POLICY COMMISSION MEETING
|
Meeting |
Children and School Results Commission |
|
Ref |
CPC 07/02/07 |
|
Date |
Wednesday, 7 February 2007 18.00 to 19.35 |
|
Place |
Committee Room 1, County Hall, |
|
Purpose of meeting |
Formal public meeting |
|
Attendance |
Commission members – Cllrs Melanie Swan (Commissioner), Wendy Arnold, George Cameron, Gill Kennett, Lady Pigot Apologies – Cllrs Deborah Gardiner, Muriel Miller Cabinet member – Cllr Dawn Cousins Officers – Mr Steve Beynon, Mr Paul Thistlewood Youth and Community Service – Mr George Weech, Principal Youth and Community Officer; Ms Jo White, Training and Development/South Island Manager; Ms Dee Makin, Youth Worker in Charge – Mobile Youth Initiatives; Mrs Linda Gorman, Senior Social Worker – Ventnor Youth Centre. Other members present – Cllrs Mike Cunningham, Win McRobert, David Whitaker |
|
Agenda Items |
|
|
1.
Notes
of previous meeting |
The notes of the meeting held on 25 January 2007 were agreed. |
|
1.
Declarations
of interest |
Cllr G Kennett declared a personal interest as she was Chairman of the West Wight Youth Centre Management Committee Cllr W Arnold declared a personal interest as she was a member of the Niton Youth Centre Management Committee |
|
2.
Youth
Engagement Strategy C1/07 |
Paper considered :- Draft scoping document, powerpoint presentation by the Principal Youth and Community Officer and background briefing pack. 1. Draft Scoping Document Consideration was given to the proposed scope of the enquiry and
the intended outcomes. The enquiry would follow a similar format to that for
the Investing in the The Commission agreed the scope of the enquiry as set out in the draft scoping document. 2. Current
i. Mr Weech outlined the findings arising from the Ofsted Inspection undertaken of the Youth Service in May 2006. This indicated that the Youth Service offered good value for money. ii. He indicated the facilities operated by the Council, the range of activities undertaken and the staffing resources. A range of ancillary resources were also involved together with support for schools. This was all aimed at providing new experiences for young people to enable them to grow and achieve in a supportive environment. Mr Weech also advised on the partner agencies that the Youth Service worked with. iii. The service was primarily directed at 13 to 19 year olds. Approximately 50% of youths within this age range had a contact with the Youth Service. In 2005/06 attendances were more than 32,000 which involved about 6,000 young people. iv. The budget controlled by the Youth Service amounted to £1,059,500. v. The mobile service operated 3 evening sessions in rural areas and it was hoped that this could be expanded. vi. The service provided advice, training and development for both statutory and voluntary youth work. vii. Challenge and Adventure was a registered charity to support vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. This operated on a referral basis. It was hoped then when additional workers were trained then the number of sessions undertaken in the summer holidays could be increased. Seeking funding was a time consuming activity which impacted on the time available to deliver activities. viii. A number of young people, who had utilised the services offered by the Youth Service, continued their involvement post 19 as volunteer helpers. ix. The Youth Service could offer alternative provision to engage those young people who were experiencing difficulties in school. There were however problems with some schools not wanting to pay for this. Work was also done with students attending the Clatterford Pupil Referral Unit. There was a need to ensure that the charge by the Youth Service was seen as cost effective in relation to the cost per session at the school or Unit. If use was made of the Youth Service by a school or Pupil Referral Unit then it should pay the appropriate fee. x. The opportunity for young people to take part in outdoor activities or visits had become restricted in recent years because of the fear of litigation if accidents occurred. It was noted however that there were very few fatalities nationally and a majority of these related to road traffic accidents. xi. The funding of accredited outcomes for young people raised an issue as to who should pay for the costs of any examinations, awards or certificates. The funds of individual Youth Centre Management Committees were limited. This could be assisted if Youth Centres had similar support to that given by PTA’s in schools or Friends Groups. The possibility of individual young people seeking grant aid for their activities could be explored. xii. The Youth Service worked well with those with Special Needs and disabilities although some buildings would present difficulties to access for all groups. xiii. Many different groups and organisations were involved with the Youth Service. Links with those representing older people should be encouraged to help break down barriers and perception of young people. Town and Parish Councils could be involved in community engagement on behalf of the Council as envisaged in the White Paper on Strong and Prosperous Communities. The difficulties encountered with CRB checks and the ability of small groups and organisations to fund these was an issue. xiv. The Ofsted inspection report had highlighted a lack of direction and impetus at the corporate strategic level and this needed addressing. The Policy Commission requested that it be supplied with details on the Council’s statutory duties for youth services, implications of the Youth Matters agenda and more detailed information about the number of young people engaged in the various range of activities. Officers would compile a list of key stakeholders that should be involved in the consultation process together with a list of facilities that could be visited.
|