youth services consultation report - final a - youth... · most selected option for all but one...

Youth and Adolescent Services

Consultation Questionnaire report

January 2016

Report author: Ian Callaghan, Commissioning & Business Insight Officer

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 020 8770 4184

03 Agenda Item 11

1

Contents

_________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Summary

Methodology

Survey demographics

Results

The approach to the savings

The future of Youth and Adolescent Services

Youth Offer

Youth Engagement

Targeted Youth Support

Duke of Edinburgh’s Award

Option 5

Appendix A: Demographic Information

Appendix B: Suggested cuts to other council services

Appendix C: List of responding organisations

2

3

4

5

6

6

8

8

11

14

18

21

30

34

35

Page 104Agenda Item 11

2

Introduction

_________________________________________________________________________________

Unprecedented reductions in funding for local authority budgets mean we have to save £74m

between 2010 and 2019. That’s almost half our current annual budget. So far the council has

saved £43m from the annual budget, £11m of this has been saved with your help since we

launched Sutton’s Future in July 2014. We now have £31m more to save.

Just over £9 million of this saving is to be made from Children’s Services. As a result, the

Youth and Adolescent Service has had to identify possible changes to contribute towards the

savings. In the past few years changes have been made to the service, such as reducing the

number of staff and services, however it has continued to provide a service that all young

people in the borough can access, if they wish. As further savings are required, the Youth and

Adolescent Service has had to review the services provided.

A number of options were identified for the future of Youth and Adolescent Services, which are

as follows:

● Option 1 - Keep the Youth and Adolescent Services as they currently are

● Option 2 - Reduce the services that all young people can access, with resources

focussed to support vulnerable young people

● Option 3 - Stop providing the services that all young people can access and reduce the

support for vulnerable young people

● Option 4 - Only provide services required by law plus some extra support for vulnerable

young people

● Option 5 - Only provide services required by law

● Option 6 - Stop providing all Youth and Adolescent Services, including those that are

required by law

(Please note, option 6 was rejected as the council is required to provide a level of service for

children and young people)

Prior to the consultation, the recommended option was Option 5 - to only provide the services

required by law. This includes meeting the council’s duties to encourage, enable and assist

young people to participate effectively in education and training and to provide so far as

reasonably practicable a local offer of positive leisure time activities for young people that is

sufficient to meet local needs and improve young people’s well-being and personal and social

development.

Page 105 Agenda Item 11

3

Summary

_________________________________________________________________________________

To help ensure as many people as possible were engaged in the consultation, an online and

paper questionnaire was developed, including questions on each of the proposed changes

under option five, the possible impacts of option five and what could be done differently. 144

people took part.

66% (n=95) of respondents felt that given the financial context, the council should not be

making savings from Youth and Adolescent Services. This compares to 30% (n = 43) who

answered ‘Yes’.

88 respondents stated they or their families had used or benefited from the Youth and

Adolescent services. They were less likely to have felt that the council should be making

savings in this area with 81% (n = 71) respondents choosing ‘No’, compared to 16% (n = 14)

choosing ‘Yes’.

Of those that answered ‘No’, 41% (n = 59) agreed that a combination of an increase of council

tax, cutting other council services further, or by use council reserves to meet the shortfall,

were alternative ways the Council should make the savings, instead of savings from Youth

and Adolescent Services.

From the 14% (n = 20) who opted to cut other council services further, various suggestions

were made, the most popular being making efficiencies around council staffing.

Throughout the survey there was a disagreement to the proposals on the youth offer, youth

engagement, targeted youth support, Duke of Edinburgh’s award, and the provision of the

services as described under option 5 only. For all of these areas, the most popular option

chosen by respondents was ‘strongly disagree’, with ‘somewhat disagree’ being the second

most selected option for all but one area, Duke of Edinburgh’s award, where ‘strongly agree’

was second.

Comments made throughout the survey revealed concerns about the proposals not providing

enough coverage at the basic level, with some respondents urging the council to consider one

of the other options, especially one which supports vulnerable young people.

Many respondents felt that the proposals would have a negative impact on young people.

With fewer opportunities to engage, some felt their “voice” would be lost and they would

become disengaged as a result. Some respondents commented that less services could

result in a lack of support being available for young people, particularly teen parents and

those who are NEET. This in turn, would put increased demand and cost on services and

organisations that are providing other services for young people, and also lead to issues in

the future due to the withdrawal of the preventative work that is happening now.

Respondents also felt that the council should investigate other ways of delivering the services,

by working with charities, community groups and other organisations to ensure, where

appropriate, that they had sufficient capacity to take on the running of the services. Concerns

were raised that in some areas, particularly around the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, the cost of


4

administering their own scheme might prove prohibitive and therefore schools and other

groups would not choose to run it, leading to lack of opportunities for young people.

Survey respondents were predominantly White females, between the age of 35 and 54 years

and were from households’ as part of a couple with a dependent child or children. A large

proportion of respondents owned their own home and worked either full or part time.

Methodology

_________________________________________________________________________________

To help ensure as many people as possible were engaged in the consultation the following

research methods were used:

Questionnaire

An online questionnaire was developed, including questions on each of the proposed

changes under option five, the possible impacts of option five and what could be done

differently.

The online questionnaire was open to all young people, residents, organisations and partners.

As the consultation formed part of the Sutton’s Future campaign (the campaign to raise

awareness and engagement with residents regarding the savings) the consultation was

communicated to residents in a number of different ways, including:

● An online questionnaire was available on Sutton Council’s Consultation Hub

● Information and link included on the Sutton’s Future webpages

● Hyperlink to the survey was sent out from Sutton Council’s Twitter and Facebook

account

● Information and the hyperlink were included in the email sent out to residents on the

Sutton’s Future mailing list

● A press release was also sent out by the council (w/c 19 October 2015)

● An A5 flyer regarding the Sutton’s Future campaign was produced for the service to

distribute to residents and partner organisations.

So as to not exclude residents without internet access, a paper questionnaire was also

produced and made available on request.

An online and paper questionnaire was the chosen method as it:

● Allowed a large number of people to be reached easily and economically

● Results could be quantified easily to identify the perceptions of the scheme

● Respondents could complete the questionnaire at a time that suits them.

Both the online and papers questionnaires were available to complete between 19 October

2015 and 13 December 2015.


5

Other activity

To enable greater participation, further activity was carried out by the organisation

Participation People. This included holding a number of focus groups, and use of social media

to gather opinions. Feedback from these activities has been collated and analysed by

Participation People and forms part of a separate report.

Survey demographics

_________________________________________________________________________________

144 people took part in the survey. Of these:

● 64% of the respondents were female

● 22% were aged between 35 to 44 years, 21% between 45 to 54 years, and 15% aged

14 to 16 years

● 74% were from a White or White British background, and 11% from an Asian or Asian

British background

● 61% of respondents were in employment, either full time (48%), part time (10%) or self

employed 3%)

● 40% were from households with a couple with dependent child or children, 22% from

households with a couple with no dependent child or children, and 14% from

households with a single adult with no dependent child or children

● 66% owned their home either outright (19%), or with a mortgage or loan (47%)

A full demographic breakdown is provided in Appendix A.


6

Results

_________________________________________________________________________________

The following section provides a summary of the findings from the consultation questionnaire.

The approach to the savings

To help gauge the view towards savings made from the Youth and Adolescent services, a

series of questions were asked on this topic.

Given the financial context do you feel that the council should be making savings from Youth and Adolescent Services? (Base: 144 respondents)

Respondents were asked that given the financial context, did they feel that the council should

be making savings from Youth and Adolescent Services? Two thirds of respondents (n = 95)

answered ‘No’, with 30% (n = 43) responding with ‘Yes’.

Further analysis shows that those who had used or benefited from the Youth and Adolescent

services were less likely to have felt that the council should be making savings in this area,

81% of respondents choosing ‘No’, compared to 16% choosing ‘Yes’.

Those who answered ‘No’ to the original question were asked a follow up on how else they

thought the Council should make the savings. In particular, respondents were asked to what

extent they would agree with savings being made in the following ways:

● Council Tax increase

● Cut other council services further

● Use council reserves to meet the shortfall

● A combination of the above


7

If no, how else do you think the council should make the savings? (Base: 114 respondents)

As can be seen in the graph above, the most popular option was ‘A combination of all the

above’, with 41% (n = 59) selecting this option.

Respondents who thought that the council should cut other services further, were given the

opportunity to provide further details.

Four comments were in relation to staffing and the council, for example improving the quality

and performance of staff at all levels, and reducing wages for senior staff and councillors. Two

comments were made about regeneration, in particular the cost of projects in Beddington

Park, Hackbridge, and Sutton High Street. Two comments were made about The Life Centre,

in terms of it being perceived to be underused and costly to run.

Seven responses did not make a suggestion on a particular service to cut but instead

commented further on the impact Youth and Adolescent Services. This included three

responses from organisations. A number of respondents also commented that they were not

in a knowledgeable position to suggest cuts in other services, or that it would have been

helpful to have a list of services and their budgets and spending to make an informed

statement.

The full coded list of suggestions are set out in Appendix B.


8

The future of Youth and Adolescent Services

The following questions were intended to help the council gauge the level of support for

changes that could happen if option five (reducing to the services that are required by law

only) was taken forward.

Youth Offer

Under option five the council will:

● Talk to other services, local providers and voluntary sector organisations to promote

the development of youth provision and build knowledge of the youth activities

available within the borough

● Provide information to guide people to the youth provision that is available within the

borough (e.g. through the website)

It will not:

● Deliver sessions and evening activities from the Phoenix Centre and Sutton Youth

Centre

● Provide funds that currently keep Sutton Youth Centre and the Youth Zone @ the

Phoenix Centre open.

● Provide any one-to-one support and targeted group work to vulnerable young people in

Sutton other than that which we are required to deliver by law.

Respondents were asked: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed

changes to the youth offer?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the youth offer? (Base: 144 respondents)


9

73% of respondents either strongly or somewhat disagreed with the proposed changes. Of

this, 49% (n = 71) strongly disagreed, with 24% (n = 35) somewhat disagreeing. 17% (n = 25)

of respondents agreed with the proposal, with similar numbers of respondents selecting

‘strongly’ and ‘somewhat’.

Further analysis compared the responses between respondents who have used or benefited

from Youth and Adolescent Services, and those who do not. Once again, those who had used

or benefited from the services were less likely to have agreed with the proposed changes to

the youth offer; only 9% (n = 8) respondents who had used or benefited said they agreed to

some extent, compared to 83% (n = 73) who said they disagreed.

44 respondents provided comments on the youth offer proposal, the following themes were

identified:

Non-organisations Organisations

Number of comments

Percentage of all comments

made

Number of comments


made

Not in support of cutting / should investigate other ways of delivering services

15 34% 6 14%

Impact negatively on young people

9 20% 2 5%

Increase demand on other services

8 18% 2 5%

The key themes with examples of the comments made are outlined below.

21 respondents either did not support cuts to the youth offer, or they felt that the council

should investigate other ways of delivering services. Some respondents suggested other

ways in which services could be delivered.

“I think the cutting of all service that aren't statutory is not the most suitable way to make savings. The council should be cutting those services which do not make a difference to the most vulnerable young people in the Borough. There are other ways of delivering DofE and youth parliaments and these should be investigated rather than saying we will lose these and preventative services like PAYP and Tots and Teens. Losing these latter two services will have an inevitably drastic effect on other more expensive services such as social care and housing.”


10

“Voluntary sector could do this or send children to scouts or guides”

“I am sure that any service can be stream lined, including the youth service but i strongly disagree that getting rid of all services is the answer. There will be parts of the service that work extremely well and parts that don't. Would it not be more targeted if the Council can evaluate parts of the service to see what works well and what achievements have been made within specific areas. Some of the impact made can be very measurable and costs offset in other ways. My experience rests with the DofE and as an advocate for the award i urge the council to find another way to fund the award. The impact that the award has on the participants is measurable and more and more companies, colleges and industries place great value on the award. Without the council having the DofE license, schools will not continue to deliver the award. This would be a huge detriment to the young people of Sutton. The costs for the DofE could be met by School and groups buying into the Council License reducing the council cost to being self financing.”

11 respondents thought that cuts to the youth offer would have a negative impact on young

people. Concerns were around vulnerable young people being placed at risk, with fewer

services available to support them.

“If it was not for the drop in group at the quad my child who suffers from severe depression and social phobias would not leave the house except for school ,and may well have harmed himself by now”

“Youth services are vital to help vulnerable young people be safeguarded. Cutting services will affect the safety and potential of vulnerable young people to develop into young adults who can function economically and contribute to their community.”

“I feel that the youth is an important category to focus on and should really be given the most support as they are in sensitive and vulnerable times trying to figure out who they are and achieve things through the different aspects of the youth services.”

10 respondents thought that cuts to the youth offer would Increase demand on other

services and organisations, costing far more in the long run due to preventative work not

happening now.

“Is a short term view - failure to provide support for young people (particularly vulnerable and at risk young people) can lead to problems in the future which actually prove more costly in the long term”

3 Agenda Item 11

11

“There is an every-increasing demand on schools to provide support and this would put a further strain on their work load”

“This is a vital service that supports vulnerable young people. If we don't divert some of these young people they will come into statutory services and this will cost far more in the long run.”

“As a school we are increasingly concerned about the cuts to services for young people - particularly preventative work which can make a real difference to an individual's safety, wellbeing and future. Cuts to these services will also increase the need at higher levels - meaning more young people will be at risk and statutory services will be under even more pressure.”

“Significant cuts to prevention work are likely to contribute to rises in real costs elsewhere. Costs for statutory services and care are likely to rise where some young people on the border of care (Troubled families, Child in Need, Child Protection) are more likely to reach higher thresholds more rapidly due to the lack of opportunities at an early stage for prevention. The wider youth centre offer and targeted support currently available to young people has a wide impact on preventing cases from escalating, reducing levels of crime and NEET. Reducing the service to a limited statutory offer would limit effectiveness and mean that levels of youth offending, families in crisis and young people who are NEET could rise due to lack of early intervention and support. This is a greater cost to the community long term.”

Youth Engagement

The Youth Engagement Team is responsible for bringing together all youth engagement

activity in the borough to avoid duplication and encourage consistency.

Under option five the council will continue to:

● Work with other services and partners to encourage the development of opportunities

for young people to share their views with decision makers and shape the services

provided in the borough.

It will not:

● Deliver its Youth Engagement programme which includes the Sutton Youth Parliament,

UK Youth Parliament election programme and the Youth Summit.


changes to the youth engagement?


12

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the youth engagement? (Base: 144 respondents)

Again, the majority of respondents disagreed with the proposed changes. 38% (n = 54)

strongly disagreed, with 22% (n = 31) somewhat disagreeing. 26% (n = 38) of respondents

agreed with the proposal, with the same number of respondents selecting ‘strongly’ and

‘somewhat’ (n = 19).

Further analysis compared the responses between respondents who have used or benefited

from Youth and Adolescent Services, and those who do not. It was found that those who had

used or benefited from the services were less likely to have agreed with the proposed

changes to the youth engagement; only 17% (n = 15) respondents who had used or benefited

said they agreed to some extent, compared to 69% (n = 61) who said they disagreed.

35 respondents provided comments on the youth engagement proposal. The following key

themes were identified:


Number of comments


made

Number of comments


made

Not in support of the proposal 5 14% 2 6%

Should investigate other ways of delivering services

8 23% 1 3%

Concern that the voice of young people will be lost

9 26% 5 14%


13

Sad to see services stop but least detrimental

4 11% 0 0%


7 respondents raised concerns about the proposals. Comments included issues about the

capacity of other services to pick up this provision, and the positives offered by the youth

parliament.

“It is important to get young people from all backgrounds interested in politics. To maintain and promote social and lequilibrium living together respectfully and peacefully.”

“Cutting a parliament? Do you know how undemocratic that sounds!?”

“What other services will you work with? They have all mostly been cut to the bone or gone completely. Every area of children's social services are under massive pressure. At least if we can refer to the youth service we know some professional will be keeping in touch with vulnerable youngsters. The Youth Parliament is not such a priority which is why I have put somewhat disagree.”

9 respondents made comments about alternate ways of delivering services, with other

partners playing a greater role in provision.

“I think it will be a real shame if the great work and engagement with young people around issues whether social, political or economical is lost. There isn't a need for the local authority to deliver it themselves but they should ensure that this work is continued.”

“There is an ideal opportunity for this to go through the Commissioning process with the end result, maybe that an organisation such as VCS running it. This does not have to be led by Council staff.”

“Youth engagement and Sutton youth paliment. Again numbers of you people really interested can do this through the schools, again money used for the minority and mainly grammar school chidren.”


14

14 respondents raised concerns about the voice of young people in Sutton being lost if the

youth parliament is cut. Many felt that taking the views of young people into account is very

important in the decision making process.

“Getting rid of youth parliament will get rid of young people's voices meaning we will have little say on anything.”

“Youth parliament is our way of expressing our opinions and being heard, taking that away will mean that we have no way of contributing to decisions that affect us and our future”

“The council will probably choose this option because they don't want to listen to young people's views. However, they need to listen to young people through the youth parliament because the council are of a different generation and so are unable to relate to us and so can't make well informed decisions for us.”

I am in the youth parliament and getting rid of us destroys the voice of young people

4 respondents commented about youth engagement potentially being the best option to cut.

I think it would be a shame if this wasn't offered in the future, however I can see why this would be cut.

I think of all of the youth activities provided the youth engagement programme would be the best one to cut as it only involves a small select number of young people and is not critical to young people's lives.

Targeted Youth Support

The Targeted Youth Support Team provide support to young people below the age of 19 to

encourage, enable and assist them in participating in education, employment and training.

Under option five the council will continue to:

● Provide a reduced service to young people who are not in employment, education or

training

● Conduct an assessment for hardship allowance.

● Provide a tracking service to find out where all young people aged 16-19 go for their

education, employment or training offering support where needed

● Ensure the Department for Education's requirements of ‘Raising the Participation


15

Age’ are met in Sutton (this is where young people need to stay in education or

training until they are 18 years old).

● Meet and work with other education services, agencies and providers to ensure there

is suitable post 16 provision available to meet the needs of young people in Sutton

through apprenticeships, colleges, training providers and Sixth forms so that

everyone has a place.

It will not offer:

● One-to-one support for teenage parents

● The Tots and Teens Programme course (with qualification) for teenage parents

● Preventative work with young people below the age of 16 who are at risk of leaving

education and those 16 years plus who are not in education, employment or training.


changes to targeted youth support?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to targeted youth support? (Base: 144 respondents)

The majority of respondents (64%, n = 92) disagreed with the proposed changes, 45% (n =

65) strongly disagreed, and 19% (n = 27) somewhat disagreeing. 26% (n = 37) of

respondents agreed with the proposal, with 11% (n = 16) ‘strongly’ and 15% (n = 21)

‘somewhat’ agreeing.


16

Further analysis compares the responses between respondents who have used or benefited

from Youth and Adolescent Services, and those who do not, showed once again that those

who had used or benefited from the services were less likely to have agreed with the

proposed changes to targeted youth support; only 17% (n = 15) respondents who had used

or benefited said they agreed to some extent, compared to 70% (n = 62) who said they

disagreed.

38 respondents provided comments on the targeted youth support proposal. The following

themes were identified:


Number of comments


made

Number of comments


made

Investigate other ways of delivering services

3 8% 1 3%

Impact negatively on young people

14 37% 4 11%

Create other long-term issues or costs

8 21% 6 16%


4 respondents suggested other ways that services could be delivered.

“Again this is something the schools adviser could offer, education and alternative leaning days, where colleges, partner can attend to promote there service.. Schools could take on the monitoring and statics of boundless proteiional children who could become neet. Parents could help by supporting children with options available and to raise their children's aspirations. Teenage parents nationally are on the decrease, therefore social services can monitor and advise on ways forward to become EET.”

“work should continue for the most vulnerable but not for all teen parents or those who are neet - Parents should take responsibility for supporting their young people.”

18 respondents raised concerns about the proposals having a negative impact on young

people, particularly teenage parents and those who are NEET, both groups are perceived to

need a lot of support and potentially at greater risk if left unsupported.

“Either the burden will fall on schools who cannot cope or these people will be


17

left alone with no help.”

“My current client group access Tots and Teens and have told me that they enjoy attending because they do not feel judged - something they report experiencing when they attend children's centres. They find the group supportive and feel that it benefits both them and the babies as a positive experience.”

“Where will teenage parents go for support? Preventative work for young people below 16 who are at risk is essential - without this earlier intervention even more young people may end up NEET. Programmes currently being run in-house help to lower this figure.”

“Whilst it is clear that costs need to be made, reducing prevention work is also likely to impact on numbers of young people who become teenage parents and fail to re-enter training or employment.”

“What organisation will continue to do preventative work with young people at risk? A NEET programme is so important to develop the aspirations of the young people of Sutton. It seems that the Council are turning their back on the young people in the hope that the private sector can take up the slack. In my opinion this won't happen..what happens if there is no provision for the young people?”

14 respondents commented on long term issues that could arise if this proposal was

implemented. This was mostly to do with work having to take place in the future at an

increased cost compared to preventative activities happening now.

“Preventative services with young people will support with reducing the impact on high usage of these people needing vulnerable adult services later.”

“Unless there is another source for support for teenage parents which can actually accomodate the service currently being offered by the council.it seems to me that dropping that service will increase the long term problems.”

“As a school we are increasingly concerned about the cuts to services for young people - particularly preventative work which can make a real difference to an individual's safety, wellbeing and future. Cuts to these services will also increase the need at higher levels - meaning more young people will be at risk and statutory services will be under more pressure.”


18

“I think it is a great shame that preventative services for potential NEETS and the course for teenage parents won't be running as they could be prevent further issues in the future by providing early support.“

Duke of Edinburgh’s Award

Sutton Youth Service holds the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award operating licence for the borough

which has responsibility for licensing all Duke of Edinburgh’s Award schools, supporting

delivery, administering the Award and ensuring that all related activities meet the required

standards. Schools that wish to deliver the Award do so through the council. The Youth

Service also offers the Sutton Open Award Centre, where young people can enrol onto the

scheme directly. The Open Award Centre enables vulnerable young people and those who

cannot access the Award elsewhere to have the opportunity to undertake the Award.

Under option five the council will:

● Direct schools to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Regional Office so they can buy a

licence to run the award themselves

● Provide information on the web site about other organisations that offer the award e.g.

uniformed clubs like the Scouts.

It will not:

● Hold the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award licence for the London Borough of Sutton, so

schools would be required to obtain their own licence and administer their Award

scheme if they wished to continue delivery

● Provide an open access provision for those not able to access the Award through a

school.

Respondents were asked: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award?


19

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the Duke of Edinburgh’s

Award?

(Base: 144 respondents)

Again, the majority of respondents (52%, n = 75) disagreed with the proposed changes, with

36% (n = 52) strongly disagreeing, and 16% (n = 23) somewhat disagreeing. However, a

higher proportion of respondents agreed with this proposal than for previous questions. 35%

(n = 50) of respondents agreed, with 21% (n = 30) ‘strongly’ and 14% (n = 20) ‘somewhat’

agreeing.

As found with the responses to other questions in this consultation, more non service users

and beneficiaries were found to select the ‘agree’ options as opposed to users. 60% of non

service users agreed, compared to only 22% of service users.

36 respondents provided comments on the proposed changes for the Duke of Edinburgh’s

award. The following key themes were identified:


Number of comments


made

Number of comments


made

Investigate other ways of delivering DoE

6 17% 2 6%

Young people may not have opportunity to continue or access DoE

3 8% 0 0%

Schools may choose not to run schemes

8 22% 5 14%


20


8 respondents made comment about looking at other ways of delivering DoE, often

suggesting potential alternate providers.

“Consider other local providers to hold the Operational Licence on behalf of the Council and raise the participation and completion rates or ask a local provider to deliver the open award on behalf of the Council”

“Refer to my previous comments - The Scout Association is well placed to undertake this role. a good example of this being that the local scouts managed the D of E programme for Durham University - participants pay a moderate fee to cover costs etc. - everyone wins - the SA makes a small surplus for their funds, the university did not have a resource problem and the participants has the assurance that the leaders were well trained by an established organisation.”

“Yes there are also independent organisations away from the council such as the Volumteer Police Cadets which do the DofE”

“Schools have for a few years been offering there own DOE programmes. If schools wish to continue this then charge parents for children taking park. Volunteering would also count as making a commitment and helping in the community, hike/camping parts could involve outside trainers to cover this part of the award.”

3 respondents had concerns that if the proposals went ahead, young people may not have opportunity to continue with the award, or access DoE at all.

“opportunities such as D of E should be reachable for all - not just with those who have parents who can afford it.”

“Please don't take Dofe away as it is very costly if the school has to btain their own licsense and there will be more expensive for us. I have completed my bronze and am on my way to doing my silver, I also want to do gold but don't think I will be able to if this happens.”


21

13 respondents raised concerns around the pressure running and administering the award

would place on schools, and therefore they may decide not to run the award.

Not all schools will be able to offer the award meaning some people will not have the opportunity to try it

“As a voluntary youth organisation with limited funds, we have made use of the equipment pool which saves us and many others from having to buy equipment that is only used a few times per year. We have our own License so do not use LB Sutton's. but schools will find it expensive to become a directly licensed centre. Many schools who cannot train for and run Gold expeditions depend on the Open Award Centre for Gold provision. Many young people will be prevented from achieving Gold if this centre is closed.”

“I strongly disagree with the council not holding the DofE License. The schools through previous experience will not commit to having their own license as the cost of this is very prohibitive, they have enough costs themselves. This means that the young people will lose the opportunity to achieve the award. The Scouts also in my experience do not offer the DofE to external participants, it is only for Scouts. Other Councils have kept the Borough License but have offset the costs to the schools at a much reduced cost in comparison to having their own license. This would be critical for the smaller schools and an option that should be investigated.”

“I worry that not all schools would make the effort or agree to pay for students to work towards DoE (their budgets are already stretched) & also that YP who are not good school attendees would miss out if not encouraged by youth services.”

Option 5

Prior to the consultation, the recommended option was Option 5 - to only provide the services

required by law. This includes:

● meeting the council’s duties to encourage enable and assist young people to

participate effectively in education and training

● and to provide so far as reasonably practicable a local offer of positive leisure time

activities for young people that is sufficient to meet local needs and improve young

people’s well-being and personal and social development.

Respondents were asked: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the council only providing the Youth and Adolescent Services described above under option 5, ‘services required by law’?


22

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the council only providing the Youth and Adolescent

Services described above under option 5, ‘services required by law’?

(Base: 144 respondents)

64% of respondents (n = 76) disagreed with the council only providing services described

under option 5. Of these, 49% (n = 71) strongly disagreed, with 15% (n = 22) somewhat

disagreeing. 21% of respondents (n = 31) agreed, with similar numbers of responses for the

strongly (10%, n = 15) and somewhat (11%, n = 16) agree options.

23 respondents provided comments on the proposal for the council only providing the

services under option 5. Through qualitative thematic analysis, the following key themes were

identified:


Number of comments


made

Number of comments


made

Concerns about only having statutory provision

8 35% 1 4%

Creation of long term issues or costs

8 35% 3 13%

The key themes with examples of the comments made, are outlined on the next page.


23

9 respondents raised concerns about only providing the services described under option 5,

with some thinking of it as almost non existent service provision.

“As already discussed, vulnerable young people are the ones who will suffer from this decision, and there does not appear to be any information that shows the NEET figures in the borough will not rise if this decision is taken. Therefore, I do not believe that this option has been investigated enough, rather it is the 'preferred' option as it is the one that will save the most money.”

“If you reduce the service to option 5 there will be little to nothing left for young people unless their families are in financial position to pay for it. There is very little community and voluntary services and activities available and those that are not always what the young people are looking for.”

“Some young people may not be seen as vulnerable even though they are and these may be missed because they are not referred open services allow them a space to go where they can feel safe and feel comfortable telling someone what is going on for them.”

11 respondents felt that the provision of services described under option 5 would create

long term issues and costs. Many of the comments were about preventative work not taking

place, it would cost more in the long run to work with these people in the future.

“by the time they get to NEET its too late and is going to cost you loads more money and you will get loads more of them without the preventative work done before.“

“I think that the council will be causing more problems further down the line. Youth offending will increase and therefore the need for more police officers who will not be available due to cuts in policing budgets. Therefore crime levels will increase making Sutton a more dangerous place to live. Furthermore, some adolescents will fail at school creating higher unemployment in the area and again the propensity for higher crime levels. FALSE ECONOMY!”

Not only will it barely cover the most vulnerable young people, it will have very limited capacity to work preventively and engage young people in positive activities to prevent later issue arising.

“As a school we are increasingly concerned about the cuts to services for young people - particularly preventative work which can make a real difference to an individual's safety, wellbeing and future. Cuts to these services will also increase the need at higher levels - meaning more young people will be at risk and statutory services will be under more pressure.”


24

“The Youth service is such a valuable service, especially for vulnerable / disadvantaged YP. It should have more funding not less. If services are cut in the short term, more money will have to be spent sorting out for problems caused by not working to resolve/ prevent YP's issues. It worry for the next generation.....”

Respondents were asked two follow up questions around Option 5. The first question asked

was: what do you think could be the impact of the council only providing the Youth and

Adolescent services required by law (option five)?

96 respondents provided comments on the proposal for the council only providing the

services under option 5. Through qualitative thematic analysis, the following key themes were

identified:


Number of comments


made

Number of comments


made

Loss of engagement with young people

11 11% 2 2%

Lack of support for young people

37 39% 7 7%

Increase in demand for other services

14 15% 2 2%

The key themes with examples of the comments made, are outlined below.

13 respondents thought that only providing Youth and Adolescent Services required by law

would have an impact on the levels of engagement with young people.

“The most vulnerable young people stand to lose the most, creating greater imbalance of opportunity and progression - overall having a negative impact on the development and wellbeing of the borough as a whole.”

“The young people in the community may be encouraged to participate less in council activities, be less encouraged to take part in schemes such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award, which could discourage them from being outgoing, and cause them to become introverts and would not therefore enjoy the benefits of being young.”


25

“A huge loss engagement in a worthwhile actity such as DofE in a very strong Borough for its provision.”

“The preventative work and extra support to vunerable children and parents would be lost and that could over time lead to a larger problem with disengaged young people in the borough.”

44 respondents commented around the potential lack of support for young people, if these

proposals went ahead. Many of the comments were around the increase of possibility of

harm and risk to young people, particularly those who might be vulnerable.

“These services will be very limited. Young people won't have somewhere safe, informative and nurturing to go of an evening - where will they be then, roaming the streets looking for trouble? They won't have the targetted support of key workers that help young people cope with parental substance misuse, levels of neglect and emotional abuse that don't meet threshold for statutory Children's services. These workers help support young people to remain in education - there will be more permanent exclusions. Young people are our future. if you don't listen to them now why would they engage in local democracy and societal expectations later?”

“There should be an emphasis on earliy intervention and preventative work with young poeple in the borough. Reducing Youth Services will have a severely negative impact on young poeple, particularly those who are vulnerable or at risk of becoming vulnerable. If there is no early intervention this will result in problems escalting reuslting in services being needed at a high level with resultant funding implications.”

“Young people will not be supported through the difficult transition into, through and out of adolescence. Young people will be made more vulnerable by the lack of services and knowledge of where to go when they are in crisis and need support. Generations of yuong people will not understand how to socialise and grow through information learning opportunities, activities, projects and training.”

“I think discontinuing the preventative work that the youth service provide will leave a huge gap in services for young people that may cause bigger problems long term. Closing down the centres (Youth Zone and The Youth Centre) will mean that those young people will have no where to go to in a town where they already feel that there is nothing to do and no where to go. Having the centre means thatyoung people feel welcome and that they have a place to go; 'support and guidance' services may be sufficient for some young people, but many won't access this and they need a place to go and person to see. The Youth Parliament and the related engagement opportunities have given many young people skills and opportunities


26

they wouldn't have ordinarily had. Without this service young people may feel like that have no voice at all, when many already feel disenfranchised and not listened to. The lack of 1:1 or group services provided by the youth service will put a strain on the voluntary sector to fill this gap in service. My concern is that the vulnerable young people that access services at the youth centre currently might lose out completely if they aren't able to be picked up by other agencies.”

16 respondents mentioned about the impact that these proposals could have on other

services. These included increases in crime and involvement in gangs, neglect, social care

and mental health related issues.

“I think that a reduction in services will result in an increase in youth crime. I believe that children will no longer be encouraged to engage and participate at school. I also believe that children who are experiencing problems at home may be missed and not receive the support they require. People may not notice youth services closing, though Sean Anstee, the Tory leader of Trafford, notes a rise in youth crime after shutting five of his six centres. (Ref: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/06/osborne-devolution-tories?CMP=fb_gu).”

“Increase in first time offending/YP coming to notice to the police because of lack of facilities and places to go, increased resident fear of groups congregating in public places i.e children's parks resulting in community complaints, increased boredom and increased risk of anti social behaviour in public spaces, reduced offer of personal and social development opportunities for the more vulnerable and at risk groups.”

“Increased crime, Increased policing costs, Increased vandalism, Increased drug use, Increased cost to local nhs services in dealing with increased drug use, More teenage parents, More pressure on schools, More pressure on social services, More concerns with self harm/suicidal ideation/teenage suicide, Increased impact on CAMHS.”

“In the long term I think you will see more young people becoming vulnerable, disadvantaged and at risk of gangs, substance misuse and anti social behaviour.”

The second follow up question asked was: what could be done differently to reduce the

impact of the council only providing the Youth and Adolescent services required by law

(option five)?

82 respondents provided comments on this question. The following key themes were

identified:


27


Number of comments


made

Number of comments


made

Use volunteers, community groups and schools for alternative provision

19 23% 4 5%

Find savings elsewhere 13 16% 2 2%

Work with specialist services other organisations to share resources and contribute towards provision

4 5% 0 0%

Look at one of the other options

11 13% 1 1%

The key themes with examples of the comments made, are outlined below.

23 respondents mentioned using volunteers, community groups and schools as alternative

service providers, with the council building capacity within the voluntary sector to enable

them to do so.

“Get more voluntary and community groups involved. Make it easier for community and volunteer groups to get involved, for example provide help and support for getting enhanced criminal records bureau checks.”

“I would like to see alternative provision identified possibly from the voluntary sector to fill the gaps that will occur when there are cuts to local government provision.”

“Improved sign posting to the voluntary sector activities. Improved liaison between the council and volunteers , maybe via SCVS or VCS who have a better understanding how to mange volunteers. have you considered getting some of this youth led? the voluntary sector youth provision needs to become more open and transparent. it also needs to shake its perception that it is not there for troubled and vulnerable young people.”

“That school work together to provide services across the brough to support this age bracket. Not all youths are going to access this services that are not in school. Encourage a higher uptake of army, sea and air cadets to local schools. I”

“Important to see the impact assessment of proposals.


28

It is clear that universal services such as Schools and Health will need to identify the additional needs of young people at an earlier stage and consider how they can provide for them with increased support from the voluntary sector.”

15 respondents commented on finding savings from elsewhere, rather than making cuts to

or to help lessen the impact on youth and adolescent services.

“Close the Life Centre and allocate it's funding to other youth projects.”

“Keep the service open and look at other cuts that do not affect the community”

“Make savings from other areas of the council, at the very least support the voluntary sector to increase capacity in their delivery and offer. Social care services should be audited to make sure they are proforming at the best possible level without excess waste of money and resources. Prevention work with chidlren and young people is crucial to help lower the numbers being processed through social care.”

“It is wrong to make savings by cutting all (except those required by law) service from one department and a huge mistake to take this from youth services. With young people already at risk of becoming a 'lost generation' we should be doing all we can to ensure that they are supports, engaged and enable to voice their opinions and to take away all of these offers can only have a negative impact. The savings to be made should be shared with other departments rather than taken solely from youth. What about .“

“I hate to say it but we need to reduce the amount we spend on people entering UK and focus on the young people we already have.”

4 respondents commented on working with specialist services to contribute towards

provision, as well as maximising council assets.

“Rather than completely wipe them out, could the council not join with other councils and resource share some of these features like NEET and DofE license?”

Other services can and should contribute towards provision for young people. Leisure centres, specialist services such as climbing centres, bikes and skate schools, outdoor activities and music making all charge too much for their services making it the domain of the 'haves' more should be


29

done to ensure that all children can access to reduce inequalities faced by the 'have nots' What about reducing business rates for leisure centres, or craggy island in exchange for free access for young people? What about free swimming or gym access to reduce obesity and improve well being in young people Could you maximise use of your spaces to increase income opportunities for example rental, weekend lettings, or evenings when not used for clubs, parties, social events etc. Why not use the resources at Sutton Life centre to engage young people in programming, coding, using the media or creating music and ask parents to pay for it. I have never seen it advertised, and have never heard of services for young people - I know they do some but maybe they should do more and advertise better

12 respondents discussed the council looking at one of the other options outlined.

“Rather than a total removal of the services, I'm more inclined to support a reduced offer as per options 3 or 4. I'm also not clear on the responsibility for administering the Duke of Edinburg award in the event that the school opts out of the scheme.”

“Re look at options three and reduce admin/on costs, make better use of existing borough resources and estate. Accept maximum savings of up to £500k and maintain provision for vulnerable and disaffected young people. Young peoples services losing almost all its budget, is unfair if other sectors are looking at 30%”

“Not go for that option because it is the worst option which wouldn't benefit any young people.”

“Nothing. Rather than being completely set on an option before you've even consulted your constituents, you should listen to what they have to say and investigate all options fully.”


30

Appendix A: Demographic Information

_________________________________________________________________________________

Respondents were asked questions about their demographics to help us to put their answers

into context. Providing a response to these questions was not compulsory. Where information

was provided it is presented below.

Gender

Number of respondents

Percent of sample

Female 92 64%

Male 37 26%

Not Answered 6 4%

Prefer not to say 9 6%

Grand Total 144 100%

Age


Percent of sample

11-13 years 1 1%

14-16 years 25 17%

17-19 years 4 3%

20-24 years 4 3%

25-34 years 15 10%

35-44 years 31 22%

45-54 years 30 21%

55-64 years 20 14%

65 years and above 7 5%

Not Answered 5 3%

Prefer not to say 2 1%



31

Ethnicity

93% of respondents provided information about their ethnicity.


Percent of sample

Asian or Asian British 16 11%

Black or Black British 1 1%

Mixed background 7 5%

Not Answered 10 7%

Other ethnic group 3 2%

White or White British 107 74%


Day-to-day activities limited

Respondents were asked if their day-to-day activities were limited because of a health

problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months. The results

are set out in the table below:


Percent of sample

No 126 88%

Not Answered 6 4%

Yes 12 8%



32

Household Composition


Percent of sample

Couple with dependent child/ children

58 40%

Couple with no dependent child/children

32 22%

Lone parent/carer with dependent child/ children

15 10%

Not Answered 6 4%

Other 12 8%

Pensioner 1 1%

Single adult with no dependent child/children

20 14%


Tenure


Percent of sample

Buying on a mortgage 67 47%

Don’t know 10 7%

Not Answered 6 4%

Other 11 8%

Owned outright (including leasehold)

28 19%

Rented from council/ Sutton Housing Partnership

3 2%

Rented from housing association

7 5%

Rented from private landlord

12 8%



33

Employment


Percent of sample

Full-time carer 1 1%

Housewife/ husband 4 3%

Not Answered 4 3%

Other 4 3%

Registered unemployed 1 1%

Retired 11 8%

Self-employed 5 3%

Student 27 19%

Unemployed but not registered

1 1%

Voluntary work 3 2%

Working - part time (8-29 hrs/wk)

11 8%

Working – (under 8 hrs/wk) 3 2%

Working – full time (30+ hrs/wk)

69 48%



34

Appendix B: Suggested cuts to other council services

_________________________________________________________________________________

The full coded list of suggestions for making cuts in other council services are set out in the

graph below:

If you think that the council should cut other services further, please provide further details. (Base: 25 respondents)


35

Appendix C: List of responding organisations

_________________________________________________________________________________

The organisations that responded as part of the consultation were as follows:

● A to Z Expeditions

● Children's Services

● Jigsaw4u

● Muslim Cultural & Welfare Association of Sutton

● NHS, contraception / sexual health outreach for YP

● Outspark

● Overton Grange School

● QA service (Safeguarding and Reviewing)

● Sound Connections / Wired4Music

● Sutton Education Business Partnership

● Sutton Virtual School Service for Looked After Children

● Sutton Youth Parliament

● The Boys' Brigade

● X Adventure Activities Ltd


youth services consultation report - final a - youth... · most selected option for all but one...

Documents