Contact your Parish Council

 

MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL

 

CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

 

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND COMMUNITIES

 

Report prepared by: Jim Boot & Sarah Shearsmith 

Date Issued: 27 October 2011

 

1.                    KCC Youth Service provision in Maidstone Borough

 

1.1                 Key Issue for Decision

1.1.1            To consider Kent County Council’s (KCC) proposed changes and reductions to youth provision within the borough, particularly the proposals to withdraw from two of its three youth centres, and to feedback to KCC the views of stakeholders, young people and residents.

1.2                 Recommendation of the Director of Regeneration and Communities

1.2.1            That KCC is asked to re-consider its proposals for Maidstone regarding the reduction in the number of youth centres from three to one and the decrease in detached youth work.

1.2.2            That the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre rather than Infozone be identified as the “hub” for Maidstone if youth centre reductions are made.

1.2.3            That KCC ensure that MBC is given the opportunity to jointly commission youth services in future, from voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises.

1.3                 Reasons for Recommendation

1.3.1            Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) acknowledges the challenging financial climate for all councils following the Comprehensive Spending Review 2010.  The proposed changes to the youth service amount to an overall £900,000 funding reduction across Kent commencing in April 2012.  However, MBC is concerned that cutting youth services at a time when youth unemployment is rising, will have a lasting and negative impact on Maidstone Borough’s young people and communities.  In addition, Maidstone has the second largest youth population in Kent and the proposed reductions will therefore have a disproportionately adverse impact on the borough’s young people.

1.3.2            There is strong support from residents for increasing rather than reducing youth provision.  MBC’s Community Development Team has recently consulted young people, parents and other stakeholders on-line and at a number of youth events in the borough since August.

·      There were 916 respondents with 81% currently users of a youth facility in the borough.

·      59% use youth centres to hang out/meet friends or to have fun and only 7% to get advice.  Although the percentage for getting advice is lower than expected, they do get information while having fun/meeting friends.

·      When asked the question: ‘KCC are proposing to withdraw from Shepway Youth and Community Centre and Lenham Youth Centre and operate from a hub at Infozone. Do you agree with this proposal?’ 74% either ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’ with the proposal, 6% either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’, while the remaining  18% stated ‘don’t know’.

·      When asked the question: ‘Do you think you would use the proposed hub Infozone’, 27% said they would, while 47% said they wouldn’t.

·      Asked about alternative uses for the buildings that KCC would be withdrawing from, 44% supported them being taken over by or sold to another youth organisation or charity.

·      Nearly 90% of the respondents were under 18 years old.

1.3.3            These results are reflected in previous consultations that have informed other plans and strategies within the borough including the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) for Maidstone Borough 2009-20:

·      In the SCS, 43% of respondents listed ‘Increase youth facilities and services’ (p27 4.4.4) within their top three priorities, more than any other objective.

·      41% of respondents to the Place Survey identified activities for teenagers as ‘most in need of improving’, placing this priority only third behind road and pavement repairs and traffic congestion.

·      ‘Youth issues and ASB’ were the highest priority (27%) for residents responding to PACT surveys carried out by the police in 2007/8.

1.3.4            The SCS also states (p40): ‘During 2008 Maidstone had the fourth highest number/rate of entrants into the youth justice system of any district in Kent, and experienced a significant increase in numbers between 2007 and 2008.  There are some areas which have significantly higher numbers of young offenders.  High Street ward has the highest rates, followed by South and Park Wood wards. Park Wood and High Street had respectively the 3^rd and 4^th highest rate of any wards in Kent of young people known to the Youth Offending Service (May 2007). Shepway North and Shepway South Wards also appear in the worst 10% of wards in Kent.’

1.3.5            These priorities are reflected in KCC’s report ‘Transforming Kent’s Youth Service’ Appendix 6[1] which states: ‘The Draft Local Children’s Trust Board Children and Young People’s Plan 2011 - 2014 for Maidstone identifies the rate of teenage conception, the proportion of NEETs and the engagement of young offenders in suitable education and training as key issues under the theme of Adolescent Engagement.’

1.3.6            MBC is concerned that cutting youth services in Shepway and Lenham may exacerbate anti-social behaviour by young people, youth unemployment and teenage conceptions, undermining the ability to achieve key shared priorities.

1.3.7            When reviewing the approach that KCC took to scoring the current youth centre provision  as set out in its Frequently Asked Questions paper[2] (p6), the difference in the scores was minimal with Infozone scoring 69 and Shepway 67.  In other parts of Kent a score of 67 would have been sufficient to be chosen as a hub. Further, it is felt that the scoring failed to take account of a number of advantages that the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre has over Infozone not least that it is the only significant youth facility on the estate.  According to information provided by KCC, Shepway also has slightly lower running costs £88,500 compared to Infozone £92,600.  It is also felt that the ‘availability and quality of youth work space’ at Shepway is greater than at Infozone.  There is also greater security of tenure with Shepway as the facility is owned by MBC whereas Infozone has been earmarked for disposal by KCC - albeit that disposal may not take place for a while during the current property recession.  The facilities at Shepway that aren’t available at Infozone include:

·      a substantial sports hall;

·      an outdoor multi-use games area/ball court;

·      access to open space including football pitches;

·      substantial free off-street car parking;

·      as well as youth club facilities that are at least equal in scope and size to those offered at Infozone.

1.3.8            Further, while MBC would rather KCC maintain both facilities, on balance it feels that there is already significant alternative and improving provision within the town centre where Infozone is based. It is felt that the commissioning budget could be better utilised in the town centre to enhance existing provision and detached youth work. These facilities include:

·      Switch Youth Café;

·      Connexions;

·      Porchlight (homeless charity);

·      VSU (volunteering agency for young people) at the Howard de Walden Centre, Blewett Street;

·      A range of commercial and not-for profit outlets catering for young people including a multi-plex cinema, coffee shops, bowling alley, recording studio/rehearsal rooms, theatre and youth theatre.

1.3.9            KCC’s proposals also include a commitment to retain a street based/detached youth work team in Maidstone Borough. While this is a reduction from the current two teams (rural and urban), the council will continue to support the work of this team and support the proposal to have a Community Youth Tutor – possibly based at the Senacre Skills and Community Centre – encouraging young people from the neighbouring deprived areas to access this centre with its focus on skills and training.

1.3.10         It should be noted that a petition has been submitted to MBC by 421 residents from Shepway stating: ‘We the undersigned petition the council to re-consider its proposal to withdraw services to the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre, Maidstone.  This facility is vital to the youth of the area and it is envisaged withdrawal would lead to increased anti-social behaviour.’

1.3.11         While the formal closing date for the submission is 29^th October 2011, KCC have said that they will give an extension until 4^th November to allow for our decision making process to take its course.

1.4                 Alternative Action and why not Recommended

 

1.4.1            The council acknowledges that as it owns the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre, it may be possible, to commission a third party provider to continue to run and even expand the centre potentially utilising some of the proposed KCC commissioning budget.  However, this is not considered to be the best use of the reduced resources available for Maidstone borough.

1.6.2       There is concern that KCC’s proposed commissioning budget of £1.2 million will not be allocated appropriately across the Kent districts.  Maidstone Borough has the 2^nd largest population of young people of any district in Kent which does not even represent 1/12^th of the total budget (12 Kent Districts). It is anticipated that the commissioning budget is likely to be in the region of £80-90,000.  There is a also concern that commissioning budgets will be vulnerable to future cuts as local authority budgets are further squeezed.  Positively KCC officers have stated that their ideal commissioning framework is that youth services will be commissioned with a minimum three year Service Level Agreement as commissioning on an annually renewable contract/SLA will not give third party providers the security to enable them to employ staff, seek grants or provide certainty to users and local communities.  This intention has not yet however been confirmed.

1.5                 Impact on Corporate Objectives

 

1.5.1            Given that ‘Increase youth facilities and services’ was the most highly prioritized action within the Sustainable Community Strategy for Maidstone Borough 2009-20 (p27 4.4.4),adequate youth service provision is critical to achieving this priority.

1.5.2            MBC’s Strategic Plan states that ‘people should not be disadvantaged by where they live and deprivation reduced’.  The proposed changes to the youth service which could lead to the closure of the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre would be contrary to that objective.

 

1.6                 Risk Management

 

1.8.1       The key risks are that reducing youth provision at a time of high unemployment will have a substantial and negative impact on community safety, educational attainment, teenage conception, substance misuse and risk taking behaviour by young people. Retaining the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre and allocating the commissioning budget properly to enhance existing voluntary and community provision in the town centre and in rural service centres will allow the relatively small amount of commissioning budget to stretch further and could potentially be used to draw in additional funding from sources that KCC or MBC would not be able to access (as public sector bodies).

1.7                 Other Implications

1.7.1             

1.            Financial	x
2.                   Staffing
3.                   Legal
4.                   Equality Impact Needs Assessment
5.                   Environmental/Sustainable Development
6.                   Community Safety	x
7.                   Human Rights Act
8.                   Procurement
9.                   Asset Management	x

 

1.7.2            MBC  may see increased costs if the risks identified at 1.8 materialise.  Strong links have in particular been identified between the quality and quantity of youth work and facilities in an area and young people’s health and well-being.

1.7.3            There is a potential impact on community safety through reduced youth services and facilities in the borough leading to increased incidents of anti-social behaviour and crime. 

 

1.7.4            While KCC’s withdrawal from Shepway would only have a very limited impact on MBC’s income – currently £75 per year – the requirement to maintain the building would fall back on MBC when there is no budget provision for this.

 

1.8                 Conclusions

 

1.10.1     The consultation that MBC and its partners undertook in August and September shows that an overwhelming percentage of the young people who took part are in opposition to the proposed reduction in youth services.  Also, that the proposed reduction goes against the shared priorities set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy for Maidstone Borough 2009-20. MBC’s considered view is that if there is only to be one centre, the ‘hub’ should be the Manor, Shepway Youth and Community Centre as it has better facilities and greater security of tenure than Infozone.  The central location of Infozone may be considered to provide better access for young people, but this is more than offset by the alternative and developing youth provision that is in the town centre.  In regard to the proposed commissioning budget, MBC believes that this should be based on the population of young people in the borough as well as the levels of deprivation relevant to young people’s services.  Finally, that KCC should involve MBC in jointly commissioning youth services in future and that the available budget should be used to enhance existing voluntary and community sector service providers in the areas of need including in the town centre and rural service centres.

1.9                 Relevant Documents

 

1.9.1           Appendices 

1.9.2           Maidstone Borough Council Youth Consultation Results

1.9.3           Background Documents

1.9.4           The Sustainable Community Strategy for Maidstone Borough 2009 to 2020.

1.9.5           Transforming Kent’s Youth Service, a Vision for the Future, KCC, August 2011https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/education-and-learning/kent-youth-service/KYS%20Transformation%20Consultation%20Full%20Document.pdf

IS THIS A KEY DECISION REPORT? x     Yes                                         No   If yes, when did it first appear in the Forward Plan?   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..     This is a Key Decision because: ………………………………………………………………………..   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….     Wards/Parishes affected: …………………………………………………………………………………..   ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

How to Comment   Should you have any comments on the issue that is being considered please contact either the relevant Officer or the Member of the Executive who will be taking the decision.   Cllr John A Wilson                                   Cabinet Member for Community Services                                                                                    Telephone: 01622 602242                                                               E-mail:  JohnAWilson@maidstone.gov.uk Jim Boot                                                           Community Development Manager                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               [Title]                                                                                    Telephone: 01622 602246                                                                       E-mail:  jimboot@maidstone.gov.uk