workers.

4.67 At July meeting, Director of HAY expressed the following views:

She had confidence in the current service provision and trust model. She felt that Hounslow Youth Service had a coordination role in the middle making it all happen, giving advice, information and support to the voluntary and community sector.

4.68 She also felt that this was a period of uncomfortable change with

less resources available but she was confident that the people involved would ‘make the difference’. Partnership working at Hounslow will ensure that youth service provision continues.

b) LARGER LOCAL VCS PARTNERS AND/OR PROVIDERS OF YOUTH ACTIVITIES.

4.69 Examples include: Brentford Football Club Community Trust,

Hounslow Homes, Hounslow African and Asian Youth Association, Isleworth Explorers, Watermans’.

4.70 The organisations listed expressed a range of views.

27

Brentford Football Community Sports Trust (BFCST) 4.71 BFCST identified ‘funding’ as their top need. They also wanted

‘closer working’ meeting together with LB Hounslow/referral services, other partners, and local residents groups to influence what is being provided to young people, to plan and deliver on local projects, and to do more targeted work with schools, pupil referral unit, youth offending service, police. BFCST feel it is more important than ever to be working closely together to prevent duplication, share good practice, share enthusiasm, funding, and responsibility for provision.

Hounslow Homes (HH)

4.72 HH had particular concerns about young people not engaged in education, employment or training (neets). Information available to them and communication with them - is not good. There was a desert between schools and jobs and they are a hard to reach group. Perhaps more effort could be made to reach them through local community centres.

4.73 Hounslow Homes, did a lot of work in partnership with the

borough, particularly with the detached outreach teams. However, the overall level of support from LB Hounslow was patchy and there were few joint projects. LB Hounslow Youth Workers have less and less time unless Rainbow funding is available.

4.74 A mapping’ exercise about youth activity provision within the

borough would be helpful. This would be a useful role for the council.

HAAYA

4.75 HAAYA had received a lot of support from the authority. They were no longer getting support with respect to CRB checks, prompt advice in respect of health and safety or risk management, or support with training. As a result, service delivery is declining. Young people are missing out on activities because expertise and support is no longer available. Problems with CRB checks meant that no new volunteers have been engaged since the new arrangements have been put in place. This presented a very serious dilemma, i.e.

• Do not take on new volunteers;

• Take on volunteers without proper checks.

28

(iii) SMALLER LOCAL VCS YOUTH SERVICE AND ACTIVITY PROVIDERS.

4.76 These can be local charities providing support to specific groups

of young people eg. disabled or local church or local representatives of national groups, eg. uniformed groups like scouts or guides, etc. They were represented at 5th September meeting by a range of local bodies: Cedars Youth Charity, Riverside Vineyard Church, Girl Guides, and Three Wings Trust. Their detailed concerns are documented in appendix 8

4.77 Appendix 8 also contains extracts from a response from a

member of Thameside Ground Union Scout Executive who responded with concerns about new leases, rents, lease terms and condition, discretionary rate relief – when the draft final report was circulated for comment.

4.78 Their principal concerns of these smaller voluntary and

community organisations were:

a. Many smaller groups are struggling and are conscious of being unable to continue to attract volunteers to their groups as they spend more funding on administration, i.e., CRB Checks, Health & Safety Risk Assessments, Child Protection, Policy development and Training.

b. Also training opportunities and sharing of best practice are limited without more central support.

c. A regular forum is needed to support all voluntary and community youth activity and service providers as this would be a good way to exchange information, avoid duplication and support other groups.

d. There is a lack of information on facilities, data and indexes

for sector to use in their work in the Borough

29

5 FURTHER ANALYSIS

5.01 Following a preliminary analysis at the initial Scrutiny panel meetings in July and September 2011, Panel members reviewed their progress. They were concerned about the views of young people and vcs partners in respect of 2 broad areas:

i) Data and information, communication and publicity ii) Advice and guidance, support and training.

5.02 Members asked the Scrutiny Team to gather more information.

Scrutiny officers held day time meetings with LB Hounslow officers and representatives from other bodies. More details about the interviews are provided in appendix 1 and 2.

A Data and Information, Communication and Publicity

5.03 Members wished for more information to be gathered about the

practicalities of establishing a forum for the voluntary youth sector to meet and exchange good ideas and practices.

5.04 ‘Mapping’ was investigated further because it had been one of

the original ‘accepted’ recommendations in the Scrutiny review of 2003 and because a need for local intelligence data and information was highlighted in the preliminary analysis.

5.05 Members were concerned about the large proportion of young

people who were not aware that youth activities and services were available. They noted young people’s views that youth services could be better publicised through schools and a youth website.

5.06 These views were also echoed by a vcs representative who

thought that the authority should develop a youth website, incorporating links to a discussion forum and social media.

5.07 Several VCS youth activity and service providers (Cedars Youth

Charity, Girl Guiding Middlesex South West) felt that communication about funding and other topics had dried up.

i) LB Hounslow Youth Forum a) Background

5.08 VCS partners and youth activity providers indicated they would like a regular forum to exchange information, avoid duplication, share good practice and support other groups. Indeed, during

30

the interviews, Hounslow VCS partners and youth activity providers set up their own quarterly Hounslow Children & Young people’s Forum (CYPF) to discuss issues of joint concern. 1 meeting has already been held. Terms of reference are currently being developed.

b) Findings/Feedback 5.09 Neither CSLL managers nor CCCIU were willing to organise or

lead such a forum although they were happy to provide advice and support. Local authority officers and statutory partner representatives broadly supported the proposal for such a forum and volunteered a range of necessary and/or advisable characteristics that would help make it work:

• Access to funding;

• Chairship by senior politician or director;

• 6 monthly meetings;

• Clear terms of reference;

• Links to (or alternative to and replacement by) message boards or IDeA Community of Practice.

5.10 Panel members see practical benefits of such a forum and its ability to encourage ‘closer working’ to prevent duplication, share good practice, share enthusiasm, share resources and responsibility for provision.

5.11 A regular forum led by LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service

would provide benefits to help achieve this. Panel members feel that at least 1 forum should be held in 6/9 month’s time. This forum should investigate a range of matters, many of which are highlighted in this review. The principle purpose of the forum should be to resolve how LB Hounslow and its VCS partners should work closely together in the future to meet and fulfil the borough’s young people priorities.

Recommendation 4

Hounslow Early Intervention Service should organise a LB Hounslow youth forum in 6 to 9 months time. This forum should investigate a range of matters, many of which are highlighted in this review. The principle purpose of the forum should be to discuss how LB Hounslow and its vcs partners should work closely together in the future to meet and fulfil the borough’s young people priorities.

5.12 see Appendix 9 for more detailed comments about this issue

31

ii) Mapping a) Background

5.13 Unfortunately, mapping information compiled by Scrutiny in 2003 was not maintained despite the fact that this recommendation was accepted by the administration at the time. During the preliminary analysis, at least one of the VCS partners (Hounslow Homes) felt that such information would be useful. Another (Girl Guiding Middlesex) felt there was a need for much more information on the interpretation of community statistics and local knowledge as demonstrated by CCICU brief of June 2011.

5.14 Findings/Feedback - In interviews, ‘mapping’ was supported by

CSLL managers who felt that there was a need for locality profiles to build up a comprehensive picture of needs, requirements, facilities, and contact details for each locality.

5.15 It is important for linking youth activity and sports provision to

socio-economic, crime, health, information to identify service needs and to plan provision. Such information would provide good intelligence for a whole range of services, particularly if it was cross-referenced with population profiles, socio-economic and crime data. Several LB Hounslow functions had data and information which they felt would contribute to it.

5.16 Whilst this has resource implications, it also offers scope for

more efficient targeting of resources, perhaps not only within youth activity, and sports and leisure, but for a whole range of other services provided across the authority.

5.17 Leisure and Cultural Services have undertaken some mapping

work and feel there is considerable potential in extending it. CCCUI would find such information useful and could contribute to it.

5.18 Scrutiny Panel members were disappointed that mapping

information developed by Scrutiny in 2003 had not been maintained and Scrutiny Panel members noted the support of LB Hounslow officers for ‘mapping’.

5.19 Panel members think that whilst mapping has resource

implications it has potential for considerable benefits. It also offers scope for local intelligence and more efficient targeting of resources, perhaps not only within youth activity, and sports and leisure, but for a whole range of other services provided across the authority.

5.20 Relevant LB Hounslow functions, led by LB Hounslow Early

Intervention Service should work together to consider the issues

32

involved in developing ‘locality’ profiles that provide data and intelligence about youth service need and activity, the role of ‘mapping’.

5.21 Cabinet members and senior management should consider the

priority such issues should have in the authority’s general plans and proposals for the development of GIS.

Recommendation 5

Relevant LB Hounslow functions, led by LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service, should work together to consider the issues involved in producing information on facilities, data and indexes, i.e. developing ‘locality’ profiles that provide data and intelligence about youth service need and activity, ‘mapping’ etc.,.

5.22 See appendix 10 for more details about this issue.

iii) Youth Website a) Background

5.23 Youth Council representatives and 1 representative from a Community Youth Activity Provider felt that a LB Hounslow run youth website would help promote youth activities and create a discussion forum amongst young people. Youth Council representatives also felt that youth activities and services would be better promoted through schools.

b) Findings/Feedback 5.24 Local authority officers and representatives from other statutory

partnerships reacted with caution to this suggestion for a youth website. There was unanimous agreement that links to Blackberry, Face Book, and Social Networks were simply not appropriate as they posed too much of a security and reputational risk to the authority. General concern was expressed at the security implications and potential risks to the authority of managing such a website. No internal function or partner expressed interest in taking it forward and managing it. CSLL senior youth worker felt, if it did go ahead, the website and associated message boards would need to be actively managed and monitored by the authority for inappropriate content.

5.25 The caution highlighted above was echoed by Director of

Children’s Services when she commented on the draft final Scrutiny report at the Panel meeting of 19th January 2012. She had particular concerns about the development of a LB

33

Hounslow youth website, particularly the costs and monitoring arrangements.

5.26 Panel members acknowledge the risks and security issues

associated with this issue and feel that the matter might benefit from further analysis and discussion at the proposed LB Hounslow youth forum.

5.27 Regardless of whether the youth website was developed, Panel

members felt LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should explore alternative ways to publicise youth service provision and activities, seeking to encourage the engagement of NEETS through community halls, and better promotion of youth services and activities through schools.

Recommendation 6

LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should explore ways to publicise youth service provision and activities, seeking to encourage the engagement of NEETS through community halls, and better promotion of youth services and activities through schools. LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should explore further the advantages and disadvantages of developing and maintaining a LB Hounslow Youth website, aimed at young people.

5.28 See Appendix 11 for more details about this issue.

iv) Communication a) Background

5.29 Several small vcs youth activity and service providers felt that the closure of Council for Voluntary Services (CVS) Hounslow - due to withdrawal of funding by the authority – had been a retrograde step. A new organisation – GLE – had been contracted by LB Hounslow. However, several of the vcs youth activity and service providers claimed they received no information from GLE about funding or other relevant topics.

b) Findings/Feedback 5.30 CCICU provided information about GLE’s ability to engage with

youth sector groups. They stated that GLE are unable to provide the same type of service and support that CVS formerly provided. The new service provision was determined by a clearly defined specification with purpose and objectives.

34

5.31 One of GLE’s duties was to ensure that all community and voluntary organisations were kept informed and consulted on local, regional, and national developments affecting the voluntary sector through regular e-mailing, events, up to date websites and e-newsletters.

5.32 VCS organizations on the vcs database were forwarded e-

newsletters. There are two releases from Community Partnerships per month and two releases from GLE per month.

5.33 NB: During discussions around the draft final Scrutiny report

considered at Panel meeting on 19th January 2012, Head of CCICU indicated that the contract with GLE had now been withdrawn.

5.34 Panel members feel that it is important that all relevant

organisations engaged in providing youth services and activities should be as well informed as possible and urge LB Hounslow Youth Services, CCICU, GLE, etc. to work closely together to ensure such communication to vcs youth activity and service providers is improved.

Recommendation 7

LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service, CCICU, etc. to work closely together to ensure such communication to vcs youth activity and service providers is improved.

35

B Advice and Guidance, Support and Training

a) Background 5.35 Members noted vcs youth activity providers views about the

decline in advice and guidance, support and training provided by LB Hounslow. They were concerned to hear claims that this had led to deterioration in service provision and less value for money caused by a loss of expertise and a decline in the number and quality of volunteers (lack of training, inadequate CRB checks, etc.).

5.36 HAAYA, Cedars, Riverside Vineyard Church expressed particular concerns about advice, guidance, support and training provided in respect of the following issues - CRB checks, child protection and safety, health and safety, risk assessment.

b) Feedback/Findings

5.37 In general, CSLL managers felt that they provided high level support for youth services provision across the authority.

5.38 However, scrutiny interviews with Hounslow officers (see

appendix 2) revealed some confusion about these matters. Differing officers within the authority had different perceptions about: what support could and should be offered to vcs youth providers and partners; what support is available; who is responsible for it or not responsible for it.

5.39 For example,

• CSLL managers felt that Early Intervention Service had responsibility for ensuring that Trust Partners and other LA funded VCS youth activity providers had relevant child protection and safety, health and safety policies and CRB checks in place;

• But CSLL managers also felt Early Intervention Service could not accept responsibility for liaison with unfunded community sector organisations regarding youth activities;

• Nevertheless, anyone signing up to the authority’s volunteering programme (administered through CSLL Early Intervention Service), could receive the relevant advice, guidance, support, training, and checks requested by vcs partners even if they subsequently withdrew from the programme.

• CCICU stated that GLE Consulting have been engaged by the authority (NB no longer) to provide a range of support services that build the capacity of voluntary and community

36

sector organisations in Hounslow but there was no scope to provide CRB checks or support with child safety and protection, health and safety, and risk management procedures;

• Leisure and Cultural Services were willing to provide advice, guidance, support and training in respect of child protection and safety, health and safety, risk management, etc. but only for VCS organisations providing sports activities;

• Responsibility for liaising about the provision of arts, culture, textiles courses, programmes and training for young people were not clear, with CCiCU and Leisure and Cultural Services advocating the referral of such matters to each other;

5.40 Despite this, there was a consensus that the authority and

particularly CSLL Early Intervention Service should be signposting community organisations to areas where they should get support. During the discussions, and officers highlighted various sources of information which vcs youth organisations might find useful. A list of relevant sources is shown in appendix 6.

5.41 Panel members felt that these issues constitute examples of

piecemeal provision and a general lack of clarity about advice and guidance, support and training to vcs youth activity providers.

5.42 This might partly provide an explanation for the views of vcs

youth activity providers about these matters. 5.43 The authority needs to provide clarity on what is to be provided

and who is to produce it. Such issues might be helped by a LB Hounslow youth forum but there needs to be an urgent meeting led by the relevant cabinet members with the various parties, particularly Early Intervention Service, CCICU, Leisure and Cultural Services, etc .

Recommendation 8

There needs to be a meeting led by the relevant cabinet members, senior management, with the relevant functions to ensure advice and guidance, support and training is provided to VCS youth activity partners.

5.44 See Appendix 12 for more details about this issue.

37

6 CONCLUSIONS 6.01 The purpose of this scrutiny investigation has been to review the

relationship between LB Hounslow and the VCS to ensure effective, inclusive and joined up services are provided for young people in Hounslow.

6.02 Panel members have had discussions with young people and

VCS partners. There has also been feedback from Scrutiny Office day time meetings with LB Hounslow officers and officer representatives of statutory partners.

6.03 Panel members learnt that:

• proportions of young people in the borough are expected to rise significantly over the next 20 years;

• almost half of local residents feel that teenagers hanging around the streets are a problem in their area;

• violence and gang related activity in Hounslow (although small in relation to other London Boroughs) is increasing.

6.04 Young people want sports and youth clubs. They want safe places with adult supervision and friendly youth workers. They would like services to be better promoted and they would like more influence over the services provided.

6.05 The government has expectations about the delivery of youth

services by local government. They have developed ‘Positives for Youth’, a shared vision for how all parts of society – including schools, charities, businesses – can work together in partnership to support families and improve outcomes for young people, particularly those who are most disadvantaged or vulnerable.

6.06 However, central government funding of local government is

steadily reducing and is increasingly being targeted at statutorily financed services like child protection or adult social care.

6.07 Hounslow’s administration has ‘stated’ its commitment to Bright

Futures for the Borough’s young people, developing places to go and things to do that young people enjoy.

6.08 Youth activity and service provision within Hounslow covers a

range of elements: i.e. Hounslow’s youth service provision through the Early Intervention Service, contracts and grants; plus a whole range of wider initiatives and local vcs organisations providing youth activities.

38

6.09 Hounslow’s youth service provision has an innovative ‘trust’ and ‘shared’ youth service arrangements and its profile and service delivery has attracted praise and a good rating from Ofsted in recent years. However, it is a small service and current provision is the smallest that it has ever been.

6.10 The service has recently undergone a major reorganisation and

some downsizing, and been absorbed into 3 locality based intervention teams – which incorporate youth centre and specialist youth work as well as detached and outreach teams.

6.11 As part of the voluntary sector funding strategy, several local vcs

youth activity providers have been commissioned/ contracted to undertake work to progress the ‘Supporting Young People’ priority. Other VCS youth activity providers have received grants for projects that have met community cohesion, community pride, equality criteria, or have directly provided activities for young people.

6.12 There are also a range of activities and initiatives associated

with the wider provision of youth services within the borough: Extended Schools Activities and Schools Sports Partnerships; Physical Activity and Sports Strategy; Hounslow London’s 2012 Olympics Projects (HOTS); BFCST, HAAYA; Isleworth Explorers, etc.

6.13 The Panel were conscious that these contracts, grants, activities

and initiatives involve an array of LB Hounslow functions. At a time of limited resources, and with little prospect of additional resources in the near future, Panel members would like reassurance that these functions are working closely together and with other partners to maintain a corporate and consistent approach to the delivery of young people priorities; and that LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service is playing a leading role.

6.14 Panel members recommend that the Early Intervention Service

produce an updated mission statement highlighting its key role as facilitator and coordinator for the delivery of these young people priorities through its own youth services provision, but also for contracts, grants and wider initiatives.

6.15 Panel members understood the difficulties involved in collecting

and recording data (about contacts, participants, recorded and accredited outcomes), particularly during busy youth events. Nevertheless, Panel members felt that renewed efforts needed to be made to gather such data and information. A basic level of operational data is needed in order to target resources to maximum effect. This requirement should part of Locality Early Intervention service plans, service level agreements, contract, grant and other funding regimes.

39

6.16 Panel members have particular concerns about the views of

young people and vcs partners. These could be categorised into 2 broad themes:

• data and information, communication and publicity;

• advice and guidance, support and training.

6.17 In the final stages of the review, more information was requested in respect of these matters.

6.18 There were 4 issues associated with: data and information,

communication and publicity. These were:

• the need for a regular LB Hounslow youth forum;

• lack of information on facilities, data and indexes, i.e. local intelligence’, locality profiles, mapping;

• the need for a LB Hounslow youth website;

• communication and publicity about funding, training, and other support.

6.19 The Panel explored each of these areas 6.20 Panel members felt that this review has highlighted a range of

matters that could be discussed and progressed within a LB Hounslow Youth Forum and that such a regular forum would encourage communication and ‘closer working’ to prevent duplication, and sharing of good practice, enthusiasm, and responsibility for provision. Hounslow Early Intervention Service should organise a LB Hounslow Youth Forum in 6 to 9 months time.

6.21 There was a good deal of support for local intelligence about

youth issues and service provision from LB Hounslow officers. Relevant LB Hounslow functions, led by LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should work together to consider the issues involved in producing ‘locality’ profiles, information on facilities, data and indexing by mapping or other means.

6.22 It is more important for linking youth activity and sports provision

to socio-economic, crime, health, information to identify service needs and plan provision.

6.23 Whilst this has resource implications, it also offers scope for

more efficient targeting of resources, perhaps not only within youth activity, and sports and leisure, but for a whole range of other services provided across the authority.

40

6.24 Cabinet members and senior management should consider the priority such issues should have in the authority’s general plans and proposals for the development of GIS.

6.25 Notwithstanding the risks and security issues associated with a

LB Hounslow youth website, proposals should be considered, analysed, and discussed further at the proposed LB Hounslow Youth Forum.

6.26 LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service should explore

alternative ways to publicise youth service provision and activities, to maximise use of existing resources, to encourage the engagement of NEETS through community halls, and to promote youth services and activities through schools.

6.27 All relevant organisations engaged in providing youth services

and activities should be as well informed as possible and urge LB Hounslow Early Intervention Service, CCICU, etc. to work closely together to ensure such communication to vcs youth activity and service providers is reinstated to their general satisfaction.

6.28 Members were concerned to hear vcs youth activity provider

complain about the advice, guidance, support and training provided in respect of the following issues: - CRB checks, child protection and safety, health and safety, risk assessments – and the knock on effects this was having on the capacity and capability of their volunteer resources. They were perturbed that scrutiny office interviews with officers revealed confusion about these matters; i.e. that differing officers within the authority had different perceptions about: what support could, and should be offered to vcs youth activity and service providers and partners; what support is available; who is responsible for it or not responsible for it.

6.29 Panel members were concerned about the lack of ‘corporate

ownership’ of these matters. A future for youth support, beyond that of tightly prescribed targeted services is more than a matter of commissioning arrangements or delivery models. Creating a culture of shared values across organisations is as critical as getting the technical aspects of commissioning right. 17

6.30 Panel members call on the various parties to embrace the new

LB Hounslow emerging corporate values – and particularly, ‘many talents – one aim’ (eg. corporate working); ‘innovating – learning from experience’ (eg. challenging routines that are not working and not repeating the same mistakes) and ‘getting it

17 An Evaluation of Approaches to Commissioning Young People’s Services – OFTSED August 2011 para 20 page

10.

41

right – going the extra mile’ (eg. perseverance and determination).

6.31 The authority needs to provide clarity on what is to be provided

and who is to produce it. Such issues might be discussed during the proposed LB Hounslow Youth Forum but there needs to be an urgent meeting led by the relevant cabinet members with the various parties, particularly Hounslow Early Intervention Services, CCICU, Leisure and Cultural Services, etc to resolve some of the immediate problems.

6.32 Panel members are aware that the service has faced similar

resource pressures before in 2003. Panel members are disappointed that many of its original recommendations weren’t properly implemented or sustained, eg. regular youth forum, mapping, but acknowledge that it the service has managed to sustain a publicly acknowledged highly rated service by Ofsted since that time.

6.33 It is clear there are overlapping elements in Government and LB

Hounslow objectives; in particular, working together in partnership. The approach also offers financial benefits, i.e. integrating services, reducing duplication, sharing resources.

6.34 Panel members know that resources are limited and there is little

alternative to more effective working than be embracing the recommendations proposed if the authority is to begin to meet its stated commitments to young people at this time of economic and financial pressures when demands and needs are rising.

42

Appendix 1 Timetable of Meetings Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel – Tuesday 5th July 2011

Alliyah Shah–Bains - Youth Council Representative Roshni Mehra – Deputy Member of UK Youth Parliament for Hounslow Stephen Hutchinson – Senior Youth Worker (Citizenship & Participation) – Children’s Services & Lifelong Learning Department Debbie Hughes – Hounslow Action for Youth Centre Director Michael Marks – Assistant Director – Targeted and Locality Services Grantley Yearwood – Training & Quality Assurance Officer

Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel – Monday 5th September 2011 Kulvinder Lal – Member of UK Youth Parliament for Hounslow Roshni Mehra – Deputy Member of UK Youth Parliament for Hounslow Steve Hutchinson – Senior Youth Worker ( Citizenship & Participation) - Children’s Services & Lifelong Learning Department Tessa Awe and Suhel Miah from Hounslow Asian & African Youth Association (HAAYA) Kim Mitchell – Housing Services Manager – Estate Services – Hounslow Homes Jan Tellick – Board Member – Cedars Youth Charity – Chiswick Methodist Church supported by a number of churches across Chiswick Christine Calder – Assistant Pastor – Riverside Vineyard Church Candice Atterton – Volunteer Youth Leaders Team – Riverside Vineyard Church Desiree Polluk – Development Worker – Girl Guiding Middlesex South West Mark Gilbert – Chief Executive – Three Wings Trust

Meetings with Officers and Partners Date of Interview and Details Prepared questions were forwarded to interviewees beforehand. Interview notes were forwarded to them following the meetings. They were asked to make any amendments within 5 days. Hamish Pringle – Assistant Director – Leisure and Cultural Services at Scrutiny Office

Tuesday 20th September 2011.

Interview notes sent 29th September 2011

requesting any responses by 3rd October 2011.

No formal response. Chris Domeney – Head of Youth Offending Service and Andre Von Rooyen – Social Worker, Youth Offending Service, Redlees Park, Isleworth

Wednesday 21st September 2011.

Interview notes sent 29th September 2011

Response ‘fine’ 30th September 2011

Uttam Gujral – Head of Community Investment & Cohesion and Charlotte Brewster – Community Initiatives & External Funding at Community Investment & Cohesion Office

Thursday 22nd September 2011.

Interview notes sent 3rd October 2011.

Response received with amendments 3rd

October 2011. Amendments incorporated.

Stephen Hutchinson, Senior Youth Worker (Citizenship & Participation), CSLL plus members of Youth Council at Martindale Road.

Thursday 22nd September 2011. Interview notes sent 28

th September 2011

requesting any response by 5th October 2011.

No formal response. Michael M. Francis and Steven Lau – Interim Heads of Locality for Early Intervention at Scrutiny Office.

Friday 23rd September 2011.

Interview notes sent 28th September requesting

any response by 5th October 2011. Informal

response that amendments would be forthcoming on 5

th October 2011 and 14

th

October 2011 but no further communication. Ged Boyer Partnership Inspector and Robert Wilson Metropolitan Police at Scrutiny Office.

Wednesday 28th September 2011.

Interview notes sent on 4th October 2011

requesting response by 10th October 2011. No

formal response. Phillip Austen-Reed Chair of CSPAN and Health & Wellbeing Commissioning Manager at Scrutiny Office.

Wednesday 28th September 2011.

Interview notes sent 4th October 2011.

Amendments sent and incorporated on 5th

October 2011.

43

Appendix 2 A Summary of Issues that Emerged from Interviews with Officers and Partners Assistant Director – Leisure and Cultural Services – 20

th September 2011.

The authority’s Leisure and Cultural Services activities are focused on those VCS organisations undertaking sports activities. The role of the new Sports Strategy and C-SPAN voluntary group partnership is designed to overcome the limitations of piecemeal provision by small independent clubs and organisations to promote sporting excellence. But it is also designed to challenge the characteristic profile of the sporting provision experience (gradual discouragement and exclusion of the majority leaving a shrinking number of talented achievers). Extending young people’s engagement in sporting activity is a key part of this. Sports activity should be planned properly and there should be much more focus on after school clubs targeting resources at 10/11 year olds to keep them playing sports. He felt that his unit was well placed to provide advice and support re: child protection, health and safety and risk management policies and procedures for vcs organisations providing sports activities and felt his team could run some evening seminars in respect of this. He was sceptical about the value of youth/sports activity mapping in Hounslow for public/local resident use. Such information could be generated in a few minutes using the internet. However, he felt there may be considerable value in mapping activities and facilities and linking with socio/economic, and other data eg. crime, through GIS to help identify gaps in provision. Currently, insufficient information is shared. There is scope for block discounts in respect of VAT for suitable charitable/vcs bodies with membership base. Concession for VCS groups faith groups, youth clubs, etc is however impracticable. Arts Development is channelled by Community Cohesion & Partnerships through Watermans’. Head of Youth Offending Service and Social Worker - 21st September 2011 Youth Offending Service (YOS) did not have a relationship with the vcs although it would be useful to have one. YOS was separate from these groups and it might be useful to have some ‘linkages There may be value in a regular forum provided it had a clear focus on action and was not just a talking shop. There needed to be clear terms of reference. It would be appropriate for the council to play a coordination/leadership role. They would support a website/electronic community for those involved in providing youth activities. They queried about the scope for discounts/free access to facilities for groups of young offenders. In some authorities, certain proportions of young people with statutory orders had free access to gyms. YOS would like to establish links with vcs to develop appropriate programmes. It would be useful to have links with Watermans’ Arts to enable young offenders to participate in arts and textiles courses. They would like access to apprenticeships for young offenders beyond mechanics, into landscaping, etc. They felt they could offer scope for volunteering. All sorts of work were available. Useful experience to put on a CV, and if productive, good references supplied. A central volunteer unit would be a good thing – dealing with health & safety, CRB checks, child protection, etc.

44

Head of Community Investment & Cohesion and Community Initiatives & External Funding Officer - Wednesday 22

nd September 2011

Capacity Building support is provided by GLE Consulting in respect of the following: funding advice, group development, financial management, governance, business planning, policy development, quality assurance, and IT advice. A training schedule was made available outlining forthcoming courses relating to: volunteer management; quality systems and marks; business planning, organisational governance, service user engagement, project management, basic ICT, funding strategies and partnerships, and bid writing. GLE’ Consulting’s service provision is determined by a clearly defined specification with a purpose and objectives.

However, there is no scope to provide CRB checks, child safety and protection, health and safety and risk management policy and procedures, advice and training. If vcs organisations require CRB checks, they are currently signposted elsewhere to other organisations. In the past, CCICU had referred vcs health and social care providers to the appropriate internal department to tap into local authority expertise but they had not otherwise been involved. LB Hounslow Youth Services provided any relevant training, support and advice to vcs organisations providing youth activities. If they were no longer able to provide the same level of training, support and advice, perhaps voluntary and community organisations delivering youth activities had to accept they would have to combine forces to secure their own support (consortia). Previous expectations could not be fulfilled within the new financial environment. CCICU had no objection to young people’s forums but they wouldn’t be able to resource and support them, although they would be happy to provide advice. They highlighted details of the Hounslow Community Network. West London Network (WLN) is the umbrella body covering VCS groups in Hounslow, Ealing, Brent, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hammersmith & Fulham and Barnet. WLN has been commissioned by LB Hounslow to work with VCS groups to help set up a new Hounslow Community Network bringing together all local VCS groups and giving local groups a stronger voice with the Council and other decision makers. Effective Community Networks already operate in neighbouring boroughs, such as Ealing. The aim is to formally launch a new Hounslow Community Network by July 2012 and the hand it over to a local Hounslow based lead VCS organisation. CCICU felt that any ‘youth website’ that would allow all the youth events provided by LBH and the voluntary sector to be promoted, and allow feedback from young people through a discussion forum – should be provided by the new Corporate centre – Communications, Policy, Scrutiny, - because it had a leading policy and communication role. They could also signpost the correct communication format and incorporate interactive platforms – Face book etc. CCICU would find mapping information useful and could contribute to it, eg. a list of vcs organisations. However, they do not feel it is part of their role to develop it or maintain it. CCICU are unclear why vcs partners feel that they cannot get hold of community statistics, particularly deprivation data at ward level. They cite Hounslow Innovation Grants – Guidance & Criteria on the website which contains the following documentation:

The 2010 JSNA, a document which provides demographic details about the health of Hounslow residents http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/joint_strategy_needs_assess_2010_11.pdf Neighbourhood Statistics is run by the Office for National Statistics and provides easy access to 2001 Census data and other more recent data sets.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp

45

The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of economic, social and housing issues, into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010 Further information is available from Charlotte Brewster – 0208 5832454. In addition, there may be further information available from Data Observatory – Policy Unit. CCICU advised groups with queries about the availability of preferential rates or discounts or service availability in respect of arts and culture programmes for their client groups to contact Watermans’ directly. Alternatively, Performance and Policy Officer, Leisure and Cultural Services could be contacted directly. NB: During discussions around the draft final Scrutiny report considered at Panel meeting on 19

th January 2012, Head of CCICU indicated that the contract with GLE had now been

withdrawn.

Senior Youth Worker (Citizenship & Participation), CSLL plus members of Youth Council - Thursday 22nd September 2011. He responded to vcs providers complaints that training, staff development and volunteering were no longer taking place by stating that he carried out volunteer interviews, that Training & Quality Assurance Officer specialises in bringing in volunteers and that some vcs training was provided by Hounslow Homes. He also felt that there were ‘perception’ problems. Fears about child protection/risk management could be exaggerated. Smaller community organisations might have had legitimate concerns 5/6 years ago. Model child protection policies could be accessed from the web fairly easily these days. In practice, it would be fairly easy to access existing authority driven volunteer training, even support with CRB checks, by contacting Training & Quality Assurance Officer or himself. He felt that there had been no discernable reduction in training/staff development and volunteering programme provided by the authority despite recent cutbacks. If they were contacted they could probably advise and/or arrange for vcs youth activity providers needs to be met. For example, signing up to the authority’s volunteering programme would ensure that all volunteers requirements relating to child protection and safety, general health and safety, risk management and CRB checks would be met. VCS youth activity providers simply needed to be specific about what they needed. Stephen acknowledged that there was no single lead for Youth Services in CSLL yet. There would be no risk to the authority if vcs employed someone without checks. Ofsted might be interested but there would be no risk of litigation against the authority. VCS youth activity providers could get advice re policies and checks from London Youth and Middlesex Association for Working with Young People. Ofsted might be prepared to give advice. He felt that a forum for vcs community partners engaged in youth activity within the borough had been tried before but it was likely to struggle without access to funds. Hounslow Youth Partnership had been able to access Youth Opportunities Fund. Such a forum would need to be chaired by a senior politician or Director. Perhaps a virtual forum on a youth website might be appropriate. Message boards and forums could be overseen by youth worker to ensure no inappropriate communication and dialogue.

46

Youth Council/Parliament representatives would welcome a youth website overseen by the local authority. It had never got off the ground previously because the authority was perceived as dragging its feet. He (and the youth representatives) felt it would work best by being overseen by a detached Youth Worker from the authority – able to monitor message boards and community forums. He felt that Social Networks, Facebook, Blackberry were not appropriate media because of the lack of control the authority could invoke over their content.

Integrated opportunities for abled and disabled to do things together was less of an issue for the local authority who are willing to partner in such a way. There is often reluctance from the groups themselves, and particularly parents who are, often understandably, overprotective and apprehensive about such close links. Young Carers Project is very good and doesn’t need any changes to it. Some simple mapping is of value but (notwithstanding youth clubs) young people are fairly mobile and are able to travel to appropriate sports, leisure, arts and cultural events if attracted to them, and interested in them. Such information is readily available. ‘Contacts’ information is of far more value. VCS and charities can access Hounslow Youth Services for community statistics and deprivation data at ward level. Data and information is readily available. It is important to note, however, that sometimes vcs youth activity providers might be in competition for funds with Local Authority Youth Services. In such circumstances, Hounslow’s Youth Services might be less willing to make data and information but nevertheless feel compelled to do so. Their VCS competitors would not feel under the same obligations.

He didn’t feel that that there was a need to work with voluntary and community bodies to scope the work required for youth activity and facilitate funding, possibly with seed corn money. He didn’t feel any new facilities/provision is required. What was needed was funding to enable existing facilities to be utilised (including use by vcs youth activity providers) more often. There was plenty of scope for community organisations to use existing resources/sites/ arrangements if they were to approach the department. Come along and use these facilities, use existing youth clubs. There was scope for far more partnership with vcs youth activity providers to tackle their specific needs. Interim Heads of Locality for Early Intervention - Friday 23

rd September 2011

They would provide an amended ‘vision’ of youth services provided by CSLL, by Wednesday 28

th September (not yet provided). .

The authority has the following statutory duties to support youth services and activity provision. Education Act 1944 requires local authorities to have an adequate youth service. Warwickshire tried to disband theirs but were not able to do so. Youth Services in Hounslow are still provided but there are not sited in a stand alone unit and provided on a separate site, although there are regular meetings of youth work practitioners. The single point of contact for strategic issues within Youth Services would now have to be the 3 area based locality managers, until such time as 1 was given sole responsibility. Operational leads would be the relevant youth workers in areas concerned. The authority would be concerned, and possibly liable, if larger funded groups eg. youth centres, did not have relevant child protection, health and safety policies in place or proper CRB checks and procedures.

47

In practice, there did not appear to be any such problems with the larger, funded groups, but if such problems did exist, and were referred to the Early Intervention Teams at HEC, they would be attended to. Early Intervention Service could not accept responsibility for liaison with community sector organisations regarding youth activities. This was a role for CCICU. However, they did provide high level support for youth service provision across the authority. They were not clear how much scope there was for Early Intervention Team(s) to provide child protection, health and safety, risk management, CRB checks to support non funded community organisations providing youth activities (One idea for them is to simply apply to be a volunteer when all such training is provided). At the very least though, the authority should be able to signpost community organisations to areas where they should get support. They felt that GLE (CSV’s replacement) should be offering CRB checks as part of the services they provide. They felt it might be impracticable to enable vcs youth activity providers to tap into existing internal local authority expertise on devising health and safety, risk assessment and management policies and procedures. Content of risk assessments might be markedly different to those required by community organisations. There might be reluctance for the authority to be seen to sanction/approve policies and assessments in case liabilities to the council were incurred. They recognised that skills and passions of smaller groups were probably focused on the young people and youth activities they were engaged with rather than the various compliance assessments and checks that needed to be carried out. Notwithstanding this, Training and Quality Assurance Officer has provided training on risk assessments. VCS should contact Sally Philips – Child Protection Manager regarding child protection procedures if they have any issues. They said the Early Intervention Service were happy to support a youth forum but had no capacity to lead it. He felt that this was more likely to be a role for Community Investment & Cohesion.

They felt that managing and maintaining a youth website is fraught with potential difficulties and could pose a risk to the authority. How can you ensure ‘postings’ are legitimate? More integrated opportunities for abled and disabled people to do things together had a much wider health and social care context that was best managed through the Children with Disabilities team(s). They felt that such integration was often difficult to achieve. It required more understanding and positive attitudes from staff and from other young people. In theory, a good idea. In practice, difficult. He felt that children with severe disabilities were often well supported and that those with mild disabilities fell through the net. They felt that some mapping information would be very useful. There was more need for a locality profile at Hounslow to build up a comprehensive picture of needs, requirements, and facilities and ‘contact’ details for each locality. They felt that there was no reason why community statistics, particularly deprivation data at ward level, should not be made available to local community organisations.

48

Partnership Inspector and Metropolitan Police representative - Wednesday 28th September

2011. They felt that there was quite a lot of youth service provision and activity within Hounslow. If young people wanted to get involved there was plenty of scope to do so, eg. boxing club, sports clubs, Kick Off/Up – football etc. However, they felt it would be useful to conduct a full review of what’s available and make such information widely available – local media, police, etc. There is a growing problem with gangs in Hounslow but it is nothing like as serious as within other boroughs, eg. Southwark, etc. The G9 Framework is employed to deal with gangs – educate, engage, divert, enhance, etc. They felt that there is a need to get access to young people at a much earlier age – 10/11/12 – to stop them being recruited into gangs. The challenge was to encourage young people to get involved, stop them hanging around and getting bored and being perceived as an intimidating presence by older people. Young people needed to be occupied in a meaningful way. They considered the proposal for a youth forum to enable all interested parties to meet and exchange good ideas and practices. This would depend on its remit. In general terms, They would be interested in attending. In terms of timescales, they would suggest once every 6 months. A live message board could also be developed. If they were more aware of vcs activities, we could ‘signpost’ bored youth to make more use of them. They did not feel the police service should get involved in a youth website. Young people would be very suspicious if the police were involved. In addition, they felt that there might be data risks and security issues if there were links with other social media eg. Facebook.

Chair of CSPAN and Health & Wellbeing Commissioning Manager - Wednesday 28

th

September 2011 He thought that there was a lot less provision. Previously, there had been regular contact with CSLL Youth Services when Head of Youth Services Liz Hassock was in post. This is no longer the case. There is no central contact person within CSLL attending CSPAN. In reality, He had much more dealings with the Schools Sports Partnership(s) and felt the concept of a ‘sports club forum’ that has existed to some degree in the past needed more support now to enable stronger links with clubs.. There is a great deal of momentum for the generation of more volunteers. A lot of projects use volunteers. He is awaiting development of third sector forum as this will provide a useful vehicle for linking with third sector He suggested that there could be more joined up thinking about local authority funding and subsidy. Why give grants to voluntary and community sector providers and then take the money back through community building rents and/or rates? GLE are funded to support the vcs. They should ensure they engage widely around the vcs world. Voluntary sector forum to be set up will provide a broader forum of voluntary sector organisations. He outlined the approach from another direction. Seeking to broaden engagement in sports and physical activity beyond the more controlled school environment. Particularly trying to

49

challenge the participation drop off at ages 16-18 by encouraging young people to participate outside school prior to this age. Also, trying to develop excellence and more inclusiveness amongst the larger sport providers through potential targeting of key clubs in the borough He highlighted the roles of School Sports Partnerships (more primary than secondary). With the development of school academies, free schools and greater independence of schools, ‘schools sports partnerships’ are developing more trading relationships selling sports services back to schools. Work is needed to engage more secondary schools. Current vcs sports club representatives (on CSPAN) no longer truly representative of the vcs. Does link with some other clubs but mainly represent ‘badminton’ interests. CSPAN link with vcs but it is not an equitable link with regards to having a clear pathway to disseminate information to all voluntary sector. CCICU have a fairly comprehensive list of vcs organisations and circulate to them through Evolve. Issues around funding that may relate to wider voluntary organisations are channelled from the CSPAN to Evolve. There is a rep from CCICU on the CSPAN. Brentford Football Trust sit in CSPAN and do significant work in the community, particularly on estates with Hounslow Homes. They also work together with Fusion but little duplication. He suggested data from sports clubs/vcs be sent to Leisure Services annually as this would provide more detailed information on participation and volunteering in the borough although there would need to be some benefit for sports clubs in order for this to happen. Volunteering to undertake supportive and leadership roles that promote participation in physical activity and sport is Being progressed through Schools Sports Partnerships but need a whole lot more volunteers and therefore, training. He cannot see why there should not be close links (economies of scale and reciprocal benefits) re: the authority’s internal training for volunteers, eg. first aid training, report writing, presentation skills, along with more focused training, health and safety, risk management, vulnerable people, etc. NB: Because of Olympics there is currently scope to get coaching qualifications from £25 as mayor’s fund will pay 75% of the cost. In response to suggestions for a youth forum he has used the communities of practice facility on the IDeA website to set up a community for the CSPAN. This enables CSPAN members and other stakeholders to stay abreast of activities locally and nationally through library of docs, forum, calendar and blog facilities. A similar Community might be established for stakeholders and partners interested in Hounslow Youth activities. With regard to a ‘youth website’, he felt that it would need to be LB Hounslow’s role to coordinate but they would need the capacity to keep it up to date. There might however, be other ways to keep relevant partners and stakeholders informed. He is aware of a broader directory of youth service providers in CSLL which he will try to get hold of. Proactive West (regional organisation) has developed the Get Active London Website that allows you to punch in postcode and get a local list of sports and physical activity providers. Hounslow has bought into this (cost £500) could easily use to access info on what is available for young people.

50

Appendix 3 Questionnaire Response from Chris Edwards, Funding & Monitoring Manager, Brentford Football Club Community Sports Trust received on 2nd September 2011

1. Can you describe the services you provide and any responsibilities you have in relation to youth activities and services?

We deliver sports and leisure-based youth inclusion projects across Hounslow that use sport and leisure activities to engage with marginalised young people aged 8-18 years of age living on key housing estates across the borough. We provide sports sessions and youth clubs, opportunities to volunteer and gain accredited qualifications and educational workshops for young people to make informed lifestyle decisions. We currently deliver: 2 Kickz projects (Highfields Estate and Hounslow Central); an Extreme Football Plus project (Ivybridge and Brentford Towers Estates); a Street Games project (Edensor, Alexandra and Staveley Gardens; Southville; Southern Avenue; Brabazon Road); a Street Sports project (Heston Farm, Harlech Gardens, Redwood, Watermead, Convent Way and Brent Lea and Syon); and a Sports Connect programme of activity (Hanworth Centre). 2. Can you describe any resources – staff, finance, or other funding you receive, (if any)

from LB Hounslow? We currently receive: £15,000 per annum from the Supporting Young People contract up to 2015 (this is match funded £ for £) £2,500 from the Youth Fund – 2010-2011 (this is match funded) £35,000 from Rainbow Fund – 2010-2011 £11,000 Community Cohesion – 2010-2011 (this is match funded £ for £) £40,000 Connecting Communities – 2010-2011

3. What support do you need from the LB Hounslow?

Funding would be the top one

A more joined up approach to youth inclusion projects where we can worked with our partners such as the youth service to deliver sessions and referral organisations to identify the key young people that we should be working with. We would also appreciate closer working with the local residents groups to plan and deliver on local projects

4. Are there sufficient safe and welcoming places for young people to go to in

Hounslow? If not, what can be done about it and whose responsibility is it to make these things happen?

We work on a lot of estates and there are certain estates that need more welcoming and safe places. Brentford Towers and Harlech Gardens stand out for us as areas that need improved outdoor facilities. HIghfields estate for example could do with improved indoor sites. It would be helpful if sports centre managed by Fusion (I think) would reduce their rates to hire indoor and outdoor to encourage community use, as the rates can be expensive even if we do a block booking.

5. What is your impression of the adequacy of the current youth services provision in the Borough?

I think it is OK – I have seen it cut drastically since last year. I feel that we should be working more closely with the youth service now more than ever to provide youth activity. Although many of our staff are from a sports background we have been working hard to develop and

51

find staff that can deliver youth work provision. There are a lot of organisations in Hounslow delivering youth work activity and we really need to be getting these organisations together to join up the work and not duplicate. We also need to be doing more targeted work with key young people identified through YOS, police, PRU, schools and other service providers.

6. Are there enough challenges and rewarding things for young people to do in this borough? If not, what can be done about it and whose responsibility is it to do it?

I think there could always be more things for young people to do. I think it is the responsibility of all to identify these things and work together to provide more.

7. How would you appraise the quality of information available about youth activities to young people and their parents? What action is needed, if any, and who should be responsible for progressing it?

I don’t think there is enough information available. I think schools and referral organisations are under utilised in terms of advertising, as are resident groups. I also think the traditional outreach work of standing on street corners telling young people about provision could be developed.

8. Do you feel you have enough of an opportunity to get involved in conversations with the Council on youth services so you can influence what is being provided to young people?

Yes and No. If I force the issue then yes. But it would be very ad hoc. We need a situation whereby a group that looks at positive activities should be meeting together with buy in from referral services to influence what is being provided to young people. We need people that care about youth provision and who are keen to go the extra mile to make things work. We also need to learn from good practice from certain parts of the borough.

9. Local authorities have a duty to provide sufficient educational and recreational leisure time activities for young people aged 13-19 and those aged 20-24 with learning disabilities. In your opinion, how effectively are we discharging this role?

Not sure the meaning of discharge in this context.

10. What are the challenges faced in delivering youth services in the new financial climate and what can be done about meeting them?

The challenges are financial and getting the right balance between have open access and being more targeted and engaging with the young people that need the service the most. It is also about all organisations being open to share responsibility for provision and accept that partnership is required more so and that funding might have to be shared between groups.

11. How should we measure the effectiveness of youth services? Look at outcomes of young people and measure the journey that the young person has taken. We need to be showing the impact we have had identifying key case studies.

12. Is there any danger of duplication of youth services – competing with other service providers to deliver the same services in the same locality?

There possibly will be a danger of this. But as noted above it is about us all accepting that we need to be working together and with this will be a reduced budget but also an opportunity to make a greater impact.

13. In Para 74 of the recent Education Select Committee Report on Services for Young People, Garath Symonds Head of Surrey Youth Services states: ‘Voluntary sector can do things at less cost…. The amount we are spending on management is going to be massively reduced, because the voluntary sector can

52

manage services at less cost. It can attract funding from outside, and it can attract assets in a way that we cannot.’ ’ What is your view?

I agree with this although we are always looking for full cost recovery to remain sustainable

14. What risks are associated with low levels of organised youth activities and services and how can they be addressed?

The risks are that young people feel isolated, particularly those with the greatest need, and this can impact negatively on their life chances as well as the communities they live in. This can be addressed by working more effectively, getting people that really care about providing youth activity together to make things happen and by ensuring that those most in need get access to the provision that is on offer.

15. What links would you make, if any, between employment and educational

opportunities, youth activities, gangs and antisocial behaviour? This is about providing young people with life chances in an ever more materialistic and divided society. Young people need to know they have opportunities and they can make positive informed lifestyle decisions.

53

Appendix 4 Youth Service Trust and Shared Management Arrangements Hanworth – Hounslow Action for Youth (HAY) is based at the Hanworth Centre. HAY is a social enterprise charitable trust set up to help and provide children and young adults in Hounslow with activities to divert them from antisocial behaviour and give them new opportunities to develop essential life skills. For the older childen there are youth club sessions for 3 different age groups, 7-11 years juniors, 11-13 years – Intermediates and 13-19 years Seniors. HAY also manages a Junior Youth Inclusion Programme (JYIP) which is for 8-13 year olds who may be on the verge of antisocial behaviour, truanting from school, etc. Another important specialist worker at the Hanworth Centre is the Connexions NEET Personal Advisor. She works with the 16-19 age group who have left school without any qualifications and who are not going into college or into work.

18

Hogarth – Hogarth social enterprise charitable trust was set up to manage Hogarth Youth Club. It offers various activities within junior, intermediate, and senior youth clubs. Resources including IT work and a sound recording studio. Both of the above organisations were given long leases for LB Hounslow owned buildings until 2024 and 2025. They have been able to attract resources and to refurbish the buildings. Hounslow Youth Centre ‘Physically Handicapped and Abled Bodied (PHAB) is a registered charity that runs youth club based projects to facilitate the inclusion of young people with learning and/or physical needs into their local community. PHAB runs 5 main groups, which include Thursday evenings Youth Club. Saturday morning for young people with ADHD and Autism. Thursday after school is for Duke of Edinburgh Stars group which is an inclusion group for young people to complete their Duke of Edinburgh Award at all levels. Thursday mornings is Starts Parent and Toddler group which is a volunteering opportunity for many of the young people and on Tuesday evenings a Sports club for young people aged 10-14 years. Other voluntary groups including AWAAZ

19 and The Voice, also use Hounslow Youth

Centre. The Youth Centre is owned by the authority but managed by these 3 groups. Grant funding from the authority pays for specialist staff for PHAB. The club consists of a large club room and a fully equipped gym hall for indoor football and other games. Hounslow Youth Centre is also the base for Hounslow’s Citizenship and Participation Team which supports a variety of opportunities for young people to take part in local democracy and consultation. Chiefly amongst these are the Youth Council, UK Youth Parliament. They also provide training and take part in various citizenship activities across the borough. These opportunities are available to all young people aged 13-19 across the borough. The Hub Focus Youth Centre provides a range of facilities for 11 to 19 year olds, including music production, indoor and outdoor sports, and dance, along with regular youth club activities like pool, table tennis, board games, computer games, etc. They also offer workshops around healthy living, arts. This centre has focused on provision for ‘under 3’s. In practice, there has been less and less support for ‘youth’. Southville Youth Club is based in the Southville Childrens Centre. It runs youth programmes for young people aged 10-19 years old. Activities include internal and external sports, cooking workshops, DJing workshops, sewing workshops, active model making, information and advice sessions, dance workshops, arts and crafts,

18 Page 64 – as above

19 AWAAZ – Youth Project Bangladesh Welfare Association

54

etc. Young people who volunteer undertake training with the aim of them becoming paid workers when the opportunity arises. Young people are actively encouraged to take the lead in running the youth club programme and volunteering. Southville is also the site for Footprints Young Carers. Detached and Outreach Team work on estates across the borough. They work on the streets talking with young people and offering advice and support in order to prevent anti-social behaviour and nuisance crime in areas. They run programmes in local community buildings and work closely with local people. The team run programmes of activities that are curriculum based and accredited as well as providing activities which young people enjoy, ice skating, go karting, narrow boat trips, residentials to outdoor activity centres. They work on other issues affecting young people including awareness of drugs, sexual health, knife workshops, etc.

55

Appendix 5 More Details about Voluntary and Community Sector Grants for Youth Activities The Community Based Youth Fund aims to encourage:

• Projects led, designed and delivered by young people themselves;

• New local community activities for young people and their families;

• Contributing towards start up costs for new groups working with young people;

• Projects that reduce the likelihood of young people and children becoming involved in anti-social behaviour or in local gangs, by creating practical and challenging alternatives that encourage inclusion

• One off events and projects for young people eg. drama, environmental projects, sports, education trips and visits to outdoor activities

• Projects bringing together young people and older people

• Community run projects that feature the active involvement of young people in the planning and delivery of the project.

20

The following organisations were awarded grants in 2010/11

Organisation Qualifying Criteria Funding

Cranford Support Group Projects and events for young people and their families who are disadvantaged

£2500

Isleworth Explorers Club Projects that promote positive interaction between young people from different backgrounds

£10000

Rotary Club of Hounslow Projects that promote positive interaction between young people from different backgrounds

£750

Special Connection Projects that promote positive interaction between young people from different backgrounds

£2500

West London RETI Projects that reduce the likelihood of young people becoming involved in antisocial behaviour

£2500

Strengthening Communities Grant

Organisation Qualifying Criteria Funding

Many Voices Work in partnership with Cranford Community College, Hounslow Music Service and AFAN (All faiths and None) to deliver music and song writing sessions. The sessions will be run with both the Community College and outreach with the local primary schools. The session will culminate in a multi-faith event.

£6000

Hounslow Xtreme Football Plus Intergenerational Project

Partnership project to deliver 12 weeks of ICT, healthy cooking and walking projects on the Ivybridge estate building up the sports sessions already delivered there.

£8900

20 Page 115 Appendix C – LBH Voluntary and Community Sector Strategy 2011-15

56

Rainbow Project

Organisation Project Type

Brentford Towers Residents Association

Youth activities for 5-19 years old including youth clubs, sports and play projects

Dukes Meadow Community Association

Youth club – junior and senior

Feltham Community Development Association

Funding for youth club for 8-12 year olds

Ivybridge Residents Association, Isleworth

Replacement of toddler playground and contribution to a range of activities on the estate for families and children including sport project, youth club and play project.

ROWE Residents Association

Extension of centre toprovide storage space, refurbish kitchen, improve access to endure DDA compliance, youth project

Southern Avenue Residents Association

New Multi Use Games Area on site of old one, Sports project

Sutton Lane Residents Association

New multi Use Games Area

57

Appendix 6 More Details of Hounslow’s Performance against the 6 National Indicators that are used to measure the work of the Targeted Youth Services.

National Indicator Commentary

5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE including English and Maths

Improved 58.7% Hounslow attainment rate in 2010. Better performance than statistical neighbours and better than national average

First Time entrants to the Youth Justice System aged 10-17

1540 annual figure in 209/10. Worse performance than statistical neighbours and worse than national average but positive trend downwards

16-18 year olds known to ‘Connexions’ that are Not in Education, Employment or Training

4.7% Lower percentage figures that statistical neighbours and lower than national average and positive trend downwards up to 2009 (last figures available).

Substance Misuse by young people %age of pupils who reported misusing alcohol or drugs (in 2009) higher than statistical neighbours but lower than London average.

Secondary school persistent absence rates

Secondary school persistent absence rates of 3% are lower than statistical neighbours and national average and were continuing on a downward trend as at 2009.

Under 18 conception rates per 1000 girls (15-17)

Hounslow rates higher than statistical neighbours but lower than national average. Figures on a downward trend as at 2009 but concerns that there may be a return to historically high levels as resources are cut.

58

Appendix 7 List of Relevant Sources The following possible sources of information were highlighted by various officers:

• Model child protection policies can be accessed fairly easily from the internet;

• VCS youth activity providers can get advice re: policies and checks from London Youth and Middlesex Association for Working with Young People.

• Ofsted might be prepared to give advice.

Proactive West (regional organisation) has developed the Get Active London Website that allows you to punch in postcode and get a local list of sports and physical activity providers. Hounslow has bought into this (cost £500) could easily use to access info on what is available for young people.

Because of Olympics there is currently scope to get coaching qualifications from £25 as mayor’s fund will pay 75% of the cost.

The 2010 JSNA, a document which provides demographic details about the health of Hounslow residents http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/joint_strategy_needs_assess_2010_11.pdf

Neighbourhood Statistics is run by the Office for National Statistics and provides easy access to 2001 Census data and other more recent data sets. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp

Hounslow 2001 Census data can also be accessed through www.hounslow.gov.uk/Counciland Democracy/Statisticsandcensusinformation

The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of economic, social and housing issues, into a single deprivation score for each small area in England. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010

Further information is available from Charlotte Brewster – 0208 5832454. In addition, there may be further information available from Data Observatory – Policy Unit.

59

Appendix 8 Details of Views of local Voluntary and Community Youth Service and Activity Providers (as recorded at Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel of 5th September 2011)

Jan Tellick – Board Member - Cedars Youth Charity and Three Wings Trust Highlighted the work carried out by Cedars Youth Charity reaching youths from deprived estate(s) in Chiswick who are often excluded from the fee paying opportunities available to other children in the area. She highlighted the following areas where she felt the local authority could help:

• Work with the voluntary bodies to scope the work required for youth and facilitate funding, possibly with seed corn money

• Facilitate and promote volunteering – loss of CVS is considerable, lack of CRB support etc. Cedars were struggling with recruiting volunteers and they needed the right quality of volunteers. There were resourcing/cost issues. Volunteer needed proper training. They also needed appropriate supervision.

• Provide training for youth workers at no or low cost – we had this ‘payment in kind’ over a number of years plus access was provided to advice on policies and safe working practices and advice on specific issues from the youth service

• Partner with voluntary organisations to tackle specific groups e.g young carers and provide the funding

• Facilitate a voluntary forum to share experiences, discuss issues, develop joint projects

• Develop a ‘youth website’ that would allow all the youth events provided by LBH and the voluntary sector to be promoted, allow feedback from young people through a discussion forum etc.

• Provide funding to support communications via social media by all with the young people – we do not have the funding to acquire the expertise individually.

• Need more integrated opportunities for able bodied and disabled young people

Christine Calder, Assistant Pastor Riverside Vineyard Church outlined the activities of the church in youth work. Christine highlighted that her organisation did not have the infrastructure to provide and deliver their own support re: CRB checks, health & safety, etc,. They needed more support. Desiree Polluk – Development Worker – Girl Guiding Middlesex South West highlighted that girl guides offered a wide range of unique benefits (low cost, good image that attracted funding, wide range of activities) for girls – who are not traditionally catered for. Desiree highlighted that Girl guiding units are only funded by subscriptions paid by members which are an average of just £1.50 - £2 a week. We keep subscriptions to a minimum so that we are affordable to families on all incomes and only charge enough to cover costs of activities and venue hire if applicable. The Scouts have been involved in long standing and unresolved discussions with the Council over rent rebates on their sites. If we are to remain affordable we need low cost venues from which to operate. Desiree felt that the loss of the CVS contract had been a disaster. Previously, they had routinely received up to 10 emails a day about funding, training, other support. Now they receive nothing at all. Desiree would welcome access to school buildings and facilities for their activities. Desiree would welcome is the interpretation of local community statistics and local council knowledge as demonstrated in the CCICU brief of June 2011 to help build evidence to make successful bids for funding.

60

As a diverse and inclusive organisation, Girl guiding is keen to encourage access to their programme from as wide a section of the community as possible. Misguiding would therefore welcome a closer relationship with Youth Services and more signposting to their services, not only as an activity provider but as a volunteer organisation providing a Leadership Qualification for female volunteers. This can be especially beneficial to NEETS and young people given the current unemployment issues. Girl guiding can make a valuable contribution to youth service provision in the borough and, at present, not enough use is made of the organisation. As Development Worker, Desiree was happy to meet with interested organisations in order to take this forward. Mark Gilbert – Chief Executive – Three Wings Trust highlighted the role of his organisation as providing recreational, and other, activities for children and young people with additional needs in Hounslow, Kingston and Richmond. He felt that there should be more holistic provision and linkages between mainstream and specialist provision. He welcomed initiatives to increase the voice and influence of young people with disabilities over activities and other services which are provided to them, eg. Young People with Disabilities Forums.

Details of Views of K.Attewell, Member of Thameside Grand Union Scout District Executive on 17th January 2012. (by Email). For your information, we currently have 16 groups in the District (14 within LBH). Across the various sections of these groups eg. Beavers ,Cubs, Scouts and Explorers we have approximately 1000 young people 6-18 year olds attending meetings /activities each week. All leaders, Adult Support members are volunteers, and we have our own internal Leader Training programmes, compliance with CRB requirements, Child Protection procedures etc. Many of our groups’ buildings however which were built / funded by the groups many years ago are on sites rented from LBH. This is the area that we need particular help and support with from the Council. numbers of the leases for these buildings have expired and, in some instances we have been faced with phenomenal proposed rent increases which if implemented would undoubtedly result in the closure of groups. Despite corresponding meeting with various members of the council since June 2006.we have made no progress on these matters at all. As Charity Trustees, members of the Group / District Executives we are aware of our obligation to ensure legal compliance but this has proved impossible in the circumstances. Scouting has existed for over 100 years, in order to keep these buildings and therefore the Groups operating for years to come we need Councils support in providing new long term leases at minimal rents. Ealing Council adopted such a policy about three years ago. We have been advised over a number of years that LBH needed to carry out a review of all voluntary and community buildings in the borough ( which apparently includes our buildings ) in order to ensure that all groups are treated equally. I understand that such a review might just be about to start!!!, but would have thought that it needed to form an important part of your review. We believe that there are very few, if any other instances like ourselves, where voluntary organisations have built / paid for the buildings, continued thereafter to pay all the maintenance / running costs,( heating, lighting, water rates etc compliance with relevant legislation and have no council paid leaders or annual grants involved. Apologies if you feel that none of this is relevant to your specific review but you will understand that we believe that it is Important that Scouting is able to continue to contribute within the Borough to the development of young people in achieving their full physical intellectual, social and spiritual potential as individuals, as responsible citizens and as members of their local, national and international community. Please note that some of our buildings also provide meeting places for other voluntary/ community groups eg. Rainbows, Brownies, Guides, St Johns Ambulance, Church Groups

61

Play Schools, Dance Classes etc. Loss of these buildings would therefore impact not just on Scouting but other organisations as well. Please contact me if you require any further information about TGU Scout District or specific areas of concern that we have raised with the Council eg. New leases, Rents, Lease terms and conditions, 20% Discretionary Rate Relief etc. We have in many cases made progress on the latter. but more as a result of our own efforts in finding out how the process works rather than direction from the Council. Some years ago all Groups automatically qualified for the 20% discretionary relief but this was withdrawn and we have subsequently had to make representation on a group by group basis for its reinstatement. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I look forward to hearing about any results or actions as a consequence of the review. Regards Ken Attewell

62

Appendix 9 - Forum for the Voluntary Youth Sector At September meeting, vcs partners and youth activity providers highlighted the need for a regular forum to exchange information, avoid duplication, share good practice and support other groups. Questionnaire response from Brentford Football Club Trust made the point that ‘there were a lot of organisations in Hounslow delivering youth work activity and we really need to be getting these organisations together to join up the work and not duplicate. We also need to be doing more targeted work with key young people identified through YOS, police, PRU, schools and other service providers.’ ‘I don’t think there is enough information available. I think schools and referral organisations are underutilised in terms of advertising, as are residents groups. I also think the traditional outreach work of standing on street corners telling young people about provision could be developed’ NB: During the interviews, Hounslow VCS partners and youth activity providers set up a quarterly Hounslow Children & Young people’s Forum (CYPF) to discuss issues of joint concern. Terms of reference are currently being developed. Interview Findings CSLL Managers said the Youth service was happy to support a youth forum but had no capacity to lead it. This was more likely to be a role for CCICU. CCICU had no objection to youth forums but they wouldn’t be able to resource and support them, although they would be happy to provide advice.

CCICU highlighted details of the proposed Hounslow Community Network designed to provide a representative voice for the whole local VCS. This Hounslow third sector forum would be a regular opportunity for all VCS organisations operating in the Borough to meet, network and discuss third sector agenda. It would; CSLL Youth Officer felt that a forum for vcs community partners engaged in youth activity within the borough had been tried before but it was likely to struggle without access to funds. Such a forum would need to be chaired by a senior politician or Director. Police representatives would be interested in attending although it would depend on its remit. They would suggest once every 6 months. A live message board could also be developed. If Police representatives were more aware of vcs activities, we could ‘signpost’ bored youth to make more use of them. Youth Offending Service staff felt there may be value in a regular forum provided it had a clear focus on action and was not just a talking shop. There needed to be clear terms of reference. It would be appropriate for the council to play a coordination/leadership role. Chair of CSPAN/Health & Wellbeing Commissioning Manager has used the communities of practice facility on the IdeA website to set up a community for the CSPAN. This enables CSPAN members and other stakeholders to stay abreast of activities locally and nationally through library of docs, forum, calendar and blog facilities. A similar Community might be established for stakeholders and partners interested in Hounslow Youth activities. In reality, Chair CSPAN had much more dealings with the Schools Sports Partnership(s) and felt the concept of a ‘sports club forum’ that has existed to some degree in the past needed more support now to enable stronger links with clubs..

63

Appendix 10 – Mapping Information Background In 2003, Scrutiny & Performance Unit had gathered information on many organisations, and indexed them into a range of categories – sports, leisure, culture, arts, etc. which was then electronically mapped onto wards. The 2003 Panel recommended that this data be maintained and updated and Cabinet agreed with them. However, this was not done. ‘Mapping’ data was not maintained although lists of vcs organisations are held on the authority’s website (see appendix A for more details on progress of recommendation since 2003). VCS – VCS partner, Hounslow Homes felt that a ‘mapping’ exercise about youth activity provision within the borough would be helpful CSLL Managers felt that some mapping information would be very useful. There was a need for locality profiles at Hounslow to build up a comprehensive picture of needs, requirements, facilities and ‘contact’ details for each locality. Leisure and Cultural Services have developed some mapping facilities but are nowhere near as comprehensive as it could be if it was linked up with socio/economic and other data through a GIS system. Leisure and Cultural Services felt there was considerable potential value in linking service provision data with other information to help generate area profiles and to identify gaps in provision and service needs. Community Investment & Cohesion would find mapping information useful and could contribute to it, eg. a list of vcs organisations. However, they do not feel it is part of their role to develop it or maintain it.

64

Appendix 11 – Youth Website VCS Board Member of Cedars Youth Charity and Three Wings Trust felt the local authority could develop a ‘youth website’ that would allow all the youth events provided by LBH and the voluntary sector to be promoted, allow feedback from young people through a discussion forum etc. Also, they could provide funding to support communications via social media by all with the young people. Youth Council representatives felt better promotion of youth activities could be done through schools and websites. Youth Council representatives would welcome a youth website overseen by the local authority. It had never got off the ground previously because the authority was perceived as dragging its feet. CSLL Senior Youth Worker (and the youth representatives) felt it would work best by being overseen by a detached Youth Worker from the authority – able to monitor message boards and community forums. CSLL Senior Youth Worker felt that Social Networks, Face book, Blackberry were not appropriate media because of the lack of control the authority could invoke over their content. CCICU felt that any ‘youth website’ that would allow all the youth events provided by LBH and the voluntary sector to be promoted, and allow feedback from young people through a discussion forum – should be provided by the new Corporate centre – Communications, Policy, Scrutiny, - because it had a leading policy and communication role. They could also signpost the correct communication format and incorporate interactive platforms – Face book etc. CSLL Managers felt that managing and maintaining a youth website is fraught with potential difficulties and could pose a risk to the authority. How can you ensure ‘postings’ are legitimate? Police representatives did not feel the police service should get involved in a youth website. Young people would be very suspicious if the police were involved. In addition, they felt that there might be data risks and security issues if there were links with other social media eg. Face book. CSPAN Manager felt that it would need to be LB Hounslow’s role to coordinate ‘youth website’ and they would need the capacity to keep it up to date.

65

Appendix 12 – Advice and Guidance, Support and Training Background One of the 2003 Scrutiny Report recommendations was that the Youth Service working with CCICU provide a support role and signposting service for the voluntary sector, including training and certification for youth workers, police checks, advice and assistance with bidding for external funding. This was implemented at the time although current provision has been a source of contention.

VCS At 5

th September meeting, smaller vcs youth activity groups indicated that they were

struggling. They were unable to attract volunteers to their groups as they spend more funding on administration, i.e., CRB Checks, Health & Safety Risk Assessments, Child Protection. Training opportunities and sharing of best practice is limited without central support from the authority.

Interview Findings In general, CSLL Managers felt they provided high level support for youth service provision across the authority. They felt that Youth Services had responsibility for ensuring that Trust partners and other larger vcs partners and youth activity providers had relevant child protection, health and safety policies, and CRB checks in place. CSLL officers felt that the skills and passions of community sector youth activity providers were often fully focused on those activities, rather than compliance with procedures, and that they might worry disproportionately about such matters in a climate of litigation and national concern about child protection and safety. CSLL Managers felt Youth Services could not accept responsibility for liaison with community sector youth activity providers. This was a role for Community Investment & Cohesion. It would be impracticable to enable these organisations to tap into existing internal local authority expertise on devising health and safety, risk assessment and management policies and procedures. Content of risk assessments might be markedly different to those required by community organisations. There might be reluctance for the authority to be seen to sanction/approve policies and assessments in case liabilities to the council were incurred. Conversely, Health & Commissioning Manager/Chair of CSPAN could not see why there should not be closer links (economies of scale and reciprocal benefits) with community sector youth activity providers re: the authority’s internal training for volunteers, eg. first aid training, report writing, presentation skills, along with more focused training, health and safety, risk management, vulnerable people, etc. CSLL Managers agreed that the authority should signpost community organisations to areas where they should get support. Notwithstanding this, despite recent cutbacks, CSLL Youth Officer felt that there had been no discernable reduction in training/staff development and volunteering programme provided by the authority In practice, it is fairly easy to access advice, guidance, support and training, through existing authority driven volunteer training, even support with CRB checks, by contacting CSLL Training and Quality Assurance Officer or CSLL Senior Youth Worker. They could advise and/or arrange for vcs youth activity providers needs to be met. Signing up to the authority’s volunteering programme would ensure that all volunteers requirements relating to child protection and safety, general health and safety, risk management and CRB checks would be provided even if they did not subsequently go ahead with the programme. CCICU’s view was that LB Hounslow Youth Services were responsible for the provision of any relevant training, support and advice to vcs organisations providing youth activities. If they were no longer able to provide the same level of training, support and advice, perhaps voluntary and community organisations delivering youth activities had to accept they would have to combine forces to secure their own support through consortia.

66

Assistant Director Leisure and Culture stated that his unit was well placed to provide advice and support re: child protection, health and safety and risk management policies and procedures for vcs organisations providing sports activities. His team could run some evening seminars in respect of this. He could not speak about arts development and culture provision, which was delivered by Waterman’s’. This should be channelled to CCICU. CCICU advised groups with queries to contact Waterman’s’ directly. Alternatively, Performance and Policy Officer, Leisure and Cultural Services could be contacted directly. YOS would like to establish links with vcs to develop appropriate programmes. It would be useful to have links with Waterman’s’ Arts to enable young offenders to participate in arts and textiles courses. They would like access to apprenticeships for young offenders beyond mechanics, into landscaping, etc. In return, YOS felt they could offer scope for volunteering. All sorts of work were available. Useful experience to put on a cv, and if productive, good references supplied. A central volunteer unit would be a good thing – dealing with health & safety, CRB checks, child protection, etc. CS Board member of Three Wings Trust/ Cedars Youth Charity feel that the loss of CVS has been considerable. Development Worker – Girl guiding Middlesex West felt that the loss of CVS contract had been a disaster. Previously, they received up to 10 emails a day about funding, training, other support. Now they receive nothing at all. CCICU stated that Capacity Building support for the VCS is provided by GLE Consulting but they are unable to provide the same level of service and support that CVS formerly provided. The new service provision is determined by a clearly defined specification to provide a range of support services and to ensure that all community and voluntary organisations are kept informed and consulted on local, regional and national developments affecting the voluntary sector. CSLL Managers felt that GLE (CSV’s replacement) should be offering CRB checks as part of the services they provide.

CYPP_Report_Nov2011 final.doc

Appendix 13 Progress of Recommendations made in respect of the 2003 Scrutiny Panel Review Recommendation Exec response/Comments (2004) Scrutiny Comments

(2011) CSLL Comments (2011) CPU Comments (2011) Scrutiny

Interpretation (2011)

1. That the Director for Lifelong Learning, Leisure and Cultural Services ascertain if any money has been earmarked for Hounslow Youth Centre from Key Site One monies and report this to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a matter of urgency.

Hounslow Youth Centre will be benefiting from Key Site One monies via a re-provision of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award store and the Special Educational Needs and Disability equipment store. The current storage space is in the proposed new access road and will be re-provided adjacent to the building. There is a need for additional money to be identified to fully redevelop the centre.

Scrutiny would like to know the current arrangements for the Hounslow Youth Centre, including the use of s.106 monies from Key Site One as this links in with the Voluntary & Community sector that use the centre.

The Section106 monies which were received from the Key Site One development totalled £40,000.00.So far, £21,950.00 has been spent on ‘Widening Participation in Hold onto Sports’ which is a programme delivered through the Hounslow Youth Centres and schools. To date over 1000 young people from Hounslow have taken part in the project. Five youth centres are involved in the project stretching from Bedfont to Chiswick. The Borough’s special schools are engaged as are many of Hounslow’s primary and secondary schools. The remaining £18,050.00 was allocated to the same project last week on the 21st July at Central Hounslow Area Committee.

Implemented

2a. That the Youth Service should become guardian of the mapping data and should become responsible for keeping it maintained and updated, this should be done in conjunction with the Library Service.

A great deal of data, is currently held within the Council’s Community Development and Regeneration Unit (CDRU). The CDRU alongside the Library Service (CIP) has used the data to develop a Community Directory for the Borough which can incorporate the mapping data and ensure a wider reach and wider circulation if necessary. It is proposed that this information should be held on the Council’s website. Implementing this strategy is dependent on the

Scrutiny would like to know the current location of the data store and associated arrangements for the mapping data. This will ascertain if we have up to date information including on the Vol & Comm. sector.

www.hounslow.gov.uk/community provides information on Voluntary Organisations which are active in the borough, and information on how to access them. Within this directory there is a list of 221 organisations under the heading of 'Children, Young People and Families.

This data can be accessed via the following link; http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/communityinformation This is a reasonable over-view of groups in the borough; although details of additional groups can be found within those detailed on the charity commission website; http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/SearchMatchList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=0&Su

Not Implemented In 2003, Scrutiny & Performance Unit undertook a major exercise gathering information on 322 organisations and indexing into the following categories: sport, leisure, culture, education, arts, uniformed organisations, faith based groups, after school clubs, youth clubs, outreach,

2

Recommendation Exec response/Comments (2004) Scrutiny Comments (2011)

CSLL Comments (2011) CPU Comments (2011) Scrutiny Interpretation (2011)

identification of appropriate resources.

bsidiaryNumber=0 representative, targeted groups, advice. This information was then mapped according to category using GIS technology onto 7 maps. 2 further maps were produced one showing youth population by ward, and a final composite map showing the location of all youth facilities against youth populations. A set of 7 thematic maps showing the number of facilities by ward was produced. There do not appear to have been any attempts to maintain and update this data nor hold it on the website, although lists of organisations are provided.

2c That this information be used by the Community Safety Partnership to consider the location of crime hotspots (including where perpetrator lives), youth

The Youth Service currently works with the Youth Crime strategy Group, Anti- Social Behaviour Action Groups (ASBAG’s) and Hounslow Homes on hotspot identification. Whilst the Youth Service provides targeted services for young people at risk of crime, the overall objective remains one of providing a service which is

In light of the current changes, how will this engagement continue? Scrutiny is aware of the distinction between ‘Target’ and’ Integrated’

The Previous arrangements have been incorporated into the new structure, and the youth service continues to work with the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Group (ASBAG) and Hounslow Homes on hotspot identification. The Detached and Youth Crime Prevention teams within the Early

Not implemented. Given the above interpretation, the mapping data could not have played much of a role, though clearly other initiatives have taken place.

3

Recommendation Exec response/Comments (2004) Scrutiny Comments (2011)

CSLL Comments (2011) CPU Comments (2011) Scrutiny Interpretation (2011)

facilities and where facilities are needed.

universally accessible. youth support and is interested in how this data/info will be used to further these areas.

Intervention locality teams have taken forward the “triage” project. This is a project which was piloted within the Targeted youth support and Youth offending service (under the previous structure) as an alternative to prosecution for young people who come to the attention of the police for minor offences. Data for this project is collated through the Youth Justice UMIS system, and will require analysis as the projected is bedded in.

8. That the Council working with the youth Service, launch and co-ordinate a Hounslow Youth Partnership to co-ordinate youth provision within the Borough.

This is being taken forward by the Youth Service in partnership with the Council’s Community Regeneration Development Unit (CRDU). The Youth Service, out of Transforming Youth Work Development Fund monies has recruited a 0.5 Hounslow Youth Partnership Development Worker/coordinator. The role is to develop the work of the statutory and voluntary youth services for young people aged 8 – 25 years. The post is funded to March 2005. This worker is ensuring that there is liaison and co-operation with the CRDU and the Hounslow Voluntary Sector Forum who both, in part, help to support and develop local voluntary sector youth based groups. There is a resource implication of £30,000 for a full

Scrutiny is interested in how this has been progressed especially in light of the structural changes, financial pressures and any impact on the Vol sector.

This project ceased in 2005. A part-time worker was appointed to initiate the project, but a lack of resource to allocate to the voluntary and community sector presented a barrier to any achievements. There was no funding to continue this work after 2005.

The role of Hounslow Youth Partnership Development Officer was funded until March 2005. In 2006 a children and young people’s forum for the VCS was developed by CVS Hounslow. This forum was responsible for exploring the children and young people’s agenda from a VCS perspective. In 2011 this forum’s activities ceased, to be replaced by a generic VCS forum – open to the wider VCS and acting as a consultative group for the local authority and other public sector providers

Not implemented.

4

Recommendation Exec response/Comments (2004) Scrutiny Comments (2011)

CSLL Comments (2011) CPU Comments (2011) Scrutiny Interpretation (2011)

time youth work post with some administrative support if this work is to be extended beyond 2005.

18. That the Youth Service working with Community Development and Regeneration Unit provides a support role and sign posting service for the voluntary sector including training and certification for youth workers, police checks, advice and assistance with bidding for external funding.

Support is offered to voluntary sector organisations working with young people by the Youth Service and through CDRU. The development of the Hounslow Youth Partnership will contribute further to this role. Specialist advice and training is offered by the Youth Service in respect of the Ofsted framework and capacity building.

Scrutiny would like to be updated on what level of support will be offered to the Vol sector following the departmental re-organisation.

There is a post that provides a wide range of training and development opportunities across the public and voluntary sector youth provision. In house provision includes adult and Youth volunteer training to an accredited level, offering placements to schools and colleges for students interested in becoming involved in youth work / Youth Leader Training; all of which are accessible to the voluntary sector. The service also provides sign posting and support to those wishing to pursue the BA/MA in youth and community work, and manages a resource library for staff. This post and service remains within the restructured department.

The CPU continues to provide capacity building advice to the VCS; directly and via GLE – an organisation commissioned to provide capacity building support to the VCS in Hounslow.

Part I mplemented?

27b. That the Council lobby the ALG to include young people within the Resident’s Survey. This Scrutiny recommendation was one of a whole raft: rec 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, designed to increase

This recommendation will be taken forward in the development of the Council’s new Resident’s Panel.

Scrutiny would like to see how this recommendation has been progressed as well as the involvement of young people and Vol. orgs as part of the Resident’s survey.

The resident’s survey does not fall within the remit of CSLL. Further information has been requested from corporate colleagues and as soon as it is available it will be forwarded to the scrutiny team.

A corporate annual survey of VCS organisations is currently being planned by the CPU. All directorates will have the opportunity to input into this piece of consultation. An organisation called BMG had a contract to manage the Residents Panel (pool of 2000 people) and conduct a number of surveys throughout the year on behalf of LBH. This included the annual tracker survey which asked key

Not implemented Most were not accepted or have fallen by the wayside, although presently, there might be scope to increase that influence through several smaller initiatives eg. youth council representatives on

5

Recommendation Exec response/Comments (2004) Scrutiny Comments (2011)

CSLL Comments (2011) CPU Comments (2011) Scrutiny Interpretation (2011)

influence of young people, including their influence on the authority’s decision making processes.

performance questions: http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/council_and_democracy/consultations/residentspanel.htm The contract with BMG expired at the end of last year, and the community engagement function - including residents’ panel arrangements - was passed from central policy to the Community Partnerships team. An options paper has gone to CLT, but we are still awaiting a steer from Mary about the preferred direction for resident involvement. The previous arrangement was with people over the age of 18 – there was no provision for building in the views of young people and that was something we sought to address in our options. At the annual budget event we held last year we ensured that members of the Youth Parliament were included. I sit on the group looking at Children’s Priority 15: ‘Children and young people are actively engaged in the community and influence local decision making processes’. One of the things we discussed was ensuring that that there is a coordinated framework for consulting and involving young people in decision making. I know that Sayha Sam was talking about potentially commissioning a specific young people’s survey, but I think there is certainly scope for looking at how we could rationalise this with our corporate arrangements.

Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel.

6

Recommendation Exec response/Comments (2004) Scrutiny Comments (2011)

CSLL Comments (2011) CPU Comments (2011) Scrutiny Interpretation (2011)

Apologies if this was much more information than you required but there is opportunity to scope how our residents’ panel/consultation arrangements should look (and could involve young people). Please let me know if you need any more info.

CYPP_Report_Nov2011 final.doc

London Borough of Hounslow

Civic Centre, Lampton Road

Hounslow TW3 4DN.

Telephone: 020 8583 2365

Email: alan.weaver@hounslow.gov.uk

www.hounslow.gov.uk