Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction
1. This is the second evidence gathering session for the CPB Scrutiny Panel
in relation to the partnership activity for young people who are not in
employment, education or training (NEETs). At the first session, the Panel
heard from representatives from Job Centre Plus, the Careers Service and
a third sector representative who had run several projects with those NEET
young people who are hardest to hear. The Panel also scrutinised the
Thriving and Prosperous Economy Programme’s partnership activity and
explored some of the issues relating to NEETs with the relevant officers.
2. From their scrutiny the Panel heard the following key messages:
The Youth Engagement and Progression Framework (YEPF) is now
the key Welsh Government document in relation to NEETS.
There are two new offers to young people through the Framework.
The first is the allocation of single point of contact (a lead
worker) to the most at-risk young people to help ensure that
support is delivered in a joined up and coordinated way and that
works to meet their needs.
The second is the development of a proactive and positive
Youth Guarantee that will help to ensure that every young
person has access to a suitable place in learning post-16.
Cardiff Partnership Board Scrutiny Panel Evidence gathering around Young People who are Not in Employment Education or Training (NEET)
Cover report Tuesday 18th February
County Hall, 3pm Committee Room 3
The YEPF makes the local authority accountable for a young person’s
engagement status with the Careers Service monitoring the young
person’s guarantee.
There is now a five tier monitoring model in place and it was felt that
the assessment of where a young person is on the scale must be
conducted in partnership.
The importance of having a dedicated key worker that young people
are happy to approach and plan with was emphasised by all witnesses.
3. Some of the key issues that witnesses identified in relation to partnership
working were:
The importance and difficulties of sharing information between schools,
colleges, third sector organisations, the Careers Service and Job
Centre Plus.
This relates not just to general statistical information but also to
personal information that could help organisations work more
effectively with that young person.
How effective information sharing protocols with an emphasis on
implied consent rather than explicit consent can help alleviate data
protection issues relating to personal data.
That mapping provisions was important, but analysing that map and
ensuring the right services were in the right places was the next vital
step.
Organisations need to be aware of the different limitations of their
funding and provisions, e.g. Job Centre Plus difficulties working with
European funded projects for their work centre programmes.
CPB partners need to consider what they can do as an organisation to
help address the issue of NEETs.
4. These were some of the key findings of the last meeting and will be
included in the final report to help provide recommendations. Whilst the
Panel learnt a great deal about the Partnership agenda in relation to
NEETs they also felt that they required additional information about the
transition from secondary education to further education and / or
employment. The Panel will therefore hear from external witnesses to help
inform them of some of the latest practice in these areas and how
partnership working can help improve transitions and reduce the number of
NEETs. The witnesses attending this meeting are:
John Phelps and David Brookes - Coleg Morganwwg - To provide
information on how their colleges work with NEETs, schools and
employers.
Emma Pike - Keeping In Touch (KIT) coordinator from Swansea - To give
evidence on how KIT works with schools and colleges to ensure a smooth
transition of young people from standard to further education or
employment.
Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours - To discuss their recent research report on
partnership working in the 14 - 19 pathways sphere in London (a summary
of this is provided in the additional information). The full report can be
found at http://www.ioe.ac.uk/14-19_partnership_report_Final_22-5-13.pdf
5. The Panel also wanted to hear from young people who are currently (or
have been) NEET. Therefore in the final part of the meeting young people
have been invited to give their views on being NEET and where things
could be improved.
6. All of the information provided by these witnesses will help in the Panel’s
scrutiny of the CPB and relevant partners in the final NEETs meeting in
March. The Panel are therefore advised to think of relevant areas of
questioning which will help improve their knowledge of partnership working
of the NEET agenda and effectively scrutinise the CPB.
7. To help assist the Panel in this area, some additional information has been
provided below. This is taken from some of the latest European and British
studies into NEETs, and the Panel are asked to consider their potential
impact on the local partnership agenda.
Additional information
The three reports summarised below all take a slightly different perspective on
issues relating to NEETs. The first is a study from London which explored
partnership working in the 14 – 19 sphere and highlights some of the
challenges being faced in this area. This highlights some very important
aspects of partnership working which may be directly transferable to Cardiff.
The second report is a study that explored the NEET agenda across Europe
and looks at where there were similar issues and how different organisations
can help to address them. Despite being focused across Europe there are
again lessons which are relevant at a local partnership level.
The final report gives the Institute for Public Policy Research perspective on
the type of reforms that are required to address the NEETs situation in the
UK. Once again there are many recommendations which relate to the UK
government but also an emphasis on what is required locally. Some of the
reforms are also quite dramatic and may help the Panel to think ‘outside the
box’ when exploring what partnership work can achieve in relation to young
people who are NEET.
‘Rebuilding and extending 14 -19 partnership working in London to improve participation, progression and transition for young people May 2013’ – a Summary
Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours, Centre for Post-14 Research and Innovation, Institute of Education, University of London
8. The Panel will be hearing from Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours at the
meeting. However, as their recent study focussed on partnership working
and young people’s progression, it may be useful for the Panel to consider
the summary of their work.
9. The report focused on 14 -19 partnership working across London and
wanted to map the current condition of partnership organization and
activity. The research also explored ways in which collaboration might be
developed to improve opportunities for young people in the current national
and regional contexts.
10. The research methodology comprised a mix of desk research; an
electronic questionnaire sent to all local authority (LA) 14 -19 leads;
consultations with 14 -19 leads representing 20 boroughs and two
feedback events.
11. The main findings of the research which are of most relevance to the Panel
were:
That partnership working in London has been taking place against a
challenging economic and political background. There have been
significant changes to the14-19 curriculum and qualifications,
institutional and governance arrangements, and performance
measures. These changes have taken place alongside reductions in
local authority expenditure.
Local authorities are still statutorily responsible for ensuring that there
is adequate 14 -19 provision for the whole range of learners in their
area and have a central role in supporting Raising the Participation Age
(RPA) to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015. They are therefore having to
explore new ways of carrying out these functions.
An analytical framework for mapping and analysing the breadth and
depth of partnership working across London was produced. This
framework is attached in Appendix A. The Panel may wish to explore
whether this framework could be used to assess the effectiveness
of partnership working in Cardiff.
The national context has affected all London boroughs differently.
Some partnerships have fared better than others. This has depended
on:
the rootedness of 14 -19 collaboration;
the degree of trust between education providers and the local authority
(LA);
the level of local political commitment to the 14 -19 phase;
how adversely a particular LA has been affected by expenditure cuts;
how far schools have been prepared to work with and buy back LA
services.
12. Following a difficult period between 2010 -12, there now appears to be an
upward trajectory of 14 -19 partnership activity based on the need to
implement the Raising of the Participation Age (RPA); the emergence of a
post -16 performance agenda linked to Ofsted; responses to continued
government reform in this area; and the pressing need to tackle youth
unemployment.
13. The research suggests that this resurgence could be attributed to:
Commitment by elected members and senior LA officers.
Local Authority leads rebuilding a 14 -19 team by co-ordinating the
efforts of officers with related roles (eg those with responsibility for
school improvement, apprenticeship and economic development or the
youth service).
14 -19 leads acting as a ‘champion for young people’, fostering good
relationships and taking an even-handed approach to all providers.
The fostering of good relationships between the LA and education and
training providers, with an emphasis on personal contact and
networking.
Being a source of data and up-to-date and reliable information about
national, pan-London and local policy.
Being prepared to adapt 14 -19 partnerships in terms of structures and
ways of working.
Using current national policy agendas (e.g. RPA) in an expansive way.
Gaining education provider buy-in either through subscriptions or
through seed-corn funding and then goodwill.
Carefully reading different policy contexts in order to initiate new
initiatives and forums for engaging local institutions and other key
stakeholders.
14. At the same time new challenges and potential foci are emerging that will
require further innovation such as:
Apprenticeships and opportunities for youth employment.
14 -19 curriculum and qualifications changes, with particular attention
being paid to what has been termed the ‘overlooked middle’.
The development of a stronger vocational learning offer across
London.
A focus on post-16 performance and improvements in teaching and
learning.
Links between education/training and economic regeneration agendas.
Cross-borough working to realize efficiency gains and to address
issues on a wider scale.
Learning from the rich and diverse practice in relation to 14 -19
activities taking place across London.
15. The Panel may wish to consider these findings and how they may be
relevant to the Cardiff partnership situation. It may also be useful to
examine the framework in Appendix A and assess if this would be
beneficial to use in the Cardiff context.
16. This report summary is obviously quite specific to London but may have
similarities to the partnership situation in Cardiff, as partnership issues are
often similar across geographical boundaries. However there have been
two other recent reports into NEETs which provide a wider geographical
exploration of the issues faced by young people who are NEET, and some
suggested potential solutions. The first looks at the issues of NEETs
across Europe and where the main problems are. The second explores
some potential solutions to NEET problems in the UK at both the national
government and local level. These two documents are summarised in the
next sections.
Education to Employment: Getting Europe’s Youth Back Into Work - a Summary Mourshed et al (2013)
17. One of the key findings from the research across Europe was that lack of
jobs was not the main contributor to the number of NEETs but rather the
lack of skills and experience. The study found that the lack of availability of
jobs in Europe is part of the problem, but was from the whole story. In
many countries, the number of people employed has actually remained
steady, and in some countries, increased, since 2005. The study found
that while there are more people looking for work, employers in Europe
cannot find the skills they need. Furthermore, there was also found to be
greater competition for jobs for younger people, who are disadvantaged by
their lack of proven experience.
18. So, why is it that young people are not getting the skills that employers
need? One reason that the study points to is the failure of employers,
education providers, and young people to understand one another,
as they operate in “parallel universes.” The study found that in Europe, 74
percent of education providers were confident that their graduates were
prepared for work, but only 38 percent of youth and 35 percent of
employers agreed.
19. The report identified three key ‘intersections’ on the education-to-
employment (E2E) pathway:
enrolling in postsecondary education;
building the right skills; and
finding a suitable job.
The authors concluded that in Europe there are roadblocks at each of
these three intersections.
20. With regards post-secondary education, the most significant barrier in
Europe is cost. In a number of countries, non academic, vocational
courses are not subsidized and can therefore be prohibitively expensive.
Students also lack information: except in Germany, less than 25 percent
said they received sufficient information on post-secondary courses and
careers to guide their decisions. And finally, most of those surveyed said
they perceived a social bias against vocational education; less than half
of those who wanted to undertake a vocational course actually did so.
21. At the second intersection, young people are often not learning a sufficient
portfolio of general skills while they study, with employers reporting a
particular shortage of soft skills such as spoken communication and work
ethic. Employers and providers are not working together closely to
address this.
22. At the final intersection, young people find the transition to work difficult.
Many lack access to career-support services at their post-secondary
institution. Many more do not pursue a work placement, in spite of this
being a good predictor of how quickly a young person will find a job after
his or her studies are completed.
The impact of Small Businesses
23. The E2E structure is not just failing for young people, but also has a
significant impact on small businesses. Small firms were found to be more
likely than large ones to report problems in their business due to lack of
skills. They also have the greatest problems in identifying and recruiting
new staff and are less likely to work with education providers or other
employers to tackle their skills problems.
Solutions
Innovate the design, course delivery, and financing to make education
more affordable and accessible.
24. The authors argue that the cost and structure of post secondary education
needs to be reformed. To reduce the cost of courses, one solution is to
break up degree or vocational programs into individual modules that focus
on building a particular set of skills while still counting toward a degree or
formal qualification.
25. These modules would be short (weeks or months) and self-contained,
enabling young people to combine and sequence them in the order that
makes most sense for their career aspirations. This model also enables
young people to take a break in their studies to work for a period, and then
return and pick up where they left off.
Focus young people, employers, and education providers on improving
employment readiness.
26. Young people, employers, and providers must change how they think
about the E2E process. To make rational decisions, young people need to
think more strategically about their futures. Students need more and
better-quality information about different career paths, and need to be
motivated to use it.
27. To improve student prospects, education providers should work more
closely with employers to make sure they are offering courses that really
help young people prepare for the workplace. Employers cannot wait for
the right applicants to show up at their doorsteps. In the most effective
interventions, employers and education providers work closely to
design curricula that fit business needs; employers may even
participate in teaching, by providing instructors.
28. Employers might also consider increasing the availability of work
placements and opportunities for practical learning. Larger enterprises
may be able to go further, by setting up training academies to improve
required skills for both themselves and their suppliers.
Sharing information.
29. Despite the large amount of employment data currently available there
remains a deficit in knowledge about where employment
opportunities lay across Europe. The report advocates the creation of a
“system integrator” to gather and share information on the most salient
metrics: job forecasts by profession, youth job-placement rates, employer
satisfaction with the graduates of different programmes, etc. The system
integrator should also identify and share examples of successful programs
and work with employers and educators to create sectoral or regional
solutions based on these.
Reducing costs.
30. There is a recognition of the cost of apprenticeships and other training and
placement opportunities on employers and governments. The report
argues that technological solutions can also help to compensate for
shortages of apprenticeships and other forms of short-term work
placements.
31. “Serious games”, for example, that mimic the workplace context, are low-
cost, low-risk ways for students to receive a personalized learning
experience through repeated “play” of the game. While not a full substitute
for an actual apprenticeship, this approach can offer a substantial step
forward in providing the applied skills that employers say young people
lack. Furthermore, such initiatives can be made available to greater
numbers of young people without needing to find more employers to
provide work placements.
32. The report concludes with two main recommendations on what role the
European Union can play in alleviating the issues and making practical
progress:
Information.
33. The authors argue that the European Union could develop and share a
more comprehensive labour-market platform incorporating the most
relevant data to capture employment trends in each sector and region.
This would help institutional decision makers, employers, and job seekers
make better decisions. This could take the form of helping users
understand the implications of the data—whether on the courses they
should offer as an education provider or the skills gaps they should try to
fill as a group of employers within an industry.
Sharing relevant practices on matching labour-market demand and
supply.
34. The authors feel that the European Union is in the best position to take the
lead on helping national public-employment services compare their
successful interventions, and then disseminate and promote those that are
relevant to similar-context countries.
35. As much of the information from this report relates to Europe it may seem
difficult to see the relevance to the Cardiff partnership context. However
there are a number of themes in this report which also emerge in the next
report ‘No more NEETs’. These will be summarized at the end of this
report and the Panel are asked to consider them when exploring the
partnership agenda in relation to NEETs in Cardiff.
‘No more NEETs’ – A Plan for all Young People to be Earning or Learning - Cooke (2013) – a summary
36. The final report which is summarised in this section is called No More
NEETs. It was written by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) and
identifies what the author feels are some of the biggest challenges for
NEETs, as well as solutions to these problems. The passages below are a
summary from this report. The full report can be found at
http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/11516/no-more-neets-a-plan-for-all-
young-people-to-be-learning-or-earning
37. Cooke (2013) argues that the key priorities for young people should be to
acquire a solid initial education and practical work experience. However he
feels that back-to-work services are not organised around either of these
factors and instead focus on monitoring people’s job-search activity.
Furthermore he feels that further education courses remain of variable
quality, with qualifications that are not always valued in the labour market.
Employer engagement is also patchy, with too few firms offering
apprenticeships. Echoing the Mourshed et al (2014), Cooke argues that
these issues are compounded by deep dissatisfaction among the business
community concerning the employability of young people.
38. Much like the current Cardiff Council Administration, Cooke strongly
believes that the goal for society should be to eliminate all but the most
temporary experience of being NEET among young people. He recognises
that this will require close working between a number of bodies, including
central and local government, schools, colleges, employers and the
voluntary sector – not to mention young people themselves.
The solutions
39. Cooke argues that there should be a distinct learning and earning track for
young people built around three core reforms, the combination of which
‘would collapse the division between educational and employment
pathways for young people, prevent a drift into long-term inactivity, and
spread the principle of mutual obligations, or ‘give and take’. They would
also mobilise the energy and leadership of local areas to support their
young people’.
Reform 1 – Changing youth benefits:
40. A youth allowance should replace existing out-of-work benefits for 18–24
year-olds and provide financial support for young people who need it. This
would be conditional on participation in purposeful training or an intensive
job search. Furthermore, access to inactive benefits should be closed off
for all but a very small minority.
41. There should also be a presumption that young people are housed by their
parents until they are over 21, with exceptions for those with a child, a
disability or in employment. Under this reform, entitlement to Job Seekers
Allowance (JSA), Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and income
support for under -25s should be ended, given that none of these benefits
is capable of serving young people’ s distinctive needs.
42. In their place, a youth allowance should be made available to young
people who need financial help while they gain skills or seek work,
conditional on participation in agreed activities. It would also mean those
under-25s who currently claim ESA or income support moving on to an
active and reciprocal system of financial assistance, but not one with a
narrow focus on immediate labour market entry.
43. However, the aim should not be to provide extra resources to young
people in continued learning who have other means of financial support.
Therefore the youth allowance should be subject to a means test on the
basis of parental income until a young person is over 21, with minor
exemptions. Furthermore, until young people are over the age of 21,
access to housing benefit should be subject to an assessment of whether
they could be housed – or be supported to be housed – by their parents.
44. There should not be an automatic right to receive support with housing
costs from the benefit system for those in this age group who are out of
work or studying. This principle should include exemptions for those with
children or a disability, in employment, unintentionally homeless or
estranged from their parents. There would also be a case for making
receipt of housing benefit and child tax credit conditional on participation in
learning or job-search for those young people not also receiving youth
allowance.
Reform 2 – The establishment of a Youth Guarantee.
45. Much like the Youth and Engagement and Progression Framework (YEPF)
in Wales, Cooke advocates the establishment of a young person’s
guarantee. However, he goes further than the YEPF arguing that a youth
guarantee should be established that offers young people access to further
education or vocational training plus intensive support to find work or an
apprenticeship.
46. Furthermore, for those not learning or earning after six months, paid work
experience and traineeships should be provided, with no option to refuse
and continue receiving the youth allowance.
47. Cook argues that the personal adviser model should be central to the
youth guarantee. Advisers should be responsible for working consistently
with young people to identify life aspirations and specific goals, codified in
a personal contract that underpins receipt of the youth allowance. This
should treat young people as individuals, rather than administering
standardised ‘doses’ of support based on benefit category.
48. The youth guarantee would ensure that young people can complete their
initial education and gain practical employability skills, while not drifting into
inactivity. To pay for this substantial expansion of provision for young
people, expenditure on 18–24-year-olds in the Work Programme should be
re-directed, along with adult skills and apprenticeship funding for over-24s.
In addition, parents’ entitlement to child benefit and child tax credit should
cease at the end of the school year after their child has turned 18.
49. To ensure that the youth allowance is successful in promoting participation
in meaningful activity, Cooke argues that it must underpin good-quality
learning and earning opportunities for young people. Therefore
responsibility is placed on training providers as well as the young people
themselves.
50. Under such a system, the clear offer to young people should be advice and
guidance from day one, with learning or work guaranteed within six
months. In return, the obligation on young people should be to participate
meaningfully or forfeit entitlement to the youth allowance. The path for
young people within the youth guarantee should depend on their own
circumstances and be agreed with a personal adviser, guided by a set of
broad principles.
51. Once young people are over 21, the focus should shift strongly towards
labour market entry, with any learning directly related to a specific
occupational pathway or job opportunity. Work trials with employers;
support to become self-employed or to start a business should also be
made available. If young people are not learning or earning after six
months, they should be provided with up to six months of paid work
experience or a paid traineeship. There would be no option to refuse and
continue receiving youth allowance.
52. This would require a dramatic increase in the number of good-quality
apprenticeships, in both the private and public sectors. This means that
employers must also recognise their role in the reduction of NEETs
and the development of young people. Indeed Cooke strongly
emphasises this point by putting considerable responsibility on employers
in these reforms. He argues that to increase opportunity and drive
employer engagement, large firms that do not offer apprenticeships for
young people should pay a ‘youth levy’ to train and prepare the future
workforce. The levy would be in proportion to a company’s size, and
resources raised should be controlled by employers, via Local Employment
Partnerships (LEPs) and used to fund vocational training and
apprenticeships, potentially focused on supporting smaller firms. These
moves should be combined with a major drive to ensure that all large
public sector employers offer good-quality apprenticeships for young
people.
53. Under such a system, employers would not only have obligations in this
relationship. As an incentive to provide apprenticeships and placements,
Cooke argues that employers should be central to the governing and
commissioning of the youth guarantee. They could then oversee the type
and standard of training available and help commission where there are
local gaps in training needs. This could create an incentive for employers
to actively engage in school-to-work transition arrangements in their area
to gain further knowledge of the type of skills being taught and the offers
available to local young people.
Reform 3 - Local solutions
54. Cooke’s final reform would see the government setting national objectives
and priorities for the youth guarantee, but the leadership of local areas
being responsible for the organisation and delivery of it. He argues that
cities should establish strong governance arrangements, including a
central role for employers, along with plans for commissioning a diverse
network of local providers.
55. The personal adviser model should be paramount and data on
performance against headline national objectives should be regularly
published. There is also the need to overcome the gap between the
employment and education sectors for young people, rather than trying to
work around it.
56. Therefore, the ambition should be the mobilisation of local areas to take
responsibility for supporting their young people, within agreed national
goals for the youth guarantee. This would make it possible to bring
together all those with a stake in supporting young people in that area and
to bridge institutional divides between employment support and further
education provision in particular parts of the country.
57. Cooke observes that many local areas have recently taken the initiative in
responding to rising youth unemployment. A number have established
apprenticeship agencies, youth employment commissions or intermediate
labour market programmes to support their young people. There is
evidence of a real appetite to act on this issue within local government, as
well as the foundations of new local institutional arrangements.
58. Governance arrangements should reach across traditional service and
professional boundaries, with local authorities, employers, colleges,
welfare-to-work providers, trade unions and young people themselves
represented. Within this, clear lines of executive decision-making,
responsibility and accountability would need to be agreed, with local
authorities, employers (ideally via the Local Enterprise Partnerships) and
young people in the lead.
59. They should also cultivate and engage with a diverse base of provider
organisations, enabling them to commission a range of educational
provision and back-to-work support, as well as linking in other statutory
funding and services. This should include more specialist organisations,
such as those working with young people who face substance abuse,
housing, debt or mental health problems. Local areas should also develop
‘shadow’ school-to-work transition institutions – led by local authorities and
engaging employers via the LEP – to advise on or co-commission this
provision.
60. A key goal of these reforms should be to improve the quality of further
education and apprenticeships, building on moves already underway.
Apprenticeships should be restricted to new hires that are working towards
a recognised qualification, with substantial off-the-job learning (increasingly
over a minimum of two years and at level 3). A reformed school-to-work
transition system should also develop proactive strategies for engaging
with young people identified as at risk of becoming NEET when they leave
school or college.
Key Themes from the reports:
61. The three reports summarized above all look at similar issues from a
different geographical perspective. The first was an in depth study into
partnership working relating to 14 – 19 pathways in London. The second
was an exploration of the issues facing NEETs across the Europe. The
third explored potential solutions to NEETs in the UK through considerable
reform. However, despite their different perspectives and foci, there are
definite themes which emerge across all of the reports which the panel
may wish to consider when exploring the partnership issues in Cardiff.
These are summarised below:
The importance of Information
62. All of the reports emphasise the importance of information in addressing
the NEETs issue. This is in respect of collating the right information,
sharing information between partners and analysing information to shape
provisions. Some of the key areas highlighted from the reports were:
The importance of sharing information on good practice, across
Europe, the UK and in local areas.
Providing effective information to young people on the opportunities
available locally as well as the skills required for the jobs they have an
interest in.
Having accurate data on employment trends across Europe,
nationally and locally so that young people can assess which
professions / skills might be most appropriate.
Sharing information about a young person throughout their education
and employment journey, from school, to college, through careers, JCP
etc to allow for a individual informed support based on need.
All organisations being aware of what provisions are aware to support
young people locally.
63. Importantly the reports not only underline the importance of data, but also
that this data needs to be analysed and actions taken as a result of that
work. Eg training providers developing courses resulting from skills
analysis data. Provisions being commissioned / de commissioned resulting
from the analysis of local geographical provisions.
Key workers
64. This issue was covered in the literature review provided for the last
meeting so there is more detail provided in that briefing paper. However
the latest reports also emphasise the role of having a key or lead worker
who the young person sees as a first point of contact for their development
needs. This is seen to help reduce the confusion that a young person may
have with a plethora of agencies providing support and training etc. Indeed
greater emphasis is put on a key worker to help devise a training /
development / employment plan which the young people can agree to
which is tailored to their individual needs.
Carrot and stick approach
65. The literature also appears to emphasise the importance of giving young
people the right and expectation of having appropriate provisions for
training, development and employment. However there is also a
recognition that young people themselves have obligations and
responsibilities to engage and be pro active in the process. There is
therefore a suggestion that more funds should be made available to
provide appropriate support for young people, but also that those young
people who do not engage in the process should not be entitled to those
monies.
66. This approach is not only applied to young people. There are also
suggestions that employers should have the right to a workforce of
appropriately skilled young people. However the literature also emphasises
that employers should not be passive participants expecting the right
people to just arrive. Rather employers need to be involved in trying to
shape training and education and working with schools and further
education institutions to ensure young people are skilled in the right areas.
Furthermore there is an emphasis on employers to provide more
apprenticeships and development opportunities and even a suggestion of
a levy for those who don’t.
Partnership working
67. The importance of all agencies and organisations involved in the NEET
agenda working together is something which is paramount throughout all
of the literature. Due to the scale and the nature of the different issues
involved, all of the authors recognise the need for European, national and
local governments to work with education providers, the third sector,
employers, young people and other relevant groups and agencies to
address the issues. This is again an area which was highlighted in the
previous literature but was reinforced in these latest reports. Indeed the
issue of the right partners communicating effectively really stands out from
these reports. Effective communication is key, and the feeling that
employers, education providers and young people often operate in a
parallel universe, really needs to be addressed.
Opportunities and obligations
68. One of the key themes from the literature is that the NEETs issue is not the
responsibility of any one group or agency. People cannot just sit back and
expect someone else to solve the problem. Rather everyone has to take
responsibility and play a part in helping to solve this cross cutting issue. In
fact much of the literature emphasises that many partners have certain
opportunities in relation to the issue, but alongside these opportunities
come responsibilities and obligations. Some examples the potential
opportunities and obligations are listed below. It might be useful for the
Panel to consider if they agree with these and, if so, how they could be
developed in the Cardiff context. The Panel may also think of further
groups who need to be involved and what their opportunities and
obligations may be.
Employers
Should have the opportunity to have a skilled workforce who can meet
their needs.
Should be able to grow to provide jobs to young people.
Should be involved in identifying skills gaps in young people currently
trying to access work.
Could help shape provision of education and courses to meet skills gaps.
Could provide more apprenticeships / work placement opportunities.
Could commission skills providers if in charge of funds or guide provision
of skills if consulted.
Local government
Can provide information and figures on local provisions.
Can commission services to help meet skills gaps.
Should help coordinate the provision of services to young people.
Can help monitor and feedback.
National Government
Can expect the vast majority of young people to be earning or learning.
Can reform welfare payments for young people to provide a more
‘carrot and stick’ approach ie paying to provide appropriate support but
reducing payments to those who refuse support.
Can monitor national statistics and set national targets.
Can reduce bureaucracy and central control.
Can empower local organisations to deliver against national targets
Can try and change perceptions of vocational courses / training so they
are viewed in the same light as university.
Further Education providers
Can expect young people to have the relevant skills to access courses.
Should ensure they are providing courses which are relevant to
employers.
Can work with local employers to ensure they are providing the right
areas of skills that are required.
Careers service
Could be the lead worker for the majority of young people tailoring
appropriate development plans depending on individual needs.
Can expect young people to engage and want to know the employment
/ training opportunities available to them.
Can provide advice on local training and apprenticeship opportunities.
Can provide information on the types of skills / qualifications required
for certain jobs.
Can feed information on local employment opportunities into schools
and to young people directly.
Job Centre Plus
Can provide information on the current trends in employment.
Can monitor young people past the age of 18 and take on the lead
responsibility for a young person past that age.
Should be aware of all the training the employment opportunities
available for young people in an area.
Should provide appropriate individual support dependant on need.
Young People
Should have the expectation to be either earning or learning past the
age of 16.
Should not expect benefit payments without making efforts to be in
appropriate training or work.
Should be pro active and engaged in finding the skills and
requirements needed for work.
Should have the right to appropriate individual support depending on
circumstances.
Should be provided with relevant data about employment opportunities
in their area and beyond to help inform their career / development path.
The Third Sector
Should fill gaps in provision which have been identified by research or
through community knowledge.
Should provide high quality bespoke services which statutory agencies
either no longer supply or are now commissioning.
Should expect to be included in any strategic or commissioning
discussions around the NEET agenda.
Should expect to be suitably funded over a sustainable period to
provide stability to workers and young people alike.
Can look for external pots of funding to expand / improve service
delivery.
Can adapt and innovate to ensure young people are getting the best
possible provisions.
References
Cooke, G. (2013) - ‘No more NEETS’ – A Plan for all Young People to be
Earning or Learning – Institute of Public Policy Research -
http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/11516/no-more-neets-a-plan-for-all-young-
people-to-be-learning-or-earning
Hodgson, A; Spours, K. (2013) - Rebuilding and extending 14-19 partnership
working in London to improve participation, progression and transition for
young people - http://www.ioe.ac.uk/14-19_partnership_report_Final_22-5-
13.pdf
Mourshed, M; Patel, J; Suder; K. (2014) - Education to Employment: Getting
Europe’s Youth Back Into Work -
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/Social_Sector/Converting_education_to_e
mployment_in_Europe?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1401
Welsh Government (2013) – Youth Engagement and Progression Framework
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/skillsandtraining/youthengageme
nt/?lang=en
Appendix A – Analytical Grid for mapping 14 – 19 partnership organisation activity
Partnership organization
Low Medium High
1. Partnership history/background
Weak partnership history – affected by increased competition
History of partnership but not developing in the new context
History of partnership & reshaped in the current policy context
2. Structure No main partnership, but some groups
14-19 partnership but undeveloped infrastructure
Developed 14-19 partnership with working groups
3. Leadership No designated 14-19 lead person
14-19 lead but with diverse responsibilities
Dedicated 14-19 lead & team
4. Seniority of membership
Senior managers not represented on 14-19 partnership
Limited senior management participation
Senior managers playing an active part in all aspects of partnership
5. Meetings, communication & decision-making
Infrequent meetings, information sharing
Regular scheduled meetings – primarily discussions
Calendar of meetings – info sharing, discussions and decision-making
6. Role of local authority LA taking hands off stance towards 14-19 with little support from institutions
LA supportive but having to scale back on 14-19 – varied institutional support
Proactive LA & actively supporting 14-19 agenda with institutional buy-in
7. Range & commitment of partners (e.g. schools, colleges, WBL providers, employers, HE, Connexions, LA, regeneration agencies)
Limited involvement from all partners
All education providers involved but not all wider stakeholders
All relevant partners involved
8. Mission and purposes
No clearly defined mission and purposes
Mission & purposes defined but not driving partnership actions
Mission & purposes regularly reviewed and guiding actions
9. Focus/breadth of collaboration
Limited focus (e.g. RPA, CEIAG, NEETs) linked to national agendas
Mainly focused on national policy, limited local agenda
Comprehensive focus linked to national and local agendas
10. Strategic planning and future direction
No systematic strategic planning
Strategic planning in some areas (e.g. NEETs)
Comprehensive short, medium and long-term planning
11. Working collaboratively beyond borough boundaries
Focus purely on borough agendas
Limited collaboration beyond borough boundaries
Extensive collaboration at sub-regional, regional and national levels
Partnership activity
Low Medium High
1. Information sharing forum
Irregular events around national policy priorities
Attempts to look at how national policy impact s on local practice
Regular updates and discussion re: national, local & regional agendas
2. Data sharing
No data sharing Data sharing without the use of institutional names or joint action
Extensive transparent institutional data sharing leading to decision-making
3. RPA Limited to discussion and strategies for NEET reduction
RPA regarded as important driver of 14-19 partnership and emerging broader RPA agenda
Expansive concept of RPA linked to improving provision, progression and transition for all groups
4. CEIAG No real discussion & outsourced
CEIAG discussion but varied practice
CEIAG network & agreement/joint work & guarantees for young people
5. Shared course information/prospectus
No shared course information or prospectus
Limited joint information used by some providers
Openly supported & promoted 14-19 course information & prospectus
6. NEETs
Limited to statutory requirements in this area
Local collaborative NEETs strategy emerging
Creative strategy for tackling NEETs improving provision, progression and transition for all groups
7. Shared 14-19 provision & curriculum development
No shared provision or joint curriculum development
Some shared provision in particular areas
Extensive 14-19 shared provision & associated curriculum development
8. LLDD/SEN/ looked after children/inclusion
Limited to statutory requirements in this area
Some joint in the inclusion area
Creative strategy for inclusion based on 14-19 collaborative working
9. Work experience/work related learning
No joint work-related activity - left to individual institutions
Work-related activity for some learners/progammes only
Work experience & work-related learning as entitlement for all 14-19 year olds
10. Vocational provision & Apprenticeships
No discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship
Discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship but no joint action
Collaborative strategy for building vocational provision & apprenticeship
11. Progression to HE
Discussion of HE progression limited to individual providers
Limited number of partnership links with HE providers
Collaborative strategy for supporting progression to HE
12. Economic development & regeneration
No economic development agenda
Some economic information in connection with 14-19 agenda
Clear relationship between 14-19 provision and local economic development agenda and agencies
13. Introducing new providers
No discussion of introduction and role of new providers
Consideration of possible new providers in the local area
Active collaborative strategy for new providers as part of the partnership
14. Quality assurance & peer-to-peer support
Not considered part of 14-19 partnership working
Some quality assurance and peer-to-peer support around particular areas of need
An active and formal quality assurance system involving peer-to-peer support
15. CPD and staff development
No joint CPD/staff development activities
Some joint CPD activities
Joint 14-19 CPD programme
16. Shared resources (e.g. website)
No shared resources Shared resources in one or more areas
Shared resources in a number of areas (e.g. staffing, website & facilities)