GANGS - Brent Council 'It's Time to Talk' event January 17th, Roundwood YC

I have received this from Brent Council. I am not sure what concrete measures, if any, emerged from the previous Time to Talk events but you may wish to attend.

Following on from two successful It’s Time to Talk events earlier this year on Hate Crime and Extremism, Brent Council will play host to another on 17 January 5.30pm at the Roundwood Youth Centre in Harlesden. This time we will be focusing on gangs and what Brent can do as a community to tackle them and prevent them from emerging in the future.

Attending the event will be a number of high-profile speakers including Angela Herbert MBE of the National Offender Management Service, Maria Arpa of the Centre for Peaceful Solutions and DJ Gussy of Roots FM and a former gang member.

The event will take the form of a Question Time style panel discussion, followed by resident workshops. The aim is to develop community-led strategies to empower all people in Brent to unite and create a stronger, safer borough. If you would like to ask a question then please submit it to james.curtis@brent.gov.uk. Please note that depending on the volume of questions, not all may be able to be asked. 

If you would like to have your say on the issues then please come along to this FREE event.
FREE TICKETS HERE

Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala (Labour, Stonebridge) produced a well received report ‘ A review of gangs in Brent and the development of services for prevention, intervention and exiting’ for the Scrutiny Committee in 2013. LINK

Since then Brent Council has closed youth centres, sacked youth workers and demolished Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

Having taught children from Stonebridge and St Raphaels I know how important the Adventure Playground and other youth facilities were in providing activities for young people who might otherwise get drawn into crime, particularly around drugs, as well as the workers themselves providing alternative role models.

What intervention at that level does is prevent children getting involved in the fringes of gangs and then gradually bcoming full members.  When I studied gangs decades ago in Battersea I found that there was an overlapping age profile.  Children as young as 10 were involved in a fairly benign  ‘junior gang’ but the oldest of that gang would also hang out with more ‘senior’ gangs and perform tasks such as delivering drugs or climbing through windows to steal for them. The overlapping groups formed an age hierachy becoming fully fledged gangs by the time members were in their 20s.

This was very much the pattern I found in Brent with primary age children being used to deliver drugs by bicycle for older gang members.   What was more disturbing was that in discussion Year 6 boys who weren’t yet involved  nonetheless expressed admiration for leading gang members in both terms of status and materially.  They unfavourably compared their teachers with role models who had status in the community and had the ‘bling, the cars and the girls.’  This is a key point where teachers, play workers and youth workers can intervene.

The Kalwala report stated:

When we met with a representative from the Metropolitan Police’s Trident Gangs Command Unit, he told us that offenders of gang-related crime, including knife and gun-enabled offences, tend to be male and between 14-25 years old. Mr Champion also said that along with robbery, burglary theft and assault, drugs supply was major concern and that gangs are now grooming boys as young as 10 years old. We heard that as a young person gets older, the role he plays within the gang also changes. Professor Pitts told us that whilst younger boys are being recruited as young as 10, they may only be acting as a scout or runner (of drugs) whilst teenagers may get involved in street-level drug supply. Older gang members, such as those 18 and older may escalate to more violent offences. These older youths may also become responsible for coordinating the activities of the younger members. Older gang members (21 years old or older) are likely to hold a more senior role within the gang which could include developing links with organised crime groups. Brent police told the task group that beyond 25, they are either in prison, dropped out and settled down or not as visible as they are involved in organised crime.

In coverage of the  ‘Time to Talk’ meeting in the Kilburn Times LINK  Keith Gussy Young (DJ Gussy)  owner of RootsFM  who will be speaking at the event said:

Young people need to be listened to, and there are a lot of young people out there, good people. If we don’t find a solution to really listen to them it will create a vicious cycle.

Most of our youth clubs have been shut down now forcing our children back on the streets. It’s not an easy subject but people at the top have to start listening. They may be building all these new flats but they need to build youth centres as well.

Save Mosaic LGBT Youth Club From Local Government Cuts

From Mosaic LGBT Youth Club due to close at part of Brent Council's overall cuts in the youth service LINK .

 Save Mosaic LGBT Youth Centre from closing down

The Mosaic LGBT Youth Centre in Kilburn is a local government funded LGBT youth centre. It is one of few left in the whole of the capital, it supports teenagers who identify as LGBT or are questioning their sexuality and/or gender identity.

The proposed new structure of the Youth Service would mean that Centre will be closed and only youth clubs still in operation would be just local youth clubs that we never access and don't want to access as they are not meeting our needs as LGBT young people. We do not need or want a space where we have to 'come out' every time, we want space like mosaic where we can be ourselves and be fully accepted, not just tolerated.

This new proposal is a complete disregard to the needs of our community and results of consultation that clearly identified LGBT youth provision as a priority to be safeguarded in the new restructure; even third sector youth organisations agree as they recognise that complexity of that work cannot be met in just any youth club - one size does not fit all!

At the times where schools are still bastions of homophobia and streets are rife with growing homophobic hate crime and parents making LGBT kids like me homeless by kicking them out Mosaic LGBT Youth Centre is something more then just a hang out space, it is home, it is community, it is a listening ear and often non-judgemental advice that we wouldn't otherwise get.

The huge problem with the removal of this Centre would be the impact on the LGBT youth, Mosaic educates us on LGBT history, current community issues, sexual health as well as many other topics. None of these services are currently provided in schools and therefore Mosaic is a vital service which cannot be demolished.

If the Council were to remove the funding for Mosaic who would support a community where 40% of us consider suicide, who would give a community which has a high HIV rate sex education, who would help those struggling to accept their sexuality?

The answer is no-one, as a gay teenager I can tell you that school won't support LGBT students in any significant way and it seems that Section 28 is a piece of legislation that has been repealed, but it is very much alive and well in schools today.

For these and many other reasons that I can't go into here Mosaic LGBT Youth Centre cannot be closed down!

Your sincerely,

Mosaic LGBT Youth Centre Members

Petition HERE

'Prudent' Brent budget still has some risks of under delivery including Public Health and Youth Service

The Chief Finance Officer's Assessment of Brent Council's proposed budget asserts that it contains the right mixture of risk and prudence. However he highlights some areas where the risk of under-delivery is more signifcant.

The full list of cuts and savings can be found HERE

In the extract below in italics is the Chief Finance Officer's statement and below an extract from the savings document,  I was particularly concerned about the proposals on Public Health (PH3) following the removal of the ring-fence, especially after the report to the Cabinet at their last meeting LINK  We need to know exactly what is being cut and what the impact is as well as what needs should be met that may not have been met hithertoo. Brent Council only took on responsibility for the Public Health of Under 5s a few months ago.

There were warnings last year about the deliverability of the changes in the Youth Service and this remains an issue.

Soem of the other proposals seem vague at best.

I am sorry about the problems with the formatting. There are often problems transferring text from PDFs on to this blog.

 

a.     Proposal CYP3, which requires savings of £0.9m from a complex reorganisation of youth services 


Reduce management and infrastructure costs in 2015/16, and establish a new delivery model by 2016. Savings of £100k include in 2015/16.

b.     Proposal R&G1,which requires a further reduction in TA costs of £0.5m in 2016/17 and a further £0.5m in 2017/18. This reflects the complex demographic and legislative pressures in this area. 


Savings of £1.3m were included for 2015/16 based on underspending in 2013/14 and reflecting the expectation that service demand would be less than anticipated in the original model . A  further £1.0m saving was included for 2016/17 and 2017/18

c.      R&G25f, which requires a surplus, over time, of £0.35m p.a. from the Lettings Agency, although none of this is budgeted for in 2016/17 


BHP will be establishing a lettings agency in 2014. The business plan projects completed additional surpluses of £350k per annum bein generated from year five (2018/19). The saving represents increased income from the provision property and tenancy management services to private sector properties

d.     ACE2, which plans to reduce the council’s contribution to the London Boroughs Grant Committee by £0.34m in 2017/18, which cannot be achieved without securing a two-thirds majority in London Councils

Review of grant funding to London Councils

The Council cannot withdraw from, or unilaterally reduce its funding to, the Grants Programme. On the contrary, s.48(7) Local Government Act 1985 provides that a grants scheme such as this one, once agreed by the majority of the London borough councils, may be binding upon a dissenting London Borough council in the absence of its agreement. We have explored the legislative scope for this. Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985, which established the London Councils grant scheme, stipulates that councils can only vary their contribution to the grant scheme with the agreement of at least two thirds of London Boroughs. The time available to implement any agreed change would significantly limit the level of savings achieved in 2015/2016. The Council could start conversations now with leaders of other councils with a view to introducing a reduction in funding to London Councils at the end of this cycle of projects i.e. April 2017.

e.     HR1 & L&P1, which collectively require further savings of £1.6m in the council’s legal services and human resources department.

HR1It is proposed to carry out a major reconfiguration of the HR service in 2015/16 saving £1.4m by 2016/17. This will result in the merging of some areas in order to reduce the number of managers required in the new structure. It is the intention to devolve responsibility for some existing activities undertaken by the Learning and Development team to HR Managers. Other activities will be accommodated by a new performance team with a broader remit which will include resourcing, workforce development, policy and projects. In addition it is proposed to cap the existing trade union facilties time allocation awarded to GMB and Unison to a maximium of 1 x PO1 post per trade union, to move the occupational health service inhouse saving £60k and reduce the learning and development budget by £67k. In year 2016/17 further reductions in staffing can be potentially achieved through shared service arrangements within payroll, pensions, HR management information and recruitment. Savings of £696k included in 2015/16.

L&P1 Different options of service delivery – outsourcing – private legal firm / buying from local authority that sells legal services and also London Wide work of setting up a shared service. Proposal to enter a shared service for legal. Savings of £400k have been brought forward from future years to 2016/17. Savings of £458k included in 2015/16.

f.      PH3, where savings of £1m against the public health grant are required 


 

Agreed that efficiencies would be made within public health once the grant ceased to be ring fenced and further opportunities sought to use grant to deliver across Council functions

g.     R&G32,where  savings of £1.5m are required through implementation of 
the customer access strategy. 


Implementation of new customer access strategy with a specific aim to reduce the current costs of contact handling by migrating custome contact on line, improve the efficiencies of telephone handling arrangements and optimising use of shared data to reduce the nee for customers to have to contact multiple services with the same

information. There is a £1.5m of savings which will be achieved across the Council and held as a central saving in 2016/17

Brent youth service cut savagely with barely a whimper

The out-sourcing of the remnants of Brent's  youth services which will be left after savage cuts was approved by the Brent Cabinet tonight with barely a murmur of opposition.  It was in stark contrast to the fightback by youth in the last major round of cuts in 2011 LINK

Cllr Wilhemina Mitchell Murray from the public gallery asked why a solution had not been found similar to that for the Children's Centres which would have preserved the jobs of Brent's skilled youth workers. Cllr Butt made a rambling and incoherent response.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari hoped that the youth workers might make proposals during the procurement process.

Cllr Pavey feared for the future of the Poplar Grove Youth Centre in Chalkhill (it is in his ward) and said that he had been impressed by the high regard in which it was held by local youth.  He also praised the Brent Youth Parliament which has been spared the axe while at least two centres and possibly three are to be closed. BYP officers were present but did not contribute to the discussion, although they had attended a Scrutiny Committee discussion.

Following on from the closure and demolition of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground, whatever the gloss the Council PR team try and put on it, the decision marks a new low point for the youth of the borough.

They deserve better.

Brent Youth Service cuts & out-sourcing will see at least two Youth Centres closed and staff made redundant

A cut of almost 70% in Brent Council's youth service budget (from £1,314,000 in 2015-16 to £414,394 in 2016-17) will see the service out-sourced and based mainly at Roundwood myplace Centre in Harlesden and Poplar Grove in Chalkhill. The report comments on the latter: 'The service level agreement for Poplar Grove means that it may (my emphasis) be possible for a new provider to run youth provision from the centre'.

The proposed retention of the Roundwood Centre means that there will be less money for other aspects of the youth service and the Wembley Youth Centre and Granville will no longer be funded  from April 2016.  They will be handed back to the Council's Asset Management Service and presumably sold off. The running costs of the Poplar Grove Centre will in future be met by Brent River College.

The remaining service will be 'a targeted  offer for more vulnerable groups' although the consultation indicated that young people were in favour of such provision being integrated into mainstream provision.

The Council's consultation revealed that respondents thought the Roundwood myspace Centre was under utilised. However the Centre was funded by a £5m Big Lottery grant as part of the Government's myspace programme and there are restrictions regarding future use. Closure would mean that the £5m grant or part of it could be reclaimed: 

.        Under the terms of the grant agreement, the Council is required to notify the Cabinet Office of any planned changes of use and/or ownership and could be required to repay the grant in whole or in part. Officers have now formally raised the possibility of outsourcing the centre to a third party with the Cabinet Office. They have indicated that there would be no objection to this sort of arrangement, but both the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and Cabinet Office would wish to see a lease and business plan before giving approval. They will also need confirmation that there will be continuing compliance with the existing grant agreement. Officers will therefore need to ensure that any new contractual agreements are consistent with the grant agreement and support delivery of myplace outcomes for young people. 


Although the report puts a positive gloss on retaining the Roundwood Centre it is clear that the main reason for keeping it as the 'flag ship' is that it would be too expensive to close.


The consultation also revealed that some respondents felt that Brent Youth Parliament was unrepresentative of the general profile of youth in the borough.  Officers dispute this and recommend that the £64,000 annual grant to BYP continues but that its operating costs and relationship with the wider Brent population is reviewed. The BYP will lead this review of itself with the  Head of Youth service. The BYP is central to the next stage of consultation where effective communication with the young people affected is a statutory requirement. The report notes that a judgement was made against North Somerset Council's reduction in youth service because they had not consulted young people adequately or addressed the needs of young people with protected characteristics under the Equality act.

In order to judge the Council's consultation so far it is worth recording that there were more providers (59) than young people (57) at the three 'participatory commissioning sessions' and that of 119 on-line responses 64 were from young people.

A Community Asset Transfer for Roundwood is rejected as having too many risks for a future provider and the Council. and in-house provision is also rejected as capable of offering only a limited service due to funding cuts.

The report recommends that the Council puts the service out to tender with an expectation that any provider taking over would have to work with volunteers and seek additional grants: 

.        Evaluation of bids will assess potential providers’ proposals for working with the local voluntary and community sector. Providers will be required to describe what arrangements they propose in order to deliver a positive impact on the local economy and social and environmental well-being for those in Brent to support the requirements of the 2012 Act as well as the Borough Plan. Providers will also be asked to demonstrate how they will help to build the capacity of local voluntary organisations working with young people and how they will deliver services based on a thorough understanding of the diversity of services users and communities within Brent. 


In future Brent secondary schools with be expected to fund the Duke of Edinburgh Award themselves and  the DOE open access centre run by the Council will close.

The report says that the Council will need to make its savings immediately and redundancy consultations with youth service staff will start in November.

Below please find the official Brent Council press release on this issue:

The Roundwood myplace Centre in Harlesden is set to remain the council's flagship youth service hub despite the authority being forced to make substantial savings, if Brent Council's Cabinet agrees on 19 October to new proposals for Council funded youth services. Youth centre provision and related youth work will be commissioned from another provider. This will help to grow the range of services for young people over time and ensure that services continue to be delivered.

This innovative new approach to youth service delivery will help the council and other partners secure other opportunities for funding sources not traditionally available to local authorities.

The borough's young people, youth service staff, voluntary and community sector providers were consulted over the summer, and they were asked how the money available for youth services should best be spent.

The Council report proposes a transformation of Brent Youth Services with the Roundwood Hub offering activities, programmes and targeted support for vulnerable young people. Cultural, sports and employment opportunities will also be offered at the centre and it will provide an important base for youth work and outreach support with a focus on working with vulnerable groups, including young people with disabilities; lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual (LGBT) young people; and those at risk due to their behaviour. Furthermore, the Brent Youth Parliament (BYP) will continue to be run by the Council to ensure that Brent's young people are heard in decision-making that affects their lives.

A number of Youth Service projects will continue in Brent, including the Right Track Programme, which supports pupils temporarily excluded from school, and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Programme.

The Council is also looking to extend its youth services at Brent River College (Poplar Grove Youth Centre) in Wembley, but this will be subject to further discussions with a new provider.

Any new provider would be expected to work with the wider community of voluntary and community sector youth service providers to build capacity and champion youth issues in Brent, especially the newly formed Young Brent Foundation.

Councillor Ruth Moher, Lead Member for Children and Young People, said:

"Given the severe funding constraints imposed upon us by central government, this proposal will help to secure important youth services in the borough and promote more innovative ways of working with our voluntary and community sector partners. It will also help us to attract more money, which the council cannot currently access.

"We want to seize the opportunity to do something different and innovative here and create a partnership model which will help to continue youth services.


Given the scale of funding cuts from central Government, it was a distinct possibility that we may have been forced to stop all youth service provision. These Cabinet proposals will prevent that. When we spoke to young people about the future of the service, they told us that youth centre based provision and support for more vulnerable young people are important to them and would be best delivered from Roundwood which is an award-winning building in the centre of the Borough offering great services to all young people.

The London Borough of Brent needs to save £54 million by 2016/17; and estimates that from 2010 to 2018, central government funding to Brent council for vital local services will almost halve.

Complacency at Cabinet as controversy swept under the carpet

Preston Community Library representatives spoke at Cabinet tonight on the issue of Brent Council's new Property and Asset Strategy.   They were concerned that the community library they now have up and running in the building, which provides many services to the local community apart from lending books,  should not be affected by the strategy which states:

Fundamentally the strategy moves away from a presumption to dispose outright of property towards one of retaining and acquiring assets with a view to maximising revenue potential.

Muhammed Butt, leader of the council said that the  council also recognised the importance of social value of property, rather than just monetary value.

Several Cabinet members praised the campaign which had been promised the Preston library building at a peppercorn rent.  However Cllr Moher indicated that discussions were taking place on the use of part of the building to provide additional school places.

Clearly there will be some difficult decisions when weighing up any conflict between monetary and social values in a period of budgetary cuts.

Ex councillor James Powney wrote on his blog:

The new strategy has two apparently contradictory aims.  One is to maximise value through renting property.  The second is maximise "social value" through renting below market rates to worthy causes.  Of course this all takes place in an environment where the Council's income from fees & charges, Council Tax and government grant will all be in decline.  Inevitably, this locks Brent Council into cutting public services to the maximum extent possible, which I suspect is not a policy that the majority of those who voted in May 2014 would support (although it is very much what the newly elected Tory government supports).

There are likely to be a number of Community Asset Transfers with voluntary organisations running services from former Brent buildings. 

Cabinet approved the Strategy Report's recommendations which Cllr Pavey claimed marked a 'massive' change in Council policy - but he does tend to suffer from superlative inflation.

They went on to approve authority to tender for a Direct Payments Service contract for adult and children's social care. Cllr Hirani argued that this would enable better working conditions and wages as it would do away with the profit requirement of agency providers.

The Council is expecting an increase of 400 people on Direct Payments over the next three years, a total of 1,127.

Cabinet approved the award of the Local HealthWatch Service contract to CommUNITY Barnet, Cllr Pavey remarked that the current HealthWatch has been well-intentioned but ineffective. It had not been successful in getting community engagement and representing patients.

There were similar remarks about the youth service when the Cabinet discussed the £1m cut it is making which will result in further demands on the voluntary and faith sectors.  In answer to Cllr Mashari who asked if this represented a move away from a universal youth service, Cllr Ruth Moher said she doubted if Brent had such a service at present and that the present service was not coherent, it had developed rather than was planned.  She remarked that that there was no point in providing a service if what it provided was not what young people wanted, so they would be consulted. She went on to say that the Coucil had never done a proper mapping of the services that were already offered acxross the borough by the council, voluntary organisations and faith groups.

Cllr Moher referred to the paragraph about the dangers for the Roundwood Centre if the strategy was not successful. Cllr Mashari said that there were many groups just waiting to get into the centre and she looked forward to it being better used and more dynamic.

There seemed little recognition of what could be read between the lines of the report and was pixcked up by the Kilburn Times - this could mark the end of youth provision in Brent.

I was shocked that there was no delegation at the council from the youth service or its users,  or the Youth Parliament which is, after all, supposed to represent young people.  Cabinet were told that their had been a question from the former chair of Brent Youth Parliament asking what a youth worker attached to the BYP would actually do - the answer was value to say the least.  However, the BYP, kept on at a cost of £60,000 may have to watch out as Cllr Moher said that they would be looking at 'different ways' of delivering that service.

Ruth Moher also presented the report on the Expansion of Stonebridge School and was equally complacent saying that most of the respondents to the consultation had been concerned about the future of Stonebridge Adventure Playground, swallowed up by the school expansion and accompanying regeneration. Referring to the 700 letters  received against the proposal she said that these had all been the same so didn't mean much and went on to say, about a 1,000 plus petition calling for the saving of the adventure playground, 'as we know you can get anyone to sign a petition.

Dear reader, I was moved to protest at this disparagement from a councillor who had never once visited the playground!

Cllr Pavey then jumped in to tell us all how big schools were great (he is chair of governors at the BIG Wembley Primary), the bigger the better ('massive' 'bigger the better' - is there a theme emerging here?) and suggested that Quintain with its BIG profits could be persuaded to add another form of entry or two at its proposed primary school.

Cllr Butt followed this with his usual statement. The provision of school places was a statutory responsibility and the Council owes it to residents and children to provide places: 'We will not shy away from making difficult decisions'.

So, we have to admire Brent Council for making the 'difficult' decision to close a children's playground, even though it, as well as the school,  served families and children in one of the poorest parts of London. Campaigners were never persuaded that the Council had considered the possibility of an alternative design for the  expansion of the school that kept the playground or had even tried to find it an alternative site.

And wasn't Stonebridge Adventure Playground a community asset?

The meeting concluded with a refreshingly eloquent presentation by Cllr Eleanor Southwood, the new lead member for the environment. It was not about her portfolio but a report from a Scrutiny Committee task group that she led on the pupil premium and how it is used in Brent schools.

Cllr Southwood  said that the group had looked at case studies and talked to pupils not just about the impact on attainment but on enjoyment of school and the broadening of horizons.

The good practice described in the report will be shared with the Brent Schools Partnership.

Risks involved in Brent Youth Service changes include £5m loss on Roundwood Youth Centre

The Cabinet on June 1st will consider a paper on the future of Brent Youth Service. LINK The Council has committed to cuts of 71%: £100k in 2016-17 and a massive £900k in 2016-17. This will result in a cut of  £1m compared to 2015 on net expenditure (£414,394 in 2016-17 compared with £1,414,34 in 2014-15).

They propose a 'third sector;' solution through the setting up of an independent organisation - 'The Young Brent Foundation' which would have charitable status. The Foundation would work with a range of voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities and attempt to draw in support from grants and sponsorship.

The John Lyon Trust has told the Council it will welcome an application for a three grant of  £100k per annum to support core funding costs while the paper suggests running costs will be £177k per annum.

Although replete with vision and priorities based on the needs of the most vulnerable the paper does not disguise the risks inherent in the strategy.

The paper states that the running costs of the four youth centres (Granville, Poplar Grove, Roundwood and Wembley) cannot be met. They suggest a community asset transfer for Roundwood and activities by different providers under licenses or short-term occupation at the other centres.

They state: 'If no opportunities are identified for the Granville and Wembley youth centres, the Youth Service will have to consider vacating the premises as there will be no funding available within the budget envelope to pay for the running costs.'

Following discussion of the 'risks and delivery issues' associated with community asset transfers the report states:

In the case of the Roundwood Centre current restrictions on the hours and type of use will also limit commercial opportunities for any new provider. An obvious implication is that there is a risk that youth centre provision at Roundwood would cease from April 2016 if a transfer was not achieved.

...If the Council is not able to fund or secure an alternative provider to run youth provision at Roundwood, the Council could also be required to repay, in full or in part, the National Lottery grant of £4.997m which was used to support the development of the centre.

Readers will remember that the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground also involves a payback to the National Lottery.

The paper proposes the continuation of the Brent Youth Parliament at a cost of £60k per annum  because of its 'valuable role in within the Council's decision making process'  with its transfer to the corporate team in the Chief Operating Officer's department.

This is an interesting move as one would expect the Youth Parliament to be at the forefront of a campaign to save the youth service and thus assert its independence, while at the same time the proposals ensure the YP's own survival.

The Youth Parliament, if the Cabinet accepts the proposals, will be part of a consultation on the proposals that start this month and will culminate in the strategy for the future of the service to go to Cabinet in October 2015.  The paper notes that a Full Council decision may be required.

In the budget discussions earlier this year the Council managed to deflect concerns about the future of the youth service, which initially seemed to entail the total closure of the service, through this review. Although they will argue that this does not amount to total closure it clearly may eventually result in something very close to that.

A 'mumble for Mo' as assault on children and young people is approved by Brent Cabinet

It is customary in government, when spending priorities are being decided,  for each departmental minister to make the case for his or her department to the Treasury and to the Cabinet. Their effectiveness can be gauged by their success,

Transferring that to Brent Council level it was clear at tonight's Cabinet meeting that Ruth Moher, lead member for children and families appeared to have been particularly ineffective. Putting aside Children's Centres, which are Michael Pavey's passion, the main losers were children and young people.

The proposals that could wipe out Youth Provision in Brent

The possible cuts in the Youth Service in Brent are causing great concern.  As you can see above there are two alternatives but in essence the first (CYP3)  postpones most of the cuts until 2015-17 and the second (CYP17) make them in 2015-16.

The report (below) suggests looking for alternative sources of funding but this would need to be fully explored to ensure that it is sustainable and would make up for the Council's cuts. (Unlikely in my view)

THE PROPOSALS

Proposed savings (cuts)

CYP3: The first tranche of savings (£100k) would be achieved for 15/16 by deleting a managerial post and an operational post as well a s reducing the budgets which support activities, such as printing and publicity. From November also the Youth  Service is part of a Cabinet Office ‘Delivering Differently for Young People’ Programme. This funds a rapid process of developing a set of options for a new delivery model. In particular, officers have proposed exploring through this programme the development of a ‘youth trust’ for Brent which could access funding which currently neither the council nor Brent’s you h voluntary sector organisations are able to access. This could put Brent’s youth provision on a more sustainable footing, with the ‘youth trust’ able to act as a consortium lead and enabler for local organisations as well as being a delivery vehicle, using the expertise of Brent’s experienced and skilled youth workers. As part of this process, alternative funding sources could be identified to mitigate the loss of services from the budget reduction of £900k in 16/17.

CYP17:This option terminates all Youth Service spend for 15/16. This would involve making all the staff redundant (full time and sessional workers as well as managers). The services terminated would be: 

Outreach and Detached Team and Youth Bus – which has a key preventative role in relation to youth disorder and gang violence Poplar Grove Youth Club – year round provision targeting young people from Chalkhill and surrounding areas. 

Mosaic LGBT Project – award winning provision for a key group of young people

liable to risk and discrimination Duke of Edinburgh Award – Brent is a very successful provider with a high success rate

Granville Youth Arts Centre – youth arts provision which supports re engagement in education and work 

Brent in Summer – the youth contribution to this programme has good attendance

Brent Youth Parliament

Wembley Youth Centre – high quality provision 

Funded with £5m from the Big Lottery - opened November 2012

Roundwood Youth Centre LINK would have to be transferred to an organisation willing to meet all running costs and TUPE relevant staff since closure would require very large scale repayment of government grant.  Some of the above services have partial external funding and with alternative funding sources being found, some provision could remain and officers would work with partners to ensure this. 


The council has a statutory duty to provide sufficient activities for young people but does not have to provide them itself. Some councils have almost terminated their youth offer and simply put a signposting page on their website. 

How would this affect users of this service?   

Young people in Brent experience high levels of deprivation, high levels of gang and serious youth violence, high levels of youth offending (especially more serious offences), high levels of mortality in the under 17 age group and high levels of sexually transmitted diseases. 

The current youth provision is located in areas of highest deprivation and is able to target crime hotspots, including key estates. It also supports young people who have arrived as unaccompanied minors, LGBT young people who are at risk of mental health issues and homelessness as well as young people who are at risk of radicalisation and involvement in gangs. There is significant work with young Afghani males and young males from Somali communities. There are also programmes targeting young females.

Young people involved in our provision, especially the Duke of Edinburgh award, contribute at least 5,000 hours of volunteering to the local community. 

The loss of Brent Youth Parliament would reduce young people in Brent’s opportunity to participate not just locally but nationally through the UK Youth Parliament.

Key milestones 

CYP3:

Consult on staff reorganisation in December 2014 to deliver savings for April 2015 Options appraisal from Delivering Differently for Young People – February 2015, with report to Cabinet on proposed option for future delivery of youth provision – March or April 2015.

CYP17:

Consult with local communities (especially Brent Youth Parliament) on cessation of youth services/closure of youth facilities – January and February at the same time as consulting staff on redundancy/redeployment. 

Approach schools and other organisations for buy back of youth services

Key consultations 

Whatever option is taken forward, there will need t o be extensive consultation with young people and service users including groups who may be particularly affected. 

Young people, especially those from BME groups, will be disproportionately affected as well as LGBT young people and young people with special educational needs.

Key risks and mitigations 

The council will need to be mindful of the November2013 ruling by the Court of Appeal that North Somerset Council acted unlawfully when it cut its youth service budget by 72 per cent. The learning from this is that there must be adequate consultation and consideration (through equality impact assessment etc) of the needs of vulnerable users. 

Youth services are essentially part of the council’ s ‘early help’ offer and therefore contribute to preventing young people causing spending down the line through crime, anti social behaviour, social care, poor mental health etc. 

There is also potential for ‘capital clawback’ on certain buildings e.g. Roundwood Youth Centre was built with Big Lottery funding.  

The Council Equality Impact Screening lists the following groups  to have a 'disproportionate adverse impact' From the proposals:

Disabled people, particular ethnic groups, men or women, people of particular sexual orientation, people undergoing gender reassignment, particular age groups and those with particular faiths or beliefs.

The proposal go first to Cabinet on December 15th and then follow the timetable set out in the side panel