Agenda item
Cabinet Decision Called-in: Youth Service Delivery
To consider Cabinet report (CAB 080/112) – the Youth Service Delivery decision has been called-in.
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed Councillor Denise Jones in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution and also welcomed Isobel Cattermole, Corporate Director, together with Mary Durkin, Service Head, Youth and Community Learning, who were in attendance to respond to the call-in.
The Committee considered the following:
· the views and comments made by Councillor Denise Jones in presenting the call-in;
· the information given by Councillor Oliur Rahman Cabinet Member for Children’s Services with Isobel Cattermole, Corporate Director, Children Schools and Families and Mary Durkin, Service Head, Youth and Community Learning in response to Councillor Jones’ issues; and
· the answers to the Committee’s questions given by Councillor Jones and by Councillor Oliur Rahman, with Isobel Cattermole and Mary Durkin.
The main points raised in the discussion are highlighted below:
· Cllr Rahman argued that the main objective of the decision was to save money through management costs, with no intended changes to service provision in each local area, to the places where those services were delivered or to the staff delivering them. Young people should not be affected by this decision.
· It was recognised by everyone that in the current financial context, the youth service should be required to find savings where possible. But it was suggested that this could be done by partnership working with current providers rather than a completely new model.
· There was not enough information in the report on why this decision was being taken now, and how savings would be realised through an in-house service. Furthermore, there was insufficient information on the risks associated with the decision, particularly the potential increase in rents the youth service could have to pay. More time should have been spent developing the proposals, with full cost and risk analysis. Insufficient attention had been paid to potential ‘unintended consequences’ of bringing the service in-house.
· It was proposed that savings would be found through a reduction in the number of managers required - there was currently a contract manager for each LAP. However, the cost of these was not known, and the paper did not clearly set out how this reduction would be made and what savings this would realise.
· There had been insufficient communication and consultation with existing providers, although Cllr Rahman said he and his officers had been speaking to some of them and would continue to do so. Providers had previously been reassured that nothing would be changing before 2013.
· This lack of communication had upset many providers, as shown by the petition presented at OSC and their comments to the media. The Council risked damaging its partnership working-relationship with these providers, which it hoped would continue. This could in turn impact on the Council’s ability to secure community premises at little or no costs as required.
· The youth service was originally contracted out in 2001, because the existing model was not working. When the contracts were re-tendered in 2006, performance was still poor. Since then performance against key targets had improved significantly. This was attributed to a move to outcome-based contracting, where providers were given the freedom to allocate resources as they thought best, providing they met their targets. Bonuses were paid for providers who met stretch targets. These contracts were monitored very closely, with management support for providers and written warnings when providers failed to meet their targets. This model of close monitoring against targets, with support for those providing services would continue if the service was brought in-house.
· One of the stated aims of bringing the services in-house was to improve partnership working with public health, GP networks and the Police. However, existing providers already worked closely with these organisations to address health inequalities and community safety, and it was not clear how these relationships would be improved by an in-house service.
ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION PROPOSED
The Committee resolved to refer the decision back to Cabinet for further consideration with the following comments:
· This decision was not being undertaken in the right way – there had been insufficient work to date to clarify the potential risks, costs and benefits of a move to in-house management. It was therefore not clear what the benefits of this change were, or why it was being undertaken now and in such a hurry, with the contracts concerned due shortly for review and renewal.
· There was clearly significant concern from the community and providers about this change, and insufficient communication and consultation with providers before the report was published. Further consultation with providers, and with young people, should be done to understand their concerns, before progressing further with this decision.
· The Committee was disappointed by the negative comments about existing providers made by the Lead Member. If we were to continue our important partnership working with these providers we needed to maintain good, constructive relationships with them.
· This report was another example of reports coming to Cabinet, and to public view, with insufficient information on which to base a decision. This report had been tabled at too early a stage, and as such had upset the community and providers and had the potential to affect the service it sought to preserve.
· The lack of information and consultation on this had resulted in the decision being called in. The community felt wary of a decision which appeared to have been taken without their involvement, with possible future effects that may not have been foreseen due to lack of thoroughness now.
The Committee proposed that the called-in report be referred to Cabinet and full Council, if Members believed that the proposals contradicted Council policy. In accordance with the CYPP principles: “There are some changes for the voluntary sector: the expectation from Government is that less will be provided or commissioned by the local authority, and more will be provided by the community and voluntary sector. Again, this gives greater accountability to voluntary sector organisations, and the expectation is that this sector will play a bigger role in helping to meet the priorities set out in our plan”. The proposal appears to take responsibility and power out of the voluntary sector and into the local authority and was therefore in direct contravention of the Children Plan. It breached the Council Policy Framework, thus it was possible to refer it to full council as there were over 2,000 signatures which would trigger a full Council debate in any event.
David Galpin, Head of Legal Services, Community, clarified that Members were required to focus on the Call-in by either endorsing it and referring the matter back to Cabinet for consideration, or taking no action and effectively endorsing the Cabinet decision, enabling implementation to go ahead.
In conclusion, Members outlined the following points:
· The lack of information in the Cabinet report was of real concern and it was regrettable that this matter had to be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee;
· There was a need for more engagement with the young people;
· Poplar HARCA – this organisation had several volunteers but if the service was brought in-house, how would these volunteers be utilised?
· KPIs – how would these be measured accurately?
· Once in-house, some Members feared that there was a danger of bureaucracy taking over. With a contracts system, the expectation was that the provider must meet targets, otherwise the contract could be terminated. There may be no such incentive with an in-house service;
· The assumption was that an in-house service equated to a cheaper service, but this was not necessarily the case. There were lots of unanswered questions and further debate was needed;
· Members sought assurances that monies would not be spent inappropriately if the service was brought in-house.
RESOLVED
That the called-in report be referred back to Cabinet for further consideration and that the Cabinet note and comment on the matters set out in the referral report.
Supporting documents:
-
5.2 Youth Services Delivery Call-in cover report, item 5.2
PDF 96 KB
-
Youth Service Delivery 200910 FINAL - 10 2 12 CN (2)EKT DG2302121145am, item 5.2
PDF 401 KB