Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund...Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund First Report of Session 2010–11 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by The House

Published on 21 December 2010 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

House of Commons

Work and Pensions Committee

Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund

First Report of Session 2010–11

Volume II

Additional written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be published 13 December 2010

The Work and Pensions Committee

The Work and Pensions Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Work and Pensions and its associated public bodies.

Current membership

Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Chair) Harriett Baldwin MP, (Conservative, West Worcestershire) Andrew Bingham MP, (Conservative, High Peak) Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North) Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Glenda Jackson MP (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn) Brandon Lewis MP (Conservative, Great Yarmouth) Stephen Lloyd MP (Liberal Democrat, Eastbourne) Teresa Pearce MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North), Margaret Curran MP (Labour, Glasgow East), Richard Graham MP (Conservative, Gloucester), Sajid Javid MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) and Shabana Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood)

Powers

The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/workpencom The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Carol Oxborough (Clerk), Andrew Hudson (Second Clerk), Hanna Haas (Committee Specialist), Laura Humble (Committee Media Adviser), James Clarke (Inquiry Manager), Sonia Draper (Senior Committee Assistant), Dory Royle (Committee Assistant) and Stephen Price (Committee Support Assistant).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Work and Pensions Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5833; the Committee's email address is [email protected]

Witnesses

Wednesday 27 October 2010 Page

David Coyne, Executive Director, Glasgow Works, Tony Hawkhead, Chief Executive, Groundwork UK, and Jackie Mould, Director, Be Birmingham Ev 1

Neil Carberry, Head of Employment, Pensions and Health & Safety Policy, and Emma Watkins, Head of Public Services Policy, Confederation of British Industry, Tracy Fishwick, Associate, Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, and Professor Paul Gregg, Professor of Economics, University of Bristol. Ev 10

Wednesday 10 November 2010

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Minister for Employment, Mark Fisher, Director, Jobseekers and Skills, Julia Sweeney, Deputy Director, Young People and Employment, Department for Work and Pensions, and Claire Burton, Head of Apprenticeships Unit, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills/Department for Education Ev 21

List of written evidence published in this Volume

1 Cute Dog Consulting Ltd Ev w1

2 Creative Development Consultancy Ev w2

3 St Paul’s Community Development Trust Ev w3

4 Warwickshire County Council Ev w5

5 Social Enterprise Solutions (UK) CIC Ev w10

6 Swansea Council for Voluntary Service Ev w11

7 Wales Council for Voluntary Action Ev w13

8 Acacia Destiny Ev w17

9 East Lothian Council Ev w18

10 Wakefield Council Ev w19

11 Scout Enterprises (Western) Ltd Ev w23

12 National Children’s Bureau (NCB) Ev w24

13 Social Enterprise London Ev w27

14 Stoke on Trent City Council Ev w31

15 Social Enterprise Coalition Ev w35

16 Crisis UK Ev w39

17 St Mungo’s Ev w41

18 Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations Ev w44

19 Community Skills Partnership Ev w49

20 Catch 22 Ev w51

21 Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Ev w54

22 Oxfordshire County Council Ev w56

23 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Ev w59

24 Norfolk County Council Ev w62

25 Resolution Foundation Ev w66

26 New Deal of the Mind Ev w71

27 Portsmouth City Council Ev w73

28 Association of Colleges Ev w77

29 Hampshire County Council Ev w79

30 Pathways Community Interest Company Ev w82

31 Novas Scarman Group Ev w89

32 Community Empowerment Ltd Ev w92

33 Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Ev w95

34 National Day Nurseries Association Ev w99

35 Transforming a Generation Ev w101

36 Royal Opera House Ev w104

37 Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Ev w107

38 South London Business Ev w111

39 Somerset County Council Ev w113

40 Wigan Council Ev w115

41 County Durham Council Ev w116

42 Bolsover District Council Ev w120

43 Working Links Ev w122

44 Lewisham Strategic Partnership Ev w124

45 The Salvation Army Ev w124

46 The National Young Volunteers Service Ev w128

47 Gloucestershire First Ev w129

48 South East Diamonds for Investment Growth Ev w133

49 Birmingham and Black Country City Region Ev w135

50 Royal British Legion Industries Ev w137

51 Rhyl City Strategy Ev w137

52 Scottish Sports Association Ev w146

53 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Ev w149

54 Liverpool City Region Ev w151

55 Centrepoint Ev w158

56 Suffolk County Council Ev w164

57 North Tyneside Council Ev w165

58 North Yorkshire Learning Consortium Ev w173

59 Trades Union Congress (TUC) Ev w176

60 Association of Learning Providers Ev w182

61 Barnardo’s Ev w184

62 Local Government Association Ev w188

63 National Skills Academy for Sport & Active Leisure Ev w189

64 Association of chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations Ev w195

65 Kirklees Council Ev w196

66 The Healthy Hub CIC Ev w199

67 Cornwall Council Ev w202

68 Hampshire County Council Ev w204

69 Action for Children Ev w207

70 Third Sector Consortium Management Sector LLP Ev w212

71 Commission for the New Economy on behalf of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Ev w215

72 Manchester City Council Ev w220

73 UK Commission for Employment and Skills Ev w223

List of written evidence printed in Volume I

1 Birmingham City Council Ev 42

2 Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Ev 46

3 Department for Work and Pensions Ev 49

4 Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Works Ev 55

5 Groundwork UK Ev 57

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [20-12-2010 10:07] Job: 006989 Unit: PG01

Work and Pensions Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Cute Dog Consulting Ltd

We submit our evidence regarding the success of FJF in terms of our own experience as both employers andpotential providers of FJF service, as well as partners of 3SC.

Our evidence follows your guideline headings:

— The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people.

We consider that the FJF has been instrumental in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people to an unprecendented level. We have 23 social enterprises which we can name, in Londonand the South East, who have provided a brand new job for under 25 year old benefit claimaints who nowhave experience of working in a profit making community based organisation and an understanding of whatconstitutes a social enterprise. In the case of three young people, they have expressed the wish to start theirown social enterprise, and at the end of their FJF placement we at Cute Dog will be supporting them (viaSEEDA funding) to write a business plan and start their own business. This would never have been possiblewithout FJF funding and without the increased confidence and knowledge levels of these young people. Oneyoung person is starting a community theatre group, another an event organising company and the third aninternet marketing company. All are aiming to employ other marginalised young people, but fear that withoutFJF funding continuing, they will not be able to fund or resource these staff posts as a start up.

— Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (including in thethird sector), employers and young unemployed people, and particularly in relation to the long-termsustainability of employment opportunities.

Strengths were certainly the employer engagement possibilities. We had “something to tell” employers andwere able to engage with them in a way that Job Centre Plus was not doing. Smaller community basedorganisations were able to create jobs and give young people the chance to prove themselves, in a way thatwould not have worked without our coaching and mentoring service, and the wage subsidy for six months.One of the other strengths of FJF was the clear and uncomplicated offer; employers “got it” very quickly andwere happy with the prompt service, filtered application process (so they got really high levels of candidatesapplying for their jobs) and the 26 weeks of wage assistance. In terms of sustainability we can site 3 employersin the South East of England with whom we have worked who have kept their FJF placement on and in factone employer has told us that this single job has contributed to a 20% increase in business for his furniturerestoration project. He is delighted.

Weaknesses—few—the DWP made this an easy to adminster and realistic programme with good paymentpoints and realistic paperwork. The only weakness was the marketing of the programme. Not one employerwe spoke to had heard of the programme until we mentioned it. Having said that though, it would be a shameto waste any of the valuable funding on marketing and I think we could rely on existing providers to marketthe programme based on current success and satisfied employers and beneficiaries.

Strengths of the FJF from the Perspective of Providers.

The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

We can only comment as potential deliverers of FJF via the 3SC contract, as we had an allocation to deliver(and 50 jobs created) when the FJF extention to 3SC was suspended in May 2010. We still have these jobsready and waiting and the job descriptions written. We cannot match the jobs and employers to young peoplewithout an extension to the contract. Furthermore we were partners in a successful bid from Faith in the Futurein Stoke Newington, London, where we had 30 jobs to fill. We engaged with employers in the hope that ourbid would be approved, and have still the interest from employers and the young people targetted, as well asengagement made with the local Job Centre. The impact of the decision to end FJF in March 2011 rather thanMarch 2012 will mean the loss of at least 80 jobs Cute Dog has already created that remain unfilled due tolack of capacity within the 3SC and other supplier’s contracts.

Furthermore we believe that there will be an impact on the growth of the economy. The employers to whomwe spoke when marketing FJF and when helping them to create jobs all said that without the input of FJFsupport and wage subsidy, they were reluctant to “run the risk” of engaging with marginalised young peopleand raising their hopes in case they could not meet their wages. These employers will not create jobs, in ouropinion, without the support of specialist FJF contract holders, and financial incentive. This was beginning tohave a significant impact on our growth out of recession, even in the smallest terms.

— How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be playedby the Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships.

We cannot comment on the transition from FJF to Work programme as we do not fully understand the Workoffer. However we know that employers are not as keen on apprenticeships as they were on FJF due to thewage aspect of only £95 and the lack of support from benefit to wage for young people. They were alsoconcerned about the need to be absent from the workplace to attend college, and much preferred the “short

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [20-12-2010 10:07] Job: 006989 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Work and Pensions Committee: Evidence

sharp” intervention of FJF in terms of them being able to “test out” young people in the workplace for sixmonths, and fast track them with their own, specific, learning programme. Apprenticeships seem to be thefocus of this new Government, and they really don’t meet the need of the average sole trader, SME orcommunity organisation.

These are the opinions of Cute Dog Consulting as a social enterprise, employer focussed training provider,partner in an FJF contract and employer ourselves of marginalised young people in the SE. We would behappy to expand upon them or take part in a wider consultation.

6 August 2010

Written evidence submitted by Creative Development Consultancy

Traditionally those who have a talent for creative work tend not to have the time or inclination to keep ontop of the day to day tasks. Many don’t want the responsibility of taking on a new person, full time and needto examine the situation more closely before committing. At first they want an extra pair of hands; someonewho has the right skills and an understanding and love of the work they do and the potential to become a longterm staff member

In our experience those in the creative sector are very careful about who they chose to work with. They tendto have a very strong work ethic and committment to training and supporting their staff. They take theirresponsabilities very seriously. Because of this culture we have build many successful relationships withemployers and forged long term opportunities for placing suitable young people where they will be greatlyvalued. We work as advisers in The University of the Arts and many graduates who have been looking, withoutsuccess, for work for some time return to the advice sessions. We also work with community projects whichattract many young people looking for work experience. These are the people we would like to help.

The Creative Industries sector:

— contributes 6.4% GVA and has grown by an average of 4% from 1997 to 2006 compared to 3%of the whole of the economy;

— contributes a greater proportion of GDP than any other nation according to a recent OECD study[52];

— accounted for £16 billion of exports in 2006 equating to 4.3% of all goods and services;

— employs an estimated 1.98 million people, equating to 6.78% of the working population. Of these,1.15 million work within creative companies across 157,400 registered businesses (2008) and theremaining 800,000 work in a creative capacity in other non-“creative industry” sectors.

In recent years, creative employment has been growing at 2%, comparing favourably with a 1% average forthe whole economy.

We are writing to submit our evidence regarding the success of FJF in terms of our own experience.

1. The extent to which the FJF has Succeeded in Matching New Work Experience Opportunitiesto Young Unemployed People.

The response we received for our client base to the offer of interns funded by FJF was very well received.

We expect to create 60 jobs throughout the year in London and the south east., concentrating on regenerationareas We work with small arts organisations and small social enterprises . Both of these groups are oftenapproach by people who want to gain experience by acting as an intern. We are also often asked if we knowof anyone who would be suitable to fill a post from some specialist recruitment agencies. As well as ourown clients.

We work with a network of 350 business in Kings Cross who fit this description 17% have said they havean interest in expanding their workforce in this way.

Creative Exchange, is running a programme in partnership with the Brighton and Hove Business ForumThere is a keen awareness from the city that the creative sector must be supported in order to ensure theeconomic recovery of the area. It has attracted local industry experts, local businesses local sponsors who arekeen to put their name to this initiative. The programme is supporting over 300 businesses. A quarter of thesebusinesses have expressed a desire to build capacity in this way.

We work with several charities who expressed an interest of providing places for one or two people.

We have a client who owns seven office buildings . This organisation had hope to place a young person ineach if these to work on reception, we had then hoped to offer the service to each of the businesses inthe building.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [20-12-2010 10:07] Job: 006989 Unit: PG01


2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme from the Perspective of Providers(Including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Strengths

Young people in this sector are very keen to work. They do approach organisations such as ours or thebusiness themselves.

FJF was the clear and uncomplicated offer; employers understand the value of the offer. They appreciatedthe fact that they would be supported throughout the first six months and that the young person would bementored by someone who understood their industry. This programme is easy to adminster and realisticprogramme with good payment points and realistic paperwork.

Weaknesses

The only weakness was the marketing of the programme. We are very aware that this sector is largelyunaware or not attracted to government support. They would never consider approaching a Job Centre toincrease their workforce. By the same token a young person wanting to work in that sector would not approacha Job Center Not one employer we spoke to had heard of the programme until we mentioned it.

3. The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

We can only comment as potential deliverers of FJF via the 3SC contract, as we had an allocation to deliver30 jobs We still have these jobs ready and waiting and the job descriptions written. We cannot match the jobsand employers to young people without an extension to the contract and this work will be wasted. We are stillengaged with employers in the hope that this will be reinstated and have still the interest from employers andthe young people targeted, We had already begun to build relationships with the local job centres and wereplanning to meet with then to assist them in understanding the needs of the sector The impact of the decisionto end FJF in March 2011 has meant the loss of 70 jobs in the Brighton area (which we know of) whereadvertised positions remain unfilled due to lack of capacity within the 3SC and other supplier’s contracts.

We had intended to deliver this programme in Hastings together with a local enterprise agency where theunemployment figures are even higher .In both towns there are many cases where more than one generationfrom each family has become accustomed to the culture of unemployment.

The impact on the growth of the economy and the lack of faith in the government decision not to supportyoung people back to work can only be imagined.

The employers to whom we spoke when marketing FJF and when helping them to create jobs all said thatwithout the input of FJF support and wage subsidy, they were reluctant to take the first step of engaging withmarginalised young people and raising their hopes in case they could not fulfil their obligations. Theseemployers will not create jobs, in our opinion, without the support of specialist FJF contract holders whounderstand the sector, and financial incentive.

We sincerely hope this excellent and worthwhile programme will be reinstated.

11 August 2010

Written evidence submitted by St Paul’s Community Development Trust

Summary.

The FJF programme is very effective. It has been cancelled, before any viable alternative is available for themain target groups.

This is likely to create a worrying situation. High rates of youth unemployment will combine with lack ofopportunity in the “core cities” to cause a mounting sense of waste and frustration.

Background.

1. Our organisation is a Charitable Trust based in inner-city Birmingham which works with children, youngpeople, families and community.

2. We made a successful bid for a Future Jobs Fund contract, and started work on this in October 2009. ByFebruary 2010 we had provided 100 young people aged 18–24 with jobs, and won a second contract for afurther 100 jobs. We had made an application to run a third scheme at the point where the programme for 2011was cancelled.

3. The scheme continues to generate great enthusiasm from both the young people and their supervisors inour own and other voluntary agencies. At present we are employing about 140 young people in FJF jobs,which are generally filled as soon as JCP advertise them.



4. Over thirty different agencies have taken part in our scheme, providing supervised placements for theyoung people. There is a considerable variety of jobs—about forty different job descriptions.

5. Young people recruited reflect the diversity of Birmingham’s population, in ethnicity and gender, and arealmost equally divided between under and over 21 years of age. 5% have significant disabilities.

6. Less than 10% have failed to complete their period of employment. So far, of the leavers 37% haveachieved ongoing employment.

7. We have recently been audited by DWP and understand they were satisfied with our management ofthe scheme.

Commentary.

1. We were surprised and disappointed at the cancellation of the FJF programme. It had, from our viewpoint,a number of strengths which we hoped to build on. These can be summarised:

— Voluntary agencies were able to create jobs which they could not have otherwise afforded in atime of diminishing grants and difficulty of access to contracts. This undoubtedly increased thecapacity of the agencies and benefited their clients.

— The scheme has clearly been effective in providing work experience to young people who for themost part had not previously been able to obtain any employment. (Many of these were under-qualified, under-skilled and presented with negative character references e.g. they were ex-offenders.)

— The eagerness of both agencies and young people is demonstrated by the facts—100 jobs createdin five months from a standing start, and a very low drop-out rate. The number of agencies wishingto take part has risen steadily and still rises although we have to turn them away. This is despitethe fact that BeBirmingham, the City’s strategic partnership, ran a much larger FJF project with ahigh proportion of voluntary sector jobs.

— 37% went into continuing employment from the first tranche of the scheme—a comparatively highrate relative to WNF outcomes (average about 20–25%.)

2. We also want to suggest why the scheme is successful. The following are important points:

— Voluntary agencies have substantial experience of training and working with young people,including those from disadvantaged groups. The agencies are highly motivated to help those whoface barriers to employment.

— FJF, while not over-priced, offered sufficient funding for the young people to receive minimumwage, and for staffing costs including on the job supervision, basic vocational training, “job club”activities and necessary overhead costs such as payroll and accounts.

— The scheme did offer quality in experience, and this requirement had to be met by agencies aswell as the young people. Most young people have left the scheme, therefore, with some additionalvocational credits as well as references and new skills.

— Within our scheme we were able to add value to the specification in the contract by providingvocational training, mentoring and specialist on the job supervision—all of which are standardgood practice in the larger voluntary agencies.

— The FJF programme also had a virtue which is sadly quite rare—it not only encouraged theformation of a consortium of 30–40 voluntary agencies (and some local schools), but it facilitatedpartnership with JCP and BeBirmingham. Without JCP support we could not have run theprogramme, and its success is a tribute to the enthusiastic help we received. If BeBirmingham hadnot included us in their discussions, we would have been less certain of our direction.

— Thus, FJF began to create an approach which entailed building on the strengths of those workingto create the programme through a new and more genuine partnership than is often the way.

3. Weaknesses in the FJF programme as we experienced it, include:

— For the most disadvantaged young people, six months is too short a time to take in the necessaryinduction to work, learn the basic elements on the job, obtain some qualifications and move intoongoing employment.

— As spelled out by recent reports, what is needed is a foundation of vocational education andintroductory work experience, followed by an “apprenticeship” period, leading to full employment.

— The changes which can bring about this integrated system cannot be put in place immediately—although the government intends to effect this transformation in due course.

— We had hoped FJF would continue until new apprenticeship schemes, and developments in“technical” academies, etc. were accomplished. Our intention was to use funds earned bysupervising FJF employees to establish more social enterprise opportunities for the continuingemployment of those unable to progress within six months.

— This project of ours would have filled a gap while waiting for new apprenticeship schemes. Instead,the sector and the young people are facing a considerable period in which opportunity is lacking.



4. Is the FJF programme too expensive? May we argue for Birmingham and other places with similarproblems:

— The Select Committee will be aware that Birmingham, in July 2010 the claimant rate was 11.7%,while the UK average was 5.3%.

— For young people the picture is even bleaker. In April 2009 the number of 18–24 year olds in theCity on JSA was 11,550. In June 2010 it was 12,900. (City average thus 18–20%.)

— Birmingham has the highest rate of youth unemployment among all the UK “core” cities.

— Some Wards in the City, including Sparkbrook where we are based have male claimant ratesapproaching 30%. Those Wards with high proportions of young people—three out of the worstfive—have correspondingly high rates of youth unemployment.

— Alarmingly, the statistics show that the NEET rate among young people aged 16 and 17 is rising,even before this year’s leavers sign on in September. The evidence indicates problems areworsening.

5. We would argue that rather than a general cancellation of the FJF programme, the government mightconsider a time-limited extension until alternatives are in place which meet the government aim of providingenough support for even the most disadvantaged to succeed.

6. The extension would not apply to all areas, but to those which were defined as having intolerable levelsof youth unemployment.

The Role of the Voluntary Sector in Employment Training.

1. So far, it appears the voluntary sector will have enormous difficulty in contributing to the new WorkProgramme. While the detail of this is as yet unknown, the size and “backloading” of payments for contractsseems prohibitive.

2. The sector understands the need for payment by results systems. It is when this is combined with hugescale and the need for new and untested forms of organisation that it comes to seem impossible.

3. Given the virtues as outlined above of the voluntary sector as a provider of vocational training,“apprenticeships”, and enterprise development experience, it would be a great loss if it were excluded.

4. We are unsure as yet what the government’s proposed “technical academies” (or “service academies”)will involve. A proposal which may have merit, is that some of these could be based around social enterprise,with apprenticeships offered through a voluntary sector consortium. These apprenticeships would have to befunded as an aspect of youth training, since the sector has no surplus, typically, with which to part-fundapprenticeships.

5. We believe that one or more pilot projects for a scheme such as the above could be run in Birmingham.

17 August 2010

Written evidence submitted by Warwickshire County Council

1. Introduction

This report presents an information from the Warwickshire Future Jobs Fund (FJF) programme.

2. Established Network Enabled Quick Start for FJF

The Future Jobs Fund programme in Warwickshire was able to get off the ground relatively quickly due tothe history of partnership working. As soon as guidance came out from the Department of Work and Pensions(DWP), Warwickshire County Council’s Manager for the Economic Development Group invited potentialpartners to a preliminary meeting to consider how FJF might operate in Warwickshire, where FJF jobs mightcome from and to offer for Warwickshire County Council to act as the Lead Accountable Body.

Key organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce and Warwickshire Community And Voluntary Action,Warwickshire Children & Voluntary Youth Service and all of the local and districts Councils were among theearly partners with a plan of creating opportunities within the public, voluntary and private sectors.

Key Strength: In calling upon local authorities to bid for FJF DWP were able to access existing andestablished partnerships and get FJF operational quickly.

3. Targets

The Warwickshire Future Jobs Fund application was originally approved by the DWP for a six month periodto March 2010. The “employees into jobs” target for the Warwickshire was initially 73 within that period.

Subsequently, the programme was extended to 18 months, to March 2011 Phase Two, April 2010 to March2011, with a Warwickshire target of 107, making 180 employees across the programme.



Warwickshire, like many LAB’s was late to get started and in our area this was largely due to the FJFManager not starting in post until December 2009. As a result of this DWP offered a Time Only Variation tothe first contract to allow Phase One to continue until June 2010. This Time Only Variation was only offeredto LAB’s that had shown that they would, if given longer achieve their original profile.

4. Engagement of Community and Voluntary Sector Employers

The community and voluntary sector has responded both positively and proactively to FJF, this was ledprimarily but not exclusively by Warwickshire Community and Voluntary Action (WCAVA). WCC usedWCAVA as a managing agent meaning that a greater number of small organisations could engage with FJF butthat WCC as LAB had one point of contact.

Overall, third sector employers are supportive of FJF and found that FJF employees bring a range ofbenefits including:

— Fulfilling roles that organisations had found it difficult to attract funding for, or enablingorganisations to achieve things they have wanted to do but were unable to afford.

— Building organisational capacity.

— Extending organisational reach.

— Freeing up other staff to take on more strategic level work.

Key Strength: Being involved in FJF enables organisations in the community and voluntary sector to deliveragainst charitable objectives and organisational mission statements by enabling them to support people intoemployment.

5. Engagement of Private Sector

Warwickshire has encountered the same issues widely reported by other LAB’s in finding employers willingto offer FJF opportunities that can then meet both the additional and community benefit rules. However oneprivate sector employer was identified and with advice from DWP they were able to meet the rules and createsome opportunities.

At an early partnership meeting the local Chamber of Commerce had pledged to create 15 opportunitiesfrom it’s members, but nervousness by WCC as lead accountable body over uncertainty and lack of clearadvice over what was eligible as “jobs” from the private sector, meant that the partnership did not activelypursue private sector employment as a core priority.

Key Weakness: Difficulty with Private Sector Engagement

6. Engagement of Public Sector

Despite enthusiasm for the FJF initiative, it came at a difficult time for public sector employers due to generalrecruitment freezes, organisational restructuring and cutbacks. Most public sector employers have invested timein negotiating with senior management teams, Trade Unions and members exploring why and how FJF jobscould be incorporated into the workforce without contravening policies relating to staff redeployment while atthe same time ensuring they are offering “new” but temporary jobs and the result of this was that each of theborough and district councils within Warwickshire went on to create some FJF opportunities.

7. FJF Recruitment Process

The Warwickshire partnership decided that they wanted a robust recruitment process. The main reasoningbehind this was to protect employers from possible difficulties with the FJF employees once they were in postbut also this meant that FJF employees would feel an increase in confidence from being selected and havesome experience of such processes which they would need to apply for other jobs either during their period ofFJF employment or when they came to the end of it.

When creating the FJF opportunity limitations where set on how many people could apply (submissions) totry to ensure that recruitment process happened quickly and without too many applications for the recruitingmanager to look through.

Warwickshire integrated Nextstep Coventry and Warwickshire into it’s delivery of FJF. All applicantssubmitted were booked to see a Nextstep adviser for support with their application form so that they canidentify their personal strengths and ensure that these are highlighted to the potential employer. If there areother FJF opportunities that suit the applicant better then Nextstep will point this out. In cases where theapplicant really does not match the opportunity then Nextstep offer advice on training provision. UtilisingNextstep’s provision in this way maximised the young persons’ chances of reaching interview and meant thatthe employers did not have to short list. Employers reported that this process made the recruitment much easierto manage and kept the burden on the recruiting manager’s time to a minimum. With the one opportunitywhere Nextstep was not involved, due to the geography of the applicants it was reported that only two of theseven people submitted applied for the post, feedback on those two applications were that one was very poorand the other was incomplete.



We strongly believe that the intervention of Nexsteps in the county (funded via their already contracted ESFprogramme—so no additional drain on the FJF budget) has helped reduce the admin and bureaucracy onemployers interviewing people who were simply unsuitable, or who didn’t turn up for the interview in the firstplace. It has also helped ensure our retention rates are well above the norm—the “right” sort of person beingbetter matched to the “right” job for them via an additional experienced adviser (over and above JCP).

Key strengths: Young People are Supported and Gain Experience of Recruitment Processes.

Retention rates are high due to selection process

8. Issues with Recruitment

There have been two main difficulties with recruitment. The first was some employers expectations were toohigh has been relatively easy to manage. The FJF Manager has experience of working with long termunemployed people and a clear understanding of the client group and was able to negotiate with employers tomake their job descriptions more accessible to young people.

The second issue is with the Jobcentreplus offices and therefore much more difficult to overcome. DWPinsists that young people must be referred to FJF via the jobcentre to ensure eligibility and where this didn’thappen then opportunities remained unfilled. Jobcentreplus District Office do what they can to keep the profileof FJF high with JCP advisers but with varying success.

9. Tables

9.1: Delivery against targets to June 2010

Month Profiled starts into FJF jobs Actual Achieved

October 2009 15 0November 2009 19 0December 2009 12 0January 2010 10 14February 2010 5 14March 2010 12 19April 2010 0 19May 2010 0 7June1010 0 0Total 73 73

9.2: Employee profile

Employee data No. Phase OneJune 2010

Gender No %

Male 51 70Female 22 30Total 73 100Age

18–24 years 72 9825+ years 1 2Total 73 100Home Locality

Nuneaton & Bedworth 13 18North Warwickshire 10 14Leamington & Warwick 20 27Stratford District 8 11Rugby 7 10Out of Area 15 20

Key strength: opportunities created across the county

Key weakness: More opportunities created in Leamington & Warwick area due to this being where mostorganisations headquarters are based.



9.3: Number of opportunities filled by employer

Employer Filled

Warwickshire County Council 25 34%North Warwickshire Borough Council 5 7%Stratford District Council 2 3%Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council 1 1%Warwick District Council 1 1%Warwickshire Community and Voluntary Action 8 11%Hybrid Arts 7 10%Coventry, Solihull & Warwickshire Partnership 5 7%Warwickshire Association of Youth Clubs 4 6%Bath Place Community Venture 3 4%Nuneaton & Bedworth Volunteer Centre 2 3%Car-Go Bus Community Transport 2 3%Doorway 1 1%Nuneaton & Bedworth Leisure Trust 3 4%The Rowan Organisation 1 1%Warwickshire NHS 1 1%Glendale Managed Services 2 3%

73

9.4: Types of opportunities created

Occupational area Phase 1

Construction/Maintenance/Gardener 13Clerical 26Arts 6Youth Worker 5Sports Coach 5Teaching Assistant 2Driver 2Community Support Worker 7Other 7

Key strength: Diverse range of opportunities created

10. Destinations

10.1: Completers i.e. People that left their FJF employment after 26 weeks

Destinations recorded Nos.

Employed by FJF employer 4Claimed Job Seekers Allowance/Unknown 10Self Employed 2Total completers 16

10.2: The following table presents the information destinations of early leavers

Destinations recorded Nos.

Found another (non FJF) job 5Employed by FJF employer 1Claimed Job Seekers Allowance/Unknown 6Gone on to approved training 1Total early leavers 13

10.3: Destinations of all leavers to 13.7.10

Destinations recorded Nos. %

Found another (non FJF) job 5 17Employed by FJF employer 5 17Self Employed 2 8Claimed Job Seekers Allowance/Unknown 16 55Gone on to approved training 1 3



Destinations recorded Nos. %

Total into positive outcomes 45Total leavers 29

It is our intention to contact all leavers again 3 months after their last day to identify those that moved intoemployment soon after their period of FJF employment.

11. Initial Feedback from Employees

The initial feedback in this section is based on informal meetings with individual FJF employees. Whilemost participants had found out about Future Jobs Fund opportunities from Jobcentre Plus, others had heardabout it from jobs fairs, Remploy and in some cases they were volunteering at the FJF employer.

One unsolicited comment from an early lever who had successful moved into employment

“Thanks for making the past three months so enjoyable it has helped me lots in getting back to work andI have learned new skills that I never had before”

Other FJF employees have made the following comments:

“working with young people is new to me and I’m really enjoying it. I like to pass on my skills on afriendly atmosphere”.

“It feels great passing on my wisdom and I get a kick out of seeing young people engage and developan interest in music”

“Everyone is so friendly and helpful, you don’t feel scared in saying I don’t know how to do that”.

“I have enjoyed all of my experience here”

“I enjoyed meeting and working with all the staff and children. I have loved the satisfaction this job hasgave me [sic], helping the children and would not change anything about my time spent at St Michael’s”

12. Summary

Getting young people into jobs has been effective. Warwickshire’s recruitment model was at first discouragedby JCP and DWP as it does make the process a little longer than the four week target that DWP prescribed,however as time progressed and it was found that Warwickshire’s retention was very high it was accepted thatour model worked well. The FJF Manager developed a dynamic relationship with JCP. For example, whereorganisations were struggling to get referrals, JCP has helped to revise job adverts to make the posts moreattractive and in many cases JCP District Office staff matched clients themselves.

FJF is building capacity in voluntary and community organisations, enabling some of them to do things theyhadn’t been able to fund before.

Some employers are seeing FJF as a Win:Win

— They help someone into work.

— They get a job done.

— The community is getting something out of it too.

Employers are impressed by the high quality of employees—their commitment & motivation and frequentlyreport amazement that such people have remained unemployed long enough to be eligible.

FJF is offering a diverse basket of jobs, providing people with a choice. These include jobs in admin, artstechnicians, ICT, administration, community project development, environmental improvement, youth worker,children’s centre assistants, teaching assistants, gardeners, maintenance workers, sports centre worker andsports coaches.

The success of the Warwickshire FJF partnership has been largely due to employers understanding of theeffect of the economic downturn on youth unemployment and a genuine desire to do their bit to help tacklethat. Some employers felt a moral duty to create opportunities.

Warwickshire County Council has not been involved in many programmes such as FJF before and has nowforged strong relationships in creating it’s delivery partnership and learned many lessons along the way. Thepartnership strove collectively to develop and adapt to achieve a programme that works well for both employerand employee. We would urge the Committee to consider ways of building on this experience and expertise indesigning future welfare programmes.

19 August 2010



Written evidence submitted by Social Enterprise Solutions (UK) CIC

Summary

This is evidence from Social Enterprise Solutions (UK) CIC for the Work and Pensions Committee Inquiryinto Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund. We have answered the first three points of the four thatwere asked in the remit. We have taken the factual evidence from a survey we made of the Host companieswho employed the FJF candidates. We believe the Future Jobs Fund has been an effective programme enrichingthe lives of the unemployed and the community as a whole.

1. The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people

(a) Social Enterprise Solutions (UK) CIC was asked to deliver 150 FJF Jobs in the Third Sector as partof the 3sc contract. We finally delivered 152 jobs which covered the whole of the North West ofEngland. We had 43 Host companies who created vacancies varying from General Office work toSound Technicians and Graphic Design.

2. Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (including in the thirdsector), employers and young unemployed people, and particularly in relation to the long-term sustainabilityof employment opportunities

(a) We surveyed our 43 Host Companies and 20 of them would be retaining 29 posts/FJF employees afterthe six month initial funding. All the other companies would have liked to retain their new FJFemployees but did not have the funding to do so.

(b) Our survey showed that the Host companies felt the benefits to their organisations were wide ranging.

(c) Their comments were as follows:

Additional support and good to have young member of staff.Being at entry level, able to easily train to our methods.Increased capacity:—More effective services; Development; Research; Freed up management time;Reception cover.Technicians able to repair more; equipment for disabled; deal with more enquiries; Provide morecapacity for launching Hospice Lottery.Created a new project for young people run by FJF employees.Enjoyable and worthwhile assisting development of FJF employees.More reliable than volunteers.Bringing and developing new creative ideas and technical skills.Opportunity to find out if they fit in before becoming permanent.Creating new posts that would not otherwise exist.Improved maintenance level of building.Identifying Tender Opportunities.Reviewing and Updating systems.Could provide support and understanding to FJF employee who is a carer.

(d) The benefits to the FJF Employees themselves were as follows:

Building Confidence, Self Esteem and Sense of Purpose.Support to gain further employment.Diverse areas of working, which could be challenging and provided more choice.Experiencing a professional environment and team work; work ethic equals becoming “work ready”Training including:- NVQ; First Aid; Community; Leadership; Health & Safety; PETALS;Learning Disabilities; Portable Appliance Testing Certificate.Developing and sharing new skills including IT; Project Development; Communication; Sales &Marketing.Positive impact on family life; stability.Using own initiative.Dealing with the public/community.Dealing with the elderly. Learning there are similarities between old and young.Working with disabled.Work experience in the Third Sector; Learning about Community Services and an Art Organisationwhich has a unique environment and experience in the radio profession.Committed to six months giving them a better chance to learn about opportunities available.Understanding Confidentiality.



(e) We found that the employees were in a much stronger position to find employment at the end ofthe Future Jobs Fund programme because of their new skills, renewed confidence and employmentrecord gain.


(a) It has just been announced (August 2010) that “the proportion of 18–24-year-olds in England who arenot in school, college or work has fallen. In total, 16.3% were classed as Neet—not in education,employment or training—in the second quarter of this year. This is down from 17.6% in the samequarter of last year. A total of 776,000 18–24-year-olds were classed as Neet in the first quarter of2010, down from 831,000 last year.” Could this be partly the responsibility of the FJF programme? Ifso the decision to end the programme early may not have been a good one.

(b) We know that it took months of intensive activity to engage social enterprises with FJF, and topersuade Job Centre Plus that the programme was not just for low achievers. Because of its evidentsuccess, momentum was built. Businesses wanted more FJF employees, new businesses wanted tojoin the scheme, and more unemployed young people wanted to benefit from it. The momentum isnow lost, leaving frustration that nothing has yet taken its place. Universities plan lower intakes thisyear, leaving many young people in need of a FJF style scheme.

4. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be played bythe Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships.

(a) We presume this will be answered by DWP

20 August 2010

Written evidence submitted by Swansea Council for Voluntary Service

Summary:

On the whole SCVS felt the Future Jobs Fund was a beneficial scheme to those job seekers who participatedand also to the organisations who took part. The work undertaken by participants was undoubtedly of benefitto Swansea as a community and to some of Swansea’s smaller communities of interest.

Some of the limitations of the scheme included the lack of formal training opportunities designed in to theprogramme and funded through it, the lack of cohesion between other projects that could have added value,and the oftentimes short term solution that the posts provided in relation to the longer term need for the workbeing covered.

The experience of FJF has convinced SCVS and the Third Sector in Swansea that there is value in continuingto work with partners across all sectors in delivery of any future schemes.

Involvement of SCVS as a Delivery Partner

In January 2010, SCVS made a successful application to be able to deliver 75 FJF jobs within Swansea’sVoluntary Sector. The programme looked to be an exciting opportunity for the Third Sector in Wales to extendthe range of services it provided to communities across Wales as well as well as contributing to the challengeof youth and long-term unemployment. It also provided an opportunity for people to stay connected to thelabour market and deliver genuine benefit to their local area.

Given the Third Sectors experience of delivering other DWP contracts including the New Deal VoluntarySector Option we were, and continue to be well positioned to develop an innovative high quality programmeinvolving both national and locally based organisations who link directly into communities across Wales.

Evidence Summary

The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people

SCVS feels that FJF was undoubtedly a beneficial programme and that it helped young and older unemployedpeople back into the labour market. The Third Sector in Swansea was able to provide some very worthwhilejob opportunities and some excellent mentoring and employability experiences as added extras within thescheme. The feedback we have had from employers and employees alike has been positive. Please seeadditional information section below.

Local Third Sector organisations were able to benefit from additional labour resource created by FJF at atime of considerable uncertainty in relation to funding. Please see additional information below.

Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme

Initially FJF was only available to a limited number of JSA claimants (those 39–50 weeks unemployed) sowas limited in its reach and ability to offer opportunities to recently unemployed people, in particular young



people leaving schools and colleges. The scheme was later extended (six months unemployed and whole arearather than hot spots).

FJF did not offer any particular opportunities to gain qualifications or vocational accreditation, although thisis something that some of the Third Sector organisations were able to offer as an addition to the requirementsof the scheme.

Within its design, FJF could have been structured to take advantage of other initiatives that could have addedvalue and longevity to placements e.g. Modern Apprenticeships, Skill Build or any existing ILM/TEI as wellas Convergence programmes within Wales.

FJF provided a valuable opportunity for the wider Third Sector to assist the DWP in, what was at the time,one of its strategic priorities. It has also enabled SCVS as an umbrella body to build upon our strong andlasting relationships with local Job Centre + offices and staff.

FJF has provided an important opportunity for young people to experience and find out about careers in theThird Sector.

The likely impact of the decision to end FJF in March 2011 rather than 2012

The impact of ending FJF in March 2010 rather than March 2011 will result in fewer people will have theopportunity to participate and gain some valuable work skills, experience, current references and all theassociated benefits of being employed, even if this is for a limited period. This will have particular impact onyoung people who have recently left school, college or University, or who will do so in 2011 (prior to fullimplementation of the Work Programme).

The Third Sector in Swansea will loose access to a valuable source of staffing / resource at a particularlydifficult time for the sector.

In terms of our own contract, there is little impact since we did not make any assumptions about the longevityof our FJF contract.

Additional Information

Feedback from FJF employees:

Pen portraits of a number of FJF participants are available via the following link to the SCVS website. Thesepen portraits we included in a recent SCVS publication . Individual quotes from organisations and employersare also available on the SCVS website http://www.scvs.org.uk/funding/fjf/testimonials.html.

Feedback from Third Sector / employers:

On the whole, organisations were extremely enthusiastic about FJF and the mutual benefits that it providedorganisations and individuals alike. Although more detailed “good news stories” have been collected about theexperiences organisations have had regarding the FJF process, verbal feedback from several sector 3organisations also indicated some of the weaknesses the programme presented.

— Poor attendance at interviews

— Inappropriate referrals from the Job Centre Plus.

— Candidates having little or no information about job roles prior to interview.

— Job Centre Plus advisors having little or no knowledge about FJF resulting in some candidatesbeing given inaccurate information.

Participant Outcomes to date:

Of the 17 people who have either finished or are due to finish soon

— 7 have been/will be kept on by the organisation they were employed with through FJF.

— 3 have gone on to employment elsewhere.

— 1 is awaiting funding for approved training in a skills deficit area (Social Work).

— 3 will / have claimed JSA.

— 2 will claim other types of benefit (maternity or disability benefits).

17 August 2010



Written evidence submitted by Wales Council for Voluntary Action

Introduction

WCVA is currently delivering two Future Job contracts. The first contract for 300 jobs began in October2009 and a second contract for 1800 jobs was awarded to March 2011. To date we have placed over 600 youngpeople into work, engaged with and supported over 100 third sector employers and currently have over 300vacancies available.

WCVA’s Future Jobs contract is distinctly different from its local authority counterparts in that it is a regionwide and base around a wide-ranging consortium of third sector organisations. The contract was developed inconsultation with the third sector and the assembly government with the aim of securing even the smallestorganisation involvement.

One of the perceived benefits of the FJF to young people and the employer alike is that they receive properwages and have had the same terms and conditions as other employees thus being treated the same, learningmany workplace skills such as time keeping, work ethic, confidence, specific job skills, managing money etc.If they have had problems then the employer has been able to tackle the problems whilst they are at work, soit is real and practical instead of theoretical in a training course.

1. The Extent to which the FJF has Succeeded in Matching New Work ExperienceOpportunities to Young Unemployed People

In WCVA’s experience the consortia approach has worked and FJF has successfully match work experienceopportunities and young people in local areas and deliver benefits for both the participating employers and theyoung people. WCVA provides in depth advice and guidance to employers in the scheme concerning thesuitability of their vacancies, recruitment processes and the client group.

Opportunities created include: Youth Worker, Actors, Website Admin, Estates Worker, Sports Leaders, Birdof Prey Handlers, Community Safety Wardens, Outreach Workers alongside the usual vacancies in admin,recycling operatives, warehouse type employment.

Early indications are as well that these opportunities have matched the individual’s expectations and to dateonly 12.5% have left their employment before the 26 weeks on the first contract and to date it is zero on thesecond contract.

WCVA has worked hard to develop links with the Welsh Job Centre Plus regions and to develop mutualunderstanding about the local labour market including numbers on the register to ensure that the aspirations ofemployers participating in the scheme and individual clients are managed with a realistic picture of theirlocality.

This investment is essential for these type of schemes and has paid dividends by creating new jobs withinthird sector organisations, many of which provide interesting, unusual and fulfilling jobs for the young peopleemployed under the scheme.

2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme from the Perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and Particularly inrelation to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Even in the early stages of the scheme, WCVA’s experience is that FJF has a number of important strengths.

Strengths:— The programme is straightforward with minimal paperwork. This makes it easy to understand both

for employers and jobseekers alike.

— The scheme has provided a welcome boost to Young People who are unemployed; engaging thenin a workplace environment, enhancing their skills, learning and employability and in some casesresulting in a job after the scheme has ended.

— From WCVA’s perspective, the programme has also created some very interesting andaspirational employment.

— It has supported the development of some third sector organisations and acted as a testing groundfor roles within their business; much of the work has been community focused and therefore thishas impacted on the communities these young people are from. For example one employer—asocial enterprise—has created 18 jobs in recycling garden waste.

— The employees have benefitted from on the job training in practical and soft skills.

— They have acquired a trade as well as learnt time and financial management skills. (For examplemaking sure they get to work on time and managing their finances until the next pay cheque).

Such initiatives have the potential to create a win-win—engaging individuals in socially useful activities,building the capacity of the third sector as well as benefitting communities.



The experience of implementation on the ground has also exposed some weaknesses. These are highlightedbelow.

Weaknesses:

The process of tender selection lacked transparency and within Wales appeared to counterintuitive and notstrategically managed working against the early consultation work WCVA carried out with the AssemblyGovernment, JCP and Local Authorities. As stated earlier Wales carried out consultation between all therelevant stakeholders to determine a “team Wales” approach to FJF. As a result of this discussion WCVA bidfor and secured a pan Wales contract based on the third sector’s capacity with challenging (but achievable)targets in the first round of contract awards. WCVA prides itself on its partnership approach and the targetoutcomes were based on an estimation of the employment opportunities that could be achieved by engagingwith the sector across the region. However it became clear that in subsequent bidding rounds that the originalinformation and estimates were ignored and other bids were allowed in areas where there was alreadyoversubscription often creating duplication and confusion within JCP and their localities often eroding thesector’s capacity to meet the targets set.

The 28-day conversion rate—from a vacancy coming in to filling the position is unrealistic. Experienceshows that it takes one to two weeks for referrals to reach employers. Employers then administer their ownrecruitment processes, which can take time (WCVA has given a great deal of advice and guidance around thisissue). For some roles, CRB checks are necessary and these can take a number of weeks. In most cases, theprocess takes a minimum of two months, therefore creating time lags and affecting performance according tothe targets set.

As the expectation around a 28 day conversion rate is passed onto the employer this can create pressurewhen they obviously want the right people for the job and do not want to unnecessarily rush the process to hitan externally driven target.

3. The Likely Impact of the Decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

Recent statistics (published by the National Assembly Wales and collated by Members Research Serviceusing office for National Statistics) show that unemployment in the UK has risen to 7.8%. In Wales, it standsat 9%. Unemployment among young people is much higher—almost half of unemployed people in Wales areunder 25.

The National Assembly for Wales Enterprise and Learning Committee recently conducted its own enquiryinto the problem of NEETS (young people not in education, employment, training or skills). A range oforganisations submitted responses and the Committee is due to publish its report in the autumn. In general thesubmissions emphasised that action needs to be taken to close the policy and practice gap, and address theneeds of young people, especially NEETs. In Wales, where unemployment is higher than the national average,and where youth unemployment is rising at a rapid rate, there is an urgent need for innovative approaches tojob creation and to tackling unemployment.

The think tank IPPR has recently published a report arguing that welfare reform, and the work programme,however well conceived, will ultimately fail if there is not an effective strategy for job creation and growingpermanent jobs in the economy. International experts in the IPPR report argued that unless there are jobs forpeople to go to, welfare-to-work programmes will hit a brick wall and will be unable to support people intowork. It also concluded that far wider efforts in job creation are required.

The Future Jobs Fund has been at the forefront of job creation. It has been a testing ground for organisationsto assess the medium term viability of a post, and growing organisational capacity. During this period of“viability” testing the individual is also benefiting from invaluable work and life experience. Even if theirfuture does not ultimately lie with the organisation, they can leave it a more enthusiastic, highly motivatedindividual with enhanced skills through “experiential learning” that will help them to find subsequentemployment.

In many cases the client group does not always have the experience and background to go for many of thejobs advertised. Many have never worked and therefore the Future Jobs Fund has been a lifeline and aspringboard into future employment.

WCVA itself has employed four young people within different departments. One of these is working as anAdministrator on the Future Job Fund Team. This young man had been to University but had left, deciding thecourse was not suitable for him but not knowing what he wanted to do. Remaining unemployed for ninemonths he struggled to get interviews and when he did was up against high numbers of applicants and peoplewith experience. He is making excellent progress with us, gaining confidence and making a real contributionto processes and development and we are looking to make him a permanent member of WCVA staff.

Action for Children in its evidence to the Assembly Enterprise and Learning Committee noted that there isa huge shortage of work placements, and a shortage of schemes matching the interests of young people. WorkBased Learning is criticised by Action for Children as rarely resulting in a job or move off benefits foryoung people.



In contrast, an FJF activity appears to provide more substantive learning opportunities and is more likely tolead to positive job outcomes at the end. With this in mind, WCVA believes that the decision to finish FJF ayear early brings with it risks and may also represent a missed opportunity.

The growing problem of NEETS is one that policy makers and those working in employment related supportservices cannot ignore. The FJF offers interesting and aspirational work opportunities as well as “experiential”learning for these target groups. It is unclear what can or will replace this in the short and even medium term.

The new Work Programme due to be operational by Summer 2011 will take a while to embed. The FutureJobs Fund could have continued to impact on the benefit register and on young people’s lives whilst the WorkProgramme was being rolled out in the early stages. By retaining the FJF through to its full term, the WorkProgramme would have benefited from a period of transition delivering benefits to the client groups, toparticipating employers, to the government in reduced benefit rates, and also providing invaluable learning toinform prime contractor’s delivering the Work Programme on initiatives to reach young people in fresh ways.

The decision to terminate the scheme early has other disadvantages. The programme has stimulated largedemand from existing and new employers to take advantage of it and many are now disappointed to hear thatit is to finish in March. There will be many young unemployed and organisations that will miss out on thisscheme as a result.

The learning and investment made in JCP relationships and the employer infrastructure is also at risk ofdissipating because of the emergence of a gap in provision between now and implementation of the WorkProgramme in the summer 2011.

At a time when the problem of NEETS, alongside high levels of unemployment among graduates, theabsence of effective programmes that support young people into work is a major problem.

4. How the Transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be Managed, including the Partto be Played by the Government’s Proposal to fund New Apprenticeships

The Work Programme proposes to give greater freedom to suppliers to give people the support they need,rather than a prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach. In theory, therefore, supported employment schemes suchas Future Jobs fund could be included in the new Work Programme.

It appears from early discussions that the time span between FJF finishing and the Work programme startingcould be three months. For existing Flexible New Deal Providers early indications say that they should startby April 2011. But for the new Prime Contractors this is likely to be June 2011. As a result there is a realpossibility that this client group will not have any provision and could potentially be lost in the system untilpicked up by Work Programme providers. This needs to be taken on board and provision picked up by JCPsooner rather than later if the target group of NEETS are strategically addressed.

WCVA would wish to emphasise the importance of a strategic approach developed and applied locally. Theneeds of young people need to be prioritised and mapped, and provision developed at the local level ifprogrammes are to be effective. FJF has worked because it has been supported employment and has served asa transition into work for many of the young people that have been though the fund.

It remains to be resolved whether prime contractors will have the capital, resources and commitment tointroduce these sorts of schemes and more experimental approaches. It is also not clear that how they willtransfer risk or pay partners and suppliers.

The Work Programme if it is to be successful will require prime contractors to embrace a partnershipapproach working with the third sector and smaller, more specialised, local organisations to deliver employmentrelated support which meets the needs of young people.

WCVA’s experience of administering the FJF means that as an organisation we are well placed to play thisbrokerage role with the third sector, as we have built capacity, and have the networks in place at the local levelto support in the delivery of the services required.

WCVA has been at the forefront of innovation with its existing schemes. As an organisation, we recentlycombined European funding for the ILM with the Future Jobs Fund thus enabling us to create 10-monthextended placements for individuals. Through the partnerships we have built with Housing Associations inWales we have succeeded in helping to create work in the re-usable energy field. Housing Associations areable to take an individual through a 10-month placement learning real practical skills for the future. Theseyoung people will then be well placed for the modern apprenticeships scheme.

Many businesses are losing highly skilled staff through natural wastage and unable to replace because of theeconomic climate at the present time. Therefore linkages into apprenticeship schemes would be the next logicalstep forward for individuals as this type of activity creates enthusiastic and highly motivated individuals witha small but valuable employment history that should make them more attractive to employers. It is thereforeimperative that skills programmes in Wales are aligned to work in parallel with the new Work Programme andthat employers are incentivised to become involved in apprenticeship programmes.



If programmes and initiatives are more effectively joined up, the client will benefit from a seamless,integrated and supported journey from welfare to work. Government, employers and taxpayers will also benefitthrough joined up approaches the skills base that has been built up will be lost to individuals, employers andgovernment. Society as a whole also benefits from growing the size of the third sector, and the range ofmeaningful and socially useful work.

Summary

For WCVA the Future Jobs Fund contract has been a challenging contract to manage and we are learningmuch along the way.

The main challenge has been has been the apparent lack of co-ordination and strategy in the bidding andcontracting process. This has led to frustration, duplication and pressure to meet targets. However with theWCVA ethos underpinning partnership work we have managed to steer through this and in fact work with notagainst other FJF providers.

WCVA’s unique position has allowed us to develop a business model that has enabled us to innovate andcreate synergy with other European programmes thus creating longer-term interventions for many youngpeople, which are a huge advantage to both the individual and organisations.

Individuals who are furthest from the job market will need long-term support to move them towardsemployment over sustained periods. In order to reward progress towards the labour market for long-termunemployed and the most disadvantaged groups, a measure of improved employability that is widely agreedupon will be needed

Placing people in real and supported employment provides individuals with the self-esteem, raises theiraspirations and self-belief that they are employable not just being dumped or discarded on yet “anothertraining scheme”.

WCVA would argue that by working in partnership with the third sector and providing real employment isa cost effective way of dealing with the multiple barriers individuals face and produces a triple benefit; helpingindividuals, enabling third sector organisations to grow capacity and benefits society in supporting the growthof socially useful and socially responsible work in the economy.

The Rowntree Foundation undertook one of the most thorough assessments of the ILM programme in 2000.They looked at the cost effectiveness of such provision compared to mainstream schemes like New Deal. Itwas found that their high success rate in assisting long-term unemployed meant that they provided “equivalentor better value for money” than alternative schemes.

The WCVA North West Wales scheme cost per person in 2006 at the finish of the first scheme was £5,622providing excellent value for money. It achieved a job entry rate of 63% again exceeding other welfare to workprogrammes including Employment Zones and New Deal. On the present scheme, which is part way throughits delivery, the cost per head is running at £5,280.

The Future Job Fund, which has many similarities, cost per person is set at £6,500 but many employersdo not claim the full amount back, and could be argued is as cost effective as any other scheme that hasbeen delivered.

Programmes similar to Future Jobs will be vital in the new Work programme particularly given the clientgroups that the new programme will need to cater for. WCVA’s experience has shown that programmes suchare far more successful in overcoming the multiple barriers individuals face than the “training schemes” ofthe past.

We would therefore urge DWP to encourage prime contractors to invest in this type of activity and supportprime contractors to create mechanisms through which solutions such as Future Jobs Fund can be scaled up,replicated or learned from. This will mean issuing contracts that reward steps towards achieving job outcomes,and which focus on the long term value to be gained from the client journey, not just the hard outcomesthemselves. Prime contractors will need to take this approach on board if they are to maximise the value ofsuch approaches and work successfully in partnership with third sector organisations.

Finally the evaluation of FJF by the DWP also needs to be given priority as does the role for independentevaluation of such schemes in ensuring that the success, and learning from FJF is understood both by the DWPand Job Centre Plus but also the prime contractors delivering the Work Programme as well as the organisationswho have participated in such schemes.

WCVA looks forward to a summary of this enquiry and to hearing the experiences of other FJF providersacross the UK.

23 August 2010



Written evidence submitted by Acacia Destiny

Summary

Acacia Destiny CIC has been working with the Future Jobs Fund to provide employment opportunities inthe Child Care and Health & Social Care sectors in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire. From our perspective, theFuture Jobs Fund has been a great success, gaining young people employment through training and workexperience. Operating in a “hot spot” area, there was a split of 77% 18–24s and 23% over 24s employed.Overall, Acacia has a 100% performance rate and an 87.5% employment rate at the end of the six monthprogramme.

Strengths of the FJF Programme

The FJF scheme has clearly enabled people to get into work, gaining experience and regaining some selfbelief. The candidates we processed would not have found employment or training without the FJF. We weresurprised by the number of qualified individuals who were unable to find employment without the FJFprogramme.

Ongoing contact with the candidates has shown us that the individuals have realised the benefits ofemployment and have welcomed the opportunity to prove and better themselves. They have found jobsatisfaction working in the care sector. Most had wanted to work in this sector before the FJF programme, sothe FJF has not only clarified their career goals, but has opened the door for them.

Under Acacia’s programme, the FJF has given candidates a qualification as a building block for furtherdevelopment. This has not only increased the individual’s confidence and improved their employability for thefuture, but has benefited the wider community and the care sector generally by ensuring better qualifiedemployees are now working in the sector.

A broad cross-section of the community has been represented within the individuals who have gainedemployment—different personalities, genders and ethnic backgrounds have been offered employment in thecare sector through the FJF programme. Around 20% of the individuals employed through the FJF have beenmale—quite impressive in a sector that nationally employs 13% males and locally just 12% males (NMDS,July 2010).

FJF has also created jobs within Acacia. We now have 12 full time staff to work on the FJF programme,two of whom are employed through the FJF themselves who have recently secured full time employmentwith us.

Weaknesses of the FJF Programme

Acacia have tried to organise the weaknesses encountered into three broad areas: the candidates,JobCentrePlus and funding.

The candidates

In the first six months, we had over 400 candidates referred to us from JCP. Of these, only 25% were suitablefor employment in the care sector. A further 29% were unsuitable for various reasons (attitude towards the roleor employment, criminal record etc) and 25% failed to attend interviews with us or employers.

CRB checks were a particular issue within this sector. Despite asking at interview stage if there were anyissues that may come up on the CRB, some candidates had employment offers withdrawn when CRB checkscame back. The length of time it took for CRBs to be reported back caused delays as well. Whilst some werereturned in a week, most took three to four weeks. In extreme cases, it was more than four weeks.

JobCentrePlus

The importance of the role played by JCP in selecting and informing suitable candidates for the FJF cannotbe understated. However, due to pressures of both time and targets, this became a weakness.

We felt that there was a lack of understanding of the FJF which led to JCP staff referring to the FJF as a“six month placement”. This often made candidates reluctant to commit; when Acacia changed the terminologyto six months employment, including training to NVQ level 2 stage and the real possibility of continuedemployment at the end of the programme, the majority were far more enthusiastic. In the end, Acacia produceda combined information and application pack for use in JCP at referral stage to help both the staff explain andthe candidates understand what the FJF programme was about.

Improved careers advice would also have benefitted the referrals process and the candidates enormously.Some candidates were referred to us with no understanding whatsoever of what the role entails.



Funding

Some candidates were put off when they compared what they would gain in wages against what they wouldlose in benefits. Perhaps this could have been negated by allowing more than 25 hours per week to be fundedby the FJF.

We also found that a number of the smaller employers in our region were likely to terminate employmentat the end of the FJF programme because they could not afford to sustain the additional jobs created by FJF.Further funding to FJF employers for a period of time after the end of the FJF programme would have increasedthe success rate of the programme for the longer term.

Another weakness was the transfer of wage compensation from DWP to Acacia. These payments wouldcome from DWP to Acacia, who would then promptly distribute it to the employers. With the employers oftenpaying the individuals on a weekly basis, they were always receiving the wage compensation around fiveweeks in arrears. For some of these employers, this put tremendous strain on their finances and placed someof the FJF jobs in jeopardy. If the payment from DWP to Acacia was delayed for any reason, this increasedthe problem massively.

Impact of Termination

The decision to end the Future Jobs Fund in March 2011 rather than March 2012 has left many candidates,job seekers and employers in the care and child care sectors at a considerable disadvantage. Acacia has 54candidates (15% of the total referred to us) who have been interviewed by us or by employers who are nowbeing told that there are no further vacancies. Having motivated the candidates to undertake successfulinterviews, they were massively let down by the termination of FJF.

Although the FJF programme has been headlined as running until March 2011, there are a large number ofcontracts that will have been ended prior to that, with nothing to fill the vacuum during the months until thenew Work Programme is unveiled. This will not only disadvantage the individuals who have been left in thisvoid, but it will have a detrimental impact on the care sector as well.

Inevitably, there will be a negative impact on Acacia as well. We increased our staff levels to operate theFJF programme; these staff are now at risk while we wait for the replacement programme to come on stream.

Transition to Replacement Programmes

At the time of writing, details of the replacement Work Programme are sketchy, so it is hard to evaluate theimpact it will have on the jobs market. Certainly the arrival of several thousand qualified and motivated ex-civilservants will make the marketplace more competitive and may lead to those already disadvantaged members ofsociety falling even further behind. We can only assume that this will have been factored in to the newprogramme.

The current proposal to fund new apprenticeships as a partial replacement for the FJF is not an ideal solution,but neither was FJF. Although there are obvious parallels between the apprenticeships route and the way wehave chosen to implement the FJF programme, the major stumbling block to overcome is one of full-timevacancies. At the moment, we can approach potential employers, offer them a part-time employee with afunded salary, then train the individual both in the workplace and in the classroom. With the implementationof apprenticeships, they will presumably need to be a full-time employee with the guarantee of full-timeemployment at the end of the apprenticeship. An insistence of it being a full-time position throughout maywell be a major barrier in the current climate.

We also have concerns about the plans for candidates over 24 years of age. Although the FJF was primarilyaimed at 18–24 year olds, we have been operating in a “hot spot” area and have seen 23% of our employedindividuals come from the over 24 group. Whilst appreciating the need to get people into work at an earlystage, before unemployment leads them down the potential path of low self-esteem and reliance on benefits,there does need to be some contingency for other sectors of society.

31 August 2010

Written evidence submitted by East Lothian Council

Summary

1. East Lothian Council, in partnership with Volunteer Development East Lothian, the East Lothian VoluntaryOrganisations Network and the East Lothian Learning Partnership, was successful in an initial bid (2009) tocreate 26 quality jobs for young people. A second application was submitted (March 2010) for the creation of38 job opportunities for unemployed young people in East Lothian. Unfortunately this bid was halted due tothe decision to terminate the FJF programme.

2. Each bid outlined that the employees would be provided with suitable training and offered support to helpguide them throughout the six months. In addition, East Lothian Council’s Adult Guidance and CounsellingService was on hand to provide extra support to those that require assistance. Help and advice on developing



CV’s, successful interview techniques and searching for a job were all available. Specific training for each jobenhanced the skills and knowledge of the young people to ensure they were equipped to gain sustainedemployment.

3. On completion of the six month job opportunity there was a guaranteed interview with East LothianCouncil (if the minimum criteria were met for an advertised job). There was the opportunity of a guaranteedinterview at Jewel and Esk College.

Extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunities toYoung Unemployed People

4. FJF met and exceeded expectations of matching new job opportunities to long-term unemployed youngpeople. Out of a potential 26 jobs, 24 young people were employed in a variety of positions. Levels ofeducation, skills and experience varied greatly but for many of the newly-created positions there was a highdemand with many applicants.

5. The FJF process of referrals was very effective in ensuring eligible candidates, those in greatest need ofpractical work experience, were aware of the job opportunities and able to apply without competing withcandidates with greater experience and skills in the current economic climate.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme from the perspective of Providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

6. FJF created real, practical work experience for young people who were paid a decent salary. They wereprovided with relevant transferable training, skills and knowledge. FJF gave young people an opportunity todevelop and change their lives.

7. The programme provided an opportunity to create new jobs with a social and/or environmental benefit.The jobs created were new and would not have been available otherwise. All jobs added to service delivery inthe public and third sector. So not only were the jobs benefitting the young people but also the widercommunity.

8. Although public sector funding should be transparent and provide an audit trail the FJF, at times was aburden due to the large amount of bureaucracy involved. Dealing with different parts of DWP was sometimesfrustrating and there was scope to improve communication.

9. It was a weakness of the programme that funding was only available for a six month period; this is ashort period of time. For many young people they have just become settled and determined to continuedeveloping when the job experience comes to an end. Some employers have been able to offer the youngpeople a positive destination but some simple lack funding to retain the young people. The current economicclimate is continuing to make it hard for these young people to find employment. Despite that, a number havemoved on to full-time permanent employment, which they would not have been able to achieve withoutthese opportunities.


10. The impact of the decision to end FJF in East Lothian has been negative. The partnership learnt fromthe initial bid and was able to extend the number of job opportunities in the second unsuccessful bid (due tothe cancellation of the programme). There is demand in East Lothian but without funding such positiveopportunities will be limited. Youth unemployment is continuing to rise with greater number of young peoplewithout positive destinations. These young people are unable to compete in the current job market as they lackexperience, skills and education.

1 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Wakefield Council

1.0 Summary

1.1 Wakefield Council’s Future jobs Fund project has been successful to date in creating more than 400temporary, additional jobs for young unemployed people and other long-term claimants in unemployment “hot-spots” throughout the District.

1.2 A wide range of jobs have appealed to young people, mostly within Council services but around a thirdwith Third Sector partners have added significant value to the project.

1.3 Key strengths include the excellent partnership working between the Council and JobCentre Plus whichhas ensured that initial challenges with a new initiative were swiftly overcome and that the young people werealways the focus of our joint attention. Other strengths include the attitudes of managers both within the



Council and all our partners, and essentially, the attitude and commitment of the young people themselves, thevast majority of whom have shown eagerness and aptitude in the workplace.

1.4 A key weakness identified by young people and managers is that six months is too short a period formany young people. The lack of discretionary funding such as Working Neighbourhoods Fund in Wakefieldhas meant that we have not been able to extend opportunities, as have our neighbours in Barnsley and Bradford,other than for 30 young people employed in some of our Voluntary Sector partner organisations where theCoalfields Regeneration Trust has funded a further six months employment.

2.0 Extent to which Future Jobs Fund has succeeded in matching New Work ExperienceOpportunities to Young Unemployed People

2.1 Wakefield’s FJF project has created opportunities that young people have been attracted to. Of the 400temporary jobs filled up to September 2010 just less that half have been manual in nature, or working outdoors.These jobs have proved particularly popular with young males.

2.2 Administrative roles make up a similar proportion of the jobs created and these have been popular withboth men and women.

2.3 Only a small number of our jobs have required higher level skills, but that has enabled us to accommodatethe small number of unemployed graduates eligible for FJF.

2.4 Young people have not been drawn to the caring roles we have created, whether that be in adult socialcare of working with people with mental health problems or learning disabilities. This is something of concernas a high proportion of jobs available in the open labour market are in the care sector.

2.5 The inability to include the private sector, other than on the periphery, has meant that we have not beenable to maximise the variety of opportunities on offer. However some of our Third Sector partners have beenable to design retail and warehousing jobs, although small in number but relevant as both are major sources ofemployment in Wakefield. We have been able to secure an extension of a further six months’ employment for30 young people employed with some of our Voluntary Sector partners. This has been possible due to additionalfunding being secured through the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.

2.6 A key attraction has been the fact that the FJF opportunities are jobs, paid at least National MinimumWage. They are not seen as “work placements” or part of a “scheme”.

3.0 Strengths and Weaknesses from the perspective of Providers, Employers and YoungUnemployed People and particularly in relation to the Long Term Sustainability ofEmployment Opportunities

3.1 Strengths

3.1.1 Wakefield Council as provider can point to the excellent partnership between JobCentre Plus and theCouncil as a key strength. This partnership puts the young person as the focus at all times but also createsdiscussion concerning the nature of the vacancies to be created, the planning of recruitment, job matching byJCP staff, easing transition to work, regular contact “behind the scenes” and where unavoidable the sensitivetransition back to benefits.

3.1.2 A further strength from a provider perspective has been our ability to commission A “Wraparound”service which works with the young people and their employer to determine training needs, help withperformance issues, act as a mentor for the individual but also in providing a general mediation role whichwould have been very difficult to deliver as a provider. This service is delivered through a local Third Sectoremployer. A further strength has been the commitment to the programme from our employers ie the Councilmanagers and our Third Sector partners that not only give us the jobs, but ensure that young people aresupported in their employment.

3.1.3 Good working relationships with the other local authorities in our sub region has enabled an effectiveWest Yorkshire Group to be established which has brought together JobCentre Plus at a District level with allthe local authority providers. The sharing of information, intelligence and good practice has helped informlocal development of FJF programmes.

3.1.4 Employers have identified a number of strengths:

— The ability to have flexible working hours to suit the employer.

— The availability of funds to support personal and protective equipment or Criminal RecordsBureau checks.

— The ability to deliver services that would not have been possible without funding support.

— For Third Sector partners the ability to use FJF to boost capacity and help sustainability.

— The development of a mentoring role and the experience of working with young people, whichmany of our employers have not done previously.



3.1.5 Young people have expressed their opinions as to the strengths of FJF:

— Relative ease of the application process and the matching process offered by JobCentre Plus.

— Informal and non-threatening nature of interviews, given that for many it was their first experienceof job interviews.

— Plentiful and varied opportunities for training.

— Real work experience doing a real job.

— Paid a real wage.

Quotes from young people employed with FJF Funding:

“It’s a great experience. I’ve learnt new skills and it’s given me an insight to market life.”—TonyAusterbury Operational Markets Assistant

“Future Jobs Fund is providing me with the opportunity to gain work skills as well as developing myconfidence. Every day I come into work happy.”—Jay Westmoreland Recruitment Assistant

“Working with Countryside Rangers I have learnt new skills and gained valuable work experience whilstbeing paid. I am looking forward to using my experience in full-time employment.”—James SeniorAssistant Countryside Ranger

“I’ve been at the Future Jobs Fund for three months now—I think it’s brilliant, it gives young people likemyself the confidence and ability to learn and gain new skills.”—Chantelle Townsend Chrysalis YouthProject, Admin Assistant

“I was applying for retail work, nothing to do with sports. It’s got me off the streets and it’s an opportunityof a lifetime. I’ve got the certificates and knowledge in a short period of time. It’s unbelievable. I loveworking around kids. This opportunity is amazing. It’s doing something I enjoy”.—Rachel Larkin SESKUAcademy, Assistant Sports Coach

“When I started looking for a job two places told me not to bother and one asked me if I was going toget pregnant—I think they felt threatened. I love the job because it’s different, there’s something newevery day and I’m not just sitting in an office. The Future Jobs Fund was a great opportunity for me, it wasthe only chance I had of becoming a mechanic.”—Angela Thornton Trainee Mechanic, Chrysalis Project

3.1.6 We also believe that a recent job reference and good CV update will stand young people in good steadwhen applying for jobs beyond FJF as will the promotion of FJF young people to private sector employerslooking for staff. Our employers have commented that young people have “bloomed” during their employmentand have been able to demonstrate their potential.

3.1.7 As can be seen with the quotes from young people, many express the view that the opportunity hashelped them gain new skills. Although some of these skills may be specific and related to their job role, manyare generic and transferable to any job role in any sector eg:

— Time management. Ensuring that they maintain good attendance records and plan their work interms of priorities determined by their supervisors.

— Team Working Skills. Most young people work as part of a team and the work enables them todevelop team skills that are so valued by employers in general.

— Customer Service Skills. Most of the temporary jobs have a customer focus as part of the“community benefit”, which could be direct or indirect. Young people are appreciating theimportance of dealing with customers in a professional and courteous manner which will standthem in good stead when looking for further work.

— Problem Solving Skills. Although all positions are adequately supervised there are occasions forall positions when young people have to make decisions to overcome operational problems theyencounter, experience that is valued by employers.

3.2 Weaknesses

3.2.1 From a provider perspective the lack of discretionary funds to extend opportunities has weakened ourprogramme in that some of our neighbouring authorities that have access to Working Neighbourhoods Fundhave been able to offer 12 months paid employment. We contend that youth unemployment is as much of anissue in Wakefield yet we have been unable to enhance our offer to young people. Having said that we havesecured some additional funds through the Coalfields Regeneration Trust to extend 30 jobs within partnerorganisations—less that 5% of our total number of jobs. A weakness, in terms of aligning FJF with otherpriorities, has been the inability of JobCentre Plus to share personal data with us and consequently we havenot been able to estimate how job opportunities have impacted on NEET young people, young care leavers etc.

3.2.2 Employers have raised concerns at the lack of opportunities to extend the six months of employment,both in terms of the impact on the employee but also in that the service that FJF employers deliver will be lostonce the employment ends. Also, a flip side of one of the strengths, there have been some issues with employersnot being used to working with this client group and being apprehensive in their early dealings with youngpeople at interview and in employment.



3.2.3 Young people again have raised six months’ employment as a weakness, in that it’s not long enough,difficult to access career paths, doesn’t fit with some training opportunities and motivation can deteriorate asthe six month end date looms. Furthermore young people fear that if they return to benefits they will go to theback of the queue and quickly lose the motivation and work skills they had gained.

3.3 Sustainability

3.3.1 Sustaining jobs was always going to be challenging given the status of the economy and the locallabour market.

3.3.2 It had been anticipated that we would be able to secure some permanent opportunities within theCouncil. However the immediate financial restrictions placed on the Council in May 2010, at the same time asour first tranche of FJF employees reached six months employment, has resulted in there being no opportunitiesdue to a recruitment embargo.

3.3.3 The situation is slightly better with our Third Sector partners where a handful of opportunities havebeen sustained with the hope that a majority of the 30, 12 month opportunities either being sustained or theiroccupants finding employment in the open labour market with a year of work experience behind them.

3.3.4 The Wraparound service provider is also identifying opportunities in the open labour market that FJFemployees could be suited to. As the provider Wakefield Council is to act as advocate for young peopleapproaching the end of their FJF job in proactive discussions with private sector employers and supportagencies. The success of this advocacy will be predicated on the employment capacity of the private sector inWakefield. This advocacy will centre on detailing the employability skills that young people have gained duringtheir employment ie time management skills, presentation skills, team working skills, problem solving andcustomer service skills.

4.0 The likely Impact of the Decision to end Future Jobs Fund in March 2011 rather thanMarch 2012

4.1 An early end to FJF could have the following implications:

— Some third sector organisations that have come to FJF later in the project will not get maximumvalue from it.

— Emerging third sector organisations/work streams will not be able to benefit from FJF.

— Council services that have been able to evidence community benefit will not be able to enhancefuture service delivery through FJF employees.

— Youth unemployment in Wakefield will increase or the proportion moving to Governmentsponsored training opportunities will increase rather than into employment.

— Young people will still face tough competition in a tight labour market as Public Sectorredundancies will release skilled and experienced people onto the claimant count.

— Lost expertise within FJF providers as those managing the projects are not retained.

5.0 How the Transition from Future Jobs Fund to the Work Programme will be Managed,including the Part to be Played by the Government’s Proposals to fund New Apprenticeships

5.1 We await further details on the new Work Programme and how it will support young people, both interms of those young people who cannot access FJF from March 2011 but also for those that will completetheir FJF employment after March 2011 and have to return to benefits.

5.2 We hope that those young people completing a FJF period of employment would have early entry to theWork Programme to ensure that the employability skills and experience they have gained can be quicklyharnessed by the new provider to enable prompt re-entry to employment. A further qualifying period woulddisadvantage the young people as they would still face stiff competition in the labour market, perhaps evenmore competition as former public sector workers join the job seekers regime.

5.3 An apprenticeship will be a good progression route for many young people and some FJF providers havebeen able to enable FJF opportunities to extend into apprenticeships.

5.4 Where providers like ourselves have not been able to do so there needs to be some support as to howwe can link young people to apprenticeships through the National Apprenticeships Service with awarenessraising for apprenticeship providers and employers.

5.5 A great deal has been done to build relationships between the Council and JobCentre Plus, which hasadded real strength to the FJF programme. Similarly we have involved many Third Sector partners, some ofwhom have employed people for the first time. Every effort needs to be made to ensure that those relationshipscan be absorbed into the Work Programme. It remains unclear what role Councils will have in the developmentand delivery of the Work Programme. At the moment it seems that the strategic support that Councils are well



placed to offer is not to be a requirement for the Prime Contractors to secure but rather down to themethodology to be determined by the Primes.

3 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Scout Enterprises (Western) Ltd

Summary

1. Our partnership consists of 15 small to medium sized voluntary sector organisations who were not in aposition to bid individually for a contract. Scout Enterprises designed a model for delivery whereby we employall young people, but they work in our partners’ organisations. We are responsible for all their employmentneeds, such as Induction, Personal Development and training, plus personal support and jobsearch. We alsomanage the majority of the administration and payroll.

2. This method of delivery frees up the partner organisation to get the most from the FJF so that they canoffer more support and job training to the young people in their workplace. It has proved an efficient designwith a central referral office, allowing a prompt service to both partners and JCP.

3. Our experience of the FJF so far has been very positive. Scout Enterprises has been delivering workfocused programmes for over 20 years and to date this is one of the most effective and satisfying to run. It isproviding young people with a real job, for most their first. It is motivating young people to seriously seekfurther employment rather than go back to a benefit existence. It is not work experience or a “benefit plus”. Itmakes a huge difference.

4. The partners involved are also benefiting. In times when funding is scarce, the extra staff and skills theyoung people are bringing to the workplace are helping to build the capacity of the organisations.

5. The following is feedback from a selection of our partners who wished to contribute.

6. Name: Maria Damsell, Upper Horfield Community Trust (UHCT) Eden Grove Methodist Church, EdenGrove, Horfield, Bristol, BS7 0PQ.

7. The Future Jobs Fund programme has had a really positive and beneficial effect on our charity here inUpper Horfield. We are a small charity that provides a wealth of activities and projects for a disadvantagedcommunity within the Upper Horfield area of Bristol. The programme has helped us:

— Increase capacity to develop our programmes and activities.

— Supported the ability for us to become a little bit more sustainable by adding to our staff capacity.

— Allowed the local community to feel they have supported young people to nurture skills anddevelop young people within their community.

8. It has helped the young people who have received jobs to:

— Increase their skills for work and access relevant training.

— One young person went on to secure an apprenticeship.

— 2 of the young people have been employed by our organisation once their FJF job was complete.

— Given young people the opportunity to show what they are good at and to begin to understandwhat it is like to work within a busy and supportive environment(especially prevalent for thosewho have never had a job).

— Allowed the young people to gain an insight into “Big Society” work within a local communitycentre where the message is to give something back to your community and how important that is.

9. Overall the project in our opinion has been very successful and supported our organisation to develop andsustain at a time when local community centres are imperative to give vulnerable communities support toimprove quality of life and well-being in an increasingly unsettled economic climate.

10. Lee Mills, General Manager, The Helicopter MuseumRegistered Charity Number 281053

11. “Since starting in our cafe a month ago our Future Jobs Employee, Tracey has made a really positiveimpact in the running of the department. Her confidence has come on leaps and bounds and she is well likedby both volunteers and customers alike. Thanks to her help our cafe has had the busiest season on record andtherefore generated much needed extra income for our museum / charity. This is in no small part to Tracey’scontribution and her hard work and commitment is to be praised and applauded. By building her confidenceand through gaining valued experience working through extremely busy shifts with a conscientious work ethic,I am certain that she would have no difficulty in finding employment in a similar role. She has proven to be agreat asset and a worthy ambassador for the future jobs programme”



12. Pieter Van Der Watt, Castle Quarry Activity Centre.

13. Good news was the employment of Kyle Worgan. FJF gave him the opportunity to be employed as anactivity instructor for six months, during this time he proved to be an exemplary employee. We are pleasedthat he has helped so much that we were able to raise funds and employ him after the FJF job had finished.All other instructors that joined us during the contract term wanted to continue working for us and did notwant to go back on benefits. They all benefited from the working environment they were put in and endedtheir contracts as a more mature and responsible people looking forward to joining the work force as soon aspossible with the experience they have gained.

14. Julie Hathaway, Director, National Development Department & South West Region KIDS

15. Whilst we have not been part of the programme for long and therefore cannot provide a case study, whatI would say is that Future Jobs Fund could be part of a wider initiative that enabled young disabled people totry out work opportunities without affecting their benefits—many young disabled people face discriminatorybarriers to employment on two fronts:

— Employers feel it is too expensive to employ them.

— They will lose their benefits and go into low paid work.

16. Future jobs fund could provide an opportunity for both the employee and employer to test out theopportunity using access to work funding for any specific equipment/support required to ensure the youngperson could access their job on similar terms to their non-disabled colleagues—we believe this is a genuineopportunity to try out employment in an area of interest and could “mainstream” the supported employmentopportunities available through organisations such as Remploy

17. Geoff Alsopp, Adult Education Manager , Amana Education Trust.

18. With regard to the Future Jobs Fund initiative

19. Amana engaged with the Future Jobs Fund through our agents, Scouts Enterprise, some 6 months ago,and since then we have had every reason to celebrate the success of this scheme and hope that the newgovernment will share our view that there are no losers in this initiative.

20. The winners can be counted as follows:

— The individuals who gain valuable work experience. As a result of their employment with us, theymay well be motivated to seek other (similar?) employment when their six-month term comes toan end or seek training to further career prospects.

— We, the employer who have benefited from workers who otherwise we would not have been ableto afford. They have provided a much-needed service for Amana—a small charity which normallydepends on volunteers.

— The community. As a result of these extra staff we have been able to provide services to othercommunity groups and individuals.

6 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by National Children’s Bureau (NCB)

1.0 Summary

The Work and Pensions Select Committee Inquiry into Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund(FJF) has invited written submissions. These submissions are in relation to the strengths and weaknesses of thecurrent programme, the impact of terminating the programme and the transition to the Future Work Programme.

NCB, as a Skills Development provider under the FJF, is well placed to comment on the successes of theprogramme to date and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the impact that the programme has had onthe young people involved.

Overall the impact of the programme has been positive for both voluntary sector employers and participatingyoung people, creating a more representative and balanced work force as well as providing young people withthe chance to develop their knowledge and skills in the workplace. A focus for improvement would be targettingapplicants with a genuine interest in the sector rather than encouraging blanket applications for all availablevacancies.

NCB has concerns about the impact of ending the programme early and managing the transition to theFuture Work Programme. In particular, NCB is concerned that focus on young people with lower educationalattainement ignores the large numbers of graduates who have been unable to secure employment. For thisreason NCB encourages a focus on the transition from education and worklessness to increase the chances ofyoung people from 18–24 securing employment in the long term.



2.0 NCB’s Skills Development Programme

2.1 Starting in March 2010 as part of its Voluntary Sector Support work, NCB was funded under the FutureJobs programme to run a Skills Development Programme for previously unemployed young people agedbetween 18 and 24.

2.2 The Programme creates work-based job learning opportunities for young people within community andvoluntary sector organisations. After one month’s induction into the world of work, the young people areplaced in entry level jobs lasting for a minimum of five months, working 25 hours per week for a voluntaryorganisation based in the London Boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich, Lambeth, Hackney, Newham or TowerHamlets.

2.3 NCB supports the young people throughout the programme and beyond: in addition to the initialcomprehensive one-month induction, NCB works with the young people to develop tailored learning plans,provides a named mentor, and offers support to secure permanent employment.

3.0 The extent to which the Future Jobs Fund (FjF) has succeeded in atching New WorkExperience Opportunities to Young Unemployed People

3.1 Over the past year, NCB has worked with its voluntary sector members and the young people on theSkills Development Programme to facilitate work experience in supportive and nurturing environments. Wewant to ensure that the young people are:

— gaining valuable work experience that is transferable;

— able to overcome the barriers to work that most young people face in a safe and supportiveenvironment (i.e. childcare issues, housing issues, moving from benefits to pay etc.);

— confident, have high levels of self esteem and able to compete effectively for jobs.

3.2 However, despite high levels of interest in the programme (271 young people applying to be on it todate), we have been able to offer only 21 jobs to eligible young people in member organisations and withinNCB itself. And, despite attempts to secure posts in other areas of London, each of these jobs is based in eitherthe London Boroughs of Islington or Lambeth.

3.3 The vacancies filled to date include: Project Administrator, Research Assistant, Library Assistant, PolicyOfficer, Receptionist, Play Worker, IT Helpdesk Assistant, Media and Communications Apprentice, FundraisingAssistant, and Administration Assistant.

3.4 This is not a reflection on the quality, commitment or enthusiasm of the young people who want to takepart—the 21 young people so far placed in employment remain there, a 100% retention rate. The challengehas been in finding appropriate vacancies for the young people. Although our experience is that the FjF hasbeen successful in matching applicants to jobs, there are not enough jobs for the applicants.

4.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the FjF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector) Employers, and Young Employed People, particularly inrelation to the Long Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

4.1 In terms of Strengths, NCB has found the following:

4.1.1 From a voluntary sector employers perspective: The programme offers a virtual “risk free” opportunityto employ and upskill young people. In 2009, Beatbullying and the Directory of Social Change undertook asurvey1 looking at younger people and apprenticeships within third sector organisations. The results indicatethat organisations in the sector are unable, rather than unwilling, to offer apprenticeship places and that thissituation is attributable to two main factors:

— On the whole, smaller organisations recruit experienced and knowledgeable staff as they do nothave the financial resources to invest in training and developing junior staff. Primarily they relyon larger voluntary sector organisations like NCB or those outside the sector to fulfil this function.

— And they do not have the internal capacity to offer adequate support to younger inexperiencedstaff, or those with little or no academic achievement.

4.1.2 These two factors create an unbalanced workforce within the sector, with entrants into organisationsbeing primarily experienced individuals or individuals with good academic qualifications who are self startersor able to work on their own initiative.

4.1.3 The FjF programme has made a direct contribution to alleviating the difficulty the third sectorexperiences in recruiting and maintaining a workforce that is more reflective of society as a whole. Participatingorganisations have the opportunity as well as the funding that enables them to employ young people who arelocally based, and keen to learn about the organisation and the sector as a whole. Importantly, this can takeplace without the added pressure of having to satisfy immediate performance targets and outputs.1 Directory of Social Change (2009) Could the third sector skills body lead the way to a third sector apprenticeship scheme?

http://www.dsc.org.uk/NewsandInformation/Newsarchive/copy_of_Couldthelaunchofthethirdsectorskillsbodyleadthewaytoathirdsectorapprenticeshipscheme



4.1.4 Additionally the FjF programme provides the opportunity for organisations to build their capacity; (inour case) interact directly with their target group; support the sector in training and upskilling young people tobe conscientious, reliable and contributory members of staff; and cover basic salary costs whilst this ishappening.

4.1.5 For the young people, the programme improves their knowledge, helps them to gain new skills, breaksdown any barriers they face to successful integration into work, and helps them contribute to their localcommunities. Raising levels of confidence and skills has a direct impact on the long term sustainability of theemployment of young people themselves: their level of confidence in their own abilities increases, and theystart to see the evidence in their work that they are effective. In our experience, on the whole, young peoplewant to be part of a successful workforce; as their contributions to their workplace are acknowledged, theygain in self-esteem and become more integral to the organisation.

4.1.6 NCB has found that, in the right environment, young people are able to sustain employment whenprovided with an employer that is willing to ensure necessary skills development “extras” are in place:comprehensive inductions; on-the-job training; and a nurturing support mechanism that includes regular 1–2–1meetings with line managers, clear structures of work and mentors to help overcome any barriers.

4.1.7 Young people who have applied to, been interviewed for and/or taken part in NCB’s FjF SkillsDevelopment Programme have said:

— About the Opportunity to take part in the Skills Development programme:

— I’ve never had the opportunity before to get involved in the voluntary sector so its been greatto learn about charities.

— The biggest success of my placement so far has been to be in a work environment and getthis experience—its been really valuable.

— This opportunity has been a real eye opener to the profession I want to go into.

— About the comprehensive Induction:

— Equality and Diversity and IT have both been a highlight.

— Its been really useful to refresh my practical IT skills through the induction.

— Goal setting was really useful—its good to start thinking about the future and what I wantto do.

— My taster days in the workplace were really useful because I had the chance to meetcolleagues so have felt more comfortable when I start work.

— The induction made my transition into work much easier, it seemed like a less dauntingprocess.

— About the Job:

— I really love it! I’ve gained much more skills than I expected.

— I’ve gained lots of experience and am enjoying being busy each day.

— I’ve really grown in confidence and improved in my communication skills.

— My timekeeping has really improved through being at work every day.

— Even though it’s a lot of travel, my work motivates me to get up each day.

— About their Mentor:

— Having a mentor has been great to help me in setting goals and being clearer about what Iwant to do.

— I’ve enjoyed meeting my mentor to set targets and think more about the future.

— My mentor is my first point of contact if I have a problem I need to discuss.

— About the Support received:

— I’ve had lots of support so far.

— Our session about careers in the voluntary sector was really good. I also learnt how importantit is about being punctual, honest and reliable.

— I’m getting on really well with my manager and feel that I am well supported.

4.2 In terms of Weaknesses, NCB has found the following:

4.2.1 From a voluntary sector employer’s perspective: All advertising of positions has to go throughJobCentre Plus (JCP); employers themselves are not allowed to recruit to the criteria specified by JCP. Theservice provided lacks “personalisation”. For example, a young person might inform JCP that s/he wants towork in a particular field, but the JCP advisor will advise them to apply for every vacancy available. JCP doesnot provide the young person with advice and support to see if they are suitable for the vacancy, nor does itencourage young people to review their CV and highlight skills and experience that are relevant to particularvacancies when completing a job application. Employment opportunities are not posted quickly, andapplications received by the employers can be incomplete, or arrive after the closing date for the job.



4.2.2 Finally, a real weakness is that young people are not always prepared when they come to interviewbecause they have not been provided with the submitted job descriptions and supporting information by JCP.When advertising vacancies, employers provide this information to respondents as a matter of course. Becausethe FjF process of advertising and applications are managed by JCP, that does not always happen; the systemin which they work is highly centralised and not focused on the needs of the individual.

4.2.3 From a young person’s perspective:

— At assessment day “I don’t know anything about the job, my advisor told me to come here”.

— “I’m not interested in this type of work, I was told by my advisor to apply for everything”.

5.0 The likely impact of the Decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

5.1 Reducing the programme length will impact on young people themselves. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds signing on for more than six months but less than a year jumped by 112% in the year to May 2010. Youngmen have been worst affected, with one in five of those aged between 18 and 24 out of work2. These statisticsreflect the increasing number of young people who are applying for a limited number of jobs. The decision toend the programme in March 2011 rather than March 2012 will increase unemployment for young people inthis age range.

5.2 It is also important to note that the high levels of unemployment in this age range are not necessarilylinked to low educational attainment—there is, however, a clear link to the number of vacancies available. Over70% of the young people applying to NCB’s FjF Skills Development Programme have university education ordegrees. We assume, therefore, that an early end to the FjF makes it even less likely that young people withlower level or no qualifications will be able to secure any type of work, short or long-term.

6.0 How the transition from FjF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part tobe played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships

6.1 As the single Work Programme is still in its initial tendering stage and therefore only open to providersable to offer the full package, it is difficult to comment on how the transition from FjF to these programmeswill be managed. We also note that the programme is not expected to be up and running until summer 2011,leaving a gap of a few months where nothing will be in place.

6.2 The mechanisms for managing the change could involve working with the existing contract holders sothat those young people on the programme experience a seamless transition to the new programme, and theimpact to both prospective employees and employers is minimal.

6.3 In line with Coalition Government policy, we believe that the transition to the Work Programme willfocus on the conversion of the FjF places to “new apprenticeships”. However, since the majority of our FjFapplicants are graduates, there is a potential youth unemployment gap for those who already have qualifications.

6.4 NCB believes that new apprenticeships should focus on the transition from education or worklessness towork. They should encompass a comprehensive induction that helps young people deal with the barriers theymay face when contemplating or starting work (ie childcare, travel, housing issues, managing finances, teambuilding, time management and workplace behavior etc) progressing to team working, setting projects andtasks with a regular review in place, and making use of the services provided by Work Programme providersand later their employer that can support their transition into employment. A “work skills” apprenticeship—with salary costs covered or heavily subsidised for the first year, and clearly designed for those with no or littlerelevant work experience regardless of their educational background—may, in the current tough employmentenvironment, prove a more realistic option for new apprenticeships than the older, more traditional “vocational”models. A focus on “work skills” would also make apprenticeships more attractive and relevant to all youngpeople, and not just those with lower educational attainment.

6 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Social Enterprise London

Overall Conclusions

Social Enterprise London considers the Future Jobs Fund programme a great success. Not only have long-termed unemployed young people been offered the opportunity to gain work experience and increase theirskills base and knowledge, it has provided capacity building opportunities for third sector organisations.

Employers have been very positive about the programme and are disappointed that it has been stopped asthey consider it an excellent way of helping both unemployed young people and their own organisations.

“The FJF is a rare example of an intelligent and highly effective government scheme. The schemegenuinely provides useful help to SMEs and gives unrivalled experience to jobseekers. It goes withoutsaying that I feel the termination of the scheme is a big mistake on behalf of the new Coalitiongovernment.”—Tom Tapper, Co-founder and Director, Nice and Serious.

2 NOMIS (July 2010) claimant count statistics.



“..A great scheme, well run, and surely the costs of FJF vs job seekers allowance must be no-brainer! Istrongly urge the Coalition Government to reinstate FJF”—Chris White, Managing Director, Ginger White.

Matching New Work Experience opportunities to Young Unemployed People

There is a rich mix of social enterprises playing increasingly significant roles in society. The variety of jobson offer to young people not only included standard administrative jobs, but jobs as child carers, web developersand designers, media editors, camera trainees, computer technicians, multi-skilled trainees in construction,warehouse workers. Young people therefore had a wide choice and could apply for a job that genuinelyinterested and inspired them.

“The job I was offered and accepted exceeded my expectations as (it) offered me a great chance to bothgain new skills but experiment with the skills I already had.”—Kristian Kjelstrup-Johnson, FJF employeeatShiva Heslyj.

“The job offered to me allowed me to use high level skills as I worked independently on 2 projects. I wasalso given the opportunity to attend projects management training sessions and other training sessions thatwill look good on my CV.”—Roma Saini, FJF employee at Havengrove.

“Over my 6 month placement I picked up plenty of new skills and also partook in a Digital Media coursewhich has taught me a lot more about marketing in general. I have improved both in job skills and havealso improved in general life skills. I believe I know a lot more about myself and am also more awareof the different types of people around me.”—Shakira Fernando, FJF employee at Striding Out.

“We believe the FJF programme did match new opportunities to the unemployed. In the early stages thereseem to be inconsistencies across job centres. The quality of most of the young unemployed people farexceeded expectations and is good from an employer perspective.”—Albert Smith, Managing Director, ABrighter Future.

“I feel that Four Corners has truly brought me back to life. To be able to continue working for anotherthree months in such a fantastic environment is a great opportunity, especially within such a competitivesector as the arts. ............ Four Corners’ diverse range of exhibitions, events and training opportunitieshas opened my eyes to what the commercial film and photographic industry and the contemporary visualarts sector can achieve. I’m privileged to be working for such a unique organization and sincerely hopethe Future Jobs Fund initiative continues.”—Gavin Ramsey, FJF Employee at Four Corners.

Sustainability of Jobs

Organisations have been able to train and develop young people without losing out financially and thus bringthem up to a standard where they can employ them. Without the FJF programme, these organisations wouldnot have taken the risk of employing a long termed unemployed person.

“Future Jobs has led to us training & employing one new young person full time at Proper OilsProper Oils would not ordinarily have offered him the job if we had not had the six month period toinduct & train him. This period was required to get the young person trained to a suitable level so heearned his offer of full-time employment”—Stephen Hurton, Director, Proper Oil.

“We have employed two full time who came to the end of the scheme out of a total of six we have takenon through the FJF. One of them has risen quickly up the ranks to a position of responsibility and nowmanages the current crop of FJF employees.”—Matthew Linnecar, Director, GnewtCargo.

“.........Gavin has proved himself to be indispensable. His work is in marketing and viral communicationsand he raised the sponsorship prizes for our East End Photography Competition. We have asked him tocontinue to work with us so he will be here for the exhibition of the wining photographs at Four CornersGallery starting on 2 July 2010.”—Margaret Trotter, Finance Director, Four Corners.

“We appointed Anna, who has a degree in performing arts and an aptitude in physics (a perfectcombination for the complex discipline of circus skills) in June this year. Anna has already developed theproducts and services of HAT and has been the driving force behind a number of successful initiativesthat have grown the business and created cost savings. We are so pleased with the difference that Annahas made to the organisation, and we will be offering her a permanent position at the end of the FJFplacement.”—Alex Frith, Chair, Hangar Arts Trust.

“My time here at Four Corners has boosted my confidence, improved my administration and office skillsand reintroduced me to the workplace with reinvigorated ambition.”—Gavin Ramsey, FJF Employee atFour Corners.

Employers—Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme

Strengths

Capacity Building

The majority of SEL’s membership is made up of small organisations with tight cash-flow and stretchedstaff so the opportunity to take on an employee paid for by a third party has been invaluable. The six monthplacement has meant that the organisation has not had to worry about cash flow whilst it trains up the young



person who in many cases by the time the placement has finished are covering their own costs or even makinga profit.

“The programme has definitely assisted us in a variety of ways. As a small social enterprise it has allowedus to concentrate on the business whilst the young recruits focus in it. This has allowed us to transformour business model, increase our cash flow and develop opportunities in a fast changing market place.With the young people we have been able to increase outputs, man hours and concentrate on the strategicdevelopment and direction, which was proving extremely difficult without them. It has definitely allowedus to transform our turnover.”—Albert Smith, Director, A Brighter Future.

“The fjf programme has been wonderful.We have six FJF people and they are growing my company, winning us more business and securing usmore funding.We are looking at taking them on after the funding on a full time basis over a longer period.Turnover has grown from £14,000 to £56,000 but since they started it has grow by another £40,000.”—Darren Taylor, Director, Eco computer Systems.

“For financial reasons, we couldn’t have considered taking people on without the FJF scheme, but havinggenerated a junior receptionist role for it, I’m now pleased to say we’re offering our first FJF recruit, ajunior receptionist, a permanent job come the end of her placement in October. I’m sure there are manysimilar stories from other employers who have found they can’t do without the person after their sixmonths is up.”—Caroline Roake, Livity.

“The funding allows voluntary sector organisation to test out ideas for income generation without the riskfactor of staff costs to deliver. With good planning this concept can and in our case has lead to the creationof sustainable employment.”—Toni Meredew, Director, Account 3.

“If we had been in a position to have to pay Anna from the outset then we would not have been able toemploy her; through the work that she has done she has effectively created the ability for HAT to retainher as an employee and to further develop the organisation. We were delighted with the service that wereceived through the FJF Future 500 programme and we are thrilled with the results.”—Alex Frith, Chair,Hangar Arts Trust.

Young Talent

Organisations stated that they benefited from employing young unemployed people as these were affordable,flexible and adaptable. Given the opportunity the young people developed, grew in confidence and in turnbrought creativity, new ideas and in many cases updated the organisation with skills and knowledge.

“Since January 2010 I have hired another three candidates all of which have been extremely talented andbright individuals with university degree. In fact the calibre of people on the dole is surprisingly high”—Lennie Varvarides, Making Theatre Work.

“Despite her limited experience of education our new employee has proved to be a quick and able learnerand a willing worker who has helped us reach new client groups and increased our earned income ata time when other funding sources appear to be running dry.”—Anna Leatherdale, Director, PhoenixEducation Trust.

Some were so impressed with how talented young people are that they are looking to employ them in thefuture, something they would never have considered before.

“...I think we would be much more likely to consider the creation of entry level positions as an extremelypositive force for the charity in the future.”—Abi Knipe, Escape Artists.

Young unemployed people—Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme

Strengths

Coaching

The SEL programme offered coaching to the young people to help them make the transition from beingunemployed to working. This proved valuable to both the employee and organisations.

“.....my coach definitely did help me to discover where I want to be and has helped me to become strongin the person I am”—Sophia Williams, FJF Employee at Think Productive.

Yes, but the coaching sessions helped me to really use this opportunity to evaluate ways to create impact.—Ruth Soundarajah, FJF Employee at Striding Out.

Although she had some initial difficulty in reaching and arranging a suitable time to meet her mentor, theFJF has meant that Rupna—and through her, the rest of our staff—have benefited from the offer of furthertraining opportunities.—Abi Knipe,Director, Escape Artists.

Coaching provided is very very impressive, helping both Ericka as well as the whole tea. McKenzie isamazing—we were not expecting such a high calibre coach!—Shazia Mustafa, Founder, Third Door.



Confidence Building

Young people have reported that the chance to work has helped them gain experience and confidence, thushelping them look for employment to take up after the programme has finished.

“I feel that so far my personal experience with msft has been fantastic. I was very nervous when firststarting the job but was instantly made to feel at ease and part of the group. I also feel that I have beengiven a lot of encouragement but at the same time everyone has been really honest with me on areas thatI could improve on. This has strongly contributed to my growth as graphic designer over the pastmonth.”—Iredia Okojie, FJF employee at MSFT.

“My employee was unemployed for 6 months and struggled to find any work. Now since being acceptedas my employee through the scheme she has already been offered another part time job (for the other twodays a week) at a prestigious organisation. I think the job with me gave her the extra confidence neededto get back into the work place.”—Lucy Tammam, Director, TAMMAM.

It has also been a pleasure to watch her grow as a professional, become more confident in herself, andrise to each new challenge. - Abi Knipe, Director, Escape Artists.

Weaknesses

Only Part-time

Some young people who wanted to participate in the scheme were unable to do so due to financialconstraints. Receiving pay under the FJF programme meant that they lost payment of benefits and so wouldbe worse off financially if they worked. Some had to support themselves by finding other employment ...

“I think it’s a shame the programme only offers funding to cover part time employment, though for meas an employer it is ok, my employee has had to find other part time work to cover her expenses (perhapsa London weighting would help)”—Lucy Tammam, TAMMAM.

Some employers who wanted to offer the young person a full time position, felt that the six month cut offpoint was too drastic for small companies and would have preferred a sliding scale of assistance until theywere ready to finance the position themselves.

“...a transition scheme in as much as maybe after six months a quarter or half of the post is funded as itis still in theory an apprenticeship for the good of society, the country and in my companies case theplanet”—Giles Robertson, Director, Green Banana Marketing.

LAB—Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme

Strengths

Flexibility

A huge strength of the programme was that LABs had flexibility to design the programme to best suit itsclient group and to utilise the money as it saw fit. Whilst other LABs may have increased the salary of theyoung people working or offered access to training, SEL decided to develop a coaching support programmefor the young people. This involved contact on a monthly basis, coaches were available to deal with anydisputes and help both the employer and employee in developing the young person or assist with disputes.This has proved valuable for both employers and employees.

Real Jobs

The fact that the jobs on offer were real jobs in real organisations and the young person worked with realpeople is a tremendous strength of the programme. The mindset of both employee and employer was gearedup for a real job that made a difference and they applied themselves as such.

“It gave employers to opportunity to provide 6 months of training in an environment of ‘real work’ asopposed to volunteer or work placement. This experience is more in line with internship which is valuedhighly by the participants. The increased skills and activity within the employing organisation allowsboth the young person and the organisation to grow.”—Albert Smith, Director, A Brighter Future.

“When I first given the job opportunity through the Future Jobs Fund I was slight skeptical about how theplacement would be like a “real” job, I felt I would be treated like an intern and not given the opportunitiesI would have had at a full time position, however this wasn’t the case. I have been given fullresponsibilities of projects which I have wanted to do and treated like any other member of the team, Ifeel this was the best thing about the FJF as I now have more skills then I had previously and also givenme the opportunity to change from a university state of mind to a professionals state of mind, I no longerfeel like a graduate.”—Jiten Patel, FJF Employee at Think Productive.



Weaknesses

Teething problems

As one of the first LABs to start delivering in London, SEL found that not all JCP offices had been fullybriefed on the programme or understood its value. A huge improvement came about when lead JCP officeswere established for the LABs as this meant the LAB could communicate with one office only and be surethat information was cascaded to all as opposed to dealing with each region or even office individually. Thisfreed up time to be able to deliver the project.

Eligibility letters

Eligibility for the FJF programme was controlled by JCP advisers. At the beginning there was resistancefrom JCP advisers to provide a document stating the young person’s eligibility for a programme. This wasrectified once DWP issued a notice to say this was part of the evidence.

Hot spot areas

There was confusion regarding eligibility of people on incapacity benefit for the FJF programme. There werecases where and eligibility letter had been issued only for us to be told by the lead office that it was invalid.

Claiming the salary aspect of the grant

The claiming procedure although simple to complete lead to much confusion and became time consumingas the programme progressed. The reason for this was that it was difficult to track payments for individualsand with a programme with at the time of writing 130 employers and 360 employees there were mistakeswhich were difficult to locate.

A better procedure would have been to create a complex spreadsheet at the beginning, which allowed allnames and all payments to be tracked on a monthly basis, thus saving both the LAB and payments departmentat DWP a lot of man hours trying to unravel payment histories.

6 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Stoke on Trent City Council

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This paper summarises the evidence submitted on behalf of 30 employers in Stoke-on-Trent andStaffordshire who are currently participating in the Future Jobs Fund programme. The evidence has beensubmitted on behalf of the consortium by the lead partner, Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

2.0 Summary of Evidence

2.1 The paper has been structured according to the four areas of focus identified by the Department ofWork & Pensions. The outcome of our evidence, on a point-by-point basis, is as follows:

2.2 The FJF has been very successful in matching young Jobseekers to the work opportunities in Stoke andStaffordshire. There are two principal reasons for this: firstly, we lead a consortium of 30 employers, ensuringthat there is a wide breadth of job opportunities available; secondly, we used part of the FJF grant to fund aspecialist jobs brokerage service to ensure that the right young people were matched for the right job;

2.3 The FJF is very strong in terms of its design and implementation, and we and our partners have identifiedfew weaknesses other than a lack of a requirement for accredited learning and an inability to supportplacements in certain growth sectors. Initial “teething troubles” were overcome through constant dialoguewith DWP and a spirit of partnership with Jobcentre Plus. Furthermore the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) has beenexceptionally effective in preparing young people for the world of work. The permanent job outcome rate inStoke and Staffordshire to date is almost 80%. This is a significant contrast with other Government-fundedprogrammes (which have a job outcome rate of between 10–50%);

2.4 Ending the programme earlier than anticipated will have a very negative impact on the ability of partnersin Stoke and Staffordshire to continue to reduce youth unemployment. In October 2009, when our programmecommenced, there were 2,935 18–24 year old Jobseekers in Stoke, and they made up 34.3% of the JSA total.Now (July 2010) there are 2,265, and they make up just 31.1% of our total. Removing the FJF while theeconomy is relatively fragile will have a damaging effect on youth unemployment;

2.5 We do not see any real need for the FJF to form part of the Work Programme, as the former deals withdemand-side work (i.e. job creation) while the latter deals with supply issues (i.e. helping people find work).However, there are real opportunities to link FJF to apprenticeships, and this link needs to be followed throughmore forcefully than has been to date.



3.0 Our Recommendations

3.1 That the FJF continues until at least March 2012, with future bidding rounds opened up;

3.2 That the programme be partially funded through a DEL/AME switch, with benefit savings going directlyto the placement providers to offset the wage costs;

3.3 That some form of accredited training, appropriate to the young person participating, be made amandatory requirement of participation in FJF;

3.4 That links between FJF and apprenticeships be made more explicit and strengthened.

4.0 Issue One: The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experienceopportunities to Young Unemployed People

4.1 Our own particular programme has been successful in matching new opportunities to the people referredto us by Jobcentre Plus. There are two principal reasons for this:

4.2 Firstly, the City Council led a Staffordshire-wide consortium of 30 employers from the public, voluntaryand private sectors. This enabled us to offer a very wide range of placements in a number of occupationalfields including:

— Environmental management.

— Office administration.

— Adult social care.

— Housing management.

— Graphic design.

— Sports coaching.

— Furniture restoration.

— Refuse collection.

— Market gardening.

— Fire & Rescue.

— Retail.

— Fund-raising.

— Etc.

4.3 As a result of this breadth of placement opportunities, we were able to meet most aspirations. Thisemphasises the importance of a good strong consortium, led by a strategic body with the organisational capacityto manage the consortium (in this case a unitary local authority).

4.4 The second reason for our success is that we used part of our FJF grant to develop an effective jobsbrokerage model. This allowed us to: assess the young Jobseekers sent to us in terms of ability and aspiration;match them with the vacancies available; sift applications to ensure that employers were only sent the 3–6most eligible applicants; provide a bespoke recruitment service for smaller voluntary sector organisations whichdid not have their own HR staff; broker training solutions for young people while they were in work; and offera pastoral in-work support service. This brokerage formed part of our well-established JET (Jobs EnterpriseTraining) service.

4.5 This brokerage, working in partnership with close colleagues from Jobcentre Plus, was a very effectivemeans of ensuring that young people were properly brokered into the right work placements for them.

4.6 Views of FJF employers (NB at all times the names of FJF employees have been changed):The benefits of the FJF for an organisation like ourselves (Farm2Grow) was the best thing ever, althoughit required a lot of work and effort (being a new org never having employed people before) it was worththe effort. We had an understanding that we were not dealing with run of the mill applicants and/or jobs.We as employers had to be very flexible and be prepared to spend time money and effort to encouragethe staff to try new jobs and to up skill the individuals concerned. This was needed to help build confidenceto be able to become job ready.—Farm2Grow (Local Social Enterprise)

Empowering People Inspiring Communities (EPIC) is an independent, charitable organisation providingaround 1,000 homes for affordable rent in the Bentilee area of Stoke-on-Trent. Our mission is“Empowering people through access to jobs, homes and training”.

The Future Jobs Fund has helped us to achieve our mission through the employment of 26 young peoplein a variety of roles, including:

— Environmental Services.

— Administration.

— Housing Welfare.

— Research.



As our core staff establishment is only 35 people, the commitment we have made to the Future Jobs FundProgramme is extensive; we could not have created as many new jobs and employed as many youngpeople without the existence of the programme.—EPIC Housing, Local Social Landlord

Mark Platt has taken up posts in planning and co-ordinating events at the School of Art. Mark, aged 20,had been out of work for 12 months, having previously worked as a chef, before he was fast-tracked tothe Future Jobs Fund vacancy by his adviser at Hanley Jobcentre Plus.

He said: “It is really good and has given me a really good perspective on things and about what I want todo in the future, which will probably be business-related.”—Burslem School of Art, Local Social Enterprise

Kay is one of five 12 month apprenticeships funded for the first six months via FJF. It’s still a bit earlyto anticipate permanent posts in the university but a particular success story is Kay who in the first threemonths has managed to pass her level 2 NVQ in childcare. This is a fantastic achievement indicating bothher motivation and her willingness to success.—Marjorie Spiller, Head of Professional Development,Staffordshire University

5.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

5.1 We believe that the Future Jobs Fund is a well-designed programme whose strengths significantly out-weigh the weaknesses. The strengths can be summarised thus:

5.2 The programme is simple and straightforward. This helps minimise the bureaucratic burden usuallyassociated with managing employment programmes. It has one goal (job creation) and a straightforward fundingregime. As a result there are few ambiguities.

5.3 It tackles demand-side issues (i.e. job creation) during a time of economic recession, and a time of highyouth unemployment. It fundamentally enhances the employability of the young people through giving themreal work experience with established employers of good repute. In terms of competition within the labourmarket, this experience, and the employability it gives, is invaluable.

Pete’s initial contract was for 25 hours per week for a fixed six month contract through the FJF initiative.During the subsequent six months Pete proved to be an invaluable member of the team, quickly masteringthe systems in place for Purchase Ledger and also providing his department with some IT support. Healso had input into transferring data into the Charity’s CRM system, writing an instruction manual on howto migrate data and assisting the team in doing so. In addition he began to assist the Events and MarketingManager with the design and development of the Charity website, which was previously reliant onexternal companies.

On completion of the initial contract, a role became available for a full-time Purchase Ledger Clerk, whichPete applied for and was successful. He is now a permanent member of the team working 42.5 hours perweek. Pete continues to be an invaluable member of staff. The Charity sees a great future for Pete and hehas the opportunity to carve a strong career with the organisation.—Julia Haynes, Caudwell Children’sCharity.

5.4 Another strength is the flexibility of the funding model. Through top-slicing the grant of £6,500 per job,the City Council was able to fund the jobs brokerage (described in 4.4, above) which enabled the FJF to besuccessfully implemented in Stoke and Staffordshire.

“I went to the Jobcentre and got referred to the adviser for the 18 to 24s group. I saw the same adviserevery time and she helped by referring me to JET Business which supported my application for a coupleof Future Job Funds starts. Then I got a job in childcare at the Hollybush Centre in Blurton. I went roundin a big circle but finally got where I wanted to be.

“Everyone says there’s a big change in me since I got this job. I’m so happy, I can’t stop smiling.”—Successful FJF participant, now employed at the Hollybush Centre, Stoke-on-Trent.

5.5 The ability to recruit older Jobseekers through the Deprived Areas dispensation also demonstrates theflexibility of the programme. Although FJF is ostensibly a young person’s programme, we are allowed torecruit a limited number of older Jobseekers as well. This has proved invaluable in terms of being able torecruit experienced former-managers to supervise groups of younger FJF workers.

5.6 In conclusion there are a number of significant strengths inherent within the FJF approach. There arealso certain weaknesses, although many of these can be overcome through changes to the delivery model:

5.7 Firstly, while training is encouraged as part of a FJF placement, it is not a requirement. This is despitethe fact that training can significantly enhance the long-term employability of participants:

In January we took on Imran for the FJF six months duration in the role of Junior City Centre Steward.During his time with us he attained the following qualifications:

— SIA (Security Industry Authority) accreditation which is a mandatory qualification to work inthe security industry.

— First Aid at work.



— Defibrillator trained.

He also gained experience in dealing with on street activities, exhibition bookings, street trading,knowledge of pedlar law, working with the Police dealing with anti-social activities.—City CentreManagement Team, Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

5.8 Secondly, as the jobs are limited to those with “community benefit”, we cannot address every growtharea in terms of the work placements. While we have been able to create placements in certain occupationalareas where growth is identified (adult social care, office administration, business/professional services etc) dueto the community benefit rule we have been unable to create placements in others (logistics, environmentaltechnologies etc).

5.9 Finally, the issue of State Aid threw up a number of issues and made many of our fellow employersvery nervous. We believe that DWP had sufficient time to notify the programme to the EU and secure theirapproval prior to the programme commencing.

5.10 Notwithstanding the strengths and weaknesses of the FJF, one aspect of our programme in Stoke-on-Trent is striking, namely that the sustainable job outcome rate for the first tranche of our young people is 78%.In other words, 78% of young people who have completed the six month placement have been offered full-time employment, either with the placement provider or another employer. This contrasts with other WelfareTo Work programmes: Pathways for example, has a job outcome rate of 10%, other programmes have anoutcome rate of 20–50%. It seems as though nothing works like Work, in terms of getting young peopleinto employment.

The Future Jobs Fund (FJF) is having a major impact on young unemployed people in Stoke-on-Trent asthey successfully turn their lives around. Two young men—both long-term unemployed—are this weekcelebrating new careers thanks to the Future Jobs Fund. As two of the first people to have undertaken thesix month Future Jobs Fund training placements with Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Damon and Akhtar,have both gone on to great things.

Akhtar (22) is beginning a career in graphic design with Festival Park based Live Information whileDamon (19) is to become a trainee pilot with the RAF—beating incredibly high odds to be accepted.

Both are certain that the experience offered by the FJF was the key that unlocked the door to theirnew careers.

6.0 The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

6.1 It is clear that the FJF programme has had an extremely beneficial impact on youth unemploymentwithin Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. In October 2009, when our programme commenced, there were 2,93518–24 year old Jobseekers in Stoke, and they made up 34.3% of the JSA total. Now (July 2010) there are2,265, and they make up just 31.1% of our total. The number of young Jobseekers has thus fallen by 23% overthat period, whereas the number of Jobseekers as a whole has only fallen by 16%. Clearly, there is somethingvery positive happening in the local labour market, and we suspect that it is the FJF.

6.2 Removing the FJF while the economy is relatively fragile will have a damaging effect on youthunemployment. We would therefore argue that the programme needs to continue to March 2012, to ensure thatFJF benefits are maximised.

The Future Jobs Fund has also allowed us to embed the concept of Public Value into our activities. Aspart of our commitment to the local area, we plan to buy 10 empty houses each year that are in need ofrenovation over the next year from our own resources. The tenders for the refurbishment work require thewinning contractor to use BEST for basic elements of the refurbishment process; in turn guaranteeingongoing work and training opportunities for local people.—EPIC Housing, Local Social Landlord.

6.3 Clearly, one obstacle to the continuation of the programme is the cost. The DWP grant is currently£6,500 per person for six months; this cost is not modest. However, some estimates suggest that over the same6 months, keeping a young person on benefits (including the loss of tax revenue) would cost the taxpayer£4,850. Once additional benefits are factored in (free medicine, housing benefit etc) plus loss of GVA/productivity, plus related costs associated with long-term worklessness (crime, health etc), we do not believethat the cost to the taxpayer of the programme is significant.

6.4 Indeed, it may be appropriate to part-fund the programme through a DEL/AME switch, which is currentlybeing proposed for the Work Programme. In this scenario, the benefit savings would be paid directly to theplacement provider to partially offset the cost of the young person’s wages.

7.0 How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the partto be played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships.

7.1 We do not necessarily see the FJF forming part of the Work Programme. While we applaud theGovernment’s aim of rolling up a plethora of welfare-to-work initiatives into a single Work Programme, wefeel that the FJF is a different matter. The various other programmes (e.g. Flexible New Deal) are very muchsupply-side initiatives, i.e. they concentrate on enhancing the employability of the unemployed workforce. FJF,on the other hand, focuses very much on direct job creation (albeit only 6-month placements).



7.2 Given the emphasis placed in the FJF on the creation of job placements, rather than be integrated intothe Work Programme, we see more scope for responsibility for managing the FJF to be transferred to the newLocal Enterprise Partnerships. The LEPs would be close to what is happening in the local labour market whichwould help align the placements with potential growth sectors.

7.3 However, we would be interested in looking at how the FJF could be more closely aligned withApprenticeships. This could include appraising the duration of the FJF placements to ensure there is a closerfit with the length of an apprenticeship, changing the waged element of the grant to reflect the apprenticewage etc.

7 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Social Enterprise Coalition

Summary

1. The Social Enterprise Coalition believes that the Future Jobs Fund has demonstrated some successes inmatching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people. Social enterprises including TheHealthy Hub, Striding Out and Trescom have been involved in the scheme and they give examples of youngpeople who have benefitted. FJF employees report that they have gained new skills and become more confident.

2. The strengths of the scheme have included its flexibility, the way in which it has enabled locally tailoredsolutions to be developed, payment being made up front, its light-touch administration and the real workopportunities it has provided for young people. It has also given participants something meaningful to showon a CV and acted as a stepping stone to full-time permanent employment. The scheme has increased capacity,given young people experience of a professional environment and helped them become work ready.

3. The weaknesses of the scheme have included its hasty development and the focus on targets. There hasalso been some criticism of the role of Job Centre Plus and issues with the quality down the delivery chain.Although not all of the jobs created through the Future Jobs Fund have immediately resulted in permanentemployment it is our view that those created in social enterprises can put young people in a stronger positionin the employment market.

4. The impact of the early end to the Future Jobs Fund has been a concern to some social enterprises, whilstothers report that they are able to sustain the jobs or that young people have moved into employment elsewhere.

5. The Social Enterprise Coalition wants to see a continuing role for social enterprises in the new WorkProgramme. Social enterprises will need greater clarity about how they can get involved and it is importantthat the structures developed do not stifle their ability to innovate.

Introduction

1. A number of members of SEC have delivered jobs through the Future Jobs Fund. We recognise that thosewho are furthest from the job market may need long-term support to move them towards employment oversustained periods. We have supported Intermediate Labour Market programmes but as the Future Jobs Fund iswound down and replaced with a Single Work Programme, SEC will work to identify the opportunities andchallenges that this may bring for social enterprises involved in helping people into employment.

2. In this response we present our views on the Future Jobs Fund with case studies of social enterprises andsupport organisations involved in it. We believe that this represents some of the achievements by socialenterprises in the scheme.

Point 1: The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work ExperienceOpportunities to Young Unemployed People

3. SEC believes that the Future Jobs Fund has demonstrated some successes in matching new workexperience opportunities to young unemployed people. It has put young people into jobs instead of thenumerous training schemes that were around before it. Despite being hit by some initial teething problems, anumber of social enterprises have demonstrated significant results in the scheme.

4. Below are some case studies demonstrating where social enterprises have been involved in successfulmatches:

“In April I began working for Larkfleet Homes as part of the FJF scheme. I am a research assistant toLarkfleet’s Investment Director. Prior to obtaining this opportunity I was trying to gain an office-basedjob but being constantly told that despite having a degree I lacked experience in this environment. Howwas I supposed to gain experience if no one was willing to give me the break I needed? The FJF schemehas given me this much needed break. After working hard for three years at university I didn’t want tohave to work in a job which I could have done without gaining a degree which I believe based on thelocal job market and current economic climate I would have had to have done without this opportunity.

“What more could I want? I work a few miles from my house, in an office-based environment for anaward winning house builder. I enjoy what I do and like the people I work alongside. I strongly believe



that working for Larkfleet Homes will set me in good stead for looking for subsequent employment andwill be a fulfilling and rewarding learning curve in which I gain a whole range of new skills and knowledgewhich I can take away with me and apply to any future job. I will not just have a CV with my qualificationsand interests listed, but a CV that demonstrates that I have the required experience needed, making memore employable for future employers.

“Since working for Larkfleet I have learnt a considerable amount. Not just your office basics likephotocopying and filing, but I completed a project regarding housing information by district area and haveplayed a key part in compiling each month’s kickstart reports.—Caroline Geddes, Research Assistant(Lead Accountable Body—The Healthy Hub / Host Organisation—Larkfleet Homes).

Sophia Williams is a twenty-three year old Graphic Design graduate. Due to lack of experience, she haslost out to several job positions in her field. However, after joining up to the Future Jobs Fund, shemanaged to get a job as an IT and Multimedia Assistant at Think Productive. She is also using her degreeto do some graphic design for the company.

Her initial appeal for the job was that the company was new and the hours were flexible. She has nowsettled into the job comfortably and is able to communicate well with her boss. Sophia has developed heradministration skills as well as search engine optimisation.

The coaching sessions have also been insightful to Sophia. She has learnt a lot more about herself andfinds the time with the Coach helpful and positive. She also believes that her new job has given her moreconfidence to do tasks which she didn’t think she was capable of doing before.

“My experience with Striding Out has been extremely positive. I like the fact that you don’t needexperience and that the job provides you with training. I am also happy to have been given the opportunityto work within my desired career choice.”—Case study from Striding Out, March 2010—Sophia Williams,IT & Multimedia Assistant, Think Productive.

“I feel myself lucky to have that chance to be a part of Trescom’s success and I am glad that I am gettingmyself trained here. So far I could see a great difference in myself. I am more ambitious than ever, I ammore adaptable and more confident. I am going to have an accredited training by the end of March. I haverealized that I have got an enthusiasm, flexibility and skills but Trescom have got that platform where wecan put our skills in to practice. For me, Trescom is a mould where they will shape my skills accordingto my needs…”

“...I have been doing voluntary work since 2007. This is my first paid job in the last three and a halfyears. I think the Future Jobs Fund is an amazing campaign.”—Hina Begum, Project Worker, TrescomTraining and Community Regeneration.

“Since starting work at Trescom I have mostly been involved in work regarding social enterprise. I knewvery little about social enterprise when I began working here, but I now have an understanding of thework they do and how they work to achieve their goals.”—Graeme Swinbank, Administrative SupportAssistant, Trescom Training and Community Regeneration.

“We have employed 20 FJF employees in total in a wide variety of roles that include job coaching,administration and sales. We have not been disappointed by any of them. They have quickly settled in,have been enthusiastic, have been hard working and have made an important contribution to our socialenterprise.”—Ian Dring, Business Manager, Pluss.

Point 2: Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities.

5. We have identified some headline strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme. We have also gatheredsome perspectives of people involved.

6. The strengths of the Future Jobs Fund programme have included:

— The scheme has been flexible.

— It has enabled locally tailored solutions.

— Payment was made up front which supported smaller organisations where cash flow can be achallenge.

— It provided real work opportunities for young people, rather than just training schemes, withparticipants increasing their motivation and self confidence—such integrated labour marketsolutions have repeatedly demonstrated their success.

— Participants have something meaningful to show on a CV as well as “trying” out work they mayotherwise not considered.

— The administration of the Fund was relatively light-touch.

— The work done has brought community benefits.

— The scheme has acted as a stepping stone for young people to progress to full-time paidemployment.



7. The weaknesses of the Future Jobs Fund programme have included:

— It was hastily developed and was highly focused on targets.

— The placements were short-term and there was no guarantee that the person would be retained atthe end of it.

— The role of Job Centre Plus has been criticised by some, with mention of them not being ready,not having the staff or training or not making suitable referrals.

— The quality down the delivery chain was not always as good as it could have been.

8. Some perspectives on the programme are presented here:

“…DWP claimed the Future Jobs Fund to be inefficient. I was displeased by this analysis. Socialenterprises that were invited to support this initiative have between them created thousands of jobs andthousands of qualified and motivated people young and old who previously had little or no experience ofwhat work is like.

“I know FJF wasn’t a cheap option and there was no doubt that there are areas where things could havebeen improved, but having visited lots of social enterprises that were participating in the scheme I haveno doubt that it was effective. Dozens of people on the scheme told me this directly.

“I want to ensure that whatever replaces FJF uses the learning of our sector to create something at leastas good and that recognizes the features of this programme that were successful. It is a rare thing indeedthat employment schemes get a general thumbs up from our sector leaders large and small. I firmlybelieve that supported employment schemes like FJF are one of the most effective ways of addressingunemployment.—Life after the Future Jobs Fund, June 2010—extract from Social Enterprise CoalitionChief Executive Peter Holbrook’s blog

“Trescom has been involved in the Future Jobs Fund since the start of the scheme and we were at firstreally apprehensive about the calibre of the candidates we would get. We were all really pleasantlysurprised on the day of the first interviews back in January. The majority of the interviewees were reallygood and we had no hesitation to offer the jobs to our first five candidates. Similarly, in the secondinterview day in February, the people that turned up for the interviews were again of a very high calibreand we offered a job to another four candidates.

“Since then, our experience remained the same: all the new FJF employees have been very dedicated,motivated, committed to the Company and hard-working. I think a turning point was the hard work theyall put in to prepare the meeting with an important client that visited in early March: the staff had somany ideas and went on to prepare a fabulous meeting and a presentation about Trescom that was receivedextremely well by the client.

“The FJF has also given us the opportunity to employ staff at a very crucial and busy time for Trescom,while we are delivering a number of really important contracts. In addition, the employment of two of theFJF staff coincided with the start of our new project with the School of Management, which gave us theopportunity to appoint two of the Project Administrators directly to it.”—Saeeda Ahmed, FoundingDirector, Trescom Training and Community Regeneration, March 2010.

“What has worked best with the Future Jobs Fund?

“The people! Pretty much everyone has attended the interviews and give a decent account of themselves.The overall standard has been quite good, we have been impressed with some of the people we have seen.I think this was a fantastic opportunity to give people a chance, gain real experience and the ones wehave recruited have seized the opportunity with both hands. Many report they would be doing littleelse constructively.

“It also seems to work very well from an employer’s perspective—it allows an employer to bring in extrahands at no cost and encourages innovation and experimentation in new areas. The ‘light touch’administration of it is also incredibly appealing.”—Morgan Killick, Managing Director, E SP Projects Ltdand Board Member, Social Enterprise Yorkshire & Humber, June 2010.

In July 2010 Laurence Downs started as an IT Support engineer at ResponsibleIT CIC thanks to theFuture Jobs Fund. He is now well on the way to building up commercial experience and gaining hisMicrosoft qualifications so next year we can recruit him out to organisations that need a good junior ITsupport engineer. As a social enterprise our mission is to help young people with a talent and passion forIT start a successful career and thanks to the Future Jobs Fund, we have been able to do that for Laurence.The scheme is easy to administer and will influence us in starting more young people sooner. Withoutsome seed funding for each person, we cannot afford to take on new Apprentices at the moment. We havesix currently and would like to extend that to over 10 before 2011.—Troy Trewin, Chief Executive Officer,ResponsibleIT CIC, September 2010.

“Peter has been out of work for over two years following a period of ill health. Whilst he is older than24, he was on incapacity benefits and lived in one of the designated priority areas and so qualified for thescheme. Peter joined our social enterprise Waterloo Woodwork a few weeks ago and his appointment hasalready had an impact on our business. Having Peter on board has unblocked a capacity constraint in theamount of work we could take on.



“Our earned income from trading historically has only been around £1,500 a month as the other two keymembers of staff are limited by care responsibilities and the needs of our learning disabled (LD) clients.With Peter, we have been able to reorganise our care and paid work responsibilities to enable us to takeon more commercial work without detriment to the care side. In fact, if anything the care aspects haveimproved as we are offering our LD clients greater variety and better quality experience.

“This month we are supporting the local council stage an exhibition at the Gardeners World Live event atthe NEC. The more physically able of our clients have been able to work on building the exhibition atthe NEC. A completely new and rewarding experience for them. Others have been able to work on lessstrenuous activities within the workshop. The net result is that our income in June is likely to top £4,000.Further conversations with potential customers suggest strongly that this level of activity could easily bemaintained and we are looking to increase our trading income forecasts to around £5,000 a month. Wenow have the capacity to realise this level of work and more. Not only that but our confidence has risento such an extent that we are now talking to the Care Trust and other partners about increasing the careprovision from 10 to 20 learning disabled clients.

“Without Future Jobs Fund we probably would not have taken this step to increase our capacity. FutureJobs Fund reduced the risk and has acted as a catalyst for future expansion.”—Charles Rapson,Operations & Enterprise Manager, Solihull Sustain & Colebridge Trust, June 2010.

9. We have also gathered further evidence on issues including on the benefits to employees and employers:

10. The main benefit for organisations having Future Jobs Fund employees, determined by Social EnterpriseSolutions research, was identified as being increased capacity. The main benefit highlighted for the Future JobsFund employees was experiencing a professional environment, team work, developing a work ethic andbecoming “work ready”. Other benefits cited included building confidence, self-esteem and sense of purposeand developing new skills.

11. Although clearly not all jobs created through the Future Jobs Fund have immediately resulted inpermanent employment, it is our view that those created in social enterprises can put young people in a strongerposition in the employment market. Because of their enterprise-orientation, social enterprises that have usedthe Future Jobs Fund in an experimental way to develop new work areas at least have the potential to sustainthe jobs if those new parts of the business succeed.

“With six months to play with there is a real opportunity to test a new product or service and thisraises the possibility of creating a more permanent position.”—Morgan Killick, Managing Director, ESPProjects Ltd.

Point 3: The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

12. The decision to end the FJF early has been a concern to a number of social enterprises and raises theassociated issue of the long-term sustainability of jobs created.

13. FJF has given young people a flavour of the working environment which may spur them to aspire tofurther such opportunities and leave them better placed in terms of experience and motivation. In our onlinesurvey conducted between October 2009 and March 2010 on job creation in social enterprises, 25 respondentsstated that they had made, or were part of a bid for the Future Jobs Fund. Of these, 37.7% stated that theyenvisaged that up to a quarter of the jobs they were creating would be sustained beyond the initial six months.16.7% stated that they envisaged that over three-quarters of the jobs would be sustained.

14. The Scottish Social Enterprise Coalition (SSEC) surveyed its members and, excluding leading Coalitionmember The Wise Group, received replies from 25 members who were sub contractors in the FJF delivery. Ofthe 401 jobs created to date, SSEC members stated that at least 214 were sustainable permanent positions,engaged in a diverse range of activities including painting and decorating, gardening, social care, construction,recycling and timber.

15. Social Enterprise Solutions worked on a £800,000 Future Jobs Fund contract with 3SC. They surveyed43 host organisations throughout June 2010. All stated that they would like to retain their Future Jobs Fundemployees after the six-month period, but this would not be possible for many of them, due to lack of funds.However, 19% of employees were expected to be kept on, by 20 of the 43 hosts, after the initial six months.

16. Concerns have been expressed by some social enterprises, including Ailsa Horizons Ltd and HastingsFurniture Services, about the impact the Future Jobs Fund scheme coming to an end. Horizons had hoped tobe able to recruit at least one more FJF employee during this time and Julia Whitaker, Regeneration andEnterprise Manager, stated that it had been a positive experience for Horizons and one they hope that they canreplicate in the future.

“Long term sustainability of these jobs will be a problem, especially with the FJF scheme ending early,unless perhaps some kind of part-subsidy could be provided to help social enterprises get these rolesestablished.”—Naomi Ridley, Chief Executive, Hastings Furniture Service.

17. Acumen Development Trust, a social enterprise in the North East whose vision is to achieve social andeconomic regeneration through learning, employment and enterprise, has been able to secure opportunities forthe eligible client group, concentrating mainly on the 18–24 priority age group. It reports that, such is the



success of the programme, over 50% of those entering have entered permanent positions with companies—both private and in the voluntary and community sector.

18. Social enterprise Trescom reports that out of 10 people at the end of their FJF job, seven have obtainedemployment elsewhere.

Point 4: How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including thepart to be played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships

19. We would like to see a continuing role for social enterprises in the Government’s new Work Programme.However, it will be important to ensure that social enterprises are not shoe-horned into structures that stifletheir ability to innovate and achieve the wider aims. Social enterprises will want greater clarity about the wayin which they can get involved. Some have commented that, without knowing the details and whilst there isuncertainty about it, it is difficult to know how the transition will be managed. Concerns about cash flowresulting from the payment by results model will need to be effectively addressed.

7 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Crisis UK

Executive Summary

Crisis, the national charity for single homeless people, welcomes this inquiry into the Future Jobs Fund, andmore specifically how the transition to the Work Programme will be managed. At Crisis, we believe that theFuture Jobs Fund has been an important tool in supporting long term unemployed people into employmentthrough targeted Government funding. This response is written from two perspectives—first as a directemployer of FJF employees, and second as a renowned national policy organisation that advocates on behalfof homeless people who can directly benefit from these types of scheme.

Many organisations have a growing need to employ more individuals to either expand, or support theirbusiness. Long term unemployed individuals are also seeking suitable employment, but are faced with manyobstacles because of the current economic downturn. The Future Jobs Fund was a welcome injection of cashfor many companies that could not have otherwise afforded to employ people and a fantastic opportunity forpeople unemployed for six months or more be offered at least six months of work, which often was their firstopportunity to get on the first rung of the employment ladder. In the economic downturn, we would suggestthat rather than withdrawing this programme, it would make both economic and social sense to maintain andextend it.

What our FJF employees said:

— “[FJF] has given the chance to unemployed people who have been unemployed for a while to re-instate themselves into the working world”

— “It’s a significant transition”

— “A starting point towards a career”

— “Crisis have gone beyond what I was expecting”

— “Being in a professional work place—a good step up”3

Summary of recommendations

— Extend the Future Jobs Fund model as part of the Work Programme to March 2013—with theflexibility to review and extend further, giving weight to success and recession criteria.

— Increase working hours to 30 hours per week, to bring in further financial enhancements, includingWorking Tax Credits.

— Consider funding to accommodate a living wage instead of a National Minimum Wage.

— Stipulate inclusion of skills development and mentoring for all participants.

Responses to Proposed Changes

The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people

Crisis employed a total of 10 people aged between 18 and 24 between the periods February 2010 toSeptember 2010. All of these jobs were newly created, and included:

— Warehouse Assistant (x2).

— Individual Giving Assistant.

— Volunteering Assistant.

— Press and Policy Officer.3 One to one interviews with Crisis FJF employees (August 2010)



— Teaching Assistant ESOL.

— Facilities Assistant.

— IT Support.

— Employment Service Team Assistant.

— Fundraising Assistant.

There are also plans to recruit five more staff before the scheme ends, and we would have done more hadthe scheme carried on.

Young people entering the FJF programme were given the opportunity to work in an area that matched theirprevious experiences, either through work, education or volunteering, and addressed their aspirations to gainfurther experience through a ‘real’ experience of work. Other FJF employees were given the opportunity todevelop new skills, to inform their future choice of career.

Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Issues:

Employer Experiences

Although there have been criticisms around the short-termism of the FJF, the individuals within Crisis havefound the experience to be a positive one. Some of the positives were skills development, ongoing mentoring/buddying, and ongoing supervisions to support monitoring and development of the scheme for both theindividuals and the organisation. Each FJF candidate has had an average of 4.2 days training and of the 10people employed by Crisis to date, one person now has a permanent post, and four people have been givencontract extensions of up to six months. For other FJF employees whose contracts were not able to be extended,they have importantly begun to, or added to their work history for potential new employers.

Speed of Introduction

The Future Jobs Fund was introduced, understandably, extremely quickly, and as a result suffered throughspeed of introduction, and a lack of clarity and understanding for appropriate referrals from Jobcentre Plus incertain areas. This sometimes resulted in organisations signing up for FJF but having to chase up suitable clientreferrals. Conversely, there was sometimes an unrealistic expectation of clients’ skills by potential employers,for example, requiring one 20 year old individual to have five years worth of driving experience for a courierjob.

Payment Levels

We believe that there was an expectation that applicants for the FJF would in the main be living with theirparents. This would potentially mean that at National Minimum Wage (NMW) for someone aged over 22working 25 hours per week, they would be approximately £71.00 per week better off than on benefits—thisdoes not take any account of in work expenses such as fares. However, the same scenario for an older personfrom a JSA ‘hotspot’, who most likely would not be living with their parents; for someone paying £175.00 perweek in rent and Council Tax, they would only be £15.00 per week better off. Once again this does not takeaccount of in work expenses such as fares. So, effectively, if in work fares stood at £25.00 per week, they wouldbe £10.00 per week worse off than they were on benefits. This is a real issue for people living independently, forwhom it may not be financially viable for them to undertake FJF.

At Crisis the hourly wage is paid at the London Living Wage of £7.60 per hour, which does make FJF morefinancially viable, with a person living with their parents being £102.59 better off per week than whilst onbenefits, but still potentially having extra in work expenses. However, even at this rate, the independentlyliving individual as per the first scenario would still only be £21.16 better off per week, without considerationof in work costs.

If the Work Programme is to include something similar to FJF, it may be worthwhile considering extendingthe number of hours per week to 30. This would not only increase their working income, benefit the employerwith more hours worked, but would also give entitlement to Working Tax Credits, which would increase anindividual’s income by a further £51.00 per week. (See attachments on better off calculations)4.


Although the FJF was introduced in summer 2009, some employers experienced delays in take up. Crisisonly employed people through the FJF from February 2010, due to a certain lack of clarity around the schemeand other organisations experienced administrative delays around referrals. As already demonstrated, Crisishave, where possible, extended FJF placements. Other organisations have also commented that if the placementproved to be successful, they would consider extending this, but only if they could raise further funding to4 Crisis’ Into Work Calculator—http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/into-work-comprehensive.html



finance the extension. In the extremely competitive fundraising market, this may prove to be difficult in thecurrent economic climate. However, there has been a public commitment to providing long-term benefitrecipients with a financially viable transition from benefits to work, be that part time or full time. It is a shamethat just as the FJF is bedding in and getting good press from all quarters, it is likely to disappear. In the currenteconomic downturn, companies need support financially to build and develop existing and new businesses. Ifthe FJF, or similar programmes were to be extended to 2012, or beyond, we believe that the take up would begreater; and as we potentially start to emerge from the recession, and as businesses, especially small andmedium enterprises (SME’s) begin to grow, there will be a lot more potential for firms to then extend FJFposts to permanent ones.

How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to beplayed by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships.

The Young Person’s Guarantee is only now just beginning to establish itself. The Coalition Government hasre-asserted its support for the creation of apprenticeships, internships, work pairings, and college and workplacetraining programmes, all with the intention of ‘getting Britain working’. This has been put into motion withthe announcement that the coalition government will be redirecting £150 million of additional funding to createmore than 50, 000 apprenticeships for SMEs. We believe that the Government needs to look to the future, andmore specifically the next two to three years. Apprenticeships are highly valuable to organisations, employers,individuals and the economy. Businesses across the country are realising the numerous benefits ofapprenticeships; they create a highly skilled workforce, increase productivity and boost staff retention. In atime of increasing financial constraint, apprenticeships will play a central role in ensuring future economicgrowth across the country.

Additionally, the Government has already shown that it recognises the worth of the scheme by not axing itimmediately as it proposed, but keeping the programme until March 2011. There are good economic and socialreasons for keeping a similar programme within the Work Programme. A combination of apprenticeships,workplace training, internships and Government funded work such as the FJF would give young people achance to start to progress in the world of work and support the future economic growth and stability of thiscountry. Apprenticeships are a positive way forward, however, there needs to be other options for young peopleentering employment, and the Future Jobs Fund is and option we would like to see continued.

7 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by St Mungo’s

Executive Summary:

The Future Jobs Fund has provided funding which has enabled St Mungo’s and its three charitable partners(Peter Bedford Trust, Broadway and Umbrella) to provide a relevant and supportive service to a highly excludedgroup of clients, far from the labour market, namely homeless people and mental health clients. The benefitsof this support have been:

— The provision of real work opportunities paid at least at minimum wage or above, and thereforeregarded by clients as real work.

— A programme supported by training and managerial supervision to a high standard.

— A flexible model able to meet the needs of this client group.

— A route into employment for people who have been long term unemployed and face multiplebarriers to employment.

This programme was designed for young people but we also believe there to be wider application particularlyfor groups who experience high levels of social exclusion.

We believe that good outcomes have already been achieved and would have continued, however as thefunding has now been terminated by the Government, we are unable to continue this valuable service.

Introduction:

St Mungo’s

3.1 St Mungo’s opens doors for homeless people. Mainly based in London and the South, we provide over100 accommodation and support projects day in, day out.

3.2 We run emergency services—including street outreach and emergency shelters. We support homelesspeople in their recovery—opening the door to health care, and getting more homeless people into lasting newhomes and training and work than any other charity. And we prevent homelessness through our high supporthousing and support teams for people at real risk.

3.3 By opening our doors, and our support services, we enable thousands of homeless and vulnerable peoplechange their lives for good every year.



3.4 St Mungos currently houses over 1,400 homeless people a night and we offer housing advice to severalthousand offenders from London prisons and local probation offices. Our Skills & Employment teams workwith almost 2,000 people a year (not just hostel residents), 280 participate in our training projects, 215 takepart in job search, 85 take up volunteering options and 75 progress into work.

Homelessness & Unemployment

3.5 A recent survey of St Mungos client showed only 4% are in paid employment, while a similar surveyof clients in 1983 showed 86% were in paid employment. In addition many of our clients have been out ofwork for a long time. Our most recent survey of residential clients shows that about 93% have not worked inthe last year, suggesting that unemployment is not only common it is entrenched. We believe these figures areindicative of the homeless population and the current employment support does not reach homeless clients.

3.6 We have also looked closer at the current needs of all of our clients and found that they face manybarriers to employment which could keep them out of work. For example:

— 43% have a significant medical condition.

— 36% have a diagnosed mental health condition.

— 21% have a suspected mental health condition.

— 47% drink alcohol problematically.

— 48% use illegal drugs problematically.

— 46% had an offending history.

— 72% had more than one complex need.

— Education level:

— 39%—None.

— 37%—CSE/GSE/GCSE.

— 8%—A Level.

— We estimate between 35% and 40% of clients need literacy support in order to find work.

— In the region of 27% have numeracy levels below those considered requisite for most jobs.

3.7 This goes someway to explain why so many of our clients are so far from the employment market. Ourown research in 2010 showed that: 15% of our clients had never worked, 26% had been out of work forbetween five and 10 years, 27% had been unemployed for over 10 years.

3.8 Further research showed that 40% of homeless clients believed “people were not going to employ anyonethat was homeless” but still 80% said their goal was finding work. 50% felt that lack of confidence stops themgetting into work or training.

3.9 Research commissioned by St Mungo’s in 2007 by ORC International found that by helping 125homeless clients into proper and stable employment each year could save the economy as much as £5.6 million,or £45,000 per client, per year.

4. Future Jobs Fund Provision

4.1 St Mungos as part of a wider consortium managed a Future Jobs Fund project, starting in December2009. We initially recruited 20 homeless people, all St Mungo’s clients, into new temporary part time positionswithin the organisation, while our three charity partners (Peter Bedford, Umbrella, Broadway) offered 15positions through their own organisations and recruited unemployed people against these, not all from theirown client group. Each charity deployed additional resources to ensure the programme would meet the needsof the client group, which we were all prepared to do because the programme filled a very real gap in theprovision of employment services for vulnerable people.

4.2 We were given dispensation by the DWP to recruit 1/3 of the clients from the age group of under 24and a maximum of 2/3 over the age of 24, from high unemployment “Hot Spots”, recognising that our clientsfitted the “Hot Spot” criteria.

4.3 The opportunities offered were all real jobs, including project assistants in hostels, training assistants invocational training teams (eg gardening) and administration assistants in maintenance departments. All wereoffered contracts of employment with the partner agency. Clients embraced these opportunities wholeheartedly,worked hard on their duties and attended any necessary organisational training courses, such as Health andSafety. The St Mungos trainees have also been following a Level One Open College Network accredited carecourse, which included First Aid and IT, using additional ESF funding.

4.4 As well as this training, FJF trainees were offered one-to-one managerial supervision in their place ofwork, as well as further one-to-one support and career progression advice.

4.5 With three weeks remaining of the programme 19 of the original 20 St Mungos cohort are still inemployment, as are nine of the 15 partners’ trainees. Several have been offered further work by their hosts orother companies, while others have been offered internships or training in other fields with their hosts or other



agencies. We are also confident that all 19 St Mungo’s trainees will have gained the OCN accredited carequalification in this time, which will assist their long term employment prospects. We believe this comparesfavourably with other programmes offered to this client group. For example a 2010 NAO report on theGovernment’s drug strategy found that only 8% of drug users receiving support to get into work were able tokeep a job for 13 weeks.5

4.6 There is a great deal of suspicion among homeless people about statutory services, which wasdemonstrated by “Work Matters”6 a report written by Demos, commissioned by St Mungo’s and the attitudesof clients towards Jobcentre Plus in comparison to the support they received from other organisations,particularly in the voluntary sector. However, as this programme provided real work opportunities paid at leastat minimum wage or above, it was regarded by clients as real work. In addition a survey of the clients at thestart of the programme showed that 100% of these new workers showed that they all saw the programme as away to develop their employability and as a stepping stone to permanent full time work.

4.7 The organisation saw the success of the scheme early on with 19 of the 20 new workers at St Mungo’sshowing both improved soft and hard employability skills and as such we were very keen to roll out a secondstream of Future Job Fund opportunities in late September, early October 2010. However the funding for thissecond stream was abruptly terminated by the new Coalition Government and we cannot progress this.

4.8 The programme was flexible enough to meet the needs of this client group and to provide a relevant andsupportive service to a very excluded group of clients, far from the labour market, namely homeless peopleand mental health clients.

5. Recommendations:

5.1 We believe that the success of programmes such as Future Jobs Funds in not only providing under 24’sand older homeless people with real work opportunities to beat the barriers to employment they experience,but are also essential in developing clients’ softer employability skills and their prospects of sustainableemployment. Each charity deployed additional resources to ensure the programme would meet the needs of theclient group, which we were all prepared to do because the programme filled a very real gap in the provision.

5.2 We understand the need to ensure that 18–24 year olds are helped to acquire the real work experiencethey need to gain a foothold in the employment market, so they are not consigned to future long termunemployment or reduced earning potential. But there is a need to make provision for the over 24s as well andthis approach has shown real merit in our view.

5.3 We believe that apprenticeships for adults are not being given enough priority especially at a time whenthe skills system needs to support labour market fluidity. People need to have good quality, impartialinformation available to them on which they can make difficult decisions to re-train. Not having moreopportunities for adults, who need to re-train while in work, is at present a real weakness in the skills systemand a barrier for many homeless in rebuilding their lives.

5.4 For homeless people, we strongly believe there a need for specialist homeless programmes that recognisesthe needs of our client and addresses the inequalities of the current employment market and back to workprogrammes felt by our clients.

5.4 We believe that the Future Job Fund was a very successful programme in assisting both under 24 yearold and over 24 year old homeless people back into work and any replacement programmes should recognisethe success of “place and train” programmes in assisting marginalised people back onto sustained employment.We believe the government needs to take responsibility for homeless peoples’ poor employment record and weparticularly ask that any future programme highlights Homelessness as a priority group and offers the additionalnecessary support and training.

5.5 In the development of the Work Programme we think there is room for a Future Jobs Fund type modelparticularly if, in the short to medium term, there is a rise in unemployment and a limited supply of jobs. Jobcreation in this way, short term and targeted at those furthest from the labour market may be a cost effectiveway of ensuring the Work Programme is successful in tackling long term unemployment.

7 September 2010

5 National Audit Office, Tackling problem drug use (NAO 2010)6 St Mungo’s, Work Matters (St Mungo’s 2010)

http://www.mungos.org/views/665_work-matters-homeless-people-and-employment



Written evidence submitted by Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

Summary

1. The most obvious strength of the Future Jobs Fund is the multiple benefits it generates for communities,individuals and organisations. However, in this submission we focus on four core strengths which we believeare unique to this initiative, and contribute to its continuing success. Those are:

— The provision of real jobs.

— Flexibility in the design of opportunities.

— Capacity building of third sector employers.

— Equal opportunities for those in rural communities.

The greatest weakness of the initiative is its lack of requirement or provision for the recording and tracking ofemployee outcomes. This means that supporters of the Future Jobs Fund are unable to demonstrate potentialcost-benefits of the programme or make a fair comparison of performance against mainstream employmentinitiatives such as the Flexible New Deal.

2. SCVO would welcome the creation of a revised job creation programme which draws upon the strengthsof the Future Jobs Fund, learns from any weaknesses and seeks to ensure that young unemployed people inScotland receive the best possible support to enter and progress in their chosen careers.

About SCVO and Introduction

3. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is the national body representing the voluntarysector. There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland involving around 137,000 paid staff andapproximately 1.3 million volunteers. The sector manages an income of £4.4 billion7. SCVO works inpartnership with the voluntary sector in Scotland to advance our shared values and interests. We have over1300 members who range from individuals and grassroots groups, to Scotland-wide organisations andintermediary bodies. Further details about SCVO can be found at www.scvo.org.uk

4. SCVO is the Lead Accountable Body (LAB) for the Third Sector Consortium in Scotland (“theConsortium”); one of the largest third sector providers of the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) in the UK. TheConsortium submitted three successful bids to deliver the FJF, receiving approval to create 2,200 FJF jobs inmore than 200 third sector organisations across all 32 Local Authority Areas in Scotland by March 2011.Currently, the Consortium has created and filled over 1,750 of these jobs, which represent opportunities asdiverse as finance, retail, warehousing, social care, IT, media, marketing, and “green jobs”. In June 2010,SCVO was delighted to receive the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Supplier Excellence Award forthe Consortium’s delivery of the FJF. We have also secured additional ESF funding for a “Sustaining FutureJobs” project which will provide work-related training and progression opportunities for over 1000 FJFemployees to further increase their future employability.

5. Despite thousands of young people gaining employment through the FJF, and contrary to the rest of theUK, there are now more people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in Scotland than when the FJF began deliveryin October 20108. Scotland is also the only nation where the number of 18–24 year olds claiming JSA as apercentage of all claimants has increased over this period (currently 29.9%9). This is evidence of a growingneed for jobs which will inspire, develop and progress young people, and for increased, rather than diminishedemployment support targeted at this group. Youth unemployment remains a key concern for third sectororganisations supporting individuals and communities across Scotland. It is vital that young people in Scotlandhave access to timely, relevant and effective support to ensure they are assisted into sustainable employment.

6. Our submission to this Inquiry draws on our experience and learning as an FJF provider and builds on theresearch publication “Future Jobs: Future Communities” which has previously been submitted to all Committeemembers. It also incorporates some of the views expressed in response to questions put to our Consortiummembers for this submission; a sample of those responses can be found in Annex A of this document.

Strengths of the Programme

7. The most obvious strength of FJF is the multiple benefits it generates for communities, individuals andorganisations. This mutually beneficial arrangement is at the heart of the popularity and success of FJF withproviders, employers, employees and members of the public. SCVO has recently published a report “FutureJobs: Future Communities” which demonstrates these benefits in more detail10. Based on qualitative interviewsconducted by SCVO with Consortium employers and employees, the report gives examples of the variety andscope of community benefit that has been generated by FJF, including regeneration projects, improvedenvironments, increased access to advice, guidance and leisure services, and local anti-poverty initiatives. It7 Scottish Voluntary Sector Statistics 2010, SCVO

www.scvo.org.uk/evidencelibrary/Home/ReadResearchItem.aspx?f=asc&rid=10788 Data source: Claimant Count—age and duration: Oct 09—Jul 10, from Nomis on 24th August 2010.9 Data source: Claimant Count—age and duration: Oct 09—Jul 10, from Nomis on 18th August 201010 This report can be accessed in full at:

www.scvo.org.uk/scvocms/images/Future%20Jobs%20Fund/FutureJobs_FutureCommunities.pdf



also summarises the individual benefits reported by FJF employees such as increased skills, experience andemployability, greater confidence and improved sense of direction.

8. For the purposes of this submission and based on the evidence collected for the above research report,we would like to detail four core strengths which we believe are unique to the FJF, and where we would hopeto see lessons learnt for the design of future employment initiatives. These are:The provision of real jobs

— Flexibility in the design of opportunities

— Capacity building of third sector employers

— Equal opportunities for those in rural communities

Each of these areas is expanded in the following sections.

The provision of Real Jobs

9. The greatest strength of the programme for individuals is that it provides a real job, with real workexperience and a credible work reference for future job applications. SCVO recognises and promotes theimmense value that volunteering provides to those who are looking to build skills and experience, however, theadded value for individuals achieved by providing genuine employment through FJF cannot be underestimated.

10. The existence of an employer/employee relationship, as opposed to a mandatory or voluntary workplacement creates a significant difference in the attitudes and behaviours of both employers and employees.FJF employers feel better able to invest in participants, in terms of time, training and the allocation ofresponsibility, enhancing the benefits gained by individual employees in terms of acquired skills, experienceand confidence. Employees tend to respond positively in return, demonstrating high levels of motivation,loyalty and productivity. Employers with experience of supervising New Deal work placements and FJFemployees noted this difference in particular, stating that the ability to “pay employees a reasonable wage andexpect a reasonable day’s work” is significant to the success of FJF. The fact that FJF recognises andcompensates employers for their investment in terms of time, effort and finance for the training, supervisionand resources required by employees greatly aids this relationship.

11. FJF provides individual participants with all the benefits of employment, both financial and non-financial,including increased confidence, self-worth, and social interaction, new and improved skills and a greater chanceof securing alternative employment.

12. Many employer and employee participants have also commented that FJF teaches individuals aboutcommon work processes that have often not been encountered before. These particularly include adhering tothe terms and conditions of employment, such as requesting leave, swapping allocated shifts with colleagues,reporting sickness and working within a supervision and disciplinary framework. Understanding of, andadherence to such procedures is essential to sustaining in work, but rarely, if ever, experienced outside offormal employment.

Flexibility in the Design of Opportunities

13. The diversity amongst 18–24 year olds claiming out-of-work benefits is immense. FJF is able to benefitindividuals across this spectrum, from those with no qualifications seeking their first job after school, tohighly-skilled graduates who are struggling to secure new work after experiencing redundancy. FJF has offeredemployers the flexibility to create job opportunities which are equally diverse, in order to reflect the experience,skills-levels and aspirations of these individuals.

14. Flexibility in the design of jobs (subject to minimum criteria) has ensured that the available jobs betterreflect normal working arrangements. For example, many employers have offered 30 or more hours a week sothat the FJF employees have the same working patterns as existing full-time staff. Similarly, jobs in areas suchas retail and tourism have been able to include weekend shifts for FJF employees, which makes the job morerepresentative of work in that sector than a rigid 30-hour, Monday-to-Friday placement would be.

15. Flexibility in job design has allowed the creation of jobs in a variety of sectors which are difficult orimprobable to access through previous initiatives such as the New Deal placements, or alternative routes suchas Modern Apprenticeships. Examples of such jobs include advisory services, web design, marketing, sportscoaching, and bicycle repairing. Many such opportunities have been filled by young people who have a keenpersonal interest in the area, bringing existing skills and enthusiasm to the role. Numerous Consortiumemployers have admitted that their preconceptions of young unemployed people have been challenged by theirability to successfully recruit for such roles amongst FJF-eligible claimants.

16. This flexibility has been critical to successfully matching individuals to appropriate job opportunities.The best indication that this has worked is the emerging evidence of high job retention rates. An analysis ofthe first 200 FJF employees employed through the Consortium conducted in July 2010 showed that 85% ofindividuals either completed their six month contract, or left their contract early to take up alternativeemployment. This compares very favourably with 26-week job sustainability achieved on other employmentinitiatives.



Capacity building of Third Sector Employers

17. A further observed strength of FJF is its ability to capacity-build third sector employers. The existenceof FJF employees has offered some third sector organisations the opportunity to develop and create permanentjobs which would not have been affordable without the supported increase in capacity. Some examples of thisare given below:

“Our income from sales and services has jumped by over 30% because we were able to improve ourpremises in ways which would have been unaffordable had we been paying full tradesmens’ rates. (wehad almost time-served joiner, plumber and plasterer who had been laid off by the recession, all 3 arenow back working)”—Tayside Recyclers, Dundee.“We have used the FJF scheme to establish our new trading arm Fablevision Studios… The capacity ofthe organisation has been built to the stage where it is now employing 3 full time staff in jobs created outof the FJF scheme.”—Fablevision Group, Glasgow.“[FJF] has enabled us to get a new project off the ground, bringing a significant amount of communitybenefit: restoring a derelict old building, providing allotments for the community, and starting a recyclingservice… the team have worked so well, and have become such an integral part of establishing this projectthat I am hopeful that we will be able to offer at least four of them permanent posts at the end of it—Ionly wish I could offer more.”—Moffat CAN, Dumfriesshire

A number of employers also commented that in participating in the FJF, they had developed the managementand supervisory skills of their existing staff, meaning that they are now better equipped as an organisation totake on additional employees.

18. Employers who have participated in this initiative may not have been able to foresee how strategicrecruitment through the FJF could increase capacity and stimulate permanent growth and job creation. Betteradvice and guidance of employers when working on job design may have improved the chance of more jobssustaining beyond the lifetime of the funding.

Equal opportunities for those in Rural Communities

19. Most outsourced DWP provision relies on working with high volumes of clients to make it financiallyviable. For this reason, rural communities with lower claimant numbers tend to receive a reduced service onmainstream DWP programmes, often based on time and resource-limited outreach activities. As the fundingfor FJF follows the individual, and relies on working with the existing infrastructure of employers, it is possibleto deliver in the most remote communities at the same unit cost as urban areas. On this basis, SCVO has beenable to deliver FJF in island communities such as Shetland, Eilean Siar, Orkney and Islay, as well as in remotemainland areas such as parts of the Highlands, Dumfriesshire and Aberdeenshire.

20. One FJF employee working in a village in the Highlands told us that he left education to seekemployment as attending college would require a two-hour bus journey in each direction at a cost of £10 perday—if the weather did not prevent the bus from running. The same bus journey is required to access aJobcentre Plus office, or the premises of providers who offer one-to-one employment support. However, FJFoffered him the opportunity to engage in employment support just a few miles from his home. The acquiredskills and experience, combined with a respected local reference, will genuinely increase his chances ofsecuring sustainable employment within the community. As many young people in Scotland feel they need toleave their communities and move to the mainland urban belts in order to secure employment, suchinterventions may be critical to the future sustainability of rural economies.

Weaknesses of the Programme

21. The FJF understandably had many “teething problems” due to the swift nature with which it wasimplemented. These issues particularly surrounded the recruitment of employees, including difficulty with theprofiling of jobs, and unclear eligibility criteria. Performance in the initial months of delivery was affected bythese problems; however, such issues were mostly resolved by closely working with employers and JobcentrePlus colleagues.

22. The most significant weakness of the programme in our opinion is the absence of performance targetsrelating to progression for the FJF employees. This has resulted in an inability to conduct a comprehensiveevaluation of the programme. While those involved in the delivery of FJF, as well as many FJF employers andemployees, believe that it is highly effective in helping young unemployed people into sustainable employment,there has been no requirement from DWP for providers to record or track this. While many LABs, includingSCVO, would like to be able to conduct a full tracking exercise to record the positive outcomes for those whohave held an FJF job, there is no resource allocated in the contract for this purpose.

23. The lack of this data means that FJF cannot be fairly assessed or compared to other employmentinitiatives, such as the Flexible New Deal, for the cost-benefits of the programme and the achievement ofsustained employment outcomes at 13, 26, and 52 weeks. Having access to this information may have madethe argument to retain the FJF, or create a suitable replacement, more concrete. To our knowledge, the DWPevaluation of FJF has not yet commenced, but when it does it is unlikely that evaluators will be able to capturethis information on a large scale.



The future beyond Future Jobs Fund?

24. The decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012 inevitably means that thousands ofyoung individuals will be denied the opportunity to gain real work experience in the third sector, and thechance to start their future careers. At a time where youth unemployment in Scotland appears to be continuallyrising, and where the jobs market looks likely to decline, we can only conclude that many young individualswill remain trapped in the benefits system, the “scars” of which may affect their entire working life. This willparticularly hit the young unemployed living in rural communities who are unlikely to receive the same levelof support through the Work Programme as their urban contemporaries.

25. Furthermore, hundreds of organisations will be denied the opportunity to take on an FJF employee, andpotentially create long-term employment opportunities as a result. SCVO receives enquiries from employerson a daily basis who have not yet had the opportunity to employ through FJF and would like to do so.Regrettably, we now have to decline most such requests due to limitations on the number of jobs we can create.Some organisations who have been able to employ through the FJF have expressed concerns that projects theyhave begun with FJF staff will have to be closed or put on hold as they will not have the resources to continuethat work without the additional support. One employer even felt that they may have to make redundantexisting permanent staff who had been working on the management of FJF within their organisation as a directresult of the initiative ending.

26. The Government has stated that they would welcome the inclusion of an “FJF-style” feature in the designof the new Work Programme if providers feel it is the most effective way to help individuals into sustainableemployment. We have two reasons as to why we believe this will not happen. Firstly, the funding available toproviders will not be sufficient to generate real jobs. As the primary strength of FJF is that it is real (ifsubsidised) employment, any replacement that does not adequately remunerate both the employer and employeeis unlikely to be as successful. Secondly, the delivery of FJF has been almost entirely the reserve of the thirdand public sectors. As it is likely that most FJF providers do not meet the minimum requirements to bid tobecome Framework Providers for the Work Programme, we fail to see how the learning from FJF will beeffectively transferred into its design.

Conclusion

27. SCVO appreciates this opportunity to submit some of our thoughts on the FJF to the Work and PensionsCommittee for this Inquiry. We have found the FJF to be an excellent initiative which has brought multiplebenefits to the individuals involved, the organisations who have employed them, and the communities thoseorganisations serve.

28. We are disappointed that the Coalition Government has chosen to end the FJF early, particularly as thisdecision was taken so swiftly and without being informed by thorough analysis or evaluation of the outcomesachieved by the programme, which we believe to be favourable when compared to mainstream employmentinitiatives designed for this client group.

29. SCVO would welcome a new programme which builds on the strengths and experiences of FJF to beincluded in the broader Government strategy for skills and employment. Such a new programme should,however, retain key elements of the FJF, such as demonstrable community benefit, adequate financialremuneration for employers as well as employees, flexibility in job design, and equal capacity to deliver inrural areas. We recognise that the level of finance required is the primary barrier to the continuation of FJF inits current form, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with DWP how alternative fundingarrangements could achieve similar results with the support of the third sector.

Annex A

A sample of responses from FJF employers to Questions posed by SCVO

Questions were emailed to FJF employers on 4th August by SCVO, asking them to input their views to theWork and Pensions Committee Inquiry. 32 employer and individual responses were received fromrepresentatives of the following organisations: Fablevision, One Parent Families Scotland, Outfit Moray,Scottish Maritime Museum, Alliance Ayrshire, Cumnock & Doon Valley Credit Union, Right Track Scotland,Volunteer South Ayrshire, Rosemount, Scottish Swimming, CVO East Ayrshire, Scottish Squash, EdinburghCyrenians Farm, Youthlink Scotland, Yipworld.com, ReJIG, Grampian Transport Museum, RCAHMS,Community Renewal, Ardess Lodge (NTS), ACOSVO, Rathbone, Moray Waste Busters, Helmsdale & DistrictCommunity Association, Coconut Corner Childcare Centre, Scottish Wildlife Trust, Museums GalleriesScotland, North Ayrshire Citizen’s Advice Service, The Hidden Gardens, Remploy, Tayside Recyclers andMoffat CAN.

Below are examples of the responses received for each question.

How well has FJF succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities with young unemployedpeople?

— “We have had some difficulty in filling a few vacancies but overall we have received a high calibreof applicant and been oversubscribed for most vacancies”.



— “Very well indeed. We were pleasantly surprised by the amount of interest we received for ourjob applications”.

— “Apparently very well, the young people who have worked with us have all had aspirations towork outdoors or in a similar field (no pun intended) and responded very well to their placements”.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of FJF?— “FJF has been effective in the case of our employee in demonstrating that the basic minimum

wage package can be seen as a launch pad for the long term unemployed who discover that......ifthey work hard as a part of a team they become valued and are offered more hours/time off andearn more/do more. They also discover that honest hard work is nearly always engaging and oftenenjoyable.....far better for self esteem, making new friends, opening up opportunities, etc thanworking the benefits system. Six months in a realistic situation, under a little pressure, is enoughto effect that change in a person.”

— “The main strength of FJF was in the opportunities it generated—for young people to get somepractical work experience to show what they can achieve and which might just inspire them to afuture career; and for [us] to help with this while getting some key work undertaken.”

— “FJF is well resourced and can deliver a comprehensive package of training and work experience;this experience will make the young person more employable in the future.”

— “The obvious strengths with the FJF is the variety of positions available in non-vocational roles,for example, marketing and events. These are jobs that have become some of the most competitivewith so many graduates coming out of University with business related degrees. It gives thesepeople a foot in the door and vital work experience to build confidence and knowledge to applyfor other jobs in the future. It also reduces the risk for the employer, as it is effectively like a 6month job interview, if you perform and show what you can do, the chance of being kept on isincreased.” (response from former FJF employee, now in permanent employment).

What (if anything) makes FJF different from other/previous employment initiatives?— “The referrals have been of a much higher calibre than we normally receive from the Job Centre

and are normally suited to the positions on offer.”

— “It gives people hope—real work experience, up to date reference, a valuable extra for the cv. Itis a job, not a training programme.”

— “[Other] placements tended to be very rigid in terms of minimum number of hours they needed tocomplete and limited in scope in terms of the type of role they were looking for (usually admin,retail). This scheme was a lot more flexible and the employers had more control and for thesereasons I think it benefited the organisation and the employee. Organisations could offer real jobsacross a wide range of areas (we had anything from maintenance assistants, countryside rangers,archivists, educational roles)…Employers also had control in terms of those they were employingand not as with previous experience having a candidate presented by an agency. They could recruitand make a decision taking into account operational issues and employees were made to feel thatthis was a real job (which it was!). There was also more emphasis on training and development.”

What impact has FJF had on your organisation?— “Whilst FJF has taken a lot of input from us—I do not think we could have progressed at the rate

we have without the contribution of the FJF’s.”

— “FJF has been a very welcome addition for our organisation, it has allowed us to look at relaxedways of interviewing candidates at a disadvantage in the labour market. The FJF employees have,in particular within the factory network, brought a new lease of life to quite a stagnant work force”

— “We have found that our FJF employee has been a valuable addition to our staff, and has enabledus to run more activities. From the employee’s point of view, I hope we have built his confidenceand increased his skill base for future employment.”

— “Our team have embraced and supported the young people and helped them pave out their careerpath. The young people have enhanced the work we do locally and have helped us increase ourcapacity to deliver. Its been good to see the young people flourish and grow in confidence andmotivation etc.”

What will be the impact of the decision to end FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012?— “At the moment we are enabling our FJF staff to build their confidence by getting back into the

workplace, providing them with recent experience and new skills. By ending this early itdisadvantages thousands of young people who are not yet eligible for FJF and who may havebenefited from this step into the world of work.”

— “The museum will not be able to employ the same workforce therefore the speed of refurbishmentand visitor experience will decline”



— We would have liked to continue employing young people through FJF as we have found it to bevery beneficial both for our charity and the young person, and we are disappointed it is finishing.

— “It is so important that young people are not subject to the scourge of unemployment. The twentyor so FJF staff employed by us to date would be very much the losers if FJF hadn’t existed… ifanything should be ring-fenced, it is youth employment rather than the oldies grabbing theresources to help them live longer (speaking as an oldie!)”

— We are constantly being told graduate job prospects are reducing all the time, by ending the FJF Ifeel this is only going to compound the problem. This initiative gives graduates a real chance atshowing what they can do, in relevant, career progressing and enjoyable jobs, to end that wouldbe a massive step backwards, and shows what the government thinks of the future workforce.

What would you like to see replace the FJF in the future?— “I would like to see a version of FJF but with funding in place to offer 12 month placements, with

the processes in relation to JCP resolved and with more emphasis on training (in terms ofdesignated funding) and mentoring for these young people”

— “Some form of funded placement scheme that is introduced in less of a hurry and has greaterdurability.”

— “Given the severe cuts facing all govt expenditure, maybe the best we can hope for is a 50%funded scheme, perhaps with flexibility for part-time work/part volunteering”

— “If it’s not broken don’t fix it!!!! A replacement that offers the same benefits to employers andyoung people will be difficult to come up with.”

8 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Community Skills Partnership

The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work experience opportunities toYoung Unemployed People

1.0 The FJF bid specification was specifically aimed at Public Sector, voluntary groups or non-profit makingorganisations. Had FJF been open to employers in the private sector, we could have offered hundreds more jobseekers meaningful work experience via our partnerships developed with large national employers who arecreating genuine “new jobs” from expanding business requirements.

1.1 The restriction of FJF jobs having to each provide a “Community Benefit” caused further limitation onbids. We had three attempts at a bid for the London region rejected on this issue alone. The DWP andGovernment office for London gave out conflicting advice as to the meaning of “Community Benefit” atvarious feedback meetings. Some clarity and flexibility here would have opened up many more opportunitieswith employers who had job opportunities that were not necessarily customer facing.

1.2 Fortunately, were able to partake in FJF through our Community Interest Company, (The CommunitySkills partnership).

1.3 In our view the decision to limit the FJF to the public/voluntary sector was a significant factor in denyingmany private sector employers the opportunity to work with Jobcentre Plus and assist the DWP in their questto reduce the number of job seekers. Many more young unemployed people could have been given the benefitof “new” jobs with the chance of a sustainable outcome.

2.0 Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Weaknesses:

2.1 The Jobcentre Plus (JCP) vacancy template does not allow enough descriptive narrative to enable theJCP advisor to fully understand the job role and the responsibilities.

2.2 As a result of the above Job seekers appear to be given only the job title and very few details of the jobopportunity by their advisor. This could result in the lack of suitable applications for the jobs on offer.

2.3 The response from young job seekers has been extremely disappointing. For example in our project inBirmingham, during the first five months, appointments were made by JCP for 500 job seekers to attendinterview. Regrettably, 223 failed to attend, which represents a 44.6% non attendance rate. From those Jobseekers who attended interviews about 50% were eligible and have been employed.

2.4 This very high level of “non attendance” causes employers additional costs for interview rooms as wellas the cost of wasted time by the interview panel. It also undermines the confidence employers have in JCP toidentify and supply a suitable job candidates.



2.5 We understand from JCP that job seekers “not attending” an interview opportunity can lose their benefitallowances. However, we believe that in some cases this has been left to the discretion of the individual JCPoffice to enforce or not.

2.6 Where jobs require a clean CRB check, employers are expected to take the risk of employing job seekerswhilst the check is made, which can take 6–8 weeks duration. This can result in a FJF employee having toleave the job. There is no mechanism to fund this pre-job evaluation period.

2.7 In addition to learning about their role, job seekers require soft skills training in order to feel comfortablein the work environment. This means spending additional time in teaching them about the world of work,including examples such as -commitment to time keeping, respecting equality & diversity of colleagues,health & safety at work, gaining knowledge about the sector career path.

2.8 FJF would be enhanced if a short period of fully funded pre-employment training was available in orderto get claimants job ready and give them a better understanding of the role and their responsibilities prior totheir actual start date at work.

Strengths

2.9 In one of our FJF projects in Birmingham & the West Midlands, we have placed young job seekers inPrimary Schools and Leisure Centres in the role of Physical Activity Co-ordinators. Supported by our mentorsand trainers they have helped the schools deliver their “extended school services”.

2.10 Positive feed back is listed below:

— FJF has given young people the opportunity to experience regular employment and gainqualifications.

— The programme may been seen in some ways as a six month job interview

— The 26 weeks in work, has provided a platform to gain extra knowledge about the sports industryas a career.

— Most candidates seem happy and have said they enjoy the job training as it is similar to collegeand they are around people of their own age so can mix easily.

— FJF funding has ensured that fully qualified staff have been involved. This has helped to improvethe standard of training we can offer to FJF recruits, especially at Sports Camps where the traineeshave proved to have been invaluable.

— Working with qualified staff has enabled FJF trainees to pick up knowledge from more highlyqualified sports coaches in the industry.

— We have shown employees how to follow industry recognised policies and procedures which theyhave been unaware of in the past.

— Trainees have developed soft skills working alongside professional people.

— We have provided quality work experience for FJF employees, including an interesting job, havingto get for work each day, meeting new people, a sense of satisfaction and input into society

— Their opportunity of finding future employment has been greatly improved particularly as the rolein primary schools could well become self funding.

— The FJF projects have enabled us to build relationships with local JCP offices and gain a betterunderstanding of the way in which JCP engage with employers. We hope our positive input willhelp to improve the service from JCP to employers and job seekers.

2.11 In summary, the FJF has enabled us to provide a well needed resource into schools and communitygroups. So far the trainees have worked with approximately 3,000 children and helped to engage them in sportand dance. This will increase to around 10,000 by the end of the project. They have allowed children to accessadditional school services that would not have been available without the support of the FJF trainees. Manychildren and families have been physically active as a result of the programme so far. The vocationally relevantqualifications we have offered them are an essential element in allowing work with children or adults.

3 The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

3.1 We would have been able to repeat the successes that we have had with our projects in Birmingham andWest Midlands and roll them out across other regions, for example London where we have suitable contactwith employers in the public and private sectors. This is no longer an option under FJF.

4 How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part tobe played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships

4.1 We are a long established Training Provider with Matrix approval and National Contracts with the SkillsFunding Agency to deliver Apprenticeships and Advanced Apprenticeships. We also have funding to deliverNational Vocational Qualifications across a number of sector specific subjects.



4.2 We consider that by combining our FJF experience with providing the unemployed with jobs and ourknowledge of providing individuals with skills ranging from basics skills up to level 3/4 management level.We are able to offer the DWP a transition package from FJF to the Work Programme.

4.3 Our package would consist of a short period of pre-employment training, over a period of no more than4 weeks, aimed at getting claimants ready for the world of work , combined with initial vocational traininglinked specifically to an industry sector, e.g. retail, hospitality, cleaning support services. etc.. We would seekto establish employer partnerships where the “job ready” claimants would be given the opportunity of a joblinked to the commitment to undertake an Apprenticeship in the relevant subject area.

4.4 As there is a stated commitment to extend SFA funding for new Apprenticeships, it would be helpfulfor the DWP to provide funding to support the “pre- employment” transition period together with an incentiveto cover employer’s additional mentoring and supervision activities.

5 Summary

5.1 Our experience shows that there could be improvement in the way the JCP system is designed to handlevacancy information. There is room for closer engagement by JCP with employers to fully understand the jobroles and their subsequent ability to transmit this detail to the advisors when they are counselling job seekers.

5.2 Once engaged in employment, we found that the FJF employees responded well to being given theopportunity to gain a vocationally relevant qualification. This gave them a goal to work towards as well as aframework for understanding the particular industry standards.

5.3 Employers are reluctant to take on new recruits directly from JCP unless they are confident that they arejob ready and would be will be willing to undertake industry specific training and therefore make a commitmentto gaining qualifications, which would increase their skills base and make them a useful asset for theorganisation.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Catch 22

Introduction

Catch22 welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry into Youth Unemployment and the Future JobsFund. Catch22 has a significant amount of experience in both supporting young people into employment andspecifically the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) as a provider of opportunities for young people.

Catch22 believes the FJF has provided significant benefits for young people from which they have gainednew skills and experience to help them find long term sustainable, fulfilling, and appropriate employment. Asan employer of young people on FJF placements, we have had extremely positive experiences. The FJF hasenabled us to employ young people that we would not have otherwise been able to and we have beenconsistently impressed with the young people that we have been able to employ.

The FJF provides a real lifeline for young people, particularly given the current extremely high levels ofunemployment for young people. Catch22 is concerned that while the Government has committed to continuingwith funding already agreed, the withdrawal of support for new bids to create jobs and bids already in thepipeline will jeopardise the chances of many young people. It is important that the Government recognises thebenefits and opportunities afforded to young people and employers through the FJF and ensures that these arenot lost as a result of cutting the programme.

The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunities toYoung Unemployed People

As well as supporting young people to find work and training opportunities under the Future Jobs Fund,Catch22 has been able to provide young people with FJF opportunities within our services.

The following case studies showcase the success of two such placements:

Boo joined a Catch22 Skills centre in order to learn about mechanics and as a way of keeping out of trouble.He studied NVQ Level One in Motor Mechanics and he was presented with his qualification by Princess Anne.Whilst doing his NVQ, Boo learnt numeracy and literacy skills, as well as practical skills such as servicingand preparing cars for MOTs. Once he had finished his NVQ, Boo continued to volunteer at the skills centre,helping to teach other young people the same skills he had learnt.

In Spring 2010, Boo was offered a job under the Future Jobs Fund as a Support Technician, working forAuto22, a new social enterprise based in Kent which was set up by Catch22 and is a car servicing and repairbusiness. His main duties include supporting the Technicians on a day-to-day basis, maintaining the workshoptools, and preparing and valeting vehicles after they have been repaired.

“There are loads of things I love about the job. Working on cars brings a new challenge every day, andgives me the opportunity to develop my technical and problem solving skills. I also really enjoy working



as part of the team—there’s always someone to help if there’s something I don’t understand, and it’s greatto have a laugh while learning. The job also gives me the opportunity to meet new people and developmy customer service skills—something that I’m keen to continue learning about in the future.”—Boo, 20,Support Technician at Auto22.

“Having graduated from university in 2008 I have found it extremely difficult to find work because of thecurrent recession. After many applications I managed to find myself a part time job at [a local retailer]which was offering a four hour per week contract. I found it progressively difficult to find a job whichoffered more hours. Thankfully the Future Jobs Fund came about at the right time, I was put forward fora couple of interviews and was successful gaining the role of admin assistant at Catch22.

“I feel I have benefitted a lot from working for such a rewarding organisation. I have learnt new skillsincluding how to use new software including database inputting, minute taking, multitasking, and the dayto day running of a busy reception. I have gained confidence in all aspects of the job and I am learningnew skills daily. Through this job I have been able to attend numerous courses to help develop myunderstanding of the role which have been highly beneficial.

“I think the Future Jobs Fund is a brilliant idea helping people get back into work, and offering workexperience and courses to help them within that specific job role. It has been a great opportunity for meI’ve loved working for an organisation that is helping out others. Not only has helped me get back intowork but I have met new friends, gained confidence and I now have a better idea of what I would like todo for a long term career.

“I think it’s great that I have a mentor who comes to check how I am getting on and helps with furtherjob searches or any other problems that I have. I feel that I have needed this support and guidance.

“I am very appreciative of this opportunity and if it wasn’t for the Future jobs fund I would never havefound a job as well suited as this. I feel that it is an excellent scheme with good career opportunities.”—Sally, 24, Administrative Assistant at Catch22 Service.

Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (including inthe Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

The Future Jobs Fund is an extremely important way of providing young people with the skills andopportunities that they need to move into sustainable and appropriate employment by broadening theirexperiences. The case studies above showcase the value that it has contributed to the young people that Catch22has worked with.

Catch22 has some concerns about the inflexibility of the eligibility criteria. Due to the chaotic nature ofsome of the young people’s lives, the requirement to have been on jobseekers allowance continuously for 26weeks has prevented some young people from being eligible. In one case, a young person had taken on a shorttemporary contract of just a few days which had meant that he wasn’t able to take up a FJF position. He wasextremely disappointed as he was very excited about the position.

There have also been concerns raised about the salary level for FJF employees. By only paying minimumwage, some young people have been forced to take another job to supplement their income. Furthermore, someyoung people have found themselves doing similar jobs to other staff, but being paid considerably less.

Some young people have commented that they were disappointed that the contract is only temporary for sixmonths, feeling that they would benefit from a longer period of employment:

“My main concern is that the contract is for only six months, however I understand funding is difficultand can’t last forever….six months is not long enough to really learn and develop the role. It takes a fewmonths just to get to grips with the job and fully understand what is needed.”—Sally, 24, AdministrativeAssistant at Catch22 Service.

In general, however, the experience of the Future Jobs Fund from the perspective of young people andCatch22 has been extremely positive and Catch22 believes that the FJF has resulted in permanent employmentfor the young people involved.

“From my perspective I would recommend FJF. It enables organisations to employ young people atpractically no cost for six months. In our case, the FJF fund covered the cost of Boo’s tools, someprotective clothing and some training as well as salary costs. I’ve found the people I deal with at FJF tobe extremely helpful, and the reporting requirements are pretty straightforward and not too timeconsuming”.—Auto22.

“This has been a gift for our service as we really needed an extra admin person to cover reception, answerphones, book clients in for classes etc but our budget does not cover this…

“Due to our current funding situation, it is unlikely that we will be able to offer Sally a job at the end ofthe FJF period. However, I would be happy to do this should the situation change. Having Sally here hasdemonstrated that the post is needed. It has given us an opportunity to see how Sally performs in the job,a little like an extended work trial at no cost to us…I think this is a useful scheme as it provides workexperience, a reference, some income and a chance to try out a particular role for the people involved. Italso gives the employer a chance to see if a job is needed/useful.



“From an employer perspective, this has been an excellent opportunity. We have been fortunate with Sallyas she is a very capable and enthusiastic candidate”—Catch22 service employing Sally.


Catch22 is concerned that the decision to end the FJF earlier than expected, announced as part of the Cross-Government Efficiency Savings, ignores the issues that created the initial drive for the creation of the FutureJobs Fund. As illustrated by the case studies above, the FJF provides a real lifeline for young people,particularly given the current extremely high levels of unemployment for young people, providing six monthsof training and development.

Youth unemployment has a negative impact on young people in terms of their self esteem and confidence,mental health, and ability to reengage with the labour market by keeping their skills fresh and up to date. Butas well as short term impacts, youth unemployment also leaves a lasting legacy. Research by Paul Gregg hasshown that being unemployed for more than 12 months under the age of 23 has a hugely negative impact ona young person’s future, causing a permanent scar of disadvantage. Those who have experienced long durationsof unemployment in their youth still suffer from sizeable wage penalties in their forties.

The FJF also has a role to play in breaking the intergenerational cycle of unemployment by giving youngpeople the opportunity to gain new skills and experience, particularly in areas of high unemployment. Recentresearch commissioned by the BBC illustrates the impact that the recession and public spending cuts is likelyto have across England. It shows that there is a clear north-south divide in the ability of local authorities towithstand changes to the economy, with areas such as the north east faring particularly badly as a result oftheir reliance on public sector employment11. The FJF will be a key factor is helping young people in theseareas to find work.

While the Government has committed to continuing with funding already agreed, the withdrawal of supportfor new bids to create jobs and bids already in the pipeline will jeopardise the chances of many young people.

It is important that the Government recognises the benefits and opportunities afforded to young people andemployers through the FJF and ensures that these are not lost as a result of cutting the programme.

“Had the scheme continued, I was looking at recruiting an additional person under this initiative toassist with fundraising, identifying sources of funding and helping with applications.”—Catch22 serviceemploying Sally.


The new Work Programme is still lacking a lot of the detail about how exactly it will work. Catch22 isconcerned that the young people that we work with are adequately and appropriately supported by theorganisations who are contracted to work with them.

Catch22 has a wide range of expertise in working with young people and supporting them into employment.A key example of this is “From Care2Work”, a national employability initiative for care leavers which worksto find local solutions to narrow the gap between care leavers and their peers by creating opportunities andraising aspirations. Managed by the National Care Advisory Service (NCAS) based within Catch22, “FromCare2Work” works in partnership with local authorities, private sector employers and third sector organisationsin England. Its aim is to identify and share good practice and enable relationships between corporate parentsand employers in order to increase the breadth of opportunities available to young people leaving care.

“From Care2Work” has established the critical success factors in supporting young people into employment:The From Care to Work journey, and within this there are a number of key learning points for supportingyoung people into work which Catch22 believes should be taken into account in the design of the new workprogramme.

The “From Care to Work” Journey

Every care leaver experiences a different path to achieving sustainable and rewarding employment. Forsome, this is a journey that starts in extreme chaos and risk taking, which is the beginning of our continuum.This is when we must work with young people on motivating change—encourage self belief and work towardsachieving stability. Only when a young person can contemplate a learning pathway to securing employmentcan we move on to the next phase of the journey.

Planning for action is the second phase of our journey, which begins when we know a young person believesthey have the potential to continue in learning and secure future employment. Participation in education,training and employment encourages young people to acquire the skills and knowledge relating to a job theyhave identified as their goal. Increasingly, this includes opportunities to participate in work experience as partof further education courses, diploma frameworks and apprenticeships. Within the care and pathway planningprocess, we should continually be asking how we can support this young person to build their work profile.11 BBC, 9 September 2010, North East and Midlands “least resilient” areas. Available online at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11141264



In the third and final phase of our “From Care2Work” Journey—achieving economic wellbeing—youngpeople are in a position to consider their pathway to sustainable and rewarding employment and lifelonglearning. We must be confident that increasing numbers of young adults part company with our services: witha clear job search strategy identifying suitable opportunities; an awareness of the labour market and wherefuture employment lies; and able to produce effective written applications and performing well in interviews.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submission by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

1.0 Overview

1.1 The Future Jobs Fund programme has provided six South East Wales local authorities with a mechanismfor breaking the cycle of long term unemployment in areas of high deprivation. This programme has createdvacancies which are targeted at the hardest to reach and has provided local residents with a chance to changetheir personal, social and economic status.

1.2 Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (MTCBC) was successful in leading on the submission of anapplication to Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) for Future Jobs Fund in July 2009.

1.3 The application for funding is a consortium approach demonstrating a clear and strong partnershipbetween six local authorities across South East Wales which are Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council,Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Caerphilly County Borough Council, Blaenau Gwent CountyBorough Council, Torfaen County Borough Council and Bridgend County Borough Council.

1.4 The initial tranche of jobs that were to be created across the six local authority areas was 872. This wascontractually fully met.

1.5 In November 2009 the partnership was successful in securing an extension to the FJF contract due tothe success of the first tranche and further committed to creating an additional 1,656 jobs over the course of12 months again covering the whole of the South East Wales local authority areas.

2.0 Success of Future Jobs Fund

2.1 Generally across the six local authority areas the programme has been deemed a great success. Theprogramme covering our area has created and successfully given the opportunity for 872 local people to accessa very broad range of vacancies which have had a direct benefit to their local communities. Jobs have beencreated in various areas of work such as Bio-Diversity, Information Technology, Tourism, Leisure, streetcleansing, Regeneration and Education.

2.2 FJF has also provided wider benefits which include allowing people on Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) toexperience job search related activities which will also give individuals invaluable experience when seekingfuture employment.

2.3 In terms of the actual take up of vacancies the FJF grant allocation has enabled individuals to gainexperience in interview and inductions, accredited training and specific on the job training allowing individualsto build their work ethic and develop essential skills to survive in the work place.

2.4 Employers have been keen to recognise the calibre of clients accessing FJF and this has allowedemployers to “buy in” to the concept of FJF and develop additional vacancies to give more opportunities andenhance services to benefit the local community.

2.5 Employers have in some cases retained individuals who have been afforded to them via FJF and offeredfull time employment which is the greatest success. This has allowed some individuals to become financiallysecure and has taken them out of poverty. For example in the borough of Caerphilly they have had a total of29 completers as part of the initial phase of delivery that have successfully gone into employment which is asuccess rate of 71%.

2.6 The range of experiences offered through the opportunities created has allowed individuals to developtransferable skills that can be taken to any employment opportunity. Individuals have established strong workethics and we have witnessed changes in attitude that demonstrates clearly their desire to work and to actuallybe in employment rather than claiming benefits. This has been highlighted by the low number of early leaversfrom the provision.

3.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme

3.1 Strengths

3.1.1 FJF has strengths in the following areas;

— Extension of the provision will allow a larger volume of NEETS young people to benefit from FJFwhich will make the pool of employable young people far greater in the future.



— Extension of the provision will give more time for the economy to recover therefore enhancingthe chances for individuals to gain further employment leaving FJF.

— Equipping young people with transferrable skills.

— Training received by individuals has been customised to the clients and the role they areundertaking.

— FJF offers a combination of paid employment and skills development.

— Young people who have not worked have developed a work ethic.

— Participants of FJF have reported that the programme has benefited both in their health and well-being, confidence and motivation.

— It has helped those who have found it generally difficult to break into the job market.

— A good opportunity for graduates to gain valuable work experience.

— Employer perceptions of young people are changing positively.

— Links have been developed and established on a local level with third sector organisations andRegistered Social Landlords (RSLs).

— RSLs have been encouraged to think creatively about how young people could benefit the localcommunity.

— There has been an increase in civic pride of the young people employed within community settings.

— Teams of FJF participants have made significant improvements in the local community andenvironment.

— Participants have been able to gain future references to use when applying for alternativeemployment.

— Some participants moving from FJF Employment to real employment following completion of theFJF opportunity.

3.2 Weaknesses

3.2.1 FJF has weaknesses in the following areas;

— Scheme is too short and individuals would benefit from a longer employment term.

— Confusion over eligibility and links with other projects supporting the Young Persons Guarantee.

— Multiple FJF application approved in close proximity leaving less number of eligible participantsto choose from. This makes fulfilling contract far more challenging.

— Some successful FJF Providers offering a higher wage to attract participants from organisationsthat have already offered positions under another FJF provider.

— Eligible people not being able to access FJF opportunities created as they are not better off workingdue to benefit structures.

— No clear exit strategy developed by DWP to support the transition back onto benefits or into work.

— Due to the scheme being only six months long, in some cases this has not been long enough forindividuals to gain industry registered training.

— The brief for FJF is to ensure that the jobs created are of direct benefit to the community, whichhas resulted in it becoming very difficult to forge links with the Private Sector.

— A longer preparatory period would have enabled us to measure the success of the programme forindividuals and wider benefits, such as reduction of crime rates and improving health issues.

— No initial scoping exercise took place with Job Centre Plus to identify the types of vacancies thatwould be developed. This led to opportunities being created that could not be filled due to lackof interest.

4.0 Impact of FJF finishing in March 2011.

4.1 Job seekers will not have the opportunity to benefit from real paid employment.

4.2 FJF has provided individuals in some cases with a wide range of job offers. If the programme was tocease then individuals would be mandated programmes with no choice with regards their role and aspirations,which will hinder the development of work ethic.



4.3 Negative impact on the community and services offered to local residents. For every 100 participantslost 65,000 hours of work to benefit the local community will be lost.

4.4 Work related training opportunities will be far more difficult for job seekers to access. This, in the longterm will continue to breed an unskilled pool of people for the local labour market.

4.5 Well establish contacts with agencies, organisations, third sector and public sector will cease.

5.0 How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed and the role of theGovernments proposal to fund New Apprenticeships.

5.1 FJF can still play a key role in apprenticeships. If the Government continues to fund FJF then this wouldenhance the prospect of employers committing to taking on a young person under the guise of an Apprentice.It is often hard to get employers to invest in young people and FJF will reduce the risk for the employer byclearly demonstrating the young person’s commitment to the employer and organisation before additionalinvestment is spent.

5.2 There appears to be a lack of understanding of how the Work Programme will look and therefore untilfurther detail is released then it’s not totally understood how the transition could happen. It is clear that thiswork is likely to involve the private sector and a concern whether the Work Programme will be able to meetthe needs of individuals in their localities.

5.3 Both programmes should cross over with clear guidelines as to how it will work.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Oxfordshire County Council

Executive Summary

I. Part of the “Backing Young Britain” campaign, Future Jobs Fund programme was designed to create andsubsidise new employment opportunities for long term unemployed 18–24 year olds. This report is based onthe experience of Oxfordshire County Council in delivering this initiative with our unique design and deliverymodel involving:

— 2 weeks paid pre-employment training for all appointed young people,

— follow up workshops monthly during 26 week placement,

— one third of all jobs created are within the private sector.

II. The scheme has enjoyed great success to date, with 79% of those appointed in Phase 1 either havingcompleted or expected to complete the full 26 weeks of employment. In addition, almost 60% of those whohave completed the programme have remained in employed beyond 6 months. Positive feedback about thescheme has been received from both the target audience of unemployed 18–24 year old and receivingemployers.

III. Identified areas for improvement include the interface between Job Centre Plus advisers and eligiblecandidates, as well as relaxation of the community benefit restrictions to ensure more employers in all sectorswere able to offer opportunities under such programmes.

IV. Oxfordshire’s relatively high number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs),especially in the target age group for FJF (18+) means that it has been disadvantaged by the loss of the FJF.Our candidate data shows we successfully reached individuals with multiple disadvantages through this schemeacross our county. We welcome schemes that could replace it and, in particular, schemes within the WorkProgramme that would enable young people with qualifications at less than level 2 to obtain sufficient skills toundertake further training and work related development opportunities.

Background

1. In 2009, Oxfordshire County Council and Oxfordshire Economic Partnership (OEP) successfully bid tocreate 120 jobs for 18–24 year olds in the county over 18 months under this programme. Asked to acceleratedelivery, the first half (60 jobs) were created and filled between November 2009 and May 2010. Phase 2of the programme, delivery of the second 60 job starts, continues with 29 further starts and will run untilMarch 2011.

2. Of the jobs in Phase 1, a wide variety of roles were created, approximately one third with private sectoremployers, one third with voluntary sector and one third with public sector organisations including NHS andlocal colleges as well as councils.

3. A unique feature of the Oxfordshire scheme is the two week pre-employment programme given to all FJFemployees which covers a number of key skills and reinforces successful behaviour at work, Annex 1. It hasbeen a challenge to take each cohort of anything from six to 18 young people through this programme; with



academic ability ranging from some who dropped out of school aged 14 to recent graduates but all have foundit valuable. See Annex 4 for a sample of employees’ views of the ending of this programme.

Success rates

4. Over half of the jobs created through this initiative had the potential to last more than the minimum of 6months should the young person get on well with the position. Outcomes to date show that 54.5% of thosewho have completed the full six month placements to date remain in employment. 79% of the young peoplerecruited in Phase 1 have either completed or are expected to complete the full 26 week placement.

5. Of the young people who participated in Phase 1 of the programme, filling the first 60 jobs, 13.24% wereBlack & Minority Ethnic (BAME), 10.3% had some disability, 54% were male and 46% female. Three of theyoung people were parents and one was a recent care leaver.

6. A sample of case studies is included as Annex 2 with comments such as “I’ve landed two jobs thanks toFJF in my desired line of work that would have been near impossible to get without it” and “For me, theFuture Jobs Fund has proved a very good initiative. I lost my confidence after my spell of unemployment andthis placement has given me the focus and opportunity to regain it”, “The Future Jobs Fund I think is a verygood scheme for young adults looking for a way into the working industry. It basically gives you a foot in thedoor into work. Before I was on this scheme I found it hard to get work, wasn't as confident or happy andhad a lazy approach to doing anything. Now I am working I am bubbly and having a great time with newwork mates.”

Strengths and Weakness

Lead Awarding Body (Oxfordshire County Council) perspective

Strengths

7. One of the strengths of the Future Jobs Fund programme from the lead awarding body perspective is thatit was designed to be tailored to the particular needs of a county or region rather than all elements designednationally. Oxfordshire traditionally has very low levels of unemployment and the number of young peoplewho would meet the criteria were therefore in the hundreds not thousands and had particular barriers oradditional needs. This enabled us to build into our bid and subsequently very successful programme, the twoweeks pre employment course which developed confidence, work readiness and provided on going support tothe young people, see programme outlined in Annex 1.

8. Employers selected their FJF employee from candidates referred by Job Centre Plus (JCP) and employedthem directly so all terms and conditions of their contract were the same as their co-workers. The salarysubsidy, passed directly to employers, covered full cost of minimum wage x 25 hours x 26 weeks for candidatesunder 21 and cost the employer only £12 per week for employees 21+. That fact made this a relatively easysell to employers, although there was considerable effort expended to get things off the ground which shouldnot be under-estimated. The business benefit of being able to try inexperienced or untrained young people atno real risk made it very attractive to employers and this approach has paid real dividends for both employeesand organisations involved.

9. Working with regional Job Centre Plus (JCP) contacts and business leaders to identify how to evidencethe community benefit of private sector employer job offers was crucial to delivering the range and number ofpositions we had committed to achieving. Initially it had been anticipated that all new roles would be generatedby public and voluntary sector but the inflexibility and bureaucracy associated with many of these potentialemployers required a re-think to achieve our goals. Promotion of the offer through Oxfordshire EconomicPartnership, letters to key partners from the Leader of the Council, Keith Mitchell and closer links toConnexions Service and apprenticeship initiatives made this possible.

10. By having a third of the FJF opportunities within the private sector or linked to longer termapprenticeships, we have been able to extend the paid employment for many of the young people who havecome through the programme.

Weakness

11. Candidates were referred for interview by Job Centre Plus and there were many examples of lack ofpreparedness of candidates who alleged they had received very limited advice or guidance from Job CentrePlus (JCP) about application and interview process as well as the precise nature of the roles for which theywere applying. Local JCP contacts did confirm that, although job descriptions or role outlines were providedby the Future Jobs Fund programme team for every vacancy, these were not always passed on to candidateswhich meant they arrived at interview with little preparation or confidence.

12. Those candidates who were successful at interview often secured the role despite, not because of, theirapplication form. Many applications had little or no detail about the candidate’s suitability for the positionwhich was perhaps unsurprising when many were unclear about the job for which they were applying. However,with so many having completed earlier interventions such as A4E 2 week and 13 week programmes, it issurprising to realise they remained so far away from work-readiness.



13. For some of the opportunities advertised through the scheme it was not possible to fill the vacancybecause JCP advisers were unable to identify any potential candidates, i.e. care work or put forward individualswho were completely uninterested in the job perhaps an admin role for someone seeking warehouse work,meaning there were high levels of non attendance for some interviews.

14. We did lose some employment opportunities with private sector employers due to the strictness of therules and guidance around community benefit because it had to be much more than simply taking on anunemployed person and many employers struggled with the logic and ideology behind this.

Employers’ Perspective

15. Brief interviews with the six employers who accounted for a third of the FJF jobs filled in Phase 1confirmed their positive experience of the programme in a short survey. To the question “How would you ratethe FJF experience from an employers point of view” we received the following comments, “Useful, positive”;“excellent”; “refreshingly straight forward, easy”; “Good communication with us”; “Scheme good, candidateslimited”; “Good”.

16. A snapshot view of the employers’ experiences in engaging with these unemployed young peopleincludes the following comments about what they found to be most surprising part: “Range of backgrounds,wasted potential” and “Enthusiasm from candidates”. There was considerable disappointment that theprogramme is not continuing, see Annex 3 for full results.

Employees’ Perspective

17. Our short survey of 32 of the Phase 1 FJF employees found that 16% have never worked before sowould previously have been considered NEET (not in education, employment or training). In addition, 25%were living independently or with a partner while participating in this programme meaning they would havebeen receiving other out of work benefits in addition to Job Seekers Allowance.

18. Many of the young people travelled quite a long way for their jobs through this programme with 21.87%travelling 40 minutes each way and 12.5% travelling for an hour or more. This indicates high levels ofmotivation from this group as many of the roles paid only minimum wage.

19. 50% of respondents felt that lack of experience was their main barrier to employment but, interestingly,none felt they were hampered by lack of qualifications. Only 16%, five individuals, felt the lack of any financialincentive was deterring them from securing employment but three felt constrained by lack of confidence andone person had caring responsibilities. However, the greatest barrier to employment for this group they felt tobe poor support from the job centre (59.37%) which is disappointing.

20. When asked what they thought of the decision to end the programme there was universal dismay andcomments such as: “I think they should keep it going as it is a superb scheme. A brilliant idea and it’s beenso helpful for people who may not be able to get a job any other way” and “It’s a good plan and a shame thatit’s being disbanded but I understand why, as it’s not really doing much or making any money. I think it wasa little cheeky of the old government to use it as a way to boost employment rates”. For all comments seeAnnex 4.

Conclusion/Recommendations

21. Oxfordshire’s relatively high number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs),especially in the target age group for FJF (18+) means that it has been disadvantaged by the loss of the FJF.However we welcome schemes that could replace it and, in particular, schemes within the Work Programmethat would enable young people with qualifications at less than level 2 to obtain sufficient skills to undertakefurther training, e.g. apprenticeships.

22. We are fully supportive of any measures that help to move young people off Job Seekers’ Allowanceand on to job based training and apprenticeship schemes.

23. We are very keen to see more incentives for employers to provide apprenticeships and developmentopportunities for disadvantaged groups but, in particular:

— To young people aged over 19 (because at present there is no funding for employers so a youngperson over 19 is at a disadvantage against a young person aged 16 to 18 when applying for anapprenticeship) at level 2.

— For the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities (LDD) cohort up to the age of 25 there are additionalbarriers. At present there are no incentives for employers to take on young people with LDD so,again, these young people are disadvantaged. Funding and support for social enterprises and publicinterest not-for-profit companies could be a way forward in this instance, as could taking advantageof Corporate Social Responsibility programmes (Tesco is cited as a good example of this) toencourage employment of young people with disabilities.



— For young people who have had problems in school such as ill health, truancy or exclusion—employers and training providers are rewarded by success and attendance so they are oftenreluctant to take on a young person who has a history of poor attendance at school—this meansthat a young person is effectively written off at 16 and may be denied a second chance, even ifthe attendance problem in the past was not their fault or if their circumstances have changed.

— Introduction of pre-apprenticeship courses, to prepare young people for the environment of workand learning, for example in terms of workplace and “soft” skills. For maximum benefit these needto be directly linked to work opportunities and not take place before there is the offer of aplacement because young people quickly become disaffected if they are unable to see the benefitof their effort.

24. An expansion of the salary supplement model of Future Jobs Fund programme to enable the offer to beaccessed by other disadvantaged groups such as people with disabilities, lone parents, carers returning to theworkforce to name a few, could provide the real benefits of this scheme to a wider audience as part of thebroader welfare to work programme.

25. A clearer link between work-related skills development and employment prospects will help moreunemployed people to re-enter the workforce. Although many of these FJF employees had attended via JobCentre Plus, the local employment directed interventions lasting for two or 13 weeks, they had still failed todevelop the necessary understanding of application and recruitment processes or how best to secureemployment. They all benefitted from our pre employment programme, covering customer service, health &safety, dignity at work and dealing with difficult situations training, and ongoing workshops, which have beena key part of our success resulting in a 79% completion rate for young people on this programme inOxfordshire, and 59.5% in employment beyond 26 weeks.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Sandwell Metropolitan Borough

Executive Summary

Sandwell bid to deliver 373 jobs within the first phase across the borough. The jobs provided directcommunity benefit and fell within the categories of environment, health and care, community development,administration and customer care. Benefits to the community were substantial, as all jobs were newly createdand were focused on resident’s services. Sandwell successfully placed 331 people into jobs within the boroughand secured funding to extend over 100 of these posts to enable the young people to undertake a qualification.

The Fund allowed local people to experience working with some of the biggest employers in the boroughincluding the Local Authority, the National Health Service, the Primary Care Trust, the Fire Service and keyVCS organisations. These roles would not and could not have been developed to this extent without the supportfrom a national programme.

Sandwell MBC had confirmation of interest from internal departments and external organisations to createanother 500 jobs as part of the Future Jobs Fund programme. Due to the end of the programme and closure ofthe bidding rounds, these opportunities were lost.

The Future Jobs Fund has been hugely beneficial in raising the awareness of paid work placements withinthe public sector/community and voluntary sector and increased the openness to this kind of programme. It isanticipated that with the right support, this could be done under the apprenticeship scheme.

Full details of the implementation of the Future Jobs Fund programme follows.

Introduction

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council tendered for Future Jobs Fund placements as part of a Birmingham,Coventry and the Black Country City Region bid. The lead partners involved were the individual localauthorities including Birmingham (Be Birmingham), Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Telford and Wrekin,Walsall and Wolverhampton. Groundwork West Midlands were also a partner in the bid.

Sandwell bid to deliver 373 jobs within the first phase across the borough. The jobs provided directcommunity benefit and fell within the categories of environment, health and care, community development,administration and customer care. Benefits to the community were substantial, as all jobs were newly createdand were focused on resident’s services. Employers were able to consider the types of post that under currenteconomic conditions could not be justified but would in reality enhance the services to the public, be thatdirectly in the capacity of front line delivery or more indirectly by improving the local environment foreveryone.

The extent to which the Future Jobs Fund programme has succeeded in matching new work experienceopportunities to young unemployed people



The Fund allowed local people to experience working with some of the biggest employers in the boroughincluding the Local Authority, the National Health Service, the Primary Care Trust, the Fire Service and keyVCS organisations. These roles would not and could not have been developed to this extent without the supportfrom a national programme. The funding for salaries enabled the young people to get a real feel for employmentand the rewards gained for making a contribution within an organisation.

The Community and Voluntary Sector were extremely receptive to the programme and immediately engagedwith the process. Approximately twenty CVS organisations took on one or more Future Jobs Fund Employees.The roles that they offered were based within the heart of the community and enabled young people to workwithin areas that they were familiar.

Individuals who are employed by the Future Jobs Fund opportunities are provided with a range of supportincluding:

— CV preparation, job search skills, interview techniques etc.

— In work costs such as travel, childcare, clothing and equipment.

— Dedicated mentoring support while they are employed—providing valuable assistance to employeeand employer ensuring both parties are happy with the employment and that any issues are dealtwith quickly and effectively.

— Pre and post vocational training and where appropriate the opportunity for a full Apprenticeship.

A Future Jobs Fund Celebration Event was held to congratulate all of the young people within the boroughwho had gained employment and acknowledge the efforts of the employers in ensuring that the FJF employersgained valuable experience. The event was attended by over 200 people and received a high level of praise.Each employee received a certificate of achievement which was presented on stage by the Cabinet Member forEmployment, Skills and Partnerships, Cllr Ann Shackleton.

The alignment of Future Jobs Fund activity with other resource and programme activity meant that theopportunities for many will lead to improved skills, qualifications and ultimately more sustainable employmentprospects. Additional support costs were met from match funding via:

— Working Neighbourhoods Fund.

— Deprived Area Fund.

— European Social Fund.

— LSC mainstream funding for pre and post employment training.

A allocation of Deprived Area Funding has meant that over 110 Future Jobs Fund post have been extendedto allow the individuals to gain additional qualifications, in most cases level 2 and 3.

Strengths and weaknesses of the Future Jobs Fund Programme from the perspective ofproviders (including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People andparticularly in relation to the long term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

The providers of the programme found the programme to be hugely beneficial to the individual themselvesand the wider organisation.

The general strengths of the programme included:

— Assisting local people to gain the experience that they need which in turn helps community andvoluntary sector organisations to offer a greater service.

— The Future Jobs Fund employees have given a boost to the organisational activities. Often theyhave been able to develop websites, reports and databases that some organisations have not beenable to use before.

— A greater sense of understanding of the Community/voluntary sector’s activities by the youngerpopulation.

— Paid work experience means that young people are more likely to be considered for future jobs.The six month placement has enabled their confidence to grow and skills to develop.

— Regular steering group meeting were held to assess progress. Once the demand for the programmebecame clear, Jobcentre Plus were able to assign specialist 18–24 advisors to Future Jobs Fund inline with steering group recommendations.

The Employers felt that the strengths included:

— “Overall a very rewarding programme that is benefitting individuals and the area as a whole.”

— “Good initiative which builds confidence and puts young people in a better position foremployment.”

— “The staff taken on have been an asset to the organisation—they are so young but have beenoutstanding. No complaints about anything—the whole experience has been brilliant andextremely beneficial.”



— “An excellent way of introducing individuals who have been unemployed back into the workingenvironment and developing their work ethic, building up their confidence and self-esteem andequipping them with the necessary skills and experience for future employment.”

— “This project has been a god-send! It has enabled our organisation to work with 50% more of thelocal community and has been a life-saver!”

— “FJF project has been brilliant—people low on confidence have really built up their self esteem,skills and experience. Some really good staff have been recruited and they have enjoyed doing thework and have appreciated the opportunity.”

The Future Jobs Fund Employees felt the strengths included:

— “I found it really difficult to find a job so this is my first employment but it has been really goodand it has been a pleasure working here—everyone is really nice and kind.”

— “This placement has been the best experience of my life and I hope it carries on giving others theopportunity that I have had.”

— “I have enjoyed my time working at Sandwell Council. I feel that I have learnt many new thingsin the space of 6 months time here. I would say that it is definitely beneficial for young peoplein this country who are/were unemployed and looking to get their foot on the ladder and backinto work.”

— “Helping young people like me find their way back into work at a difficult time where it is veryhard to find yourself a job. The FJF scheme has given me a chance to work for 1 year at a placewhere I have learnt and am learning new skills that will be beneficial for my next job and later onin life.”

— “I think the main strength of the programme was the fantastic support that was given by thementoring officers Dawna and Sam (especially Dawna who was my mentor). She made it clearfrom the start that if I had any problems, no matter how trivial, she would be there for me.”

The general weaknesses of the programme included:

— The programme had little central guidance initially which delayed the development of theprogramme.

— Information relating to the programme was not received by those implementing the programmeimmediately, which delayed the number of referrals that could be matched jobs.

— A large amount of paperwork was needed as evidence of the project which took more time thaninitially thought, especially for those organisation that were able to offer multiple positions.

— The CRB process significantly delayed the start of a large number of young people. As a result ofthis, the target of 373 jobs could not be achieved.

The Employers felt that the weaknesses included:

— “Shame the FJF programme has come to an end because on the whole it is a very good learningexperience.”

— “Sick pay under this scheme should be reviewed as this is very easy to take advantage of bysome individuals.”

The Future Jobs Fund Employees felt the weaknesses included:

— “The only weakness I would say is that it’s a shame that the scheme has now been cancelled andpeople who have recently become unemployed won’t be given the chance like we have.”

— “The main weakness of the programme was the limited timescale of it. I feel I have gained a greatdeal from the programme and feel that many more could have benefitted if funding for theprogramme had not been cut so quickly.”

The likely impact of the decision to end the Future Jobs Fund programme in March 2012

Sandwell MBC had confirmation of interest from internal departments and external organisations to createanother 500 jobs as part of the Future Jobs Fund programme. Due to the end of the programme and closure ofthe bidding rounds, these opportunities were lost.

The Future Jobs Fund programme has been hugely successful in engaging young people who areunemployed. As the programme was created to specifically assist the 18–24 year old age range, there seemedto be a greater trust in it. Many young people heard of the scheme through friends and were asking to be apart of it. Now that the programme has finished, the engagement of young people is now again more difficult.

The programme enabled people to gain real paid work experience within a relevant field with a credibleemployer. This experience then enables them to compete in the labour market for any vacancies that arise. Thisis even more important during the economic downturn, where significantly more people are applying for eachvacancy. The withdrawal of the programme means that many young people will now not have any paidexperience on their CV, reducing their chances of gaining employment in future.



How the transition from Future Jobs Fund to the Work programme will be managed, includingthe part to be played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships

Unfortunately the Local Authority is unable to bid for the Work Programme due to the large financial risks.Although there is still an opportunity for the Public Sector and the Community and Voluntary sector to beinvolved in the programme as it develops, the expertise in programme management of the Future Jobs FundProgramme and the partnerships formed will be lost.

The Future Jobs Fund has been hugely beneficial in raising the awareness of paid work placements withinthe public sector/community and voluntary sector. This has increased the openness to this kind of programmeand the desire to assist young people to gains skills to effectively enter the labour market. Many organisationswere hoping to take on a Future Jobs Fund employee in coming rounds. It is anticipated that with the rightsupport, this could be done under the apprenticeship scheme.

Summary

The Future Jobs Fund programme has been highly beneficial to the individuals who have gained employmentin giving them the confidence and skills needed to secure permanent employment in the future. All of theyoung people involved in the programme felt that they did not have enough prior experience to compete in thelabour market, but this programme has given them a much greater chance.

The programme has also been hugely beneficial for the host organisations. They have been able to undertakeareas of work that may not have been possible otherwise. The programme has also enabled young people tobecome involved in local community organisations and take an interest in the issues in which they aim toaddress. The Information Technology skills that the young people bring with them have made a big differenceto the efficiency of organisations and the way in which they collect data. These are improvements that manyorganisations did not realise they needed. These improvements have spurred community and voluntaryorganisation to create jobs in order to keep their FJF employee in their employment.

The programme has enabled a large number of organisations within the borough to come together as apartnership who is interested in assisting residents to achieve their goals of permanent employment. Thispartnership has committed to continue to offer work placements were possible, even after the FJF programmehas finished.

The Future Jobs Fund programme has been a huge success within the Sandwell area and although the costof this programme is high, the outcomes far out weigh this.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Norfolk County Council

Evidence from Norfolk County Council

Norfolk County Council holds three contracts with DWP for the delivery of a combined total of 1296 jobsunder FJF, all to be created by 31 March 2011. By end August 2010 714 young people had started in thesejobs, created by our consortium of more than 39 employers based around Norfolk.

Our first contract to create 356 jobs filled 100% of those jobs, with our remaining two contracts are operatingabove the 80% tolerance level for performance management.

Q. The extent to which FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunities toYoung Unemployed People.

Generally, FJF has worked well in this respect throughout Norfolk. JCP have consistently made high levelsof referrals across the County to allow the vacancies to be filled.

Our delivery has been strong for the following reasons:

— Positive relationship with JCP—as our bid was county wide JCP provided a lead contact in everylocal centre who could liaise with us, and our partners on any issues locally. This allowed ouremployers to build local links and helped to make our partnership stronger.

— Creating a real sense of Partnership—we held several joint workshops between partners, the LABand JCP to help build relationships, improve the systems of operation and communication inparticular between JCP and partners. Some national and regional FJF events evidenced a tensionbetween JCP and providers which has not been a barrier in Norfolk.

— Advance planning—before submitting our funding bids we planned our monthly delivery down toindividual job level. This meant that once the contracts were received we had the capacity to sendthe vacancies to JCP in advance.

— Communication—advising employer partners before they became involved of the range ofcandidates that would be eligible for the fund, and the levels of qualifications and experience theywere likely to have. This allowed us to create vacancies at an appropriate level.



— Variety—we created a county wide proposal, with employers coming from a range of sectors. Thisallowed us to create entry level jobs which matched registered interests (with significant inputfrom Connexions) as well as those jobs which would stretch particular candidates in areas with ahigher qualification base.

The main barriers to filling jobs in Norfolk were:

— Location—we were keen to create vacancies countywide, as well as in those areas whereunemployment was particularly high however in some areas we found that there was insufficienttransport links for people who did not have their own transport, or the cost was so high to makeit untenable.

— Confusion over the impact of work on benefits—for some people the loss of associated benefitseg housing benefits (particularly for those people living alone) had a big impact when comparedto the relatively low hours of work offered.

— Competition from other Lead Accountable Bodies (“LABs”) delivering FJF in Norfolk—in somemonths there seemed to be a number of LABs creating similar roles in the same area. There didn’tseem to have been any comparative work done centrally of all bids targeting a particular area toidentify if clashes in delivery, or oversubscription of eligible candidates would occur. Given thatour bid was countywide, had we been aware in advance of the areas that other LABs were targetingin particular months, we could have positioned our vacancies so that these clashes did not occur.Once it became clear that this might happen we did request information from DWP about the scaleof delivery in coming months from other LABs so that we could plan appropriately however theywere not able to share this with us.

Q. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Employers andYoung Unemployed People, and particularly in relation to the Long-Term sustainability of theEmployment Opportunities.

LAB Perspective

The following strengths became evident as part of FJF:

— Almost all the clients on FJF had extensive experience of JCP interventions, as well as supportwith CV development, job search and interview support—having a sustained work placementactually allowed them to develop the soft skills which are crucial in securing employment.

— Where alignment with the National Apprenticeship Service was possible it greatly increased thevalue of the experience.

— The creation of our consortium has allowed us to create a positive and effective partnership ofemployers in Norfolk. They have been able to create links and even support each other in termsof making the most of their FJF placements.

— Programme Alignment, we have been able to align other funding streams to add value to FJFsuch as Great Yarmouth’s Working Neighbourhoods Funds providing additional support into work,EEDA’s Economic Participation Programme providing embedded basic skills training and accessto a moped loan scheme for FJF employees to help overcome transport barriers. This partnershipcontinues to work in a positive manner throughout Norfolk.

— The Partnership responsible for the EEDA Economic Participation Programme has provided reallyeffective governance arrangements for the FJF programme and ensured high standards,performance and its success has been disseminated throughout the County.

The following weaknesses of the programme are also evident:

— Lack of private sector involvement—the community benefit restriction made it quite difficult toengage with this sector who are more likely to have sustainable employment opportunities in thelong term.

— The Voluntary sector and social enterprises who are heavily involved in FJF are unlikely to beable to offer employment opportunities after the six month placement.

— Many public sector organisations struggled to become involved in FJF, despite clear interest, as aresult of internal HR policies, and resistance from trade unions eg Local Authorities, NHS andNorfolk Constabulary—it would have been useful to have worked through these issues with publicbodies and Trade Unions in advance of the programme starting. This became more prevalent asfunding pressures increased.

Employer Perspective

The following strengths were identified by the employers in our consortium:

— Improved social skills and awareness of workplace etiquette was the most common benefitreported.

— Allowed employers who would not traditionally work with this group of candidates an opportunityto change working practices at low risk.



— Provides insight for young people into sectors they would not previously have consider eg caresector and youth outreach work.

— Allowed an increase in voluntary sector activities.

— The most popular and oversubscribed vacancies were construction or mechanical in naturerequiring practical skills and qualifications. FJF allowed interested candidates to gain necessaryqualifications without which a prospective employee would struggle to gain an entry level job egCSCS card.

The following weaknesses were identified by the employers in our consortium:

— In unemployment hotspots once they have completed their placements there are often few workopportunities in some areas eg Great Yarmouth where currently 10 people are chasing everyvacancy.

— 6 months is not a sufficiently long placement—work is quite scarce also and worrying aboutclaiming JSA again effects moral towards the end of the placement.

— Low pay and limited hours can make it difficult to work—travel costs can be significant for thosewho do not have independent transport available.

— Some employers reporting that some candidates came to interview being quite open about the factthat had no interest in the work being offered, and were simply obliged to attend.

Employee Perspective

The following strengths were identified by the employees:

— Confidence—a greater sense of self worth due to the work which was being undertaken. This mayhave been increased due to the additional community benefit of the work.

— Social element—many employees reported that it was often quite lonely being unemployed andenjoyed building friendships with colleagues and being part of a work place or community.

— Receiving a salary meant the opportunity to do more activities outside of work and pursue otherinterests.

— Many employees were doing jobs they would not have previously considered and enjoyed thesenew experiences.

— Being disciplined and learning how to interact at work.

The following weaknesses were identified by the employees:

— All employees reported that they would like increased hours.

— Impact on associated benefits was significant given the part time hours.

— Eligibility criteria are quite limited and it can be easy to miss out on an FJF opportunity throughmoving onto Stage 4.

— People receiving supported housing benefit felt unable to participate as they would loose thebenefits required to pay for the support they receive.

Q. The likely impact of the decision to end FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

All employers were disappointed to see the end of a programme which had worked so successfully inNorfolk.

A work placement offers candidates who are vulnerable and often not at all engaged in the labour marketan opportunity to make the transition into work over a longer period of time. Many interventions are availableoffering various support however the confidence of having a real job is invaluable. Many of the participantson FJF, especially those who are going into entry level jobs struggle with basic numeracy, literacy and socialskills. These same candidates are the most resistant to training, especially formal training, often due to negativeexperiences in the past. Having a work placement with associated training allows for the inclusion of embeddedskills, and gradual assimilation of knowledge in a productive atmosphere.

FJF has not yet been operating for 12 months yet has already had a significant impact. In collaboration withJCP we have been conducting an evaluation of longer term outcomes for FJF participants which will identifylevels of claims at both 3 months and 6 months after the conclusion of a 6 month period. This could also allowus to identify which particular sectors, or training options offer the best long term outcomes for participants.

Two months of recruits have completed their placements three months ago and the results are beginning todemonstrate the value of the programme as well as the improvements as FJF becomes more established. Theresults are as follows:

Immediate Outcomes

Of our first bid, which created a total of 356 a total of 260 young people have completed the full 6 monthplacement to date. The outcomes at the end of the 6 months were as follows:



— 40% into employment.

— 7% into education or approved training .

— 1% moved onto another benefit.

— 52% returned to JSA.

Longer Term Outcomes

In collaboration with JCP we are also evaluating the longer term outcomes of the placements we are creating.We will revisit all FJF participants 3 months and 6 months after the end of their placement.

To date we have revisited 150 participants who finished FJF at least three months ago. These results willalso take into account the outcomes for participants who leave their placement early for various reasons. Theoutcome for some early leavers can be hard to determine immediately after they have left the programmewithout assistance from JCP. The results are as follows:

— 42% of candidates have no claim.

— 1% moved onto another benefit (ESA).

— 56% return to JSA.

We will continue to collate these results in the coming months.

Q. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will work including any comments onalignment with Apprenticeships.

As detailed above our delivery of FJF has allowed us to pull together a large and vibrant consortium ofemployers, training and support service organisations who are well placed to continue to work together underThe Work Programme. Our partners offer a strong geographical coverage and have expertise in support, trainingand engaging with disadvantaged young people. Additionally, many of them can offer valuable placementswith private sector organisations which can lead to longer term work.

The consortium has pulled together many community organisations that also have a lot to offer The WorkProgramme; this includes voluntary sector organisation, Working Neighbourhood Fund groups, the ProbationServices and connexions. We are confident that we will be well placed to assist in making The Work Programmea positive contribution to Norfolk.

We are disappointed that the financial framework for the work programme prohibits the County Councilfrom being a prime provider as we are with FJF as we feel the success from FJF could be transferred intowork programme and other DWP contracts, could be linked strategically with skills and workless strategiesand other national and EU funding streams to ensure little duplication, bigger strategic impact and thereforehigher tariff results..

The response to the Apprenticeship programme has been varied in terms of its alignment with FJF—howthis would change in regards to The Work Programme is not yet clear.

Where it has been implemented it has offered:

— A longer work placement meaning increased job security.

— Vigorous and structured training.

— Allowed organisations to offer more apprenticeships as they have been partially funded by FJF.

However:

— The various restrictions which govern eligibility for FJF has clashed with the equal opportunitiespolicy which are in place for Apprenticeships.

— Many employers who plan to offer apprenticeships would rather work with more work readycandidates rather than a vulnerable group who might require more intensive support.

— It’s not clear how aligning The Work Programme with Apprenticeships would offer a benefit toemployers, whilst Prime providers of Work Programme contracts may benefit through incomereceived for placing clients into apprenticeships schemes.

— The apprenticeship programme continues to be quite complex and inaccessible.

— Often apprenticeships are not appropriate for entry level jobs and there are few higher levelapprenticeship opportunities.

9 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Resolution Foundation

Summary

— It is our contention that low earners have suffered disproportionately in the recent recession becauseof their relative position in the income distribution. In terms of employment, data from December2009 shows that 52% of low earners were economically active compared to 63% of all workers.

— It is also the case that low earners tend to remain unemployed for longer due to their lower skilllevels and therefore employability, and low earners tend to have fewer or inadequate safety netsin the event of unexpected financial shocks that can accompany unemployment.

The impact of ending the Future Jobs Fund in 2011

— With unemployment for 18–24 year olds still at over 700,000, the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) alone isnot a sufficient response but it has played an important role in reducing the number of youngpeople that experience unemployment. We would contend that efforts need to continue to activelyreduce youth unemployment to combat its long-term effects.

— The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that unemployment will be 7.7% in 2012, whichmeans that unemployment for people aged 18–24 will remain around 700,000. Taking into accountthe long-term effects of youth unemployment, it is clear that action needs to be taken to limit itsimpact. The FJF aimed to make a significant reduction in the number of unemployed young peopleand it was arguably on course to reach its target of creating 150,000 jobs for young people. In itsabsence youth unemployment can be expected to remain static if not increase.

Transition to the Government’s new Work Programme

— As part of a soon to be published report on income mobility we have used data from the NationalChild Development Study (NCDS) that shows that median income at age 50 for those who wereunemployed for over 12 months in their youth was 28% lower than it was for those who did notexperience unemployment when they were young. Even those who were unemployed for a shortperiod of between one and 12 months suffered a wage penalty of 10%.

— Our analysis of NCDS data has shown that weekly wages have grown faster in the top deciles ofthe income distribution than at the bottom. This has made it more difficult for low earners toprogress up the income scale (which we use as a measure of progression in work) relative to theworkforce as a whole. In short, the rungs of the income ladder have moved further apart.

— Providing accredited skills training is vital to improve low earners’ prospects for future progressionthough it is evident that employers are not doing this to the extent that is required. Our analysisof the Bank of England’s National Money Guidance Survey shows that 43% of low earners havequalifications no higher than GCSE/O-Level. Further analysis of the Labour Force Survey showsthat those with lower level qualifications are less likely to be offered further skills training byemployers. Those that need skills training the most are least likely to be offered it.

— As highlighted in the Resolution Foundations 2009 report, Closer to Crisis, we believe thatapprenticeships need to be reformed to ensure that participating employers make commitments tomeaningful development and progression.

Introduction

1. “Low earners” is the term the Foundation uses for the group of people who are “too rich” to qualify forstate support yet often “too poor” to access the benefits of private markets. At its simplest, we consider thegroup to be made up of households in income deciles 3, 4 and 5: that is, with gross annual income between£11,650 and £27,150. Around 3.8 million households fall into this category in the UK, equivalent to around7.4 million adults.

2. The Foundation has found that low earners face distinct challenges across a range of areas becausethey are:

— squeezed by the mixed economy;

— particularly exposed in the current economic context;

— at risk of being overlooked by policy makers.

3. It is our contention that low earners have suffered disproportionately in the recent recession because oftheir relative position in the income distribution. In terms of employment, data from December 2009 showsthat 52% of low earners were economically active compared to 63% of all workers.

4. Our submission focuses on the likely impact of ending the Future Jobs Fund in 2011 rather than 2012and in particular the long-term effects of unemployment. We also comment on the transition to the workprogramme with a focus on job sustainability and progression in work.



Low earners and unemployment

5. As stated above, low earners have experienced unemployment during the recession to a greater degreethan the population overall. However, it is not simply that more low earners are economically inactive, it isalso the case that low earners tend to remain unemployed for longer due to their lower skill levels and thereforeemployability, and low earners tend to have fewer or inadequate safety nets in the event of unexpected financialshocks that can accompany unemployment.

6. Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimant count data shows that there has been a substantial increase inclaimants who usually work in traditionally low earning sectors such as elementary occupations and serviceindustries. Between April 2008 and July 2010, 130,000 extra people who usually work in elementaryoccupations claimed JSA while 132,000 of those who usually work in sales and customer services also flowedonto JSA.

Table 1

OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF LOW EARNERS AND ISA CLAIMANT COUNT BY “USUALOCCUPATION” OF CLAIMANT: UK JULY 2010

ClaimantsEmployees in each Change in number of JSA claimants by unemployed >

occupation group living in ow reproted “usual occupation” in July 2010 six months inearner households (‘000s) July 2010

(‘000s)000s Proportion Since July 2010

2008–09 2008–09 April 2008 y-on-y m-on-m (000s)

Elementary 900 35% +130 -32 -7 413occupationsSkilled Trades 700 24% +78 -36 -7 172OccupationsPersonal 600 28% +41 +8 +3 83ServiceOccupationsSales & 600 33% +132 +26 +6 269CustomerServiceAdmin & 600 20% +58 -26 +2 143SecretarialOccupationsProcess, 600 30% +54 -36 -5 145Plant &MachineOperativesAssociate 500 12% +43 -15 +3 90Prof. &TechnicalOccupationsManagers & 400 9% +30 -19 -1 61SeniorOfficialsProfessional 200 7% +27 -10 +3 48Occupations

Notes: Income groups based on FRS definition—individuals within households: See Appendix 3.Sources: DWP, Family Resources Survey 2008–09.NOMIS database.

7. Table 1 also shows that claimants who arrive on JSA from low earning occupations are more likely toclaim the benefit for over six months than other occupational backgrounds. The July 2010 data shows that413,000 of those who had been claiming JSA for over six months normally work in elementary occupations.

8. The chart below shows that even when those from elementary occupations do leave JSA it is just as likelyto be because they failed to sign (34%) for their benefit as it that they found gainful employment (32%). Thiscompares unfavourably with those in higher, managerial occupations.



32%

30%

11%

10%

2%

4%

5%

2%

3%

34%

32%

11%

11%

3%

3%

4%

2%

1%

22%

52%

7%

3%

2%

2%

9%

3%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Failed to sign

Found work or increased work

to more than 16 hours a week

Not known

Government supported training

Other reasons

Claimed benefit other than JSA

Gone abroad

Ceased claiming

Education or approved training

Reasons given for leaving JSA by 'usual occupation': UK Aug 2010

Elementary occupations

Sales and customer service occupations

Managers & senior officials

9. The data shows that when low earners have suffered unemployment, they have tended not to be ascushioned by the blow as other income groups. Analysis of the latest Family Resources Survey shows that lowearners receive, on average, the lowest redundancy payment of any income group at just over £6,500. Thiscompares to other income groups that received an average settlement of around £10,000.

Table 2

DISTRIBUTION OF REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS IN PAST YEAR BY INCOMEGROUP OF HOUSEHOLD: UK 2008–09

Benefit Low High Alldependent earners earners households

Distribution by award< £1,000 14% 8% 18% 15%£1,000 < £5,000 38% 57% 37% 42%£5,000 < £10,000 17% 19% 16% 17%£10,000 < £50,000 32% 14% 26% 25%£50,000 < £100,000 0% 2% 3% 2%£100,000 + 0% 0% 2% 1%Average award £10,019 £6,669 £10,335 £9,355

Note: Income groups based on FRS definition—individual households: see Appendix 3.Source: DWP, Family Resources Survey 2008–09.

Long term unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund

10. Unemployment during the recent recession did not rise as high as many believed it would. TheGovernment at the time, and former ministers now, claim this was due to their policy actions but this is onlypartly true. In comparison to other countries such as Germany, France and the US, Britain’s fiscal stimulus andjob creation package was limited.

11. Of equal if not greater importance than the Government’s actions in maintaining lower than expectedunemployment was the willingness of the large sections of the workforce to accept reduced hours. ONSstatistics reveal that 1.04 million people were employed in part-time work in February of this year, a rise of37,000 on the previous quarter and the highest number since 1992. The level of people who are working part-time only because they couldn’t find a full-time job has also risen steadily during the recession from 8% inJanuary 2007 to 14% in January 2010. This has gone hand-in-hand with a rise in temporary employment to alevel higher than at any time since 2003.

12. The FJF was an exception in the government’s response to unemployment during the recession as it wasa policy of direct job creation. In total, the FJF created 40,720 jobs between October 2009 and May 2010, thevast majority of which (34,770) went to people aged 18–24.



13. At the same time that the above figures for FJF job creation were measured, unemployment for 18–24year olds nationally fell by 42,000 though the number of those that were unemployed for longer than 12 monthscontinued to rise.

14. With unemployment for 18–24 year olds still at over 700,000, the FJF alone is not a sufficient responsebut it has played an important role in reducing the number of young people that experience unemployment.We would contend that efforts need to continue to actively reduce youth unemployment to combat its long-term effects.

15. The most obvious of these is the “wage scar” that youth unemployment leaves on individuals. Previousresearch has established that youth unemployment impacts on individuals’ earnings later in life.12 As part ofa soon to be published report on income mobility we have used data from the NCDS that shows that medianincome at age 50 for those who were unemployed for over 12 months in their youth was 28% lower than itwas for those who did not experience unemployment when they were young. Even those who were unemployedfor a short period of between one and 12 months suffered a wage penalty of 10%.

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Never

unemployed

1-6 months 7-12 months 13-24

months

24+ months

Median income at age 50 by length of time unemployed between ages 16 and 23, gross income (£’s per

week)

Source: NCDS waves 4 and 8.

16. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that unemployment will be 7.7% in 2012, which meansthat unemployment for people aged 18–24 will remain around 700,000. Taking into account the long-termeffects of youth unemployment, it is clear that action needs to be taken to limit its impact. The FJF aimed tomake a significant reduction in the number of unemployed young people and it was arguably on course toreach its target of creating 150,000 jobs for young people. In its absence youth unemployment can be expectedto remain static if not increase.

17. This is particularly relevant in light of recent developments which have shown that 150,000 youngpeople are unlikely to receive a place at university. This will result in a substantial increase in the number of18–24 year olds entering a struggling labour market and increases their exposure to long-term unemploymentand its affects later in life.

The transition to the Work Programme

18. The full details of the Government’s new Work Programme have not yet been published. In principle,the movement of resources from the FJF to the Work Programme could be beneficial to some groups. Inparticular, qualitative research by the Resolution Foundation has shown that many low earning older workershave felt overlooked in the recession as the majority of public discussion and policy has been aimed at reducingyouth unemployment—largely for the reasons outlined above.

19. The new Work Programme also places a greater emphasis on job sustainability than has previously beenthe case in welfare to work policy. In our report, Closer to Crisis, published in 2009, we called for an extensionof the in-work sustainability target for welfare to work providers from the 13 weeks it was set at then to over12 months. We proposed incentivising providers with a system of escalating payments based on jobsustainability.13 The need for greater sustainability is highlighted by figures that show that 40% of claimantswho find work subsequently return to unemployment within six months.12 David N.F. Bell, David G. Blanchflower (2009), “What Should Be Done about Rising Unemployment in the UK?”, IZA discussion

paper 4040.13 Resolution Foundation (2009), Closer to Crisis? How low earners are coping in the recession.



20. However, what has not yet been addressed are the roles of progression and skills in the new workprogramme. Our analysis of NCDS data has shown that weekly wages have grown faster in the top deciles ofthe income distribution than at the bottom. This has made it more difficult for low earners to progress up theincome scale (which we use as a measure of progression in work) relative to the workforce as a whole. Inshort, the rungs of the income ladder have moved further apart.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decile

1200%

1000%

800%

600%

400%

200%

0%

192%

261%318%

355%386%

429%479%

540%

637%

1009%

Change in gross weekly earned income by decile, 1981–2008

Source: National Child Development Study, sweeps 4 and 8.

21. Why this has occurred is down to a mixture of factors including inherited disadvantage and a growingwage premium on higher skills. However, more could be done to ensure that welfare to work programmes arenot just aimed at getting people into “any job”, it should endeavour to get people into “good jobs” that offerthe opportunity for progression enabled through a commitment to skills training. In their 2010 electionmanifesto the Labour Party made a commitment to monitor in-work progression via the Low Pay Commissionwhich would have been a positive move to ensure the quality of work.

22. Providing accredited skills training is vital to improve low earners’ prospects for future progressionthough it is evident that employers are not doing this to the extent that is required. Our analysis of the Bankof England’s National Money Guidance Survey shows that 43% of low earners have qualifications no higherthan GCSE/O-Level. Further analysis of the Labour Force Survey shows that those with lower levelqualifications are less likely to be offered further skills training by employers. Those that need skills trainingthe most are least likely to be offered it.

68%

67%

59%

56%

50%

35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Degree or equivalent

Higher education (diploma/below degree)

A Level or equivalent

GCSE grades A-C or equivalent

Other qualifications

No qualification

Whether or not education/training has ever been offered by current employer by highest

qualification held:UK Q2 2010

23. The new Government’s commitment to expanding apprenticeships is also to be welcomed though thediversion of resources from Train to Gain to pay for these new apprenticeships will impact on the skills andtraining opportunities for older workers. As pointed out in Closer to Crisis, we believe that apprenticeships



need to be reformed to ensure that participating employers make commitments to meaningful developmentand progression.

24. Apprenticeships also need to be targeted at those sectors where skills shortages are identified and futuregrowth will be most likely. The Working Futures publications can be used to identify future growth areas tohelp target funding for apprenticeships. At a time when there is a growing consensus that the UK should investin high-tech manufacturing in services to ensure the long-term viability of the economy, the Government’sintention to create 50,000 apprenticeships in the hospitality and leisure sector may be misplaced.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by New Deal of the Mind

Submission

1. The Future Jobs Fund allows young people to access a paid entry level opportunity within the creativesector which is notoriously difficult to break into unless one is willing and able to work as an unpaid intern.There are many young people who simply cannot afford to work for free doing an entry level job in the creativesector which means only those with the right connections and sufficient financial support are able to do so.Consequently, a job in the arts world is simply out of reach to thousand of talented, creative people from ethnicminorities and lower socio-economic groups.

2. The FJF allows young people to break out of the Catch 22 cycle of “needing experience to gainexperience”. The vast majority ( 85%) of companies in the creative sector employ less than five people soyoung people can gain valuable experience working in a small business environment where their employereffectively becomes their mentor. The Bernie Grant Centre in North London is a good example of how thisworks and there are many models of “creative hubs” around the country which support and nurture creativeentrepreneurs and artists.

3. Openings created through the FJF help young people get their foot on the ladder and provide somethingconcrete for them to take to future employers, not least of all the discipline and responsibility that comes frombeing employed. Many of the young people we have worked with speak enthusiastically of being part of ateam, learning new skills, and having a renewed sense of self confidence after a long period of unemploymentand rejection.

4. FJF opportunities in the arts are often perceived as more interesting than 9–5 office based work and aretherefore good at attracting candidates that might lack motivation simply because they have no idea what’savailable beyond offices and shops. Working alongside creative, entrepreneurial individuals encourages suchyoung people to see different ways of working and opens up a vast range of opportunities for skilledcraftspeople that they otherwise may never be exposed to. For instance, experience of working in a theatremay inspire someone to become a skilled carpenter and work on set design while heritage and archives willdraw on a range of IT skills.

5. The FJF allows young people to access professional networks to help them find work. This is vitallyimportant in the arts and creative sector and is borne out in the report NDotM produced for the Arts Council ,“Creative Survival in Hard Times” in which it is abundantly clear that aspiring artists and creative individualsyearn for the “hand-ups” of business advice, work space and mentoring networks more than the “hand-outs”of unemployment benefit. The FJF allows organisations to recruit staff that they otherwise may not have beenable to afford.

6. The FJF, being a restricted fund, has helped increase access and diversity within the creative industries.Our experience has shown that by engaging with the FJF, arts organisations recruit from a different socialgroup than usual and often a different ethnic group. The FJF addresses the culture of unpaid internships whichis endemic in the arts, head on. An FJF employee is paid at least the minimum wage and entitled to the samebenefits as a full time employee.

7. The Future Jobs Fund is geared to the idea that one is either an employee or an employer and is no helpto freelancers and self employed people who dominate the arts and creative sector. So, many young peopletrying to gain experience in the creative sector are willing and eager to take on freelance work but freelancersdo not qualify for the FJF. Similarly, many aspiring artists work part-time in other jobs in order to survive andare therefore not qualifying for the FJF which would arguably be more use to them—the next generation ofcreative entrepreneurs—in terms of networking and gaining experience than working in a bar.

8. The length of time that someone has to be registered as unemployed in order to qualify for the FJF issimply too long. Many of the young people we work with had spent up to 18 months trying to find work beforethey were desperate enough to sign on for JSA by which point their self confidence had taken a sever battering.Months of rejection or worse, no response at all from prospective employers, the endless cycle of trying togain experience without experience is soul destroying and sadly, there is still the stigma of unemploymentwhich makes people who’ve been out of work for a long time unattractive to employers.

9. Six months, which is the length of FJF placements, is often too short a time scale for someone to learnnew skills to the level that they are truly transferable. While a six month commitment is attractive to an



employer and is a good way for them to “sample” new recruits, many young people who’ve experienced longterm unemployment will feel a shadow over them at the fear of returning to that once the FJF placement endspurely because of their own experience. We would like to see the reintroduction of something like the EnterpriseAllowance Scheme which would support people who want to start their own businesses as well as encourageyoung people to take ownership and responsibility over their lives.

10. The Future Jobs Fund is a very temporary measure that while welcome in many respects, can only be asticking plaster on the deep wound of unemployment. While the FJF takes young people out of long termunemployment temporarily, it fails to address what happens to them at the end of their placement and there isperhaps an element of trusting to luck that many FJF employees will be kept on. At London’s SouthbankCentre, 14 of the 30 FJF recruits have been kept on in permanent roles but that simply is not an option forsmaller, poorer organisations. These may be able to offer part time or freelance work but as has been pointedout elsewhere, JSA and FJF doesn’t appear to recognise freelancing or self employment as a valid work choice.

11. In order to qualify for FJF funding, jobs have to be of benefit to the community. One could argue thatpreventing unemployment alone is self evidently of benefit to the community but that is apparently not enoughto tick the boxes for FJF. There is a degree of inflexibility about the FJF which puts it out of reach of smallorganisations and businesses unless they work within an aggregate such as NDotM. We would argue that twojobs in a small creative business are more valuable in the long term than two jobs at a supermarket because theywill encourage and promote creative entrepreneurship which is essential to the country’s economic recovery.

12. Access to information and advice about FJF is extremely patchy and varies from Jobcentre to Jobcentreaccording to the staff and their level of training and knowledge. There are many people who could havebenefitted from FJF had they been claiming JSA for the requisite length of time but in some rural and coastalareas where seasonal freelance and part time work is available, people will manage but ultimately miss out onopportunities that could increase their employment and earning potential.

Conclusion

NDotM recognises that the FJF has helped many people into paid work and lifted them out of long termunemployment. Our area of expertise is in the arts and creative industries which have characteristics peculiarto them;

— Hard to enter and high levels of unpaid internships.

— High levels of freelancers and self employed workers.

— 85% of creative businesses employ less than 5 people.

— Creative entrepreneurs and artists tend to work in clusters.

— Arts and culture drive regeneration in many parts of the UK.

The FJF has been valuable but is by no means the only way of helping people into jobs in the arts andcreative industries because it is too temporary, too inflexible and too short term.

We need to be as imaginative and innovative and those we want to help—the next generation of creativeentrepreneurs. These will build businesses, create wealth and jobs and contribute vastly to the UK’s social,economic and cultural well being. Self employment and freelancing needs to be recognised in any Welfare toWork schemes and we need to create apprenticeships and work pairings where young people could “shadow”a self employed person. We must look at the contribution older artists and creative people could make asmentors and facilitators at creative incubators (with so much emphasis on youth unemployment, older artistsand creative people are all but forgotten yet an innovative job creation scheme could see them eligible forshort term paid placements working with aspiring young artists or refreshing their own skills). We need,urgently, to think about the long term and how to build support networks so that people on FJF placementsdon’t simply fall off at the end of six months. We need to examine indirect support such as space to work,access to business and financial skills and mentoring. We need to stop unpaid internships which create a twotier jobs market, especially in the arts where such practices reinforce the totally unrepresentative andinaccessible nature of the sector.

Welfare to Work should be about encouragement and inspiration. The premise of the FJF that you had firstto suffer unemployment for so long before you might escape is fundamentally flawed. A more flexible,imaginative and long term scheme could pay huge dividends and support for people setting up on their own isvital if we are to nurture the innovation, creativity, talent and entrepreneurship that is going to be key toeconomic recovery in the UK.

9 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Portsmouth City Council

1 Executive Summary

1.1 The FJF has given Portsmouth City Council the opportunity to provide real jobs to 148 unemployedyoung people. A wide range of jobs, that have brought benefit to the local community, have been created andyoung people have taken full advantage of the experience the jobs have given them.

1.2 It has highlighted the great wealth of talent and ability available from our young people and how, whengiven the opportunity, they make a positive and productive contribution of society.

1.3 Without this opportunity it is likely that many would have remained unemployed, trapped in the endlesscycle of “no job no experience—no experience no job”.

1.4 The FJF has been a successful intervention model and although perceived as expensive to deliver we areconfident that a full evaluation will demonstrate the initial investment will produce long-term savings to thepublic purse.

2 Introduction

2.1 Portsmouth City Council is part of the Hampshire, PUSH and Isle of Wight consortium FJF bid todeliver 900 jobs to young unemployed people in the area. The first jobs were started in November 2009 andto date over 770 young people have found work via the consortium bid partners. The accountable body forthis bid is Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Council is a lead partner.

2.2 By the end of September 2010 Portsmouth City Council will have employed 148 previously unemployedyoung people via the programme. These jobs have been either with Portsmouth City Council or withneighbouring local authorities in Eastleigh and the Isle of Wight.

2.3 The evidence provided in the memorandum is based on evidence collected during the delivery of theprogramme and reflects the views of both those working on the delivery and management of the programmeand also the participants.

3 To what extent has the FJF succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunities toYoung Unemployed People?

3.1 “No job, no experience—no experience, no job”—Real and worthwhile work experience is essential forany young person looking for work. Without experience few employers will consider even interviewing them—this is particularly true with office work. The FJF enabled employers to take a chance on who they wereemploying and to allow the individual to demonstrate their capabilities on the job. We have been constantlyimpressed with the abilities and positive attitudes of the young people we have employed. On paper, they maynot have been considered for any jobs but once in the role they flourish and grow and show their potential.

3.2 Once they have six months continuous work experience, with a recognised employer that has providedtraining and support, they are well placed to secure further employment. The experience they have gained willopen doors to other work opportunities. If lack of experience was previously a barrier to employment this hasnow been removed and an employer can be sure that they are “work ready”.

3.3 Being “work ready” is essential in the current job market. Employers often do not have the time orresources to nurture new employees through those first few months of work and most new recruits are expectedto “hit the ground running” and be able to quickly fit in to the work patterns and expectations of theorganisation. FJF enabled young people to have a more accommodating start into working life. They usuallyworked only 25 hours a week and the jobs identified were all considered to be assistant or entry level roles.They were given as much support as needed from their managers and also additional “coaching support” ifrequired and this ensured their confidence grew during the six months. Employment processes such as havinga current bank account and a reference from a previous employer also mean that moving into other work ismade all that more easy.

3.4 The young people that took up the jobs gained a greater awareness of the range of employmentopportunities available to them. The public sector, in particular, offers a huge range of different jobs and manyyoung people where simply unaware of the type of work that might be available. For example we have beenable to offer jobs such as Homecheck Assistants, Heritage Assistants, Horticultural Trainees, Assistant YouthAdvisors, Road Safety Co-ordinators, Marketing, ICT and Festival Assistant. All of the skills acquired can betransferred to other employment opportunities in the private and public sectors.

3.5 It has given the young people an insight into the work of the public sector and the individuals theconfidence that they are capable of applying for positions that become available. There was often a perception,particularly if they had few or no qualifications that they would not be considered for a job in localgovernment—to quote an FJF recruit “ I didn’t think someone like me could get a job here”

3.6 Local Authorities tend not to create entry-level jobs at the scale they once did. Technological advanceshave meant more mundane and repetitive tasks are done in other ways. This has meant the pool of jobs thatmay give a young person a start on the employment ladder and the experience they need to progress are few



and far between. FJF enable local authorities to create these new jobs and therefore give a new generation thechance to work.

3.7 FJF also helped breakdown some of the misconceptions some people had about unemployed youngpeople. It was sometimes suggested by managers, prior to the programme being started, that “there must be areason why they haven’t got a job”. There where many preconceived ideas and attitudes towards unemployedyoung people that they must be unable to get work because of some fault of their own. However, the manager’sexperiences have shattered these preconceptions. Time and time again feedback from managers has shown howimpressed they have been with the calibre of young person coming for the jobs, how well they have progressedin the job and how lack of prior work experience was the barrier stopping them getting employment andnothing more.

4 What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme?

4.1 From the Providers perspective

Strengths

— The programme offered flexibility compared to some other interventions i.e. eligibility was notrestricted to certain postcode areas or target groups within target groups.

— As long as we could demonstrate community benefit we could offer a wide range of jobs. Thisgave the provider the scope to find the lots of different jobs that would meet the skills and needsof many applicants.

— Un-bureaucratic process—light touch approach to monitoringWeaknesses.

— Speed with which the programme way implemented. Very difficult to keep to profile.

— Transition of employees from fortnightly JSA payments to monthly salary. JCP not consistent inthe advice and support they gave new starters.

— Lack of clarity in the beginning on how referrals should be made from JCP and how informedcandidates were about the jobs.

4.2 From the Employers perspective

Strengths

— The jobs were fully funded and employers did not have to make any contributions unless theywanted to e.g. extend the hours worked. No match funding needed.

— Quality of candidates coming forward exceeded expectations and most recruits made a verypositive and productive contribution to the service.

— Community projects were developed that may not happened without the resources provided by theFJF recruits.

Weaknesses

— Some mismatch of employees to employers. However the flexibility of the programme allowedpeople to be moved to other jobs if this was identified.

— Candidates were not always as well prepared for the interviews as would have been expected.Little pre-employment training apparently provided and basis things such as bank accounts werenot always in place even though they had been claiming JSA.

— Some (a very small number) candidates had too many barriers to be able to work at this time andshould have been referred to a programme that provided different support.

4.3 From the Young Persons perspective

Strengths

— Having a real job for six continuous months in a supportive and encouraging environment.

— Being part of a large organisation and learning how they work and what the opportunities are.

— Networking with other parts of the organisation and business contacts which can help withidentifying future employment opportunities.

— On the job training e.g. Health and Safety and Equalities that are valued and recognised by otheremployers, attendance at courses and events that broaden your knowledge of the workingenvironment.

— Being paid a fair wage.

— A supportive way of approaching their first job.



Weaknesses— Not long enough—would like to stay in the jobs longer.

— Although “better off calculations” are done before taking the job, some young people found it hardto manage on the salary if they had to cope with living / accommodation and travel costs. Thefinancial benefit of working was sometimes minimal if at all.

— In terms of financial / income arrangements, transition from JSA to FJF was sometimes difficultbecause of inconsistencies with how JCP dealt with the change. Some young people faced realfinancial hardship because they were not advised correctly of their entitlement. This could havestopped a young person from taking the job.

4.4 From the sustained employment perspective

Strengths— Six months continuous work with an employer is sustained employment and is often all that is

needed to ensure that other employers will consider them for future work.

— They now have evidence of work experience and this cannot be lost or taken away. Their CV’swill record this experience and employers recognise what has been achieved. A reference from theemployer will also help them find other employment.

— The experience of six months work has raised the confidence levels and aspirations of the youngpeople. They now have a better understanding of their own potential and what they can do inthe future.

— Their expectations have been raised. Jobs they may not have considered they could do or get arenow well within reach.

— Employer’s attitudes towards young people have changed and are more positive. They are morelikely to employ a young person with less experience in the future.

Weaknesses— Raised expectations in the young people that the six months jobs may automatically convert to a

longer contract.

— Bu not matching the young person to the right job you may reinforce some negative views theyhave of work.

5 Impact of the Decision to end the FJF Programme 12 months early?

5.1 The most obvious impact of this decision is that less unemployed young people will have the opportunityto access the programme and therefore will not have the benefit of the work experience FJF offers. If theeconomy remains in recession and unemployment rises the job market is going to become all the morecompetitive. It is those workers that already have skills and experience that employers are most likely toemploy. Young people with little or no previous employment experience will be amongst the last to beconsidered by employers.

5.2 The emphasis for employers will be on productivity and ensuring that all in their organisation will beworking to their most productive and efficient. They will not have the capacity to either support new staff thatneed higher levels of training and induction or accommodate novice employees that do not work as productivelyinitially as someone with previous experience.

5.3 Without evidence of previous work experience these young people will find it increasingly difficult tofind work, regardless of their qualifications. As they become longer term unemployed the prejudicial attitudesthat exist towards the workless will also impact on they chances of finding work.

5.4 FJF was always intended to be a cyclical intervention responding to a particular need whilst the economywas in crisis. There are substantial amounts of research and evidence from previous recessions that clearlyshow the long-term impact that economic recessions have on young people and the long term unemployed.

5.5 By not providing this support now we are only delaying the consequences that come with long-termunemployment. It is far more costly to the public purse to provide high levels of intervention and support toan individual five years down the line when the barriers and issues stopping them from finding employmentare more entrenched than offering a stepping-stone to sustained work now.

6 Transition from FJF to the Single Work Programme

6.1 There is little information available at this time on the detail of the new Work Programme. From whatwe have read providers will be tasked with finding the unemployed job opportunities and will be paid basedon the “outcomes” they produce i.e. finding someone a job and how long the employment continues.

6.2 FJF differs from the Work Programme in a number of ways. Firstly, because the project is fully fundedwe have been able to create new jobs that offer a diverse range of opportunities. Based on their interests and



skills, individuals have been matched to the jobs. This has ensured a high retention level in the jobs with veryfew young people leaving the programme for disciplinary reasons or otherwise. The imperative was to createa job opportunity that the individual would find fulfilling, develop their confidence, expose them to a range ofwork practices and make them employment ready.

6.3 The Work Programme may succeed in finding people work but how well matched these jobs will be tothe skills and expectations of the individual is not known. FJF enabled us to create a range of jobs that wouldmatch a diverse range of individuals e.g. research job for a graduate or a Horticultural assistant post forsomeone that would like to work outside. The imperative of the Work Programme provider is to find the jobhowever the problem may arise in sustaining that employment if the employee is not well matched to the job,is under employed or the terms and conditions of the job do not match their personal circumstance and needs.Some sectors of the economy are still growing and offering jobs, the care sector is one example however, itrequires a certain set of skills to work in this sector and young people are not often attracted to work in thisfield. The high numbers of graduates registering as unemployed may well feel the jobs being offered do notmeeting their employment potential or aspirations.

6.4 The highly competitive nature of the job market will also impact on the quality and range of jobs thework programme providers can access. An employer will always want to employ a skilled and experienceworker above someone who is unskilled, inexperienced and unemployed unless they are given some kind offinancial incentive. Providers may be inclined to refer those most likely to be offered a job to the workopportunities they have found i.e. with previous work experience and skills, rather than those, such as theyoung unemployed, with no experience thereby making it even more difficult to get work. FJF effectively ringfenced the jobs created so that only long term unemployed young people could access them.

6.5 Secondly, we have been able to be very prescriptive about the terms and conditions of the jobs. FJFstipulated the minimum wage rate, minimum hours and length of contract. This has ensured a consistentexperience for the employees that has supported them throughout the job period, provided them with recognisedtraining and guaranteed they are ready for future work opportunities.

7 Transition To New Apprenticeships

7.1 The FJF programme has prepared the individuals for future employment opportunities includingapprenticeships. Some FJF jobs have been developed into full apprenticeships by using the FJF grant to pumpprime the funding for the apprenticeship and encourage employers to extend the employment period.

7.2 The high calibre of the FJF recruits has also encouraged managers to consider taking on an apprenticeas they realise the pool of talents young people have to offer.

7.3 However, apprenticeships are a different offer to the FJF in a variety of ways. Firstly, the salary of theapprentice has to be provided by the employer. Only the training is paid for by the state, and this is only fullyfunded if they are 19 or under. Very little funding is available for the 20–25 year olds or those withqualifications above Level 3.

7.4 Secondly, the range of apprenticeships is still quite limited—although improving—and demand does notmatch the supply therefore the best opportunities are oversubscribed and employers naturally choose those thathave the least barriers to progression or qualifications or an educational record that best meets their needs.Unemployed young people are less likely to perform well in this scenario and are consequently disadvantagedfrom these opportunities.

7.5 Thirdly, the minimum wage rate for an apprentice is £2.50 an hour and many jobs are offered at thisrate. For some young people this is unaffordable without additional financial support from parents or othersources. When you take into consideration the high cost of public transport and the additional costs that cometo starting work—different clothes etc. then such wage rates mean that an apprenticeship is not a financiallyfeasible option for some. The FJF paid the national minimum wage for their age but even this was consideredto be not enough by some to support essential needs.

8 Factual Information

8.1 We are in the process of conducting a full evaluation of the programme. It is too early in the programmeto have complete figures in terms of outcomes and destinations but we have been able to gather a sample ofsome top line results that give an indication of the impact of the programme to date.

— 129 people have so far started jobs on the Portsmouth City Council programme, 49 completed orleft the programme and 27 have so far been interviewed.

— Out of those 27; 15 have gone into work (52%), four back into education and seven have goneback to being unemployed.

— Of our 129 starts, 15 people have not completed their full contract period. Out of those, six leftearly to go into other work or full time education and nine contracts were terminated.

— 26 out of 27 either enjoyed or really enjoyed the programme.

— Over 80% of people had no problems whilst on the programme.



— 15 out of 27 people attended more than two training courses during their six months.

— Over 70% felt that they did not require any more support after the programme.

9 Recommendations for Action

1. That the Select Committee recommend a comprehensive evaluation and review of the Future Jobs Fundprogramme is completed by the DWP and that all partners contribute to that evaluation.

2. That government consider the introduction of an Intermediate Labour Market model of intervention—likethe FJF—that will either form part of the new Work Programme or sit along side it and support those facingthe greatest barriers to work.

3. That consideration is given to the effectiveness of the existing apprenticeship programme and how it willbe made accessible to those that are most disadvantaged.

4. That special consideration is given to the high number of graduates that are likely to be without full-timework or are under-employed in the coming years and the types of intervention that could be offered to assistthem into employment that offers progression and career development.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Association of Colleges

College engagement with the Future Jobs Fund

1. We understand that five Colleges hold direct Future Jobs Fund (FJF) contracts. These are:

— Barnet College.

— Croydon College.

— Newham College.

— Newham Sixth Form College.

— West Kent College.

2. Many more provide training and support as sub-contractors and members of consortia and partnerships.

3. Colleges are uniquely placed to match young people’s needs with employers, as they already have strongrelationships with employers within their communities.

4. In some areas, there is not a strong tradition of collaborative working between Colleges and JobCentrePlus (JCP), though where such relationships do exist, they work together successfully. The introduction of theSkills Funding Agency (successor to the Learning Skills Council) “Six Month Offer”, through which trainingwas offered to those unemployed for over six months, brought many more Colleges into contact with JCP.Despite some problems in the beginning, in most instances Colleges were able to respond effectively to theneeds of the individuals within the constraints of the programme.

Future Jobs Fund success in matching New Work Experience Opportunities to Young People

5. Colleges that hold direct contracts within the FJF are concerned that the individuals referred to them arenot well matched to the job opportunities or work experience available.

6. Most Colleges have come into FJF contracts later on and as a result have found that the individuals thatare referred to them are the hardest to help. For this far more involved and lengthy work, they receive thesame funding as the private providers who have already supported the more able.

7. Although Colleges are well equipped to help the most vulnerable individuals and see this as one of theircore roles, it needs to be recognised that not all people can be supported directly into work through trainingalone, particularly amongst the hardest to help. They can, however, be brought closer to employability.

8. Colleges would like to see a much stronger emphasis on pre-programme, holistic, assessments, beingundertaken by Colleges and other qualified providers to ensure a much better match between individual needs,training in and out of work, and work placements.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Future Jobs Fund from a provider perspective

9. As FJF is a contestable funding stream, providers have to identify what interventions and potential joboutcomes they are going to provide. However, when individuals are referred to the College their needs maynot be met by the proposed interventions, but the College is still obliged to meet specific targets. The FJF doesnot have sufficient flexibility to meet the often complex needs of people seeking sustainable employment.

10. The Future Jobs Fund currently has three key functions:

— Developing new jobs.



— Training individuals to fill these jobs.

— Bringing the individual and the job together.

It is worth assessing whether these three areas are best undertaken by the same organisation, or whether thecommunity might be better served if the three tasks were completed by fully co-ordinated, but separateorganisations working together.

11. The proposed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are expected to take specific responsibility forencouraging private sector enterprise and therefore they might be the best avenue through which new jobopportunities could be developed.

12. It might also be a suitable role for LEPs to work with Colleges, which we hope are full members ofevery LEP, to develop the skills and knowledge that individuals will need to gain sustainable employment.

13. Colleges and other providers could develop training programmes that would allow access to trainingacross the full range of skills identified. These programmes would be supported by individual assessmentagainst the job standards identified and then individuals would be provided with the aspects of the deliveryprogramme that they require, alongside any other necessary support to allow them to access the training.

14. Bringing the individual and the job together would need to be undertaken in partnership betweenemployer, provider and JCP (and possibly other stakeholders). We expect that an individual could be supportedeffectively to enter work as soon as they are able and that they continue to be able to access training (andpossibly support) once in work.

Impact of the decision to end Future Jobs Fund one year early

15. Although we do not anticipate any long term impact, we expect there to be some issues regardinglearners who are mid-programme when the scheme ends and would expect that these individuals will besupported to the end of their activities even if this exceeds the end date for the FJF. We suggest that the WorkProgramme should provide opportunities to support all types of individuals back into work, or closer towardsit, including those individuals who would have originally benefitted from the FJF.

Management of the transition to the Work Programme, including the Government’s proposal tofund New Apprenticeships

16. Colleges would be supportive of a transition that ensures those individuals who are on existingprogrammes are not disadvantaged. The Work Programme should recognise that the needs of individuals varieswidely and a small number of prescribed programmes may not meet all these individual needs. We believethere needs to be holistic, individual assessment to ensure an individual’s needs are considered prior todetermining the training interventions required to bring that person to work readiness.

17. 53,000 16 to 18 year olds are undertaking their apprenticeship at a College and success rates (acombination of results and retention) for College-based apprenticeships have increased to 71%14. Weabsolutely recognise the importance of apprenticeships to the medium and long term success of business,to thedevelopment of the individual and indeed to the nation as a whole. Not all indivduals however, are ready toprogress straight to this level and need some form of pre-apprenticeship training or support which the WorkProgramme should support for the unemployed. Employers need to recognise the benefits of apprenticeshipsand training in general and there needs to be significant growth in the number of placements available,particularly at higher levels.

18. In this light we note that the latest version of the Structural Plan from the Department for Business,Innovation and Skills says it will, by autumn 2011, “develop options to encourage greater employer investmentin skills to support work-based training”15. We hope that this extends to the need for employers to lookfavourably on increasing the number of apprenticeship opportunities.

19. The Work Programme is to be distributed through a small number of contracts within each of the nineregional “lots” in England. We are concerned that such large contracts could reduce the range and quality ofprovision available to the workless and will reduce the amount of money spent on front line services due tohigh administrative costs of the commercial organisations that are most likely to bid. It is vital that Colleges,with their expert knowledge and local employment market intelligence, are able to engage with this importantnew programme, but we have concerns that the processes put in place to administer the programme will makethis relatively hard and expensive to achieve. We hope that consortia of Colleges are permitted to compete forwork against the commercial sector.

9 September 2010

14 AoC Key Facts: www.aoc.co.uk15 http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/DWP-August-Update.pdf



Written evidence submitted by Hampshire County Council

1. Executive Summary

1.1. This evidence is given by Hampshire County Council on behalf of the New Jobs, New Futuresconsortium. Furthermore, some consortium partners will be submitting their own evidence to the inquiry.

1.2. The purpose of this paper is to provide supporting evidence to The Youth Unemployment and FutureJobs Fund Inquiry from the Provider, Employer and Employee perspectives in the delivery of the Future JobsFund in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region.

1.3. This paper seeks to demonstrate the significant benefits experienced from all perspectives with specificreference to matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people and the sustainabilityof the future jobs fund.

1.4. The New Jobs, New Futures Consortium has employed 679 young people. This equates to 90% of theagreed profile to the end of September 2010. The consortium is on target to deliver 100% of the agreed profileto the end of March 2011.

1.5. Significant findings show that in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 25% of those leaving Future JobsFund employment are going into employment. Whilst only 7% of those in Future Jobs Fund employmentleave early.

1.6. The impact of the decision to end the Future Jobs Fund in March 2011 rather than March 2012 haseffectively reduced the vacancies available to young people by 900 positions.

1.7. The Future Jobs Fund has engendered extremely successful partnership working and although lessonslearnt are valuable, without the delivery of a joint programmes such as the Future Jobs Fund, these partnershipswill diminish.

2. Introduction

2.1. Hampshire County Council is the lead accountable body for the “New Jobs, New Futures” project, aconsortium initiative that covers the Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region, funded by the Future Jobs Fund.The New Jobs, New Future project is creating 900 real jobs for long-term unemployed 18–24 year olds andcontinues to 31 March 2011.

2.2. In June 2009 unemployment figures among Hampshire’s young people had nearly doubled from theprevious 12 months. 5.5% of the county’s 103,000 18–24 year olds were out of work. Of these 5,600unemployed young people, 754 had been Jobcentre Plus customers for over six months. In addition to this,vacancy numbers were shrinking; in Hampshire, the May 2008 rate stood at 10,234, by May 2009 this hadshrunk to 7660.16 The neighbouring authorities of Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight were alsonoticing a considerable increase in youth unemployment and this prompted a joint consortium approach to theFuture Jobs Fund.

2.3. The New Jobs, New Futures consortium partners have significant experience in delivering Europeanand Nationally funded employment and skills initiatives and have joined together from the public, private andthird sector to deliver the New Jobs, New Futures project. The lead consortium providers are HampshireCounty Council; Portsmouth City Council; Southampton City Council; Southampton Solent University;Wheatsheath Trust; Groundwork Solent; The City Growth Business Group; VT Training; and CommunityEmpowerment Ltd. In addition to these partners, jobs are being delivered across a range of employers from allsectors. The consortium structure is shown in Annex I.

2.4. The Future Jobs Fund is specifically intended to help those individuals that need the most support. Inaddition to long term unemployment Future Jobs Fund employees in Hampshire experience multiple barriersto work with 26% having a disability or medical issue; 9% having a positive CRB return and 80% having noformal qualifications beyond secondary education. The New Jobs, New Futures project provides a wide rangeof wrap-around support for individuals including personal development, vocational training, mentoring, jobsearch and support to progress into permanent employment.

2.5. The New Jobs, New Futures project sees partners creating job opportunities across a wide geographicarea to deliver a variety of community benefits, fitting broadly into the following categories: Conservationand countryside; Environmental improvements and regeneration; Leisure, recreation and tourism; Improvedcommunity facilities and public places; Social enterprise support and development; and Sector support ofhospitality, construction and tourism. The tangible practical improvements of creating these jobs will includebetter access to green space, safer and more welcoming urban centres, better access to and awareness of healthylifestyles; improved leisure and recreational facilities; improved community facilities and more opportunitiesfor young and older people.16 ONS—DWP



3. Matching New Work Experience Opportunities to Young Unemployed People.

3.1. The job opportunities identified in the New Jobs New Future project were specifically selected to besuitable for young unemployed people with no or little work experience. Working closely with their assignedJobcentre Plus Partnership Managers the consortium providers have developed opportunities to meet both theneed of the employee and the employer.

3.2. In preparation for the New Jobs, New Futures project on-flow data was produced to estimate theconcentration of long term youth unemployment by geography over the period of the project. This data wasused to create a monthly profile of job delivery across partners agreed with the Department for Work andPensions


3.4. Those employees leaving employment before completing the duration of the Future Jobs Fund contractis recorded at 47. This equates to a overall employee turnover rate of just 7% compared to the average UKrate of 13.5% for employment generally17.

3.5. The success of matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people is attributedto a number of factors, these being:

3.5.1. Accurate profiling of job delivery by consortium partners and the Department for Work and Pensions:The Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region has a varied demographic with concentrations of youthunemployment. To ensure an equitable spread of opportunities on-flow data has been used to estimatewhere and when provision is more likely to be needed.

3.5.2. The creation and selection of suitable employment opportunities for young unemployed people byconsortium partners and Jobcentre Plus Partnership Managers: A significant focus has been ondeveloping roles that match both the need of the employer and that of the employee with jobs beingspecifically created to overcome some of the barriers faced by unemployed young people. The rangeof partners in the consortium has afforded diverse employment opportunities and experiences. Inparticular, the varied services delivered by the public sector has opened a range of opportunities toyoung people that would not otherwise be available.

3.5.3. The effective selection of candidates and support given to JSA claimants in taking up Future JobsFund opportunities by Jobcentre Plus: The New Jobs, New futures project has worked closely withJobcentre Plus through all stages of recruitment. The invaluable partnership working betweenproviders and the Jobcentre Plus Partnership Managers has enabled quick and effective selectionof candidates.

3.5.4. The flexibility of the Future Jobs Fund criteria allowing providers to design project delivery tospecifically support local need: With its rural, urban and coastal zones the Hampshire and Isle ofWight sub-region affords a diverse range of industries and as such project delivery requires multiplesupport options. The flexibility of the Future Jobs Fund has allowed bespoke delivery mechanisms toaddress need in a specific area.

3.5.5. The effective partnership working between the public, private and third sector to provide cross-sectoralsupport across the consortium area: The consortium has drawn on expertise from the public, privateand third sector; sharing resources and expertise to deliver the project.

3.5.6. The high profile and recognition of the Future Jobs Fund gives organisations the tools to make tacklingyouth unemployment a priority: Being involved with the Future Jobs Fund has enabled organisationsto pursue their aims of tackling youth unemployment. As well as giving organisations the resourcesto employ young people, the Future Jobs Fund has equipped them with the skills, experience andpurpose to address this key issue.

3.5.7. Willingness of providers and employers to support young people into employment: All the consortiumpartners have come together to support unemployed young people through the Future Jobs Fund. Thisproject is working with young people that are often not “work-ready”. The good will of employers inproviding extra support to these vulnerable employees who not normally be afforded suchopportunities is essential in making the Future Jobs Fund a success.

4. The Provider and Employer Perspective

4.1. The employment opportunities created for the New Jobs New Future project have, in line with theFuture Jobs Fund criteria, been additional posts providing a wide range of benefits to local communities. Thediscrete nature of the jobs means that the opportunities are time limited. The consortium partners have howeverfound innovative ways of retaining staff beyond the initial 6 months Future Jobs Fund positions. InSouthampton, for example, the Future Jobs Fund has contributed to 30 apprenticeships within the local primarycare trust.17 CIPD 2010 Resourcing and talent planning survey



4.2. With its rural, urban and coastal zones the Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region affords a diverserange of industries and as such project delivery requires multiple support options. The flexibility of the FutureJobs Fund has allowed bespoke delivery mechanisms to address need in a specific area.

4.3. Although not all employees have been recruited “work-ready”, the Future Jobs Fund allows foradditional support to be given, in most cases making the employee an asset to the employer and adding valueto the community initiatives they are involved in. Many employers have found alternative employment fortheir employee once the Future Jobs Fund opportunity is complete.

4.4. The Future Jobs Fund has enabled closer working relationships between sectors and between multipleagencies. The Jobcentre Plus Partnership managers have facilitated new relationships between local authoritiesand Jobscentre Plus, which, whilst always in existence were often not coordinated.

4.5. The delivery of the Future Jobs Fund is however hindered by the seemingly unnecessary duplication ofprocesses and delays from other agencies. For example, the Future Jobs Fund delivery requires a quickrecruitment process, however waiting on candidates to produce identification already supplied to Jobcentre Plusand the unnecessarily long wait for CRB check, does cause significant delays.

4.6. Future Jobs Fund candidates often undertake extra support with Jobcentre Plus to move them towardswork prior to taking up a placement. In some cases this intervention is clearly failing and results in a continuingneed for intensive support during the Future Jobs Fund placement.

5. The Employee Perspective

5.1. Current leaver data for the New Jobs, New futures project shows that 25% of employees are moving onto other employment following the completion of all or part of their Future Jobs Fund opportunity. This statisticclearly demonstrates the sustained improvement the Future Jobs Fund is making to the employment prospectsof young people.

5.2. The strengths of the new Jobs New futures project in terms of its impact on young people’s lives havebeen observed and documented through numerous discussions held with FJF employees and their managers,these being:

5.2.1. Young people have been given an opportunity to learn and develop transferable skills to enable themto be more competitive in the labour market. The Future Jobs Fund is helping young people to adjustto work patterns and prepare them for the world of work.

5.2.2. Young people are not simply given a job, the approach of the Future Jobs Fund project equips themwith skills to find a job and learn about the competitive job application process.

5.2.3. The Future Jobs Fund has seen placements in various industries, broadening young people’s mind tothe opportunities and career paths that they may have not previously considered.

5.2.4. The Future Jobs Fund improves young people’s confidence, skills and knowledge within particularindustries.

5.2.5. The Future Jobs Fund project breaks down barriers to employment for those young people faced withlong-term unemployment, learning and other disabilities and/or troubled background increasing theirchances of future employment.

5.2.6. The Future Jobs Fund gives young people financial independence allowing them to contribute tothe economy.

5.2.7. Giving young people the opportunity to undertake work that genuinely benefits communities willengender a sense of community pride and ownership in participants long after the Future Jobs Fundprogramme.

5.3. The anecdotal evidence given by the employees is strengthened by the leaver data showing anemployment rate of 25%. Additionally this is supported by two case studies in Annex II

5.4. The employee experience on the whole has been a positive one however the Short-term nature of a sixmonth contract in some cases appears to be too short for young people to build solid transferable skills toenable them to compete confidently in the open labour market.

6. Due to the successful delivery of the New Jobs, New Futures project Hampshire County Council waseligible to bid for further funding from the Future Jobs Fund. This would have equated to another 900 jobs forunemployed young people across the sub-region. The impact of the decision to end the Future Jobs Fund inMarch 2011 rather than March 2012 has effectively reduced the vacancies available to young people by 900positions. The Future Jobs Fund has facilitated extremely successful partnership working and although lessonslearnt are valuable, without the delivery of a joint programmes such as the Future Jobs Fund, these partnershipswill diminish.

7. The nature of the transition from the Future Jobs Fund to the Work Programme is unknown at this stageas consortium partners have had little or no involvement in the development of the Work Programme as therehas been no consultation to date. Hampshire County Council is already working closely with the NationalApprenticeship Scheme to deliver apprenticeships within the council and is applying to become an



Apprenticeship Training Association. Apprenticeships will be an option to some Future Jobs Fund employeesbut there is nor formal transition.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Pathways Community Interest Company

Summary

Pathways believe that the FJF has made a real difference to the young people and to our society. It has beenan excellent programme to match new and real work experience opportunities to vulnerable young people inour society to help them move into mainstream employment whilst doing societal good.

To improve the FJF, Pathways believes the system needs to change, so that the jobs are only available forthe most vulnerable and the roles to be created need to be tested for real community value.

The value of FJF is not only in the potential of turning the FJF into sustainable posts, but fundamentallyabout using the opportunity that the FJF offers to move young people into mainstream employment. To do thisyoung people need to know that whilst they are employed from day one of their employment, the job of theFJF employment is to move them into mainstream employment; giving young people the tools knowledge andexperience to empower themselves to understand what employers want, and how to market their skills,knowledge and experience competitively whilst undertaking real paid work.

This vital component of paid work experience is missing from the Work Programme, which is fundamentalto moving young people into mainstream employment in a difficult market. Pathways has significant concernsthat the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 will have significant negative impact and will result in a lostgeneration as in previous recessions.

1 Background

1.1 Pathways CIC is a social enterprise who deliver holistic health, wellbeing and employment support.

1.2 Evidence base shows that young people are particularly vulnerable in recession. As a country we facelosing a generation to unemployment. Long term unemployment is not only costly to us as a country in welfarebenefits, but also has a significant additional cost to the whole system including health, criminal justice etc

1.3 Pathways believe the notion behind the FJF about providing a more secure future for 18–24 year oldsthrough giving young people paid work experience on their CVs is a responsible and cost effective one.

2 FJF success in matching New Work Experience opportunities to Young Unemployed People

2.1 Pathways has pledged to create 750 jobs for young people between November 2009 and March 2011,funded through the FJF in order to fundamentally make a commitment to give young people in Cheshire andacross Greater Manchester the support they need to find mainstream employment in these tough times, so theirworking future can get off to a good start. To date 63 young people have gained employment with Pathwaysthrough FJF with a further 300 commencing employment at the end of September 2010.

2.2 Eligibility criteria is six months on JSA. Some localities as a consequence of negative environmentalfactors of young people living in areas in the top quintile of deprivation have opened up the FJF for any youngperson. Pathways believes this is appropriate. Clearly if people are able to move into mainstream employmentwithout support or through additional training then the most cost effective methodology for the public purse isthrough the individual taking control themselves to find employment, or the Work Programme.

2.3 Young people that Pathways has employed through the FJF, say that beyond six months unemployment,they quickly become “perceived” as unemployable by employers. Their confidence drops, they struggle toexplain gaps in their CV and their lack of real work experience. They simply lose hope. Whilst young peopleattend for interviews they do not expect to get the job, and that defeatism shows at interview. They becomelow in motivation.

2.4 Many of the young people who have been employed by Pathways through the FJF have significantbarriers eg care leavers, ex offenders, carers, many have mental health problems, either diagnosed orundiagnosed. Some young people are receiving support through primary care, many who have risk issues arenot in receipt of any services. As an employer we have in place work well-being action plans, in order thatthose people who demonstrate risk eg self harm are supported through what are the triggers for them, and howwork contributes to those triggers. We help young people think through how they would like their managerand their colleagues to react when they see any of these triggers, and agree with the young person what canbe disclosed to their colleagues. We support young people to identify appropriate coping mechanisms andsupport these young people to access appropriate services including improving access to psychologicaltherapies.

2.5 If a young person with these barriers moves into employment without this appropriate support then thelikelihood is that the job will not be sustainable and the young person will either leave the employment, or



they will be exited from employment accordingly. The value of the FJF is that it allows you to deal with theseissues in a real work environment, increasing retention.

2.6 Most of the young people we have employed are living independently without support systems. Theseyoung people are not experiencing freedom years. They are not disengaged as society would depict them, justyoung people who are surviving in negative environments where social norms are quite often distorted. Manyare living in social landlord properties or poor quality rental properties, and are economically disadvantaged.These negative environments coupled with negative motivation quickly turns these young people intounemployable in mainstream employment.

2.7 From an employers perspective I know that if the young people had come to myself as a potential recruitthrough mainstream recruitment process, I would not have employed them, as they would score significantlylower than more experienced applicants.

2.8 If they had managed to be recruited, very few employers would take the time to help those young peoplemanage their barriers. Enabling young people to take on a real job, and be supported to deal with their issuesin a live environment helps them to understand that they are employable and can move into mainstreamemployment and be retained.

2.9 The jobs the young people are undertaking for Pathways are customer insight and market segmentationjobs. These young people are working within their own communities to understand how joblessness affectspeople, and to identify the drivers of their behaviour across public health priorities of alcohol consumption andsexual health, as well as specific locality issues for example men’s health.

2.10 These young people are leading community influence in helping commissioners to build a shared insightinto specific audiences, clearly defined through segmentation analysis which will enable commissioners tocommission services which will bring about specific behaviours. Ultimately this will lead to more cost effectivetargeted interventions and better commissioning. This is in stark contrast to the traditional model of identifyinga need, designing a service to meet that need, and then spending resources to engage the community withthat service.

2.11 These young people quickly become impassioned by the issues within their own community, and arecommitted to making a difference. These young people quickly go from believing they have nothing to giveto society, to understanding how they can make a difference for their community. They quickly start to takepersonal responsibility for their own health, their families and supporting people in their communities. Theytalk knowledgably about health issues.

2.12 We have linked their personal development with the Search Institute’s Developmental Asset Framework.The framework shows the assets a young person needs to reduce their risk taking behaviour. Every day, theyoung people employed by us are collecting evidence of how they have demonstrated these assets, and canclearly define how their risk taking behaviours with regard to sexual health and alcohol have reduced forexample.

2.13 This same methodology has been used to support young veterans who having exited military services,to integrate back into their communities and overcome barriers such as alcohol and mental health issues.

3.0 Strengths of FJF

3.1 Pathways believes FJF delivered appropriately, sits at the heart of delivering “The Big Society”. It isabout community taking responsibility for its most vulnerable, and its about recognising that even those mostvulnerable individuals in our society have a contribution they can make to their community.

3.2 Pathways knows from experience that these young people are responsible, enthusiastic, motivated, andcommitted. Being unemployed has knocked their confidence. I believe through the FJF it has given anopportunity to build up their confidence, and to provide them with the real paid work experience they need inorder to continue on their employment journeys.

3.3 Many young people as a consequence of being brought up in negative environments are unaware ofacceptable behaviour. For example one of the FJF employees we employed, swore in every sentence. This wasdone in a non-aggressive manner, and it was clear from his behaviour it was a communication style. He hadno idea this was unacceptable behaviour. Similarly throughout some of the young people’s education, poorattendance at school has not been challenged by their parents. They carry this social norm into the workingenvironment. Pathways challenges these inappropriate norms within the working environment, usingorganisational processes in a lenient way than mainstream employment would dictate. The organisation explainswhat the implication for inappropriate behaviour would be in mainstream employment. The behaviour andimplications are used as evidence within the Developmental Asset Framework with a monitored action planfor changes in behaviour to be demonstrated and evidenced. The FJF employment is making these youngpeople fit for mainstream employment.

3.4 A focus group of young people employed by Pathways CIC through FJF identified these benefits:

— Helps to get young people out of long-term unemployment back into work for a period of sixmonths.



— Gives you the confidence to break the ongoing cycle of trying to get a job.

— Gets you back into a routine and keeps you motivated by carrying out planned tasks throughoutthe day.

— Gives you purpose.

— Enables you to meet new people in similar circumstances as yourselves.

— Opportunity to participate in project work and become a valuable team member.

— Opportunity to develop your existing skills and be creative and imaginative.

— Opportunity to become a team leader.

— Improve your communication skills and leadership qualities.

— Improve time management skills by working to meet project deadlines.

— Gives you the work experience you need to get a job.

3.5 A focus group of the first 12 young people we employed through the FJF identified that they haddeveloped the following skills during their six months employment

Notes from Group 1 meeting: 22.04.10

Research— Contacts : local activities to attend.

— Questionnaires : developed, ran and evaluated questionnaires.

Processing of information— Data input onto Surveymonkey.

— Statistical analysis and report writing.

— Data handled confidentially and in accordance with current data protection act.

Performing Arts— Script writing/development.

— Costume making.

— Camera work.

— Performing in front of local group and recorded for use in feedback of results.

Publicity— Wrote press release.

— Appeared in local publications eg Crewe Chronicle and DWP Nationwide magazine.

Increased awareness— Of local area and different communities within it.

— Of health issues affecting young people locally.

— Of support services available to young people.

— Of young people requiring support and lack of services available to them.

Communication skills— Improved telelphone techniques.

— Approaching general public and engaging with them.

— Improved interpersonal skills.

— Increased patience.

Attendance at meetings

— As representatives of the young persons health partnership eg links event—local involvementnetwork, IAPT, PCT

— Given presentations to partnership companies eg connexions and to members of the PrimaryCare Trust

— Internal pathways meetings

Worked independently and as part of a team— Planned own working day.

— Prioritised own workload.



— Ensured targets were met.

— Worked without direct supervision.

Interview panel member— Assessed future community champions eligibility for post.

— Involved in selection process.

Targets— Agreed, set and met targets eg number of questionnaires, number of visits per day.

Developed and gave presentations— Improved presentation skills.

— Worked as part of a team to develop health related presentations and then helped to present them.

— Developed and ran focus groups within schools.

Chlamydia training— Attended chlamydia training.

Development of local links and networks— E.g. local social groups/meetings.

— Schools/colleges

Self awareness— Raised awareness of local health issues.

— Improved self awareness regarding general well-being, healthy eating, sexual health issues,alcohol etc.

— Increased awareness of green issues eg of personal carbon footprint.

— Reduced use of paper eg ran questionnaires double sided and did all of work in Crewe on foot.

— Increased self confidence and self worth.

— Improved time management skills.

— Increased awareness of effect of own behaviour upon others.

Team leading— Lead team to successfully achieve objectives.

3.6 A focus group of the second group of young people we employed through the FJF identified the followingskills they had developed during their six months employment

Notes from group 2 meeting: 29.06.10

— Presentation skills.

— Report writing.

— Trained on health issues.

— Role plays.

— Telephone manner.

— Communication skills.

— How to engage with management.

— Teamwork.

— Computer/it skills.

— Organisational skills.

— Public speaking.

— Questionnaire development.

— Time management.

— Engagement with young people.

— Increased flexibility and reliability.

— Multi tasking.

— Ability to interpret data.



— Utilisation of resources.

— Interview tips.

— CV tips.

— Cover letter tips.

— Ability to work on own initiative.

— Assertiveness.

— How to run a focus group.

— How to carry out research.

— Confidentiality.

— Increased listening skills.

— Leading a team.

— Tolerating people.

— Negotiation skills.

— Conflict resolution.

— Improved self awareness.

3.7 A third focus group of the young people we employed in Future Jobs fund identified the following skillsand knowledge that they developed whilst employed by Pathways CIC

Skills and Experiences at 25.08.10

— Leadership.

— Team Work.

— Team Building.

— Effective Job Search.

— Updated CV, cover letter, spec letter.

— Job Logs.

— Independent Research.

— Presentation Skills.

— Script Writing & Development.

— Identified Personal Strengths/Weaknesses.

— Communication Skills.

— Organisation.

— Co-ordinating Projects.

— Questionnaires—Developed, Ran, Evaluated.

— Improved computer/IT Skills.

— Participated in interview process for future employees.

— Learnt about health issues relating to young people (eg smoking, alcohol, sexual health).

3.8 Structured interviews with young people employed by Pathways CIC with regard to FJF employmentfocused on the impact of FJF employment on the young people

What is your background/what work experience have you had previously?

— My background was coming out of college after 3 years and not being able to get a job. I had noreal experience of work which made it difficult to get a job.

What brought you to pathways?

— I was out of work for six months and got put on “new deal”. I was given the form which I filled in.

What was your outlook on job prospects at this point?.... How were you feeling ……..

— I wasn’t feeling good— I can tell you that much. I didn’t think I would get a job for a while.

What do you think you have gained during your employment with pathways?

— I have gained lots of skills such as communication and presentation skills. I’ve also enhanced myIT skills.



Do you think your employment experience at Pathways will stand you in good stead in your jobsearch?— It has given me the right skills and confidence to go out and find a new job. I have something to

offer an employer. I have something to offer my community.

Would you recommend the community champion post to others? If so why?— Yes because it is a good stepping stone for people to find a permanent job. It gives you valuable

skills and puts you in a routine which helps you take the next step. I feel a much moreresponsible citizen.

Had you not been successful in securing your community champion post what do you think you would bedoing now?

— I would probably be on JSA, feeling depressed, and feeling that there was no way out of the cycleof unemployment.

4.0 Weaknesses of FJF

4.1 A particular weakness in the original design of the FJF was the emphasis on the quality of the experiencethe young person gained whilst employed on the FJF . Too little focus was spent on ensuring from day onethe young person understood that this was a specific programme which would help them move into mainstreamjob at the end of the six months. What Pathways has learnt, is that unless you spell this out to young peopleat the beginning, because of their short term view of the world, then they will not concern themselves aboutfinding alternative employment until 4–5 months into the programme. This was a design fault in our originalprogramme. Since April 2010 Pathways have altered the work plans for young people so that supporting themto find mainstream employment is the central tenant to the job they do. The activities they undertake in termsof customer insight and market segmentation and through the asset developmental framework is themethodology we are using to achieve this. This has significantly increased job outcomes

4.2 A further weakness is the lack of universal consistency in the way that JCP encourage young people totake on the vacancies. Pathways staff are often told by JCP that their young people are completely inappropriatefor our jobs. Pathways is consistently giving the message that we are prepared to talk to any young person,and we believe its our job to turn these young people around. As long as they are not a risk to the communityPathways can work with anyone. Pathways believe many JCP staff write off young people without really givingthem a chance. This is completely unacceptable.

4.3 A further weakness is the commissioning frameworks used by Local Authorities. These frameworks canimpede employers engaging with the process and creating posts for young people. It simply becomes toohard for employers. Some LAs such as Wigan Council have made the process incredibly straightforwardfor employers.

5.0 Job Sustainability

5.1 Clearly within commissioning either with PCTs, PBCs and LAs there is a need for real engagement withpeople. Similarly many jobs in any sector require customer focus. These skills are all developed through theFJF jobs we provide. This has resulted in new contracts being awarded for the delivery of services. Forexample, as a consequence of the work we have undertaken, Pathways secured a contract with Central andEastern Cheshire Primary Care Trust to make health services more young people friendly which has allowedstaff on FJF programme to be retained. This makes sustainable employment a real outcome for young people,

5.2 The jobs created by FJF are not necessarily sustainable. Pathways would question should they be. Theseare transitional roles which have a community good, which should empower young people to move intomainstream employment.

5.3 To date, in Cheshire, 61 FJF jobs have been created by Pathways CIC, with 28 of these being new startson 24 August 2010, and a further 10 still employed with ourselves until 30 September 2010. Out of the 22people who have been employed by Pathways 10 FJF staff have secured mainstream employment and twoyoung people have returned to education .

5.4 Structured interviews with young people employed by Pathways CIC on FJF jobs asked “What do youthink about the FJF being stopped?” Young people employed by Pathways responded “The Government saysa lot about moving people off benefits. The FJF employment works in helping you move into permanentemployment. I think it’s disgraceful because a lot of young people will be missing out on job opportunitiesand will continue to remain on JSA. How is this good for young people or the country?”

5.5 Leonie Bradford FJF employee said “I have enjoyed this immensely, and it is fantastic that I now havea job because of it” When Leonie Bradford started on this project six months ago, she was still looking forsomething solid and steady in her life. She started the year unemployed after completing a beauty course, butthat was more of a hobby and she realised it was time to get on the road to employment. Leonie explains “InFebruary when I heard about Pathways I thought it would be a really good way to meet new people and gainnew skills, so I applied and attended an interview”. After being successful in her interview Leonie was accepted



onto the Pathways programme. It is something which Leonie is very grateful for, as she has learnt somevaluable new skills, which will be crucial for any future employment opportunities. Leonie feels the fact thatshe has learnt so much is of vital importance, “I have learnt so much, which is brilliant. I have been interactingwith people, so my communication skills have improved. I have also grown in confidence and feel much morepositive about the future after these six months”. Leonie performed to such a good standard that she now hasa permanent job as a result of the programme, something which she is really looking forward to. “I have gota job as an assistant co-ordinator. I am really happy as my skills will improve even more”. Leonie wouldcertainly recommend anybody to this programme “I would definitely advise people to go experience what Ihave. I have enjoyed this immensely, and it is fantastic that I now have a job because of it.”

5.6 Kelly Williams FJF employee said —“It has given me so much confidence. I feel like a new personready for any challenge”. Kelly Williams had been going from one job to the next, not really enjoying herwork and trying to discover what career path to take. When the Job Centre told her of a new project named“Pathways” through the new deal programme, she thought it would be worth taking a look at. That decisionhas proven to be a very good one, as Kelly now feels she is in a better position than she was 6 months ago.She explained, “before I started this I had been doing bar work for a number of years, I didn’t mind it but itwasn’t something I wanted to do long term”. Kelly thinks back to those long hours working behind a bar andadmits that she was tired a lot of the time, “I was always shattered; I was not motivated at all and was readyfor a change.” So when her advisor at the job centre told her about interviews to get onto the Future Jobs Fundprogramme at Pathways in Crewe, she jumped at the chance, “I attended some interviews, and was reallyhappy when I was accepted”. Since that has happened Kelly has excelled during her six months. So much sothat she was named recruit of the year for Job Centre North west, an accolade which she should be very proudof. All of this has given Kelly a huge boost in confidence, and she now feels her future looks bright, “It hasgiven me so much confidence. I feel like a new person ready for any challenge”. Kelly feels that as a result ofher experiences over the past six months, she has greatly increased her chances of future employment. Shecontinues with a smile “Of course I have gained new skills and knowledge, which can only be beneficial. MyC.V. looks good, and hopefully employers will notice that”. Kelly would have no hesitation recommendingthis type of employment to anybody who is in a similar situation to herself, “This has been a brilliant schemefor me, I have met new people and friends for life. I have developed as a person and learnt new things; I haveabsolutely loved working here”. Kelly has gained further employment with Pathways CIC

5.7 Chris Dunn FJF employee 1.2.10 said “Joining YPHP has given me the motivation to get up and I feellike I am making a change in my home town. It is the best thing to happen to me in a long time. It’s made mehappy again to be back in the work environment. Friends and family have noticed a difference in me and saythat I seem much happier”. Chris has gained employment as a care assistant.

5.8 Nicola Owo started FJF employment with Pathways CIC in March 2010. She said:

“I have not had much experience in the past only jobs such as; cleaner, warehouse operative, and barwork. When I was on job seekers allowance I had a new deal advisor, she told me about the communitychampion vacancies. I wasn’t too optimistic about applying for the community champion vacancy, at thispoint I had been receiving job seekers allowance for six months and I was really un happy, I would beapplying for jobs everyday at not hearing nothing back. So when I got the offered the interview I wasreally happy and saw that opportunity as my last chance. Then I was offered a six month contract atPathways, and then things went onwards and upwards. I have learnt a lot being at Pathways.

— Time keeping.

— Presentation skills.

— Team work.

— Working on my own initiative.

— Data input.

— Computer skills.

— Web page design.

— Dealing with the public.

— Dealing with sensitive situations.

— Staff meetings.

— Supporting others.

As my employment at Pathways is nearly coming to an end I started to look for a new employer and wassupported a great deal by everyone here with stuff like C.V’s, cover letters, employability skills ETC.. Ihave been offered full time employment at LSG (Life style Services Group) as a sales executive; it’s agreat opportunity for someone like me to step on the career ladder in something I’ve always wanted todo. I feel that everything along the way that I have learnt at pathways has definitely helped me to get towhere I am now, if I had not been offered my contract at Pathways I would most definitely be still livingoff £90 every two weeks. I would recommend anyone to apply at pathways it’s a great opportunity tolearn new things and be passionate about something other than the Xbox ”



6.0 Transition from FJF to Work Programme

6.1 Pathways CIC is fully supportive of the work programme and can see the value to many client groups.Pathways is however, concerned that the real issue for young people is that they have no paid work on theirCV, and lack core skills and knowledge that employers need. This vital component of paid employment forthis segment of our society is missing in the Work Programme. Pathways believe these bespoke created jobscan deliver this need in a way that is of benefit to the young person and makes a contribution to our society.

6.2 Pathways is also supportive of apprenticeships. The difficulty employers have always had withapprenticeships is ‘we would love to have one, but we cannot afford the salaries’. In these difficult times,employers are less likely to take risks on giving an individual a chance, simply because it could have a negativeeffect on their business competitiveness.

7.0 Likely impact of ending FJF March 2011

Pathways believes that as the programme had been running for such a short period of time, employers havenot fully had the opportunity to embrace the potential of the FJF. Similarly public sector have not embracedfully the potential the FJF had to support better commissioning. By ending the FJF early is a lost opportunity.

Pathways believes there is a risk that as a consequence of the lack of paid experience the number of youngpeople who find themselves unemployed will increase, as will their vulnerability.

Pathways acknowledges the short term gain of not funding the salary for FJF, however, the evidence basedemonstrates that the long term cost is significant.

Pathways believes Britain will have a lost generation.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by The Novas Scarman Group

Summary

The Novas Scarman Group (NSG) is a voluntary organisation working in England and Wales to supportpeople and communities on their journeys to a better life. We have contracted with the Department for Workand Pensions (DWP) for 138 part-time Future Jobs Fund (FJF) six month positions for individuals aged 19–24until March 2011.

Our main observations are as follows (references in brackets are to paragraphs in our full submission),

1. FJF is a good scheme which enables people to make a contribution to the community while developingskills, confidence and experience that improved their employment prospects. It has enabled us to create severalnew jobs and 30% of trainees found work after leaving the scheme.

2. However, six months part-time work experience is insufficient for most people (Paras 13, 14, 15, 19).

3. We would recommend funding “first steps” employment opportunities to help this group of unemployedyoung people into work (Para 16).

4. Our trainees have been disappointed by the support offered by Job Centre Plus, with some notableexceptions (10, 11)

5. We are disappointed that FJF has ended (22) and are concerned that the proposed new Work Programmemay exclude small to medium sized organisations like ourselves, except as sub-contractors to very largeorganisations. (24, 25).

6. We would encourage the Committee to look at new forms of funding such as Social Impact Bonds (26).

7. Trainees on the scheme were disappointed at the response from their Members of Parliament to concernsabout the length of the FJF scheme (28–31).

We would be very glad to invite current or past trainees to give evidence to the Committee and giveevidence ourselves.

Titus Alexander & Anusha WijeyakumarNovas Scarman Group, 73–81 Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 0NQ

Community-based Work-Force Development and Job-Creation

Context

The Novas Scarman Group is a voluntary organisation working in England and Wales to support people andcommunities on their journeys to a better life. We provide services, activities and products which empowerservice users and communities to change their lives for the better, including personalised support services,community development work and programmes which increase employability. We have two separate contracts



from DWP from October 2009 until March 2011 to create and support 138 part-time positions of six monthsfor individuals aged 19–24.

1. Our Future Jobs Fund (FJF) programme aims to have an empowering influence on the 138 young peoplerecruited from December 2009—September 2010, providing training and support so that they are betterequipped to find work in a competitive jobs market. We are also using the programme to develop furtheremployment opportunities, beyond FJF, through our partners and networks.

2. The 138 positions have been created across the organisation in the areas of support services, communitydevelopment, marketing and communications, research, fundraising, administration/reception, catering, youthwork, events and gardening.

3. Our purpose in the FJF programme is to give young people unemployed for a long period a route into themainstream labour market. The jobs created are suitable for individuals with varied skills and experienceranging from very limited experience and no qualifications to graduates, all within a supportive environment.All the positions are targeted at young people between the ages of 18—24 who are claiming Job SeekersAllowance (JSA), with a few opportunities for people over the age of 24 who are long-term unemployed.

4. NSG has a long history of working with young people in the NEET group (not in education, employmentor training) as well as ex-offenders, those leaving care, homeless people and people recovering from addiction.We therefore have a track record of working with those most marginalised from the labour market, motivatingand supporting them into sustainable employment, education or training opportunities.

5. We provide on-site employment experience for FJF recruits who have had difficulties accessingmainstream opportunities in the wider job market either due to their educational backgrounds or socio-economiccircumstances. Mentoring and coaching is a key element and aspect of our programme to sustain the outcomeof the recruits’ commitment to the programme and to moving into further employment.

6. The training plans for all individuals include a mixture of generic and job specific training which willstand them in good stead when applying for jobs in the future. The support includes all FJF recruits beinggiven the option of choosing up to six personal development courses offered by PATH, the training arm ofNSG. These which range from job-search skills, interview techniques and CV writing to confidence-building,assertiveness, working with management and career planning.

Process and Outcomes

Recruitment

7. For the first FJF contract we filled all 69 positions by April 2010. On the second contract we have filled29 positions with 40 remaining to be filled by the end of September 2010. We have consistently met our targetseach month.

8. A high proportion of our FJF recruits are from black and ethnic minorities.

9. In our experience, Job Centres were slow in referring eligible candidates and we had to visit Job Centresto talk with job seekers ourselves. A few pro-active members of staff in a few Job Centres (not necessarilyclosest to us) referred a high proportion of candidates.

10. Many of our FJF trainees were critical of the support given by Job Centres and, with the exception ofpeople assisted by the pro-active Job Centre staff, they did not consider it worthwhile going to the Job Centrefor help finding work as their six-month placement came to an end. Most relied on their own efforts and oursupport to find work or educational opportunities.

Leavers

11. As of 6 September 2010, we had 59 leavers, 30% of whom have found employment. Of these, 47finished their contracts and 12 were early leavers. Of the completers, 25 were job seeking, nine have securedpart time employment with us, five secured employment elsewhere, three are continuing in further education,two have applied for locum roles with NSG, one is on maternity leave and two we are unable to contact. Ofthe early leavers, four found full time employment elsewhere, six resigned and two were dismissed.

Programme duration and sustainability

12. All our FJF managers and most trainees felt that a six months part-time placement was too short. Afteran induction period of one to five weeks (depending on level of knowledge and skill required), this left four—five months for work and training before most people turned their attention to job hunting once more.

13. The relatively short duration of the programme means that managers have to spend a disproportionateamount of time on recruitment, induction and support for job hunting at the end of the six months, relative tothe amount productive work or training which FJF trainees do.

14. Longer placements would also enable us to create longer-term positions, by developing new servicesand capacity within the organization.



15. However, one direct benefits of the FJF programme was that we have employed people who would nothave gained an interview on the basis of their CV and prior experience, but who were able to show theirabilities and commitment on the job. We are glad to say that 20% of those completing their placement havegained part-time employment with us and we would recommend similar “first steps” employment opportunitiesto help this group into work.

External monitoring and feedback

16. We had a monitoring visit from DWP and Job Centre Plus (JCP) in July, which was very thorough,including a detailed look at our records and extensive interviews with trainees. We were told that we hadexceeded expectations in terms of the information provided and that “we had set the bar high for further visitsto other employers on the FJF programme.” Our visitors went through all paperwork—in particular contracts,supervision notes & Personal Development Plans for each trainee.

17. At the end of the programme we also asked trainees about their experiences, and we would be very gladif the Committee will invite current or past trainees to give evidence. The following comments give a flavourof the experience of our trainees.

(i) “I would just like to say that all the staff at Novas Scarman have been very helpful to me, and involvedme in everything, which I am very grateful for” Administration Assistant in Bristol aged 19.

(ii) “I received more than enough training in a number of areas. I think that Novas were particularly goodat tailoring training to suit individual FJF recruits. For example, I requested and was giving someextra training in word and outlook” Administration Assistant based in London, aged 24.

(iii) “I really enjoyed my time at NSG. It was a great stop gap for me in between finding a new job. Ilearnt a number of new skills and also got back into the work mind frame after being out of work forso long. It’s a shame that the positions cannot extend for longer than six months” CommunicationsAssistant aged 24—moved into full time employment after 18 weeks.

(iv) “I have learnt about numerous finance roles and gained experience on the sales ledger…which I wouldhave found hard to gain without my time at Novas” Trainee Finance Assistant, Liverpool, aged 20,moved into full time employment at 18 weeks.

(v) “I gained a lot in confidence during the past six months” Trainee Support and Development WorkerLondon aged 35.

(vi) “I was luckily given the chance to work with the technical team and learned a great deal, which I willbe able to add to my CV and apply to job searches in the future” Events Assistant Liverpool aged 23.

Strengthens and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme

18. In our experience, FJF has succeeded in offering many young unemployed people constructive workexperience, but six month placements do not allow sufficient time for participants to consolidate their skillsand experience to compete with more qualified young people entering the job market or more experiencedpeople losing their jobs as a result of the recession and contraction of spending .

19. The programme enabled us to build capacity in some areas of work and generate additional income sothat we were able to create new posts and retain some FJF staff as a result. Longer placements would haveenabled us to create more and more secure posts.

20. We are able to offer a wide range of training opportunities as a result of our in-house capacity andseveral of our trainees also continued to study part-time while employed by us, but a more direct relationshipbetween the FJF programme and other provision for education and training would have benefited some trainees.

Wider Questions

Ending of FJF and the Work Programme

21. The decision to end the FJF in March 2011 is disappointing to us on three grounds.

(a) Our FJF programme has created opportunities for trainees to make a positive contribution to thecommunity while developing skills and experience to improve their employability, and theseopportunities will end with the programme.

(b) We have invested time and effort in developing relationships, systems and support for the FJFprogramme, including a Community Organiser Training Programme, which will no longer be usedunless we can find alternative sources of funding.

(c) We have learnt a great deal which has improved the training and support offered to unemployed youngpeople, but we may no longer be able to do so under the new funding arrangements.

22. We are proud of what our trainees have achieved while working with us and hope that any future schemewill include an equivalent mixture of service to the community and training.



23. Current plans for the Work Programme will make it very difficult for small to medium sized organisationslike ourselves to take part, since we cannot afford the up-front funding required for payment by results, so canonly be involved as sub-contractors to larger organisations.

24. This is likely to deprive the Work Programme of many of the kind of meaningful work opportunitieswhich we and other small and medium sized organisations have been able to offer under FJF, so that it will nothave the benefit of encouraging innovation and job creation by community organisations and social enterprises.

25. We would therefore encourage the Committee to look at Social Impact Bonds as another way of financingsocial innovation and refer members to research by Social Finance: www.socialfinance.org.uk/ andhttp://www.socialfinance.org.uk/downloads/Towards_A_New_Social_Economy_web.pdf

26. We are not aware of any links between the Work Programme and Government proposals forapprenticeships.

Engagement with politicians

27. Many of our trainees felt strongly that the six-months maximum placement was too short so weencouraged them to write to their MP or (once the election was called) prospective MP about it. Our ChiefExecutive also wrote to the Secretary of State before and after the election.

28. The response from politicians was disappointing. Many trainees did not get a reply and if they did, theyfelt their MP was neither interested or able to help.

29. As an organisation which encourages marginalised groups to be empowered citizens, we are concernedthat this re-enforced their belief that Parliament is irrelevant to them. The recent football World Cup attractedmore interest and involvement among our trainees than the general election. We are concerned that Parliamentshould be seen to relevant to all citizens, including those who have the least advantages and opportunitiesin society.

30. Participants on our FJF programme would be glad to give evidence to the Committee alongside NovasScarman managers .

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Community Empowerment Ltd

Executive Summary— We show our belief that the Future Jobs Fund has been successful in providing a solution to long

term unemployment amongst young people. The Future Jobs Fund has helped many individualsaged between 18–24 years into employment.

— The Future Jobs Fund has not just been beneficial to those individuals concerned, but also to thewider communities in which they live and work. This has been through not just providing youngpeople with employment opportunities but developing them as individuals and citizens too. Thisin turn has led to a change in perceptions about young people amongst employers.

— By helping individuals develop in areas such as self-confidence and interpersonal skills the FutureJobs Fund has been tackling some of the root causes of unemployment, especially long term,amongst young people. This helps break the cycle of long-term unemployment that can occur.

However:

— There are problems perceived within the Future Jobs Fund. These are generally seen asadministrative ones to do with different working practices but they can still be seen as a potentialhindrance, however unintentional, to the aims of the Future Jobs Fund.

— With the Future Jobs Fund coming to an end in March 2011, there are many reservations amongstus and our partners. These are about what is to replace it (The Work Programme), how thattransition will take place and whether any of the successes and lessons learnt from Future JobsFund will be built upon and continued rather than replaced.

— We aim to give recommendations on how the success of the Future Jobs Fund can be continuedwith any successive scheme as well as highlight how improvements can be made too.

Community Empowerment

Founded in 1998 Community Empowerment is a charitable society for the benefit of the Community,registered under Industrial and Provident Society Law.

Its involvement with the Future Jobs Fund began in June 2009 when it put in two bids for Future Jobs Fundcontracts. One as a national provider and one with local partner organisations. Both bids were (eventually)accepted and Community Empowerment began placing unemployed young people in roles from November2009.



To date Community Empowerment has employed 58 people in community projects with another 41 due tobe placed by the time the scheme is proposed to end in March 2011.

Introduction

1. Having been involved with the Future Jobs Fund since its inception last year, Community Empowermentbelieves it is well placed to provide evidence to this inquiry. Not just through our own experience but those ofour partner organisations too.

2. By sharing these experiences and views of the frontline of the Future Jobs Fund with the Committee wehope to give insight into not just how the Future Jobs Fund works and what it has achieved but also whereimprovements can be made. This is so that, even with the Future Jobs Fund coming to an end, lessons can belearnt for any successor schemes such as The Work Programme.

The Success of the Future Jobs Fund

3. The aim of the Future Jobs Fund has been to place long term unemployed people, mainly between theages of 18–24, in employment for 6 months with the view to giving them the skills and experience to maintainemployment in the future.

4. As shown above, Community Empowerment will have helped approximately 100 young people intoemployment by the schemes end next March. Out of these 100, we have seen one in three go straight fromtheir six months placement into full employment, with the other two in three either going for regular interviewsor in the process of applying for work.

5. This highlights that one of the key successes of the Future Jobs Fund is that it has given those people,who for one reason or another have ended up as long-term unemployed, a leg up into the jobs market byproviding them with an environment in which they can thrive and to help them develop as a person. Its success,and that of other welfare to work schemes, should not be measured merely in statistics and economic benefitsbut in what it does for individuals and organisations/companies that they are placed with in terms of developingboth personally and professionally.

6. The benefits to the community should not be overlooked either. Not only in terms of projects carried outbut also the benefits of developing positive behaviour and amongst young people.

7. By taking young people who have been unemployed for six months or more and helping them tackle thevarious issues that have kept them out of the workplace the Future Jobs Fund has ensured that once inemployment those young people remain there and avoid the cycle of unemployment and other negative issuesthat can occur.

Its Strengths and Weaknesses

8. From consulting with our partners and placement providers the same strength of Future Jobs Fund comesup again and again—it develops young people who want to cease being long term unemployed by providingthem with an opportunity to gain the valuable skills and experience that may be have been preventing themfrom achieving earlier success in the jobs market.

9. This development is not just in terms of those required within the workplace but also in relation topersonal issues such as confidence and self esteem. By seizing on the potential of young people the FutureJobs Fund creates a long term benefit to both the individual and the State by breaking any potential cycleof unemployment.

10. However, it is not just in those employed within Future Jobs Fund placements where we can see thestrengths of the scheme. Those organisations and companies which provide placements have also seen a benefit.

11. For many providers it has given them a chance to develop by presenting an opportunity to access aselection of potential employees that they may not have come across before, and the talents and enthusiasmthat these young people bring with them.

12. The Future Jobs Fund is also strong in its flexibility of provision. Although the remit of Future JobsFund is to help young people aged 18–24 who have been unemployed for at least six months it is still possibleto widen the criteria at a local and regional level. This ensures Future Jobs Fund is meeting the needs of thearea and community it serves by devolving decision making.

13. That is not to say that the Future Jobs Fund is perfect and without faults. It seems, however, to be thatthese mainly lie in the administrative side of the scheme and not with either its aims or progress.

14. Many partner organisations feel the number of organisations involved in running the Future Jobs Fundhinders the communication and smooth running of the scheme due to the various disconnect such bureaucracybrings, not least between a number of organisations with diverse strategies.

15. There is also a view that there was initially little direction coming centrally for the Future Jobs Fundand that they lead to teething problems at the start of the scheme because many had to find their own way



around what was, and in some cases still is, a complex new project. While direction has increased over times,this has led to new difficulties as it has been delivery agencies (such as ourselves at Community Empowerment)whom have created their own solutions which in turn may not be compatible to others.

16. Several partner organisations feel that at lot of these problems lie with Jobcentre Plus, both because ofthe amount of pressure frontline staff within the Department of Work & Pensions are under, but also becauseof the minimal knowledge and information given to such staff which then in turn leads to the same beingpassed on to Jobcentre Plus clients.

17. There is also feeling between both providers and employees that there could be an improvement insupport offered to those on Future Jobs Fund placements. Ideally, where appropriate this would allow for a“next stage” of support the end of an employee’s six month Future Jobs Fund placement. However things suchas the Future Jobs agency which helps people find subsequent employment could be expand and perhaps aconnection between the Future Jobs Fund placements and training courses.

Impact of Ending the Future Jobs Fund

18. While the Future Jobs Fund was never going to be permanent, bringing forward the end date to March2011 only adds to the impact ending the scheme will have on both employees and providers.

19. Schemes such as Future Jobs Fund take time to “bed in” and work out the teething problems mentionedabove. Many therefore believe that ending the scheme after just two years will not have allowed Future JobsFund to reach its full potential and establish itself.

20. There does seem to be a minor problem in communication though in that some organisations involvedwere not aware that the end of the Future Jobs Fund in March 2011 does not mean an end to projects helpinglong term unemployed people or how they could get involved and take part in successor projects.

Transition to the Work Programme

21. In relation to moving from the Future Jobs Fund to the Work Programme, various issues are noticeable.The first of these is the fact that while Future Jobs Fund will end in March 2011, The Work Programme willnot begin until September 2011, creating a period of six months where there is no provision for long termunemployed young people. This can only exasperate the problems they and the DWP face in getting them backinto work.

22. Secondly, as we have mentioned several times in this report, schemes take time to get up to speed. Agap of six months between the end of Future Jobs Fund and the start of The Work Programme may not beconducive to ensuring that any lessons learnt or practices developed in the Future Jobs Fund will transfer toany successive scheme.

23. This could be alleviated to a major extent by ensuring that provides are encouraged to extend theirexperience from the Future Jobs Fund in the new replacement project. Continued involvement from deliveryagencies is crucial in ensuring that “welfare to work” strategies evolve rather than just constantly switch placeswith one another and cease to tackle the root cause of long term unemployment.

24. Moving to a “one size fits all” project is also seen as not being beneficial to the long term unemployed.Each scheme, such as Future Jobs Fund, has been designed to suit the needs of each key group of unemployed.

25. Many community projects with which Future Jobs Fund employees are placed are particularly suitableto the needs of the young people placed in them, thanks to the flexibility of the project. Therefore it is easy tosee why some delivery agencies and placements in all “welfare to work” schemes take part in one or two. Aplacement for someone who may be physically disabled may not suit someone who is learning disabled.

26. This shows that there will be a wider effect amongst schemes such as, but not solely, the Future JobsFund, because placement providers may not be able to employee certain people within a “one size fits all”project such as The Work Programme and in turn the needs of individuals are not meet. We have alreadymentioned how the Future Jobs Fund plays a keep part in the personal development of young people, and it issafe to say similar schemes to do the same with those who fulfil their respective criteria. It would be detrimentalfor all if this was lost in a “one size fits all”.

Recommendations

27. Any and all organisations should be involved in whatever replaces the Future Jobs Fund, such as TheWork Programme. While part of this should be encouraging them to take part in the successor project thatshould not be the only extent of their involvement. Many experiences have been gained through involvementin the Future Jobs Fund and the contribution of everyone involved is vital in developing the next scheme aswell as running it.

28. Flexibility must be maintained. Firstly in the way that delivery agencies can adjust the criteria to suitthe needs of a particular area or region both in terms of the employees required by companies and communityprojects, and also the unemployment market of that area. For example there is no point having strict rules on



only taking 18–24 year olds onto a scheme when the majority of long term unemployed in that area are aged30 and up.

29. Secondly there needs to be flexibility towards the needs of individuals by placing them within communityprojects and companies where they can use their experience and skills the best in a means that is beneficial totheir development and that of the community.

30. However, this flexibility does require a more centralised structured sense of direction. As we have shownthe Future Jobs Fund can be seen to be rather bureaucratic and that can discourage decision makers at adevolved level from being flexible for fear of taking risks, making mistakes or potentially adding to thebureaucracy.

31. If there was more central guidance on what can be modified, that itself can evolve into a more clearlydefined, structured and managed framework for those organisations to work within and in turn create a moreefficient programme with minimal teething problems.

32. Finally, we any successor programme must keep its ability to work to and develop an individual. Thisis not just for the benefit of themselves, but for the community too. By helping individuals become citizens aswell as people schemes such as the Future Jobs Fund are tackling the root causes of long term unemploymentand other associated issues. Any “one size fits all approach” has a danger of losing that benefit.

9 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 In June last year the Government announced that it had created a £1 billion Future Jobs Fund to whichlocal authorities and other organisations could bid to create around 150,000 new jobs. This was a new approachto create jobs and provide hope for young people and jobseekers in deprived communities.

1.2 Each bid would need to demonstrate that:

— it would create extra jobs, lasting at least six months, either for long term unemployed youngpeople or people in unemployment hotspots;

— the work done would benefit local communities; and

— the work would be under way quickly.

1.3 Some definitions:

— by “extra” we mean that the jobs would not exist without this funding;

— by “job” we mean work for at least 25 hours a week paid at least at the national minimum wage;

— by “long term unemployed” we mean people who have been on Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) forapproaching a year;

— by “young people” we mean between 18 and 24;

— by “hotspot” we mean areas where the rate of unemployment on the JSA measure is (using thelatest seasonally unadjusted unemployment figures) more than 1.5 percentage points above thenational average.

1.4 The Future Jobs Fund contribution would be a maximum of £6,500 for each job. Bids with a lower unitcost and/ or which align other funding streams to supplement Future Jobs Fund funding would be welcome.All bids were expected to demonstrate value for money by delivering maximum benefit to individuals andcommunities for the cost incurred.

1.5 Having submitted our bid for 145 new jobs and £942,500 from the Future Jobs Fund with the promiseof extending the period to six months by match funding we were advised by letter dated 28 July that we hadbeen successful. The Wise Group would act as employer and also run this programme for us.

2.0 Introduction to Routes 2 Employment

2.1 Routes 2 Employment works closely with colleagues in Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council and otherpartner organisations in the Borough to understand, support and plan for future regeneration developments andemployment initiatives within the Borough.

2.2 A bid writing team made up of local authority officers, Wise Group, Coast and Country and localcommunity group representatives met to consider our approach to this opportunity and the scale of our bid.



3.0 Our Experience of the Future Jobs Fund Programme

3.1 Successes

3.1.1 Our original bid to the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) to create 145 jobs was submitted on the launch of theprogramme. We were successful and were granted 75 jobs for the first six months. The first young person wentinto employment in October, followed by 15 in November, 26 in December, 15 in January, 17 in February andthe final one in March.

3.1.2 We continued to create jobs according to our profile and because we were so successful we wereoffered the opportunity to submit a second bid. Our application for a further 145 jobs was successful.

3.1.3 We are now working towards a total of 290 jobs with funding of £1,885,000 from the FJF and matchfunding of £600,000 allocation of Working Neighbourhoods Fund (WNF). Our jobs are in both the categoryof aged 18–24 years and also those people suffering from long-term unemployment in Redcar and Cleveland,which is now classed as a “hotspot” area.

3.1.4 To date we have created a total of 201 jobs (21 long-term unemployed and 180 18–24 year olds) Thesejobs are in a variety of occupations including: Sports Coaching; “Green” jobs, for example Horticulture, Cleanand Green operatives; various administration and youth work jobs; work in neighbourhoods and communitycentres.

3.1.5 The funding that we secured from the WNF has enabled us to extend the period in work from 26weeks funded by FJF, up to 12 months maximum for many of the first 145 young people.

3.1.6 We still have another 89 opportunities available for young people and long-term unemployed and atpresent are in advance of our profiled targets that take us up to the end of March 2011.

3.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Programme

Strengths

3.2.1 The obvious major benefit from the programme has been to young unemployed people and potentialemployers. Many of our youngsters have never worked before but have done so well in their FJF jobs thatthey have dispelled the myth that the young people of this country do not want to work. They do want to workand the feedback from our host employers has been very positive.

3.2.2 Fifty young people started the FJF programme before Christmas 2009 and all had two weeks holidayover Christmas and returned to work. All of them. Many to outdoor horticultural jobs, in the extreme winterweather in January. We did not lose one single individual.

3.2.3 We were so impressed with the young people that we held a celebration event for them hosted byour Mayor.

3.2.4 We invited all fifty to reflect and record how it had felt when out of work and how it felt now, inemployment. Although an improvement in financial circumstances was a key feature so too were improvedhealth, self-esteem, relationships with family and peers and being more socially interactive, not isolated. Manysaid that they now feel of value to society and themselves.

3.2.5 Apart from the experience of work, the young people have benefited from vocational training offeredwhilst on the programme, a reference from the host employer and the Wise Group an updated CV along withimproved social skills, all of which help to make the person more marketable and thus employable.

3.2.6 This programme has proved to be a perfect way to match the young people to future employers byallowing the employer to benefit from the talents of a young person without risk to his organisations balancesheet. All host employers have benefited greatly from the programme including the Council.

3.2.7 The young people have made a positive contribution to the fabric of many of our deprived communitiesand seen the fruits of their labour, particularly in horticultural and environmental impact jobs.

3.2.8 A further strength emerged from the opportunity to work closely with Jobcentre Plus locally. This hasproved to be very effective within the FJF programme by removing potential duplication and the realisationthat we can work together towards a common good has become very apparent.

3.2.9 Also, we have benefited greatly from the chance to communicate with the young people of the Boroughand run a programme that is not focussed on making a profit and where all funding and effort are channelledinto finding young people worthwhile work.

3.2.10 Most of the money paid to the young people will have gone directly into the local economy as mostdo not travel far to make purchases.

3.2.11 As an indicator of the effectiveness of the FJF we offer the following comparisons:



Young PeopleYoung People in Sustained

Young People Young People Into EmploymentEngaged Trained Employment (13 weeks + )

Without FJF support 688 178 124 7201/08/2008 to 31/08/2009With FJF support 1160 408 395 20801/08/2009 to 30/08/2010 (still counting

until November)

Weaknesses

3.2.12 The weakness of the programme was that it was set up so quickly that, at the start, rules were stillbeing written. 26 weeks seemed a long time to begin with, but the time went extremely quickly and one yearwould have been more appropriate and beneficial. The restriction placed upon the jobs that they must be ofbenefit to the community made recruitment difficult and also probably restricted people moving intopermanent work.

3.2.13 Despite the fact that the FJF programme has given many community and neighbourhood focussedorganisations the chance to benefit from a wage subsidised employee, unfortunately, especially in the currenteconomic climate, there are not the funds available to the employers in the third sector to keep these people inemployment when the public funding runs out.

3.2.14 In many cases, as previously mentioned, this has been the first taste of full time work that the youngpeople have experienced. Now that they have had this experience it is a blow to them to withdraw the job afterjust six months. After experiencing the euphoria of getting the job and being in employment they are left withno alternative but to re-enter the dreaded double sliding doors of the local jobcentre. We do of course workwith the people over the final months of the programme to try and find them a job, with varying success.

3.2.15 At this stage of the project 12% of our starters to date have already moved into sustainable work. Wehope that by extending the period of employment in appropriate cases we can make the young peopleindispensable to the host employers and therefore increase this percentage in the future.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision to end the Future Jobs Fund Programme in March 2011 ratherthan March 2012

3.3.1 The impact of moving the closure forward has removed this opportunity for many young people thatare not yet eligible to benefit from this very worthwhile programme.

3.3.2 We had become very adept, through our relationships and partnership working, at delivering theprogramme and when the closure announcement was made we were in the process of submitting a further bidfor an additional 50 jobs. This will not happen now, thus removing an opportunity for 50 of our young people.

3.3.3 We have also been informed that we will no longer be able to “carry over” our unused weeks, left aftersomeone leaves the programme. This could have benefited another 15 young people. Another opportunity lost.

3.3.4 This was a local programme for the benefit of local, and particularly young, people many of whomhave never experienced work, or have been out of work for long periods of time.

3.3.5 Those working with the Future Jobs Fund clients have seen the personal impact on the young people,the positive impact it has had on them, their confidence, motivation, willingness to learn and share ideas withhosts and employers. This has been the feedback we have had from most of the employers. Indeed many ofthe employers have benefited from the input of the young people. They had previously been an untappedresource unable to make any significant contribution to society.

3.3.6 The programme has made a significant contribution in reducing out NEET figures to the lowest figureever recorded.

3.3.7 The risk now, with the mothballing of large parts of our steelmaking in Redcar and the closure of localchemical plants, is the impact on the local supply chain. Opportunities for young people, particularly thosemost removed from the labour market, with no employment experience are few and far between.

3.4 How the Transition from the Future Jobs Fund to the Work Programme will be managed,including the part to be played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships.

3.4.1 At this stage we still have very little detail about the new Work Programme and how it will be managedbut we are concerned that the large size of contract areas will move the focus away from local support forlocal people.

3.4.2 Our community groups are particularly concerned that, having built up excellent working relationswith the local authority, the opportunity to build on good practice and effective co-working will be lost.



3.4.3 Many current programmes offer training for jobs, often when there are no jobs at the end of thetraining. What we have found with the FJF is that, once in a job, the young people are very enthusiastic aboutvocational training related to that job. They actually undertake training in something that will enhance theirfuture prospects, in a job they have applied for, and have secured by going through an interview process. Notfilling empty seats on pre-booked, inappropriate, training programmes.

3.4.4 Our concern is that traditional apprentice programmes will offer opportunities for those best qualifiedfor the opportunity, for example those young people with good A Level results who failed to get into university(an increasing number). This being the case, the bar will be too high for most of the young people who have,and could have, benefited from the FJF programme. This will inevitably result in a large pool of unengaged,disaffected young people and the consequent impact of increased vandalism, crime, drugs and alcohol abuseand mental health issues.

3.4.5 This may seem like a simplistic prediction but it is an informed one. Redcar and Cleveland wards areamong the most deprived nationally so we are well experienced in dealing with such issues. When somethingas successful and effective as the FJF programme is withdrawn the consequences can be dire.

4.0 Recommendations for Action and Other Considerations

4.1 Alongside the new Work Programme we would like to see a substantial allocation of money madeavailable to local authorities and their community groups to offer targeted, flexible support to enable them torespond to local issues for example transport in rural areas.

4.2 A recent government survey has indicated that Young people not in education, employment or training(NEET) at 16–18 have poorer life chances than their peers and are more likely to be a long-term cost to thepublic purse. National figures for 2009 show 9.2% (183,200) of young people aged 16–18 were NEET.

4.3 The 2008 NEET cohort will cost an estimated £13 billion from the public purse and £22 billion inopportunity costs over their lifetimes.

4.4 Young men who were NEET are three times more likely to suffer from depression, and five times morelikely to have a criminal record, than their peers.

4.5 Evidence suggests better targeting and collaborative work can reduce lifetime cost and increasewellbeing. Early prevention through low-cost interventions can bring large savings: £4,000 of short-termsupport to a single teenage mother can be repaid twenty times over through net lifetime tax contributions. Thesame successful intervention can reduce public service costs by nearly £200,000 over a lifetime.

4.6 In Redcar and Cleveland, to complement the Future Jobs Fund, the local authority has piloted anapprentice wage subsidy, offering employers up to 12 months subsidy of £95 a week.

4.7 In the current economic climate many businesses do not have the wherewithal to take on a trainee andthis is a missed opportunity in terms of young peoples’ training and experience. Over 90 young people, all ofwho were NEET, have taken up the opportunity of an apprenticeship through this programme.

4.8 Currently colleges are offering apprentice places to young people but they are tasked with finding theirown company placement. There is a distinct risk that those with the best educational attainment, the bestcontacts through parents, or the most confidence will secure these limited opportunities.

4.9 Funding of places at college should be balanced with funding to employers to support apprenticeplacements. The local authority is best placed to deliver such programmes through its partnership andcollaborative working arrangements with Connexions, their regeneration teams, business development teamsand local colleges and employers.

4.10 In conclusion, from our experience, if the Future Jobs Fund is to be cut it must be replaced with aprogramme that offers better or more opportunities than FJF offered. In terms of added value it is obvious thatthis programme has worked in our Borough. If FJF is to go, then at least give us the opportunity to replace itwith an allocation of ring-fenced funding for NEET and long term unemployed that we can use in the mosteffective and efficient manner to address the specific problems in our area. We are certain that other authoritieswill agree given that there is no “one size fits all” answer to the NEET problem.

9 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by National Day Nurseries Association

1. Executive Summary of NDNA’s FJF-backed Childcare Support Programme in Kirklees— NDNA has worked with Kirklees Council under the FJF programme since November 2009. NDNA

has appointed 55 Childcare Support Assistants to work as additional staff members within a numberof nurseries in Kirklees. This submission describes NDNA’s experiences.

— Each assistant works 25 hours per week and is assigned to one setting for a period of up to sixmonths. After this placement, it is anticipated each assistant will have gained sufficient qualityexperience either to embark upon formal childcare training or seek a career in the childcare sector.

— The majority of assistants who have completed their employment contract have been offered workwith their placement nursery.

— FJF has helped NDNA and similar organisations to generate job opportunities for those across theunemployment spectrum—from those who would not traditionally have competed, in addition tomore highly skilled JSA claimants.

— The scheme has contributed to development and capacity-building in the third sector by enablingorganisations like us to create jobs that develop their organisations in a way which may otherwisehave not been available to them.

— Termination of FJF one year earlier than planned will have a detrimental effect on the Kirkleesscheme. The 742 jobs the scheme delivers are allocated to suitable organisations. The end of FJFprevents current partners delivering more jobs and prevents new partners from joining theprogramme.

— NDNA welcomes the government’s proposal for new apprenticeships and to recognise fully thevalue of accredited industry standard qualifications. However, NDNA believes it is important thatthe most disadvantaged are supported to access relevant and appropriate pathways to employment,and suggests a more flexible apprenticeship programme.

— NDNA emphasises that apprenticeships are inconsistently accessed across the childcare sector. Ifthe new work programme follows the established apprenticeship route, NDNA’s Childcare SupportProgramme would cease to continue as employers require more incentive to hire an apprentice.

— It also remains to be seen how DWP and its new prime contractors will develop relationships withthe National Apprenticeship Service and local employers to stimulate need if it falls outside aLocal Economic Strategy and requires local authority involvement.

2. Evidence and Key Considerations:

3.1. The extent to which FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people:

— In NDNA’s experience, FJF has helped organisations like ours to generate job opportunities whichhave given those who would not traditionally have competed for jobs a real chance to gain valuablework skills and start to earn an income. This is in addition to the more able JSA claimants.

— What has been quite profound for NDNA is the ability of a scheme like this to break downstereotypical views of what long-term unemployed and out-of work young people bring to theworkplace. The scheme has helped remove stigma.

— NDNA hopes that one of the legacies will be that local employers begin to view people in a verydifferent light when recruiting in the future. This should be seen as a real breakthrough for reducinginequalities in the labour market.

— NDNA and Kirklees Council have also found that whilst many of the jobs were scheduled for only26 weeks, young people in particular were pleased that they were able to gain valuable workexperience to allow them to progress in the labour market. They also had the opportunity to learnto make more informed choices about their future.

Supporting Quotes:

Farah Fasai, Childcare Support Assistant, NDNA:“I have enjoyed every aspect of my time in the setting. It has helped me with my English and I wouldlike to gain more qualifications and experiences in childcare.”

Sian Simpson, Membership Admin Assistant, NDNA:“I started this fantastic opportunity with NDNA in July 2010 on a 12 month contract. Everybody whoworks for NDNA is extremely friendly and professional. I noticed I have an opportunity with a companyof a very high standard and I have taken this very seriously.

“After just a few weeks I am completing my daily tasks confidently, and also starting to use my owninitiative instead of asking whether I should do something or not. I have dealt with various queries andrenewals on the phone, with others in my team always around to help with anything I might get stuck on.



I have learnt a lot in the short space of time I have been here and I am sure there is a lot more still forme to learn.

“NDNA is the kind of company I aspire to have a career with and has definitely already given me a lotof confidence within the workplace. I am at the point in my life where I would like to dedicate myselfto work as well as raising my daughter and I plan to do this for NDNA for the next 12 months—hopefully longer.”

[Under the FJF programme, NDNA has also created job opportunities at its head office for five administrativestaff, of which Sian is one.]

3.2. Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers and employers,focusing on long-term sustainability of employment opportunities:

— Local authorities have provided a strong local partnership framework to progress this type ofintervention, and also to embed the support needed to move people to a sustainable outcome withina local employment and skills infrastructure. Kirklees Council is keen to boost the proportion ofpositive destination outcomes. Evidence has shown that where National Bidders have worked inareas, they have not been as able to tap into this support framework and may not have been in aposition to support the employee as well as they might.

— Since November 2009, 271 long-term unemployed people have been offered work in Kirklees—271 people who would not otherwise have gained work—with 52% of those who have nowcompleted gaining and staying in work. This is a substantial achievement and cannot beunderestimated in terms of its impact on people’s lives. In Kirklees Council’s opinion, there havebeen no other government schemes which have turned out results like this in such a short amountof time, with local and regional Jobcentre Plus also agreeing with this claim.

— FJF has also contributed to the development and capacity-building of the third sector by allowingthem to create jobs to develop their organisations in ways which they would not have normallybeen able to. The third sector is able to be more creative and responsive in the jobs they arecreating than some larger and/or public sector organisations. Reductions in government spendingmay create some opportunities for more sustainable jobs in the private and voluntary sector.

— Employers involved in the Kirklees scheme have reported that the FJF programme has allowedthem to recruit from a more diverse base of prospective employees—including a greater numberof young people—which has enriched the organisation and given their work a fresh perspective.Employers also report that FJF employees have tackled the work enthusiastically and becomevalued and invaluable members of their teams.

— A key outcome of FJF is the ability of a participant to be able to ask for a recent, credible anddetailed reference when making job applications to other organisations. This is regardless of theinitial destination for leavers from the programme. This aspect cannot be underestimated,particularly for young people who may have had varied employment history who would normallyrely on school or college references. The latter can be vague, outdated or hard to secure at thisstage of their lives. Moreover, many young people will have changed behaviours and attitudes inthe interim, and it can be demoralising for them to believe that their past may be impactingadversely on their future opportunities many years after they have left school.

3.3. Likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012:

— The Kirklees allocation of 742 jobs in total is fully profiled to organisations, so the ending of thescheme prevents current partners delivering more jobs and prevents new partners from joiningthe programme.

— The high-profile announcement of the ending of the FJF scheme has led to some reduction in theprofile amongst potential applicants and Jobcentre Advisers. This has made it harder to directapplicants to jobs in existing contracts, and to some extent has stalled the momentum Kirklees wascreating locally.

— NDNA’s Childcare Support Programme directly links to the childcare quality improvement agendaand has played a valuable part in enabling employers’ existing key staff to work on the EarlyYears Foundation Stage implementation process and embed systems, thus supporting the setting tomeet the EYFS requirements. This additional support for quality improvement will be missed byKirklees’ settings.

— The Childcare Support Programme has been a real success story—not just for NDNA but thepreviously unemployed people the programme has so duly served.



3.4. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be playedby the government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships:

— NDNA welcomes the government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships and to recognise thevalue of accredited industry standard qualifications. However, we also know that we need tosupport a variety of options to ensure all those at a disadvantage in the labour market can accessrelevant and appropriate pathways to employment. A two-year apprenticeship programme couldbe initially too demanding of those who were primarily targeted by the FJF. The new model wouldneed to be more flexible to meet the needs of a more diverse client group who have multiple,sometimes complex challenges.

— It is also important to make sure that the transition is implemented without a time lag which woulddisadvantage those people caught in the middle of two schemes.

— It appears as though the National Apprenticeship Service will continue. It also remains to be seenhow DWP and its new prime contractors will develop relationships with NAS to local employersto stimulate need if it falls outside of a Local Economic Strategy and requires local authorityinvolvement

— Apprenticeships are inconsistently accessed across the childcare sector. Should the new programmefollow the established apprenticeship route, NDNA’s Childcare Support Programme would not beable to continue as employers need more incentive to hire an apprentice. An attractive element ofFJF was the help towards salary costs and any consideration should be given to including this andsupport for training costs in any replacement apprenticeship scheme, to ensure uptake and successfor employers and trainees.

NDNA is running its Childcare Support Programme in Kirklees, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff, creating150 jobs across England, Scotland and Wales.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Transforming a Generation

1. Summary

1.1 TAG was set up with one clear objective: provide unemployed and disadvantaged young people with allthe skills, expertise and support they need to not only secure a job, but build a career, be an integral part ofsociety and enjoy a fulfilling and rewarding work and private life.

1.2 From our understanding, the Future Job Fund was conceived as a catalyst to help young people breakthrough the “no-experience-no-work-no-experience” cycle and to reduce the number of registered unemployed.

1.3 Did it succeed? What does “success” look like? Has the programme been truncated because it did notachieve its objectives, or was it truncated for non evidence based reasons.

1.4 The Future Job Fund could have been a perfect example of a cross-departmental strategy with profoundimplications for our society. To the cynical, it was a unemployment list massaging exercise. To organisationslike ours, it was an example of integrated government:

1.5

Work & Pensions An unemployment reduction strategyBusiness Innovation & Skills A strategy to up-skill a community who have been failed by the education

systemHome Office An initiative which would help reduce the sense of alienation which often

results in antisocial behaviour and crime.In addition, we have noticed greater social cohesion in the communities weare involved in and, those who have secured employment, will obviouslyenjoy greater social mobility than they would have done had the FJF notgiven them the kick-start they needed

Health Being employed increases the sense of self value and self worth, whichreduces the likelihood of stress related diseases, mental health problemsand, in the case of TAG, lifestyle diseases exacerbated by inactivity

Treasury Creating a new generation of lifelong tax payers who would otherwise tradein the Black Economy

1.6 This was a social experiment which could have had a profound and lasting impact on the lives ofdisadvantaged and vulnerable young people, as well as their families and their communities. It could have hadlong lasting benefits for society (by reducing the prospect of intergenerational unemployment, anti-socialbehaviour and the fragmentation of society).

1.7 But that opportunity is now lost.



2. Who We Are

2.1 TAG (Transforming a Generation) is a charity set up specifically to help 18–24 year olds who have nojob, (probably) no qualifications and very limited career prospects. We developed a tailored training programmespecifically for them and, using our extensive industry contacts (our Chairman Fred Turok is also Chair of thenational fitness chain LA Fitness and the industry’s employer trade body, the FIA), we help our learners securea four month work placement and a job in the growing health and fitness sector.

2.2 These are the young people who, if we fail to help them, will either drift into lawlessness and antisocialbehaviour, or be the victims of it. What is more worrying is that if we fail to integrate “them” into “our society”,this vulnerable community will be condemned to a legacy of generational unemployment and ultimately, thecreation of a two tier society comprising the opportunity rich and the opportunity poor.

2.3 Our aim is to help this community overcome the psychological, professional, cultural and economicbarriers which exert a glass ceiling on them. This is why we developed a programme which focuses on thetechnical aspects of work, as well as the “soft” skills necessary to secure and prosper in a job.

2.4 TAG is a six month vocational training programme which takes young people with limited/no formaleducation who have been out of work for at least six months and:

— Provides them with a qualification (Level 2).

— Educates them in the “soft skills” required to secure and retain employment—the “hiddencurricula”.

— Organises a (paid) four month work placement for them.

— Provides them with a dedicated mentor.

— Creates and manages a 12 month Personal Development Plan for each learner.

— Provides them with many other learning/education experiences—such as NLP and help withcreating a “e-CV”.

— Pays a salary for the duration of the six-month programme.

3. Facts About Our Programme

3.1 We have flourishing partnerships with all the major public and private employers in the health &fitness industry.

— We developed a tailored programme which address clearly identified.

— Employer needs

— For technical and “soft” skills.

— Reasons why this community fails to secure employment.

— This ranges from lack of confidence, qualifications and work relevant experience, toattitudinal and behavioural issues.

— By the end of September 2010, we will have created 893 new jobs.

— Over 90% of our learners have achieved qualifications and/or secured employment in the industry.

— The other 10% did not complete the course primarily because the rigours of “work” provedtoo daunting.

— By March 2011 we will create over 1,850 new jobs.

— We have established a TAG Centre in over 30 locations nationwide.

— We have evolved our “proposition” to appeal to a broader range of unemployed young people. Itnow includes training programmes to achieve qualifications in.

— Health & Fitness Training: our core offering.

— Community Health Coaching: which focuses on delivering sports and active leisure in thecommunity, not in a gym.

— Front of House/reception duties: developed specifically to target female JSAs.

— Membership Sales: to provide young people with a much sought after business skill(especially attractive to ethnic minorities who are more steeped in a commercial rather thana gym culture).

— A tailored programme developed specifically for young disabled unemployed people, whowould like to pursue a career in the sports and active leisure sector but are hampered by lackof opportunity.

— The TAG programme is an excellent example of a partnership between.

— Government.

— Employers.

— Government agencies (Job Centre Plus offices across the country).



— The third sector—with deep community connections.

4. Does the Future Job Fund Work—pros & cons

4.1 Pros— The FJF was an innovative pilot which has had a profound impact on the emotional, psychological

and professional (ie career) welfare of a very vulnerable community who would otherwise falloutside the reach of society.

— Its strength is that, if deployed correctly, it has proved an economically viable strategy which hasprofound implications for the learners, their communities and society.

— Paying learners a salary whilst they learn vital technical, social, behavioural and “people” skills isa highly effective intervention strategy which has profound psychological benefits for the recipientsand economic benefits for society ie.

— The £6,500 outlay will reap a “return on investment” (ROI) which will be measured inmultiples of hundred if we consider that every beneficiary who starts a working life of(possibly) upto 50 years, will in that time pay both direct and indirect, national and local taxes.

— This intervention strategy addresses a wide range of objectives.

— Growing youth unemployment.

— Reducing alienation and therefore seeking a definition of “self” by belonging to a gang and/or participating in the flourishing drug culture and business (as a consumer or commercially).

— The need to reach deep into a community to be an “agent of change/intervention”.

— Empowering local people and delivering programmes delivered locally, for local people.

— Helping to regenerate local economies by creating ambassadors and mentors who underpinsocietal goals and its way of life.

— A proven delivery model to help JCPs achieve their goals.

— A perfect partnership.

— Six months has proved an optimum period of time to manage a “behavioural change” programmedesigned to help unemployed young people who have either lost or never had the “work habit”,develop an employment culture and acquire new skills to help them build a career rather than just“have a job”.

— The TAG programme has proved a gateway for young people with the desire, talent and who arebetter suited to work in a “kinaesthetic environment”, rather than a desk bound one.

— We believe in identifying employment opportunities and tailoring programmes which suit theinnate skills and aptitude of a community which has been ill served by existing employmentcreation strategies...which is why they are unemployed with limited prospects of securingemployment.

— FJF has creates role models who highlight that peers in their vulnerable communities can secureemployment, be a respected member of society and enjoy a deep seated level of self confidenceand self esteem which is based on achievement and self actualisation. These role models are thefoundation on which a stable, supportive, caring society and one which is at peace with itself,can thrive.

4.2 Cons— The decision to truncate the programme does not appear (to us) to be based on empirical evidence:

— Did the programme work or did it not.

— Which delivery strategies worked and which failed.

— How was “failure” defined.

— Young people not completing the six month programme.

— Young people not securing a job at the end of it.

— Young people not securing a qualification at the end of the programme.

— Young people not benefiting from a tailored “preparedness for work” programme, whichthey failed to get at school and/or college.

— Young people not benefiting emotionally, psychologically and “professionally” from aprogramme which made them more attractive to potential employers ie gaining aqualification and relevant work experience.

— What was measured.

— The level of “up-skilling” or the fact that participants were off the JCPs books forsix months.

— Has any attitudinal profiling of the participants been conducted.



— If not, how do we know if:

— This intervention strategy has worked.

— Lifelong work habits have been taught, nurtured and grown.

— Participants benefited psychologically, will be less susceptible to stress, depression andmental illness and therefore will help reduce the pressure on an already overstretchedhealth service.

— Anti-social behaviour has been curtailed or prevented from surfacing in a group of peoplewho find it hard to reconcile the schism between the dream sold in magazines, films, etcand the realty of the depravation in their lives.

— Did this social experiment fail, or was it denied the opportunity to prove that a sustainedintervention strategy can succeed at a personal level as well as at a macro-economic level.

— As a deliverer of a FJF programme we do not know whether the achievements of organisations likeus were actually known, understood and played any part in the decision to truncate the initiative.

— No Policy or JCP executives ever visited us to see what we do, how we do it and/or talk toparticipants about their views.

— Did some employers use the FJF to benefit economically? Did they offer participants justrudimentary and possibly unrewarding work experience? Probably. But does the team responsiblefor terminating the programme know who they are and how future employers could be preventedfrom replicating their strategies? Probably not.

— What were the real ROIs, who measured them and when.

— Were the conclusions “statistically significant”.

— Given our own model, why is the partnership between Government, employers and communityled organisations (deemed) not a success and worthy of a sustained investment.

— For operational and administrative reasons, we did not launch our first programme untilJanuary.

— Within a few months of our “launch” we were advised that the strategy had been truncated.

— The results of our model are phenomenal, given the nature of this vulnerable community, butwe have been deprived the opportunity to demonstrate that the strategy is economically viablein the long run.

— Why were participating organisations, like us, not consulted?

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Royal Opera House

1. Summary

— The Royal Opera House (ROH) was awarded Future Jobs Funding as a Lead Accountable Bodyto create 68 job opportunities for long term unemployed young people. This funding enabled theROH to design a unique programme of employment entitled the “Culture Quarter Programme”involving nine other high profile Central London Arts, Cultural and Creative organisations.

— The creative and cultural sector is an important and growing sector of the economy. In Londonalone it employs over half million people, making it London’s 3rd largest employment sector. Thevast majority of those employed in the creative and cultural sector are white graduates.

— The Programme was something of a breakthrough and succeeded completely in matching newwork experience opportunities to young unemployed people, 58% of whom were from non-whitebackgrounds.

— Although not a requirement of the scheme, by committing additional resources in kind the CultureQuarter Programme delivered a comprehensive learning enrichment programme, increasing theyoung peoples’ future employment prospects and soft skills.

— The FJF model has been on the whole a successful programme that was easy for employers toengage with and took into account the needs of the long-term unemployed.

— The decision to end FJF funding will mean more competition for fewer entry-level jobs in thecreative and cultural sector, likely to result in higher youth unemployment.

— Apprenticeships are an excellent vocational route for skilled and technical roles, but a fullapprenticeship framework is overly complex for starting a career in many roles in the sector.

— Young people will only build up the skills necessary for their future careers through actually beingin the workplace; the Work Programme will need to ensure that employers are given guaranteedmeans to fund paid work experience.



2. The Royal Opera House’s commitment to a Diverse Workforce and to Youth Employment

2.1 The Royal Opera House (ROH) is home to the world class artistic companies—Royal Opera and RoyalBallet, and to the ROH2 programme which nurtures new artists and provides a London platform for artisticpartner companies.

2.2 The Royal Opera House is committed to increasing access and participation in the arts for all, both interms of audience and as a career option.

2.3 The creative and cultural sector is an important and growing sector of the economy. In London alone, itemploys over half million people, making it London’s 3rd largest employment sector. The vast majority ofthose employed in the creative and cultural sector are white graduates. The creative and cultural sector isattractive to young people as a career option, often initially drawn to performing roles: where these are notavailable, young people can also see that backstage jobs are intrinsically interesting, rewarding and offercareer pathways.

2.4. The creative and cultural sector as a whole has failed to attract applicants from a diverse background.Various sources indicate that less than 7% of the creative and cultural sector is from a black or multi ethnicbackground.

2.5 The ROH has been committed to addressing this issue through offering work experience andapprenticeship opportunities, and ensuring that access to these schemes is as wide as possible.

2.6 The resources and funds available to provide these opportunities have always been limited, and willbecome increasingly so in future.

2.7 One of the biggest barriers to participation in work experience programmes among disadvantaged groupshas been that the opportunities available are, often, unpaid.

3. Culture Quarter Programme

3.1 The ROH saw the Future Jobs Fund as a mechanism which it could use to address its objectives relatingto diversity in the workplace and to offering paid youth employment opportunities.

3.2 Working in partnership with nine other leading arts organisations the Royal Opera House took the leadin submitting a bid for 68 jobs under the Future Jobs Fund.

3.3 The nine partners are Create KX (Kings Cross Creative Quarter), Design Council, English NationalOpera, ERCG (Exhibition Road Cultural Group), The Hospital Club, National Portrait Gallery, Somerset House,Saint-Martins-in-the- Field and the V&A Museum.

3.4 The Culture Quarter Programme offered 68 new jobs in the arts sector in a range of back office/backstage roles based at one of the partner employer venues, the first intake of 34 job holders commenced in March2010, with a further 34 in October 2010. The jobs covered a range of roles: arts administration, museumconservation, archives and collections, costume, events management, press and communications, finance,development and fund raising, education, facilities management, human resources, visitor services, box office,retail, information technology and web design.

3.5 Alongside their practical in work experience the job holders studied toward an NVQ qualification,attended a weekly programme of seminars to gain an insight into the creative and cultural world as a wholeand were involved in a range of off- the-job training sessions to support their employability skills.

3.6 In addition, the funding enabled the CQP members to develop their own innovative creative project,developing their own creative talents and sharing their experiences of working in the arts back to their peersand local community, serving both to widen access to the art and cultural sector and develop the employee’s“soft skills”. This resulted in a three week arts project in Seven Dials, Covent Garden.

4. ROH response to the Committee’s questions

4.1 The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people

4.1.1 For phase 1 of our recruitment in March 2010 we filled 33 out of 34 jobs, and had only 1 employeedrop out over the course of the six month programme.

4.1.2 We are in the process of recruiting for phase 2 and are confident that we will be able to fill all the jobson offer.

4.1.3 With an average age of 22, 58% of those appointed are from a non-white background, 55% are non-graduates. This represents a far more diverse profile than the traditional pattern of creative and cultural sectorrecruitment trends.

4.1.4 New paid job opportunities were opened up by organisations that had not previously engaged with thelong term unemployed youth sector.



4.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (including in the thirdsector), employers and young unemployed people, and particularly in relation to the long-term sustainabilityof employment opportunities

The FJF programme is essentially a sound concept, but there were some weaknesses which we had to addressin the design of our CQ programme:

4.2.1 Strengths

— The single most important factor in the success of the FJF was that it provided sufficient moniesto fully fund the employment costs of job holders for six months.

— There was some funding available in excess of the base employment costs to enable us to coversome of the costs of a skills development programme for the young people.

— Working in a consortium of employers from the same sector allowed the programme to provide afar larger overall impact; acting as the lead organisation, the ROH was able to harness resourcesand training for FJF employees that would not have been possible working in isolation.

— Partner employers found it useful to have a lead organisation to manage the project, andcommented that this made the involvement in the programme possible—they would have beenunlikely to have constructed a successful programme as an individual employer.

— At a time when budgets were tight, participating organisations were able to increase their capacityto deliver creative initiatives.

— Part time work as opposed to full time jobs were a useful way of easing the long-term unemployedinto work.

— A six month contract was the right amount of time for the arrangement to be equally valuable forboth the employee and the employing organisation.

— FJF employees commented that the CQ Programme was crucial in getting them out of the cycleof being unable to get work because they can’t get experience and being unable to get experiencebecause they can’t get work.

4.2.2 Weaknesses

— An off-the-job enrichment programme was a not a specific requirement of the FJF funding. Wesaw this as a weakness and by committing additional resources in kind were able to develop avaluable and worthwhile support programme. This was the one element which our FJF holdersrated as being very valuable.

— During the bidding process the definition of what “community benefit” involved was not clear.

— The requirement to provide work for a minimum of 25 hours per week was an operationaldifficulty. A working week of 24 hours (three full days of eight hours per day) would have provenmore practicable.

4.3 The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

4.3.1 The Culture Quarter Programme will end in March 2011 and the Programme will cease unlessalternative sources of funding can be identified. Given other funding pressures, none of the partners are in aposition to fund the scheme from within existing budgets.

4.3.2 The entry level job market is becoming increasingly competitive for young people; the decision to endFuture Jobs Fund will mean youth unemployment is likely to increase, particularly amongst more vulnerablegroups who are less “job ready” for the current labour market.

4.4 How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be playedby the Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships.

4.4.1 The creative and cultural sector is fractured into thousands of small and medium sized enterprises.Only through a partnership approach like the Culture Quarter Programme are we able to take on a large scaleinitiative like a bid to the Work Programme. Such a partnership approach will require an initial injection ofseed funding and sector support to enable one of the larger organisations, like the Royal Opera House, to takethe lead.

4.4.2 The Royal Opera House has been an early adopter and promoter of apprenticeships within the artssector, and has a scheme in place which has supported nine apprentices to date. Our view is that the 2–3 yearapprenticeship route is a suitable pathway for the highly skilled technical stage and production craft careerpathways but is a too complex route for many backstage roles. In many areas an intensive six month paidperiod of on job experience, supported by NVQs, is all that is required to set young people on track to a careerin the creative and cultural sector.



5. Conclusions

The single most important factor in the success of the FJF was that it provided sufficient monies to fullyfund the employment costs of job holders for six months. Any future scheme which fails to deliver on thatbasic level of support will prove less successful. That commitment enabled us to engage with partner employerswho would otherwise have been reticent to be involved in a potentially expensive initiative, while it enabledus to engage with and recruit from a pool of disadvantaged young people who might ordinarily be excludedfrom career opportunities in the creative and cultural sector.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

1. Introduction2. Barnsley Council is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to your enquiry into Youth

Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) and at the same time explain why our innovativescheme is a success.

3. Barnsley has been hit hard by the recession and the FJF programme is part of our response to itseffects. It is providing some of our most disadvantaged young people as well the older long-termunemployed with work experience, skills and knowledge which are raising motivation levels andengendering a work ethic which was lacking in some cases.

4. We believe there are many lessons to be learnt from FJF particularly as the country starts to emergefrom the recession and many unemployed people of all ages are seeking to get back into the labourmarket. We also strongly believe that the innovative programme put together by Barnsley Council andits partners can provide many of those lessons.

5. As well as this written evidence Councillor Stephen Houghton who chaired the Tackling WorklessnessReview (Tackling Worklessness: A Review of the contribution and role of English local authoritiesand partnerships March 2009) would like the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Work andPension Committee Inquiry

Background1. Like many other local authorities the number of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance in Barnsley

increased steeply in 2008 and 2009 and young people have been particularly affected. In addition,there are 16,000 people claiming Incapacity Benefit/Employment Support Allowance. Two thirds havebeen claiming for over two years, over a half are less than 35 years of age and an increasing numberpresent with mental health issues.

2. Councillor Stephen Houghton the Leader of Barnsley Council, was instrumental in the establishmentof the Future Jobs Fund, which was one of a number of recommendation in his report The Review ofWorklessness, established by the previous administration. Many of his findings have been taken up byBarnsley and other authorities as a way of tackling worklessness, addressing the structural difficultiesthat faced partners as they struggled to deal with the large numbers of out of work claimants andsought ways of working with long-term unemployed people to re-integrate them back into the labourmarket.

Summary1. Key to the success of Barnsley’s Future Jobs Fund programme was the personalisation of the service

to the individual achieved through the initial assessment which ensured people were placed with theright employers and then provided with a personal journey while on the programme

2. Individuals were given a real taste of work experience through the offer of up to twelve months onthe programme and the opportunity to obtain a level two qualification. This offer was possible becauseall partners agreed to match fund the government funding.

3. Genuine partnership working was instrumental in ensuring the success of the programme, maintainedthrough monthly strategic and operational meetings.

4. A variety of job roles ensured we had a wide menu of opportunities from employers to match thecapabilities of people with a range of skills and work experience from those with no/low skills tograduate level attainment.

5. The impact of ending the programme a year early will result in the loss of employment opportunities,particularly in the private sector which is where we need to work and support businesses to createmore jobs.

6. FJF is a locally based programme. Designed and managed locally by those organisations who knowthe area and its people. The Work Programme will be managed by national prime contractors whomust genuinely engage local partners who have many years experience of their particular area.

7. It is vitally important that lessons learnt/best practice from FJF are transferred into the newapprenticeship programme.



8. Where apprenticeships are filled by mainly younger people, there should be scope to address the issueof older long-term unemployed people moving from sickness benefits to Job Seekers Allowance.

The Barnsley Future Jobs Fund Programme1. We believe that we have created an innovative FJF programme and have taken the opportunity to

describe the key points below as a programme held up by many as a beacon of good practice beforedealing with the questions posed by the Inquiry.

2. Like other programmes, the Barnsley FJF is predominantly a programme for 18–24 year olds,unemployed beyond 39 weeks plus residents of any age living in areas of high unemployment withinthe borough. Councillor Houghton went to great length to have it agreed that we could operate a 50/50 split between young people and hotspot residents in recognition of the high numbers of IBclaimants. The core objective of the programme is to create employment opportunities with trainingfor candidates for 6 months.

3. We knew from knowledge of our clients and their multiple barriers that we needed innovativeapproaches to ensure motivation, participation and retention. That is why Barnsley committed tocreating real jobs for up to 12 months to benefit the local community. Government funding for theFuture Jobs Fund programme has been match-funded by the council and other partners. This meansthat all FJF employees will be able to remain in their jobs for up to 50 weeks, thereby significantlyincreasing their employability with local private sector businesses

The principles of our innovative approach to making the programme a success can be summed up as:

1. A range of different types of employers and employment opportunities sufficiently broad enough tocater for a range of people with no, or low skills to those with more advanced skills and qualificationsuch as graduates.

2. Agreement by all employers to match fund and facilitate up to 50 weeks employment and experience

3. All partners have agreed to use a simple, single application form with generic terms and conditionswhich are adapted to suit individual organisations requirements. This has provided people with themotivation to apply for multiple jobs—with the consequence that they have received multiple joboffers.

4. Advertisement of vacancies and initial interview with Job Centre Advisers.

5. Pre-recruitment training for all candidates prior to start dates funded by Barnsley TUC Training Ltd.Provided to all candidates at job offer stage just before they begin work the sessions help the candidatewith the transition from long-term unemployment into a job and provide an opportunity for them tohave any last minute questions answered.

6. Initial assessment of skills to allow a bespoke training package to be developed; both Skills for Lifeand Vocational.

7. In-work training and Day release to study for vocational qualifications up to NVQ level 2 incorporatingbasic literacy, numeracy and information technology where required.

8. Pastoral care through individual mentoring to address ongoing barriers to work to help the clientaddress any in work problems or barriers and help broker solutions. Assignment of a personal mentorfunded by Working Neighbourhoods Fund

9. Mandatory half day per week job search, training in CV building and interview skills, including howand where to look for jobs ensuring people leaving the programme are equipped with the necessaryskills and qualifications to compete in the jobs market, thereby increasing the legacy of FJF.

10. IT based tracker system, updated in real time to show destinations and outcomes.

11. In short our extensive wraparound care and 12 month job guarantee have ensured wide participation;competitive interviews for every job advertised and are crucial to Barnsley’s successful FJFprogramme.

Outcomes and Impact1. The scheme went live in October 2009. By December 2009, 164 people had been recruited to FJF jobs.

2. Over 430 will have been employed by October 2010; over 100 of these will have gained an NVQlevel 2, 150 will have achieved Skills for life qualifications and over 100 will have moved into fulltime employment by March 2011 possibly increasing as new employers are committing to joboutcomes.

3. Barnsley has achieved a 50/50 split between young people and hotspot employees, this in real termsequates to a minimum of 322 young people. As a Lead Accountable Body we will look to recruitmore young people than hotspot participants.

4. The partnership set a target of six weeks from job advert to employment and to date that target hasbeen met. .

5. Over the two years, 412 jobs will be created within the Council, 162 in the wider public and voluntarysectors and 40 jobs in the private sector.



6. The pre-employment day has been the principal key to helping people deal with the difficult transitionfrom long-term unemployment into a job

7. A positive working relationship with Job Centre Plus and delivery partners has been in place from thestart of the programme. Monthly strategic and operational meetings are held.

8. The benefit to participants is the offer of a real job for up to a year, with quality training andwraparound services. This has been the single biggest success factor.

9. The Barnsley FJF programme has proved that local partnerships working closely together are able todeliver real benefits to local areas, based on their in-depth knowledge and expertise built up overmany years.

The following sections sets out Barnsley’s response to the specific questions the Committee have for theirinquiry.

1. The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunitiesto Young Unemployed People.

1. We have offered a wide and varied job portfolio increasing the range of opportunities as newemployers have joined the partnership. We have developed low skilled entry level jobs through tomore complex roles to meet the expectations and skill levels of clients.

2. Each candidate has the opportunity of up to 50 weeks employment and the opportunity to gain relevantqualifications including NVQ’s and Skills for Life (Literacy, Numeracy and Computer Skills) whichthey would not have the chance to get under the six months offer. This additional six months thereforemakes them more attractive to an employer.

3. Our programme is successful because of its unique nature to other FJF programmes. Barnsley’s FJFstarts with a long term job at least minimum wage which raises the applicant’s confidence and esteem.The programme is individualised to the employee by an initial assessment which personalises theindividual’s journey with us. The other wrap around care has been instrumental in a low drop off ratedesigned to lessen the impact of long term unemployment in to employment. During their employmentthey are encouraged to seek employment off the programme; over 100 will have been successful byMarch 2011. Over 400 employees will have gained a relevant NVQ level 2 and over 150 gainingskills for life qualifications which alongside the work experience will enhance their employmentopportunities.

4. The Barnsley programme has been successful and will have created 644 new work experienceopportunities through a wide sectoral mix of organisations involved in the programme and a strongpartnership working

2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities.

Strengths— Local knowledge of the clients and their needs/barriers.

— Experience of managing previous work programmes.

— Strong relationships with social enterprises and Third Sector organisations.

— Strong partnership working and partnership commitment.

— Good relationship with Job Centre Plus.

— The ability to be flexible and innovative.

— Variety of job roles.

— Variety of training opportunities with industry recognised qualifications.

— Regional networking and sharing of best practice.

— Barnsley’s “wraparound” care.

1. A particular strength of Barnsley’s FJF programme has been the genuine partnership working,particularly from the third sector and social enterprises, who increased their capacity, strengthenedtheir sustainability and delivered more services to the community through their participation andcommitment to the programme.

2. The different public sector organisations (NHS, PCT, Local Authority) have worked together toprovide a wide variety of work experience and training opportunities to some of the moredisadvantaged individuals across Barnsley which has increased their employability.

3. Young and older unemployed people have been given the opportunity to motivate themselvesthrough gaining valuable work experience, obtain a relevant qualification and increase their jobsearch skills by learning where and how to look for jobs in the future with increased confidence.

4. We have many testimonials from the people we have worked with and the two case studies below



are a reflection of what people have told us and how the programme helped to turn people’slives around.

Case study 11. Joanne had been unemployed for six years before joining FJF last October. “I didn’t have the

confidence, or the skills, to apply for work. But FJF doesn’t discriminate against your background andI found that everyone was very supportive—from the engagement team and managers I worked withto the local Councillors I met.

2. She completed the scheme this summer, gaining a NVQ2 in Customer Service, IT skills in wordprocessing, spreadsheet and email applications, plus English and Maths qualifications. Her FJF postinvolved community engagement work followed by a spell at the Central Library where she helpedpeople with no previous experience get to grips with computers and the internet.

3. Her time on the programme and experience gained ensured she was successful in applying for apermanent post within the Library Service. Her new role includes helping customers use the internetfor tasks like job search and travel enquiries, and answering general enquiries.

Case study 21. Sharon was an unemployed single mum who hadn’t worked since having the first of her three children

in 2000. Despite the personal rewards of raising a young family, the demands on her time and energyhad left her feeling isolated at home and lacking the confidence to tackle paid employment.

2. Now, she has benefited from the confidence of eight months’ paid employment with FJF—achievingthe first formal qualifications of her life—to secure a permanent, full-time job as a care assistant at anursing home as well as an NVQ level 2 in customer Care. “After you’ve been out of the workplacefor so long, the programme gives you the confidence to think, ‘Yes, I can do this,’ while the incomemeans you start to get your financial independence back.”

Weaknesses:1. The restrictions of creating posts that must be additional, of community benefit and lack of engagement

with the private sector for the same reason has proved difficult for partners to fully engage. Manyorganisations have indicated that they would have liked the opportunity to create new posts supportingexisting operations.

2. We have not been able to provide opportunities within the programme for continued employmentother than through learning job search techniques and applying for vacancies within partnerorganisations and the private sector.

3. Early closure of the programme minimises the chance of the programme reaching its full potential.

3. The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012.

1. Partners and Lead Accountable Bodies have had to bring opportunities forward to meet the newdeadline, this will restrict opportunities as developing new and innovative roles will be hindered.

2. As efforts switch elsewhere resources will inevitably follow and there is the danger that outputs andoutcomes will not be met

3. We would have had time to increase the number of private sector partners (and roles) to replace jobsopportunities lost in the public sector.

4. W e would welcome the opportunity to work with the new government to influence changes to theprogramme, building on our innovative and successful programme and taking ideas forward into theSingle Programme, in anticipation that best practice could have been replicated.

5. Uncertainties and lack of information over the “Single Programme” will encourage organisations towork in isolation rather than partnership.

6. Partners in the voluntary, community and third sectors would have had time to build capacity in theirorganisation to be able to take on contracts becoming available from the new programme.

7. If the programme had run to 2012 we could have influenced changes to the programme to engage theprivate sector to create jobs in growth areas. Partners would have been able to vary roles reflectingchanges to the public sector reductions.

4. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed. Including the part tobe played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships.

1. FJF has been a locally based programme whose successes or otherwise have been linked to localdesign and management. The work programme will fall to national bidders who may decide to delivera “one size fits all” programme. This will not work

2. FJF partners will lose some autonomy as prime contractors are likely to be major organisations andlocal partnerships will contract through the primes instead of directly with DWP.



3. FJF provided six months funding to organisations that participated in the programme. Considerationcould be given to some type of subsidy for SMEs that take on apprentices.

4. DWP must take note of what has worked and where it has worked on FJF to avoid replicatingpreviously failed schemes.

5. If the apprentice posts are predominantly filled by younger people there is an argument to continuewith a quality work programme for older long term unemployed clients moving from sickness benefitsto Job Seekers Allowance.

6. The lessons learned from FJF should be transferred to the apprenticeship scheme. The importance ofa pre work information session to allay fears re the transition from benefit to employment and in workmentoring for both the participants and their employers.

7. Apprenticeships will remove one of the main obstacles to FJF; it will be open to private sectoremployers without the restrictions based on community benefits.

8. Apprenticeship should be marketed to all ages. In areas of high deprivation there are significantnumbers of people on sickness related benefits (16,000 in Barnsley). The introduction of the capabilityassessments for existing recipients will lead to many needing support into work. An FJF experiencewould have offered that transitional support and given them a work record to help remove the doubtsof new employers recruiting someone who has a history on a long term sickness benefit.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by South London Business

Summary of response from South London Business

Since December 2009 SLB has received funding from the Future Jobs Fund and has been successful inproviding employment for over 200 18–24 year olds in a 10 month period.

SLB welcomes the opportunity to respond to this inquiry and asks that the committee considers tworecommendations that the Work Programme or future employment schemes should consider:

Recommendation 1: The Work Programme and other future schemes aimed at getting 18–24 year olds intoemployment should offer real work opportunities with a genuine employer. This is based around the principlesof establishing an intermediary labour market where employers like SLB are prepared and able to deal withthe challenges that the long term unemployed present. A programme like the Future Jobs Fund that supportsintermediary employers such as SLB to take on long term unemployed young people is needed even more inthe current climate.

Recommendation 2: Getting the long term unemployed back into work needs to take into considerationissues of employability such as attendance, punctuality, presentation and attitude. Employers recruit for attitudeand train for skills. The Future Jobs Fund scheme enabled the issue of employability to be tackled in a realwork environment. Future schemes need to recognise that for an employer these issues are as important astechnical skills.

1. South London Business (SLB) promotes and supports businesses in south London and attracts newinvestment into the area. SLB delivers business services and support as well as schemes to help the unemployedinto work.

2. Since December 2009 SLB has received funding from the Future Jobs Fund and has been successful inproviding employment for over 200 18–24 year olds who have been unemployed for six months and in somecases have never held down a permanent job.

3. By March 2011 when the scheme ends the figure will be over 300.

4. SLB welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into YouthUnemployment and the Future Jobs Fund.

5. Specifically SLB’s response relates to the first two elements of the inquiry—the extent to which the FutureJobs Fund has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people and thestrengths of the scheme.

Recommendation 1: Offering Real Work Opportunities to Young People with GenuineEmployers

6. In December 2009 SLB secured funding from the Future Jobs Fund to find 315 people trainingopportunities by March 2011.

7. SLB has used this funding to establish an innovative and successful programme which offers real workopportunities with genuine employers who are aware of and willing to deal with the challenges that the longterm unemployed present.



8. These challenges include a total lack of experience in the world of work for some and for others anabsence of basic employability skills. In addition a number of the recruits brought with them a range ofcomplex personal issues.

9. Using funding from the Future Jobs Fund SLB directly employs the new recruits for a six-month period.During this time they are based at SLB’s Croydon headquarters where they are trained to carry out a range ofoffice tasks including business administration, events co-ordination, and outreach work.

10. This also involves placements with other organisations in London working with local businessesincluding local councils in some of the London boroughs as well as voluntary and community groups and localbusinesses in both the public and private sectors.

11. Working closely with Croydon Job Centre and other Job Centres, SLB has been able to provide a widevariety of employment opportunities to recruits that without the funding from the Future Jobs Fund they wouldnot have been able to access.

12. During the first three months almost 60 Future Jobs Fund employees were successfully employed withinpublic and private sector organisations keen to give young people the opportunity to develop their skills. Thisnumber has continued to grow as more placements have been found and more recruits have registered forthe scheme.

13. These work placements enable recruits to make a real difference to the community by working withinvoluntary and community groups and small businesses as well as social enterprises while also gaining valuableskills and employment.

14. The programme is in effect in the establishment of an intermediary labour market (provided by SLB)which enables on the job training for unemployed young people. This has ensured the successful matching ofwork experience opportunities with young unemployed people using funding solely from the Future Jobs Fund.

15. The new recruits’ time with SLB provides them with genuine work experience, a reference, improvedskills and enhanced employability.

16. SLB also offers assistance to all those that complete the six month programme in finding furtheremployment.

17. SLB’s proven success in delivering this programme, working with placement employers and youngpeople demonstrates the importance of genuine work rather than an unfocused preparation for work trainingcourse. The best way to learn about the world of work is to have a job. SLB provided this through the FutureJobs Fund.

18. SLB believes that simply providing preparation for work and hoping for an employer to turn up to takeon the unemployed is both excessively optimistic in a recession and ineffective. A programme like the FutureJobs Fund that supports intermediary employers such as SLB to take on long term unemployed young peopleis therefore needed even more in the current climate.

Recommendation 2: Identifying and Developing Skills and Potential is part of SecuringTraining Opportunities for Young People

19. Employers generally hold the same view in that they recruit for attitude and train for skills.

20. The Future Jobs Fund has enabled SLB to address this issue by challenging poor levels of employabilityskills and attitude in a real work environment but with the intention of helping the young person through theprocess. This was not a soft option but it was supportive.

21. SLB deals with the challenges of attitude and behaviour which make it very difficult for a person whohas been long term unemployed to secure or maintain employment unless they can go through an intermediaryemployer such as SLB.

22. This includes the simplest of lessons in keeping a job such as turning up to work each day, time keeping,appropriate use of mobile phones, basic office skills and telephone manner.

23. As an intermediary employer SLB has tackled these issues by sound management and the application ofthe sanctions, when absolutely necessary, which apply in the world of work. It is not simply a case of training.

24. In combining training opportunities and employment skills this allows recruits to build both theirportfolio of experience and to enhance their future employment potential.

25. Any future schemes including the Work Programme need to consider this and ensure that developingthese employability skills is made possible alongside on the job training.

10 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Somerset County Council

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 As Lead Accountable Body for Somerset’s Future Jobs Fund project, Somerset County Council issubmitting evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund.

1.2 This evidence includes commentary from key colleagues, employers and employees with particularinterest in the outcomes of FJF for young people and the strengths and weaknesses of the FJF Programme.

1.3 Somerset County Council considers: the provision of information; engagement of young people withemployers; and the length of the programme to be key to securing long-term sustainability of employment foryoung people.

1.4 Somerset County Council has made a number of recommendations that we hope will be considered bythe Select Committee.

2.0 Introduction

2.1 This submission to the Work and Pensions Committee has been prepared by Helen Waring, SomersetFJF Officer and Natalie House, Senior Policy Officer—Employment and Skills. Officers and Members arecommitted to securing improved employment and skills outcomes for Somerset and wish to share ourexperiences of FJF to inform this inquiry.

2.2 SCC has a particular interest in this inquiry as Lead Accountable Body (LAB) for a County-widepartnership project awarded £377,000 from the FJF to create 58 jobs between February 2010 and 31 July 2010and an additional £104,000 to create 16 jobs between July 2010 and January 2011.

2.3 This submission focuses specifically on the “strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme” andtouches on “the extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities toyoung unemployed people”.

2.4 This submission has been compiled with evidence provided by SCC, as LAB, with supporting evidenceobtained from employers and employees for the purpose of this inquiry.

3.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme

3.1 Strengths

3.1.1 FJF acted as an enabler, and provided the financial incentive for employers to create new employmentopportunities in a challenging economic climate. Local employer Somerset Film cited the need for additionalstaff but had no bottom line to recruit, whilst Victoria Park Community Centre commented on the affordabilityof FJF recruitment for employers.

3.1.2 Jobs were ring-fenced so, despite high numbers of eligible candidates, competition for jobs wasreduced.

3.1.3 Furthermore, FJF provided an opportunity to challenge the recruitment culture of local businesses,encouraging them to invest in enthusiastic young people, perhaps without the experience and qualificationsusually sought in more competitive recruitment processes and dispelling the misconceptions some employersmay have regarding the employment of young people. FJF has been essential in giving young people a chance.One employee at Somerset Film said it was “a chance to gain an amazing job that would otherwise have beenunavailable to me”.

3.1.4 The support and development requirement of FJF has ensured that employees develop the confidenceand skills to secure sustainable employment. In one case, these skills have been developed to such an extentthat the employee now has the confidence to seek work in London. A number of employees have reflected onFJF as a very positive experience: “a great opportunity to work somewhere really inspiring…. should help meget into the job market more easily”. Their employer added “in this industry [Creative] it is almost impossibleto progress without work experience and whilst we provide as many opportunities as possible…. FJF allowedus to do this on a much larger and more meaningful scale”.

3.1.5 FJF provided the finance and flexibility, for partners to capitalise on their local experience andknowledge, tailoring aspects of local delivery to the needs of Somerset’s young jobseekers.

3.1.6 Working Neighbourhoods Fund was able to add value to jobs created through FJF in West Somersetand demonstrated the commitment of partners in linking funding streams and activities to maximise the benefitsof this programme, i.e. through an extension of employment opportunities.

3.1.7 Employers have been equally committed to extending employment opportunities where possible.Victoria Park Community Centre has three FJF employees and, based on their performance, have everyintention of making them permanent employees. “We have secured three very good candidates that I am surewill have a future with us…. (this) of course depends on our finances…. I am however hopeful for the future”.ViSTA and Mendip Care and Repair have also made firm commitments to the future of their FJF employees



who will continue to be employed on apprenticeship schemes. Employees are yet to reach their six months ofemployment through FJF; we are therefore unable to confirm how many positions will translate into sustainableemployment until the end of March 2011 when our contract with DWP comes to an end.

3.1.8 Overall FJF has given a much needed boost to the young people of Somerset who have finallyexperienced just how rewarding, exciting and fulfilling a job can be. It is impossible to measure the real benefitto their confidence, skills and their CV in the short-term, but this experience will undoubtedly put them in amuch better position to secure sustainable employment in an increasingly competitive jobs market.

3.2 Weaknesses

3.2.1 FJF was perhaps overly prescriptive in determining who was supported and when, and did not allowlocal partnerships to focus funding entirely on local need. On a couple of occasions employers were proactiveabout filling their vacancies and found an individual, who they thought would be perfect, only to be told thatthey had not been claiming JSA long enough or were just a few months too old. At least one vacancy was notfilled by the deadline and a more flexible approach to the eligibility criteria during the last few weeks couldhave resulted in more job starts.

3.2.2 It was apparent that not all individuals referred to an FJF post were “job ready”. We have had asignificant number of comments from our employers who have repeatedly said that an application wasn’tcompleted properly or the applicant wasn’t prepared for an interview. Victoria Park Community Centre stated“98% of those I have interviewed certainly needed interview preparation and interview skills training”.

3.2.3 FJF highlighted approaches and practices that neither supported the employer nor the employee. Onesuch example is in the quantity and quality of information a Jobcentre Plus advisor received regarding a FJFvacancy. Detailed job descriptions and person specifications were condensed to such an extent that advisorsand individuals were unclear what the vacancy was and the nature of the employer.

3.2.4 Employees and employers have stated that six months employment wasn’t enough. One employee atSomerset Film, who cannot be supported beyond six months, said “it’s just a shame I can’t stay for longer asI have begun to develop some good new systems for them and some good relationships with other staff”. It isalso a great disappointment for the manager at Somerset Film who also said “we are all quite devastated thatwe cannot afford to keep any of our new recruits on, whilst they have made themselves indispensable, theyhave not significantly increased our income generating capacity. Things of course may have been differentwere we not in a deep recession”.

4.0 The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunitiesto Young Unemployed People

4.1 As per 3.2.3, JCP advisors’ limited knowledge of FJF posts and the employers prevented them from“selling” the jobs to prospective applicants in the Jobcentres.

4.2 Whilst FJF had a degree of success in facilitating the creation of “new jobs” locally the matching ofindividuals and employment opportunities was reliant on other local interventions, for example meet theemployer events. These proved most useful in increasing understanding of the vacancies on offer and generatingmore interest from jobseekers. Informal interviews and job offers were made in a number of cases and manyof our vacancies were filled as a result of the events. We believe this is due to the relaxed and informalatmosphere in which employers and potential applicants could meet and the additional information madeavailable to both parties.

4.3 FJF did not help to address the local need in terms of barriers to work. The rural nature of Somersetresults in an increased need to travel, both to and from work and often as an integral part of a job role. Thecost of travel and access to public transport proved to be an issue for a number of employees wishing totake up posts. Transport was therefore an added barrier to successfully matching eligible candidates to theirideal jobs.

4.4 The pressure to create jobs “on profile” compromised the quality of some job matches. In particular, inrespect of the time available to Jobcentre Plus Advisors to consider an individual’s job preferences, skills andavailability of jobs.

5.0 Recommendations

5.1 We accept the need for public expenditure to be reduced, and welcome the Coalition government’s deficitreduction programme, which includes reducing expenditure on schemes such as FJF. However, if additionalfunding could be found for a scheme similar to FJF, we would recommend that any future programme providessupport for twelve months of employment, preferably through a 50% employer subsidy rather than 100%funded.

5.1.1 For employers this will:

— Increase commitment to invest in the support and development of their employees.

— Provide more time to explore opportunities to finance the continuation of employment.



— Provide consistency of employment.

5.1.2 For employees this will:

— Give sufficient time to prove their value to the employer.

— Provide greater chances of securing sustainable employment as we expect the economy toenter a stronger phase of recovery.

— Allow for six months of induction, familiarisation and basic skills development with a furthersix months of “real” application.

5.2 Use “Meet the Employer” events within the Jobcentres to provide employees with more informationabout local employers and their vacancies and an informal interview opportunity for employers.

5.3 Continue with direct funding to local partnerships to ensure that programmes can be tailored to meetlocal need and respond to the needs of employers.

5.4 Regardless of what happens next it is important that the experiences and learning from FJF is not lost.In particular those elements of the programme that have done most for employees in terms of their confidenceand enhanced skills, and for employers, in terms of their recruitment practices and commitment to youngpeople.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Wigan Council

1. Summary

1.1. In Wigan, we have had considerable success in matching young unemployed people to workexperience opportunities.

1.2. A key strength of the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) programme is the flexibility to add value to the standardprogramme through match funding. In Wigan, we have used Working Neighbourhoods Fund to extend thelength of the employment beyond six months to enable FJF employees to achieve NVQ Level 2 and 3qualifications.

1.3. A weakness in the programme are the restrictions applied to jobs created within the private sector whichwe see as a missed opportunity to convert posts to full time permanent positions.

1.4. The impact of ending FJF 12 months earlier than planned will result in a substantial increase inunemployment amongst people aged 18 to 24.

1.5. There is an opportunity for FJF to evolve into a pre-apprenticeship scheme to ensure that disadvantagedindividuals have the required skills and experience to compete for full apprenticeship positions.

2. FJF in Wigan

2.1. Wigan Council is a partner in the Greater Manchester FJF Programme which aims to create and fill8,000 jobs. In Wigan, we will have created and filled 565 FJF posts by March 2011. At the end of August2010 we had created and filled 305 FJF posts.

2.2. Working Neighbourhoods Fund has been used in Wigan to provide 100% match with DWP moneyfor FJF. Wigan is the only Local Authority within the Greater Manchester programme to 100% match theDWP funding.

2.3. Wigan is working with five partners who provide the employment infrastructure for FJF employees. Thepartners also play a key role in job creation and development within public, third and private sector hosts. Todate, jobs have been created in over 40 different organisations offering a tremendous variety of opportunity.

3. The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunitiesto Young Unemployed People

3.1. This has worked well in Wigan due to the very close relationship between the JC+ advisors and the ouremployment partners. There is continuous communication between Job Centre + (JC+) advisors and the partnermanaging the recruitment process on behalf of the host organisation as vacancies are developed, submitted andgo live to ensure the most appropriate JC+ customers are referred to the vacancy.

3.2. There has been considerable success in working with host employers to ensure that a more flexibleapproach to recruitment for FJF. This is particularly relevant within Local Authority posts when host managerswanted to apply the full HR recruitment procedure for FJF. This was not practical and would have discriminatedagainst many young unemployed due to unachievable person specifications, intensive interview panels andassessment tasks.

3.3. The key to the success of FJF in Wigan is to set realistic expectations both with the host employer andthe FJF employee. For the employer it is about providing opportunity not about securing staff at little or no



cost. For the employee, it is about taking the opportunity and to gain experience and qualifications to makethem more employable at the end of their job.

4. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

4.1. A key strength of the programme is the relative flexibility to create many different jobs includingtraditional ILM roles, administrative posts, trainee technical roles and outreach type activity. A further strengthof the programme is the flexibility to add value to the job through matching FJF with other sources of fundingsuch as Working Neighbourhoods Fund. In Wigan, this has enabled us to extend many of the posts to 12months to give the FJF employees the appropriate amount of time to achieve NVQ Level 2 and even Level 3qualifications. The variety of posts we have created in Wigan together with the added value from match fundinghave ensured that the posts are very popular with young unemployed and we have very few leavers fromthe programme.

4.2. The obvious weakness with the programme are the restrictions relating to FJF jobs created within theprivate sector. In Wigan, we have created some posts with private sector companies, but not as many as wecould have. We understand the reasons why FJF was not fully opened up to the private sector but we do believeit is a missed opportunity. Under the current economic climate with the public sector, very few (if any) of thecurrent FJF posts will be converted to full time permanent appointments. However, there are increasing numbersof vacancies within the private sector. Had FJF been fully available to the private sector, then potentially manysuch posts could have been converted to permanent positions as the economy improves.


5.1. The impact in Wigan of this decision will be an increase in unemployment amongst 18 to 24 year olds.The FJF Programme started operating in Wigan in January 2010. By the end of July, we had employed 257young people. In the same period, unemployment numbers within 18 to 24 year olds reduced by 20.5%compared to an overall reduction in unemployment numbers of 16.81%. Without FJF, unemployment numbersamongst 18 to 24 year olds would have reduced by 12.97%.

6. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part tobe played by the Government’s proposal to fund New Apprenticeships.

6.1. There is the suggestion in the Government’s proposals for funding of new apprenticeships that employersmay be expected to pay more. If this is the case, then employers will seek to gain fast return on their investmentin apprenticeships. They are unlikely to recruit apprentices who are unable to demonstrate the required skillsimmediately and the Government’s “Skills for Sustainable Growth” consultation document recognises this. Theconsultation also invites views on how this issue could be addressed. In that context, there is the potential forFJF to evolve into a pre-apprentice model with the specific objective of ensuring beneficiaries develop theappropriate skills and achieve the relevant qualifications for a full apprenticeship. The FJF model implementedin Wigan could very quickly and cost effectively be adapted to meet this need.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by County Durham Council

Introduction

Durham County Council welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence as part of the Work and PensionsCommittee’s first inquiry into Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund (FJF). This response reflectsDurham County Council’s views and our experiences of managing and delivering FJF. The response highlights:

— County Durham approach to FJF.

— Key successes and strengths.

— Case studies.

— Implementation issues and key challenges.

— Areas for consideration and improvement.

Tackling employability, deprivation and regenerating our communities, alongside wealth generation is a highpriority for the County. A fundamental component of achieving our ambitions of sustainable places wherepeople want to live, work, invest and visit, is enabling our young population to become competitive andsuccessful. Through targeted interventions like FJF it has been possible for the Council to provide the supportand real job experience that many young people who are not in education, employment or training need.

Although successes have been enabled through the FJF and other Area Based Grant funded initiatives westill have significant numbers of young people not in employment that face many barriers to securing a job—the journey is far from complete! As we enter a period of constrained public finances, it is particularly important



that we are clear, targeted and know what works to support youth employment within the County. We supportthis enquiry, await its outcomes and strongly believe that targeted support for young people must continue.

County Durham’s Approach to FJF

Since the announcement of the successful Tyne and Wear City Region Future Jobs Fund bid in September2009, Durham County Council has worked with a variety of employers and partners like Job Centre Plus andConnexions to create job opportunities as part of the Young Person’s Guarantee. The programme within theCounty aims to create over 1,000 job placements by March 2011. The FJF programme has in excess of£2 million FJF resources and a further £0.5 million allocated from Working Neighbourhoods Fund to maximisethe scope of the FJF programme. This has provided a total budget of £2.5 million up to March 2011.

The programme is managed by a small team of staff within the Economic Regeneration Team in theEconomic Development Service at Durham County Council. These staff have extensive experience of managingand implementing a variety of employability focused programmes funded through Working NeighbourhoodsFund, Neighbourhood Renewal Funding and Single Regeneration Budget. The FJF team liaises and co-ordinatewith employers to create job opportunities and with JCP who check the eligibility of prospective employersand employees.

Key Successes and Strengths

The list below highlights they key successes of the programme to date:

— Provided much needed “real” job opportunities for young people within the County.

— Achieved over 375 job starts18.

— Currently hold over 287 “live” vacancies.

— Currently have over 507 proposed positions within the public, private and third sector.

— Working Neighbourhoods Fund secured as match funding.

— Additional funding has allowed employers to offer a “real wage” to job-seekers, above the £6,500available to employers over the initial six month fixed term period and provide longer termopportunities.

— Job opportunities provided in a variety of sectors from neighbourhood wardens to receptionists.

— Driven by the needs and skills of the individual not the employer, however provide added skillsand resource benefit for all employers.

— Over 120 job opportunities have been created by the third sector.

— Durham County Council has provided over 100 jobs, particular success has been within theNeighbourhoods Service Grouping.

— Delivered wider community benefits.

— Enabled partnership approach between the public, private and third sectors.

— Provided a better link between supply and demand in the labour market.

Case Studies

Many employment opportunities have been created through third sector organisations, who have eitherprovided direct job creation or have acted an “employment hosts” by seconding individuals to smallerorganisations. An example of this arrangement has been provided by East Durham Partnership.

Third Sector Job Placement

East Durham Partnership (EDP)“The EDP exists to promote activity within East Durham communities which will be of benefit toindividuals, facilities, groups and organisations, which will help people individually and collectively toachieve their goals and which will contribute towards an improved quality of life for people and towardsthe regeneration of East Durham.”

At the outset of the FJF programme, the EDP anticipated the creation of 30 jobs, with the possibility ofa “few” other opportunities if all went well. In practice, things have gone very well and a further 120 jobshave been created with more to follow (profile for 190 by the end of the programme). The Partnershiphas been able to employ individuals on a direct basis as well as offering opportunities for smaller thirdsector organisations. Furthermore, a number of these temporary jobs have already been made permanent.The types of jobs have been wide-ranging from receptionists to IT assistants and from trainee rangers toneighbourhood wardens.

Jobs within the private sector have been more difficult to create, with state aid rules and community benefiteligibility causing some restrictions. However, the Council has made great strides during August 2010 with18 These figures are accurate as at 06/09/10.



two local businesses who have developed products and processes in support of green-technology and so qualifyfor FJF support through the promotion of energy efficiency.

Private Sector Job Placements:

Glass Processing CompanyThis company from Leadgate are a leading glass processor serving the security, architectural and transportglass sectors, as well as specialising in the production and distribution of PV (photovoltaic) solar panels.The company’s specialist production base, together with a change in Government policy with regard toFeed-in-Tariffs (or Clean Energy Cashback) has meant that the company has secured additional andlucrative contracts both within the UK and abroad, necessitating the establishment of a bespoke trainingcentre to specifically cover the PV sector of the company. The company anticipates the recruitment ofapproximately 110 personnel, with at least 60 being eligible for FJF assistance. These jobs will be filledduring 2010.

Green Technology Company

This company plan to create 100 jobs who will provide an 18 month apprenticeship programme in green-technology manufacturing techniques. The company has developed these techniques and trainingprogrammes over a number of years and supports the placement of manufacturing personnel to a numberof local blue-chip companies following the completion of the apprenticeship programme. These jobs willall be filled during 2010.

In both of the above case studies, the private sector company’s will take advantage of the FJF being able tosupport the first six months of the apprenticeship scheme. Therefore, making the job more permanent at theoutset, providing sustainability and long term commitment for the employer and employee.

Implementation Issues and Key Challenges

There were several implementation issues experienced in the early phases of the programme and other keychallenges that have impeded the ease of establishing job opportunities and matching individuals to theseemployment placements, including:

— Changing operational guidance, eligibility and slow start—The programme suffered initial“teething” problems following bid approval like many new programmes, however, these wereexacerbated by the evolving nature of the operational and eligibility guidance. This createdfrustrations for internal management, programme planning and partner implementation: bettercommunication is needed.

— Employer buy-in—Although the timescales for implementation from DWP were clear at theoutset, a period of lead in or piloting would have been useful in order to “sell” the programme tolocal employers. Employer support and buy-in proved a key challenge at the beginning of theprogramme, but local processes were devised and implemented to overcome this. The pressure tobe “up and running” quickly whilst local processes and relationships were being formed obviouslyled to a slow start in terms of job creation performance.

— Pre-employment support—As the FJF programme clients have been out of work for some time,many face additional barriers to employment and required pre-employment advice and support.During 2009 and the early phases of the programme, it was a challenge to gain appropriate pre-employment support for individuals.

— Role of Job Centre Plus (JCP)—The reliance on JCP as the only referral mechanism toprospective employers has proved limiting and an area of concern. However, the relationship withJCP has been excellent throughout the development and delivery of the programme. This goodworking practice has enabling and facilitated effective decision making.

— Community benefit—The definition of community benefit and the eligibility criteria forappropriate job opportunities affected the number of jobs created. As current FJF guidance states,FJF aims to create additional jobs to deliver benefits to communities and these benefits must be inaddition to the benefit of employment to the individual. As included within the FJF bid, widerbenefits for local communities, such as the increase in local employment levels, the associatedimpact on health and well-being and the wider regeneration effects needs to be maximised for thebenefit of the individual and those providing job opportunities. It is understood that there is acareful balance needed and that FJF should not supplement jobs already created or planned, theseare “additional” opportunities. The community benefit definition has been problematic for securingprivate involvement, especially in comparison to third sector contracts.

— Employee skills—Some jobs have been initially created with unrealistic expectations about thelevel of skills and experiences required by prospective employees.

— Recruitment delays—The programme has experienced delays in recruitment following jobcreation. This has been linked to low levels of referral, low conversion rates from referral tosubmission of an application and poor conversion rates from application to filled jobs.



— Competing employment support programmes—The lack of fit with existing JCP programmeshas been an issue, in particular New Deal.

— Geographic coverage - The County Council’s portfolio of FJF jobs does not yet represent anequal spread across the County settlements, with the majority of jobs coming from the moredeprived areas of the County, mainly East Durham. A longer delivery period, would have enabledmore time to develop the programme, extend partners and the number of employer, widening thecoverage of job opportunities available.

Despite these difficulties and challenges, the numbers gaining job opportunities, vacancy handling andreferral processes in the County have seen a continued improved performance over recent months. This progresshas meant we are still on track to achieve the programmed 1,000 job creation opportunities. As the CountyDurham FJF is part of an ongoing evaluation process that has been commissioned by the Tyne and Wear CityRegion, this will provide a more detailed analysis of what has worked well and weaknesses during the lifetimeof the programme.

Areas for Consideration and Improvement

The Government’s decision to end FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012 will certainly curtail jobopportunities for young people in County Durham. Locally there is concern about the transition period betweenFJF and the newly planned integrated welfare to work programme.

The FJF programme within the County has over six months of delivery left, with significant numbers of jobopportunities left to fill. The numbers of live vacancies and the recent progress made with private sector andwith the addition of another 12 months would mean more sustainable job opportunities could be realised. TheCouncil would be and is willing to continue such an employment placement programme and has the requiredmanagement and expertise to continue this at present.

The outlined recommendations detailed below should be considered to improve a future FJF programme orany future employability/work programme:

— Need and demand driven—the FJF programme has not only helped to meet the needs and jobexperience requirements of young people in the County, but also provided a short term skills/resource solution for the employer. It is important that future employability support is demanddriven, ensuring that those not in work are developing and benefiting from appropriate workexperience.

— Relaxation in the community benefit criteria—this would have enabled much wider participationfrom the private sector. However, the criterion does need to be targeted to ensure this programmedoes not artificially distort the local jobs market. New start businesses could benefit from suchcriteria relaxation, providing much needed financial support for new businesses, extra resource,but also allowing these businesses to expand and grow.

— Fragmented and disjointed employment services and programmes—there is a clear linkbetween FJF and the apprenticeship programme that has not been maximised. Although links havebeen made within the County and longer term job opportunities realised, this needs to beformalised. There is a case for the National Apprenticeship Service to become more involved.Both programmes can complement one another for the benefit of employers and employees.

— Young People Not in Employment, Education and Training (NEETs)—Further work to cementand extend the relationship with the Connexions service to target those at risk of becoming longerterm unemployed and understanding the employability needs and ambitions of this group of youngpeople is needed. County Durham has on average 3.77 % higher numbers of NEETS than Englandand the numbers of 18 year olds classified as NEET is of particular concern. This cohort hasrecently increased year on year19 and over 50% of the whole NEETs group are 18 years old20.This correlates strongly to the increased numbers of young people aged 18–24 claiming JobSeekers Allowance. It is important that there is effective transitional support between services,especially whilst young people transfer from Connexions and JCP.

— Pre employment support—A coherent and coordinated approach to pre-employment advice andsupport, for all ages, would benefit both the potential employee and employer. As clients of suchprogrammes have been out of work for some time, they often face complex barriers to employment,from confidence, anxiety and low skills.

— Short term funded initiatives—the short term nature of government initiatives can mean thatsignificant time is lost in establishing new processes, partners and delivery mechanisms, ratherthan concentrating on the delivery priority, in this case enabling young people to access jobopportunities. Although this argument is not new, a longer term approach would enable greaternumbers of placements and an enhanced service, with greater handholding and aftercare supportonce people find permanent employment.

19 The numbers of 18 year olds that are NEET within the County has increased year on year from 640 (November 2007) to 785.20 The number of 18 year olds that are NEET within the County comprises 51 % of the total number of NEETS in 2009.



FJF has enabled the delivery of real jobs for young people within the County. A longer term solution toemployability and particularly supporting young people into employment is needed. The perpetual short termnature of government initiatives can exacerbate the issues and frustrations felt by employers and those not inwork (being passed from one support programme to another!). We need a demand driven approach that enablesyoung people and the rest of those of working age that are not economically active to obtain support and/orretrain in appropriate job growth sectors and gain the appropriate skills levels for their own benefit and for thewider economy.

Within the County a range of multi-faceted and person-centred initiatives have been established to supportpeople into employment or enterprise and tackle the variety of barriers they may face. However, the recessionhas limited progress and increased numbers claiming Job Seekers Allowance, particularly amongst youngpeople. This will be compounded by the reduction of ABG and removal of FJF. As a Council, supporting ourpopulation to become more competitive and successful remains a strategic priority and we will endeavor tosupport people to become economically active, however, this will become increasingly challenging with thereduction of public resources.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Bolsover District Council

Background

The District of Bolsover has, for a long period, experienced higher than average worklessness.

In 2009 Bolsover District Council submitted a bid for FJF funding to assist in the funding of an ambitiousapprenticeship programme for the area. The apprenticeship programme aimed to develop 105 apprentices overa two and a half year period. Each apprenticeship to last for a maximum duration of eighteen months, is for37 hours a week, pays national minimum wage and offers a bonus for timely completion of theapprenticeship framework.

The programme took its first intake in October 2009 and employs a combination of funding. FJF, WNF andcontributions from placement partners together with the Skills Funding Agency funding some of theapprenticeship training costs through training providers.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the current FJF

Under FJF all jobs must be “real jobs” however 26 hours doesn’t really constitute a full time job that mostwould recognise.

One of the challenges the programme and the candidates have faced is that the candidates have a shockstarting work. Many are not used to getting up in the morning and struggle to make the transition to workenvironments and culture.

A 26 hour week may offer a stepping stone to full time work but ultimately fails to offer full emersion intothe environment.

It’s understood that FJF allows candidates time for additional job searches for the more motivated individual.However, not all candidates have that motivation and lack self respect. It has been found that many of thepotential candidates have been disillusioned by prior “dead end training” interventions that have offered littleincentive or real opportunity once finished.

Lack of self esteem is a major problem with the majority of candidates we have seen. Full time work andtraining has without exception changed each candidate for the better.

It will be interesting to see if the Apprenticeship Programme delivers the goods long term.

In two years where will the apprentices be? How many will have secured long term employment? Will theybe making a contribution to the economy and how many will have reverted to benefits?

Possibly a more important analysis of those who do return to benefits is do they stay there or will they havethe wherewithal and “skills” to enter the labour market again?

FJF has strength in that it sets out to offer employment and job search training but due to the hours andlength of stay could fail to deliver a genuine and lasting change in the harder to reach groups. TheApprenticeship Programme, due to it’s longer contract and content should lead to a real and lasting benefit tothe individuals as they are given time to consolidate skills and knowledge.

Most candidates take three to six months to settle in to their new role. With FJF one would be expected tobe looking at a route to work as soon as they are on programme which could be unsettling.

Eighteen month placements may have a number of advantages over a six month in allowing candidates togain more experience and weather the economic storm.

It takes time to



— adapt to work from being on benefits;

— understand the unwritten and written rules of the workplace;

— fit in to a new workplace, team and role;

— regain or in some cases gain self esteem;

— find another real job.

Some candidates have found themselves in a benefit trap. Cost of travel and the removal of some benefits,such as rent and council tax have been real hurdles for individuals returning to work.

Vacancy Matching

Particular difficulties have been experienced in matching individuals to the available opportunities at times.The profile of jobs required has changed over the year.

Construction was hard hit in the early recession leaving a large number of individuals looking for work.Most of those would not look outside their area of experience and wouldn’t consider widening their skills andknowledge base. The wider employment picture should be considered when offering placements. There is littlepoint in preparing people to enter redundant industries or areas in major downturn.

Bolsover and Chesterfield have treated every vacancy under the programme as a job. A job that required anapplication and interview before an offer would be made.

Recruitment days were tried and were advised by DWP as a way of speeding up the recruitment process. Thismethod could result in devaluing of the programme and isn’t the way an organisation would normally interview.

The apprentice opportunities were from the start to aspire to and were worth making an effort to secure.Real benefits were attached. If successful candidates gained experience and qualifications from the role whilstalso gaining references. More importantly all candidates gained real interview experience and were givenfeedback on their application and interview whether they were successful or not.

Third Sector Support

Many of the third sector partners we have worked with have been able to support candidates better thanother public sector partners. Inherently, by their nature, many third sector organisations are equipped to offera more supportive environment.

The longer term employment holds no guarantees, especially as many third sector organizations are nowsuffering cutbacks in funding, but the soft and hard skills learnt and networking done during placements shouldoffer more opportunities for the future.

The End of FJF

The impact to end FJF has made a difference in the district. As there are currently a number of people stillon FJF programmes the true extent of it’s value and loss cannot be assessed at this point in time. However,eligible candidates are down in the district.

This said if it isn’t replaced with another fund or appropriate intervention the district could return to thesame state in a few months time.

FJF has very tight parameters of eligibility. With wider parameters much more could have been done.

Using a mix of funding to provide such a powerful and initiative programme is difficult when the fundingstreams parameters are unequally matched. It would make some sense to look at replacing FJF more flexiblefunding that can be used to concentrate on “local” issues within the labour market.

Apprenticeships

The Chesterfield and Bolsover Apprenticeship Programme is proving a successful model.

Apprenticeships offer a firm foundation if delivered well and responsively.

No one is too old for an apprenticeship, to retrain or reinvent themselves. The programme is challenging theperception that all apprentices are 16 to 18 years old.

The employment method is attractive: apprentices are employed by the council and placed with organisations.

It allows organisations and individuals to try before they buy. There are only a few ATAs / colleges thatoffer this option.

The Government’s response to fund new apprenticeships needs to have flexibility at a local level; a wholesaleresponse will not effectively meet local needs. It is also important that Local Enterprise Partnerships have



a role to play so that new apprenticeship places meet genuine skills gap in order to kick start growth inthe economy.

Written evidence submitted by Working Links

Background

As an organisation we do not currently run any Future Jobs Fund (FJF) contracts. In many areas, however,the FJF has impacted on our people and contracts (both positively and negatively). Therefore, in this submissionwe will only respond to the Committee’s request for analysis of the impact of the Future Job Fund on existingprogrammes and the transition to the Work Programme.

Since the FJF began in July 2009, we have helped 7,500 18–25 year olds into employment. We have alsoenabled another 7,500 young people to access training or further education courses. We will explain how wehave achieved this and how we aim to continue providing sustainable jobs for young people, through both thenew Coalition Government’s single Work Programme and through new apprenticeships.

Impact of the Future Jobs Fund on Existing Programmes

We have been delivering Routes into Work programmes since November 2009. Routes into Work (RIW)was funded by the Skills Funding Agency. The aim of the programme is to deliver sector specific training inconjunction with local employers to ensure young people have the skills and training they require to sustain acareer. Initially the courses covered jobs in retail, travel, tourism, hospitality and leisure, but this has sincebeen expanded to include security and facilities management.

The programme has been very successful, with over 3,433 young people enrolling to date. However, theFuture Jobs Fund has had a direct impact on the Routes into Work programme in a number of ways. WorkingLinks would highlight that:

— The two schemes overlap, with the FJF taking referrals from the RIW programme.

— Part of the reason for this is that young people can quickly gain a short-term employmentexperience, and furthermore the scheme is subsidised. This may be preferable to a longer-terminvestment in skills.

— However, there is also the issue of confusion and duplication arising from the overlapping schemes.

— There is a conflict in referrals because FJF is Jobcentre-driven, whilst RIW was Skills FundingAgency-led.

— Arising from this is a natural bias towards FJF, as Jobcentre Advisers tried to hit submission targets.

Debbie Joce, our South West Regional Skills Manager, outlines some of the impacts of the Future Jobs Fundin South West England:

“We have found that the Future Jobs Fund has impacted on the number of referrals we receive fromJobCentre Plus (JCP) under the Young Persons Guarantee (YPG). JCP have confirmed that that youngpeople prefer to enroll onto a FJF as it is subsidised employment for six months rather than attend anintense, innovative routeway that will move them into sustainable employment.”

Our front line staff also tell us that many JCP advisers appear to prefer to enroll young people onto the FJFas it helps to boost their individual performance figures.

Case Study 1 West Midlands

The Impact of Future Jobs Fund on the Routes into Work Programme.

In Birmingham and Solihull, a total of 2,500 young people were placed into work through the Future JobsFund between January 2010 and Jun 2010. This district tops the national league tables for FJF, so referrals tothe Working Links Routes into Work programme (RIW) have suffered as a result. A further 5,000 placesthrough FJF are available in this district between July 2010 and March 2011, thus we can envisage further lossof referrals to the FJF.

A similar situation exists in The Black Country, where 1,600 young people have been placed into workthrough the FJF in the same period. A further 1,400 places are available until March 2011. In The Marches(Herefordshire, Shropshire) approximately 120 young people have been placed into work through FJF. 180places are reported to be remaining.

At the start of the year the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) instructed Job CentrePlus (JCP)district offices to prioritise FJF as the number one option for young people. Currently, there seems to be lessof an emphasis being placed on the FJF, probably due to the fact that the programme will not be funded beyondthe first year.

We asked our people to consider how we could promote RIW against FJF. RIW offers the skills trainingand the possibility of securing a permanent position with salaries above minimum wage. This compares



favourably to the offer of a fixed-term contracts (six months) at minimum wage under FJF. We believe if ourcustomers are presented with all the information on the pathways available to them that many will rather chosea long-term solution that can offer them the opportunity for sustainable employment. We also need to bear inmind that FJF will create a natural churn as a result of the fixed-term contracts, so we should anticipate a largenumber of YP leaving work in the second half of this year.

What is clear is that where there are competing schemes offering different options to young people, it islikely to cause overlap, duplication and confusion. As Debbie Joce explains:

“We have been finding that clients come to us and complete a RIW routeway and are often then placedinto a FJF job within our 13-weeks tracking period. I have contacted the Skills Funding Agency whichhas confirmed that as we helped young people close their skills gap and help them to become moreemployable, then we are able to claim the job outcome.”

Case Study 2 North Tyneside

Allyson Donohoe, Delivery Manager for North Tyneside, also agrees that in some areas the FJF has offeredoutcomes for young people who are struggling to find a job. On their Private Led New Deal contract in NorthTyneside, they have referred 377 18–25 year old clients onto FJF, of which just under half (148) have secureda 6 month job offer.

“On my Private Sector Led New Deal contract, Future Jobs Fund has been a godsend, and we havecapitalised on the opportunities provided by the programme by getting over 140 FJF for Jobcentre Plus.Routes into Work was supposed to be the first choice for a Jobcentre Adviser to support a young personinto work, but in reality as Future Jobs Fund is a Jobcentre Plus initiative, the focus has well and trulybeen on FJF and within some Jobcentre locations targets being attached to submitting to FJF Jobs. At aJobcentre Senior Management level, it was stipulated that Jobcentre Plus Advisers will be encouraged torefer to RIW, but in reality it never happened on ground level.“The Young Persons Guarantee, in my personal opinion, has not worked due to the fact some of it wasJobcentre led and RIW was Skills Funding Agency led and it became a game of hitting targets (no focuswas given to what was best for the young person). JCP Advisers were encouraged to refer to FJF to hittheir submission targets.“An example of this was in North Tyneside, where over 4,000 clients were referred to FJF Jobs and only218 were successful. This to me says there was pressure to submit, but the client was not job ready. Theseclients should have possibly been more suitable for RIW provision.“I do, however, believe the FJF is a short-term fix to get young people into work as these jobs are notsustainable. Although they do give our young people experience, it does not always show a clear pictureof impacting on the unemployment register as once the FJF Job has ended they will have to sign back onJobseeker’s Allowance if they do not secure permanent employment straight after the FJF job.”

Transition to the Work Programme

At Working Links we feel that the new single Work Programme will help to simplify support services toyoung people and ensure there is no unnecessary repetition or duplication which could lead to a customerbecoming confused as to the best choice for themselves. The decision to end the FJF in 2011 rather than 2012may turn out to be more beneficial to our customerss in the long run. The FJF was only offering young peoplea short, six-month job or training opportunity. We recognise that what people need are the skills, confidence,motivation and ability to secure long term, sustainable employment. This is not always a quick process. Someof our clients find jobs very quickly. They may just need an enhanced CV, help with job searching and careersadvice. For others it can be a much more drawn out process.

Some of our clients have multiple challenges to overcome before they can access work. For young peoplein particular it can be very difficult to find work, as employers may be unwilling to take a risk employingsomeone with limited work experience. We know, however, that young people often have a wide range ofskills and competencies that can be hugely rewarding to employers. Young people often have an excellentawareness of technology, are keen to learn and to take on further training and also often eager to progress. Byharnessing these attributes and empowering our clients to overcome their challenges, we are confident we canensure that all young people can find a suitable job which will reward them and enable them to live benefitfree lives.

We feel the single Work Programme offers us an enormous opportunity to work even more effectively withthis group. Young people (18–25) already make up a disproportionate amount of the total unemployed figures.We are therefore developing new services designed specifically for this group which we hope will engage,motivate and empower this group. By utilising existing and emerging technology, we can ensure our servicescan be accessed anytime, anywhere. Our work experience programme will help clients to build and improvetheir CV’s whilst providing them with valuable on the job skills and experience, all of which will help themto find a job more easily in the future

10 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Lewisham Strategic Partnership

The Future Jobs Fund Programme in Lewisham

1. Lewisham has been successful in getting funding to create a total of 403 new jobs from two bids to theFuture Jobs Fund in July 2009 and February 2010.The majority of these jobs, (72%), have been created bypartner organisations in the voluntary and community sector.

2. One of the core aims of our FJF programme was to support young people to gain skills that they need toget paid work not just in Lewisham, but across London and beyond. We therefore set out to create jobs thatwill give young people the experience and skills to gain employment in the London labour market. The rangeof roles in our work programme reflect the types of occupations 18–24 year old JSA claimants in Lewishamare most interested in and also reflect the vacancies that existed in London21, ie Sales and Customer Service,Administration and Secretarial, Associate Professional and Technical and Personal Services occupations.

3. The FJF programme has been successful in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people in Lewisham. Data from exit interviews show that young people used the FJF scheme asa route to gaining or refreshing skills, updating their CVs and getting references that will enable them to securemore sustained employment.

4. There were a total of 68 leavers at the end of July 2010. Of these;

— 29 have got jobs or gone back to education, (23 into paid work, six to College).

— 15 have gone back to benefits.

— Data from 24 leavers being confirmed.

5. The FJF programme has many strengths but the key ones include

— Government providing funding to create “real” jobs which has meant that young people have learntskills and gained experience doing jobs that exist in the Labour market.

— Capturing young people at the six month stage which is before they begin to lose touch with thelabour market.

— The option of giving employers an element of funding in advance of the job starting to help coverstart up costs.

6. The weakness in the scheme from our perspective has been the delays that we experienced getting theresults of Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks. This was particularly unhelpful given the six month “jobstart” period for filling vacancies. The results of some CRB checks took over two months to come back andin many cases, the young people concerned had accepted other FJF opportunities which didn’t require CRB.There should have been a way of flagging CRB checks for FJF opportunities as urgent from the very start sothat they could be processed quickly.

7. Lewisham will be severely impacted by the public sector retrenchment as 31% of our working populationare employed in the public sector locally and across London. The changes to the welfare system is expectedto result in an increase in the number of people on the JSA register as people are reclassified from benefitssuch as IB/ESA. The public sector retrenchment is also expected to lead to an increase in JSA claimants.

8. Young people leaving school and college over the next two years will face stiff competition for jobsespecially as most will not have previous work experience or job specific skills to offer employers. The decisionto end the FJF scheme in March 2011 rather than March 2012 means that there will be less opportunities foryoung people to gain skills and “real” work experience that gives them a better chance of competingsuccessfully for jobs.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by The Salvation Army

The focus of the inquiry is

— The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities toyoung unemployed people.

— Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (including inthe third sector), employers and young unemployed people, and particularly in relation to the long-term sustainability of employment opportunities.

— The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012.

— How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to beplayed by the Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships.

21 As at June 2009 and February 2010. Data on Total Live Unfilled Vacancies and What jobs residents want from JCP/Nomis.




This programme has been very successful in giving young people their first experience of work; it has builttheir skills and confidence and given them self respect. We have seen the FJF Employees blossom while theywork for us as.

The Salvation Army is particularly good at nurturing people and as The Salvation Army Employment Plusis also a WTW provider we have the ability to combine this expertise to enable the applicants to increase theiremployability skills. It has been particularly successful when we have tailored a job description to suit anapplicants needs. This has given young people the opportunity to work in an environment where they areinterested in gaining future employment. An example of this is when we interviewed someone who wished towork in media in the future, he has struggled to gain experience in this area. We were able to create a role inour media department and he is now able to indicate in his job applications that he has work experience in thisarea to add to his skills.

Creating a range of new roles in many places has given rise to opportunities that Employers could not haveafforded to create without the financial risk attached to them. In the current job climate the jobs have giventhis boost to the job market and have given the young unemployed people opportunity to secure these roles.

In December 2009 The Salvation Army Territorial Social Services Strategy Council approved a proposal forResearch and Development to conduct a project case study into Employment Plus’ Future Job FundProgramme, following the acquisition of funding from the Government. The research has been, and will be,taking place over the entire 18 months but here are a few of the early findings and comments from some ofthe first entrants on to the programme.

All those interviewed who had hosted FJF employees had agreed that the Programme had encouraged youngpeople into the labour market. The Pleasance Centre Manager stated that although none of the five FJFemployees within her centres had completed their six month contract she hoped “their chances would haveincreased significantly already.” She went on to add that unemployment had left the FJF employees incrediblydejected, but that the Programme had helped these young people to establish themselves into the job market.

All buddies (Persons who have been allocated to induct and oversee FJF staff) were very confident that theFJF Programme had encouraged young people into the labour market. June, Buddy to two FJF employees atRegener8, one of our centres in Edinburgh, commented that the programme had helped with the young people’sexperience, that it looked great on their CV and that it would improve their chances of getting a job.

Both Buddies spoken to continually mentioned how much their FJF employees experience and confidencehad grown as a result of the programme:

“Gary was a wee mouse when he came, he had no confidence or self-esteem…their confidence and selfesteem has improved, their written work has improved, their ability to speak to other people has improved,as has their ability to socialise with different groups of people. They are able to communicate with peoplewho are not like them.”—June.

The work they are getting experience in has improved their chances in getting sustainable employment.“The things they are doing are building their confidence.”—Isabella, Buddy to three FJF employees atThe Pleasance.

The FJF employees spoken to also commented on their growth in experience and confidence:

“My confidence has grown so much. I am so much better at dealing with people and colleagues”—Gary.

“This position has pushed me. I want to be like the project workers. I have worked well with serviceusers. At first I didn’t get along with them but bridges were built and now if they don’t have a projectworker they will come to us. I feel like a trusted member of staff.”—Stephen.

“I have recommended this position to my friends. It gets you into work”—Gary.

“This is my first job and I have stuck to it and I’m proud. I used to work and then leave once I’d beenpaid. My personal development has really helped (attending women’s classes at Regener8+)…I have moremoney now. I feel so much better for working. I have more self respect, doing something, doing what Iwant to do. It gives you confidence”—Charlotte.

“This job will help us to get other jobs”—Frank.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Due to the success of the FJF Programme many FJF employees and their buddies commented that theywould have liked the position to last longer than six months; “I would have rather a longer period ofemployment,” “The FJF employees are enjoying it. It would have been better if the programme was for longerthan six months.”



The growth in confidence and experience of the FJF employees was noted by all. Such experience anddevelopment was stated by all participants as improving their employability and chance of positive move on,either into training or work.

Financial remuneration was commented on by the FJF employee as a positive and no FJF employee statedthey were worse off financially for taking the position. FJF employees who had not worked before weredetermined not to go back on “the dole” following the positive experience of work offered by The SalvationArmy. In addition, some FJF employees had found that Health and Social Care, although a career they had notconsidered before, was a profession in which they would really like to work.

Although all commented they would be better off financially in the long term, a real issue that was faced bymost in the first month was the lack of support from Job Centre Plus to transition their benefits and providereturn to work payments. Some Job Centres refused to assist them with travel, they advised the Local AuthorityHousing Benefit Dept to cease benefits payments and they provided minimal assistance in resolving theseissues. Most FJF employees had to take time off in their first month to resolve benefits issues, some so seriousthat they were threatened with eviction. Most had to borrow money from their employer to get to work untilthey got paid.

Although this was the most common scenario some JCP districts were very helpful and provided supportwith all aspects of returning to work. One FJF employee even received a grant to get a scooter to allow himto get to and from work.

At Eagle Lodge (Nursing Home in Edinburgh) manager, Rev. David Riley, felt that although an FJFemployee would be very beneficial to residents (as the amount of time that care workers can spend withresidents is very minimal), Older People’s Services and the FJF Programme might not align themselves due tothe timescale involved in the enhanced CRB / Disclosure Scotland process.

A consistent complaint from all centres interviewed was the laborious Criminal Record Bureau check processwhich eventually disqualified people for the Future Jobs Fund, as their eligibility ceased and they had movedonto another scheme. Rev. David Riley felt the bureaucracy involved was very difficult to deal with.

The initial frustration experienced between The Salvation Army and the Job Centre obtaining applicants forthe programme improved as we worked through the programme. No uniform responses or processes wereexperienced with some Job Centres proving very helpful and some being extremely obstinate. It was theresponsibility of The Salvation Army to manage these relationships which proved to be very time consumingand diverted time from people commencing in post. Some Job Centres promoted their own Future Job Fundpositions above The Salvation Army’s, to ensure they reached their own targets. In some areas there have beenvacancies open for months with little or no response from JCP.

In some areas the Job Centres have been less than effective and they have simply ticked boxes instead ofensuring the referrals were correctly made. On one occasion four applicants were booked in for interview, onlyto find that none of the candidates were eligible for the FJF programme, which was very disappointing for theyoung people referred.

With regard to sustainability of jobs—the new posts created had to be additional and only exist because ofthe Grant funding to create them. If they were not created in an organisation/location which was bringing aboutadditional income, then obviously the posts will cease when the grant funding does. The jobs were alsosupposed to be about Community Benefit, it will be the communities which suffer when the funding ceases.


The closure of this programme will have a huge impact on the national and local community with regardsto getting young people back into work. As demonstrated above a lot of young people who have commencedwork on this programme truly feel that this has increased their employability skills and confidence to enablethem to secure further work.

We are starting to get early data come through on outcomes; currently 20% of leavers have gone onto furtheremployment, 5% into further approved training, and 25% into full time education. We are also hearing of thesuccess stories from young people going on to gain full time employment, we are seeing young people utilisingthe skills learnt during their time with us. We are giving young people the skills and confidence to realisetheir goals and go onto meaningful employment.

The other effect that will be felt will be that of the community they are employed in. All of our positionsplay a part in delivering a community service. These services range from Homeless Services, CommunityProgrammes in our local Corps (churches) and assisting in our charity shops. With the FJF employees availableour centres have been able to develop more Community Services and resources. Although we are workinghard to raise funds to continue these programmes it is likely that most will have to cease when the FJFemployees leave.

The major impact of finishing the programme a year earlier than anticipated will be the number of youngpeople who will not remain close to the labour market as there will not be subsidised jobs for them to apply for.




If The Salvation Army is going be involved in delivering the Work Programme we should be part of theconsultation process, we have experience in helping others and managing finite resources.

So far 35% of early leavers on our FJF programme have been dismissed for misconduct or non attendance.As Welfare to Work provider we fully comprehend the difference between a person gaining work and sustainingwork. What will need to be budgeted into the Work Programme for people of all ages, is not just job creationinitiatives but a mentoring service of some kind.

The mentors will need to work with the newly employed to ensure the new workers are aware of employmentexpectations and how to behave and manage themselves in their new work environment. Apprenticeships havealways been a successful way of training people and giving them a skill—The Salvation Army FJF programmeprovides opportunity for soft skills to develop and this gives the person something to leave with and use togain another job. Our FJF programme could easily be adapted into an Apprenticeship programme as the roleswe have created have proved valuable to our services and our Service Users. The length of the currentprogramme did not allow for full NVQs to be completed.

As a large national organisation we would love to be involved in hosting Apprentices—especially in thesenewly created roles of community benefit. However even if we just looked at transferring the FJF posts intoApprenticeships it would cost us about £2 million pa—and we cannot afford to do this.

Conclusion

The Salvation Army has found that the programme has been a great success. We have seen hundreds ofyoung people be given the opportunity to work, develop their employment skills and grow in confidence.

We have heard time and time again that the participants are now confident and motivated to move on intofurther work and that they are determined not to go back to a life on benefits. They have also have seen amarked difference in the response they have had from future potential employers by having recent paid workon their CV. This has resulted in many moving from the FJF post directly into further paid employment.

The community benefit from this programme has been especially successful through the roles we havecreated. Not only does it decrease the effects of unemployment in the communities in which our roles havebeen created but we have seen FJF employees doing anything from assisting in setting up lunch clubs for theelderly and employment resource centres for the unemployed to developing programmes for homeless residentsof our Lifehouses (formally hostels) to clean up litter in the community and regeneration projects for citygardens—all of which are great benefit to local people.

— The initial issues with getting vacancies filled due to lack of referrals from Job Centre Plus hasbeen resolved and on the whole we are excited about the prospects for the FJF employees whowill be employed with us up until the end of the programme.

— Although we were saddened by the news the Future Jobs Fund would be ending, as we would notbe able to continue to provide the opportunities we have been doing, we are keen to be part ofwhatever programme is brought into replace it.

We strongly believe that whatever is proposed to replace this programme needs to give the same amount ofopportunities to the Young people and the communities involved, it also needs to address the issues that youngpeople face in securing long term sustainable employment.

The Salvation Army calls on the Government to:

— Continue to provide funding for sustainable employment services, which are the key to economicrecovery, but to particularly ensure that sufficient funding is available to give the appropriatesupport to those furthest from the labour market to enable them to enter and sustain employment.

— Take the appropriate steps to enable third sector and local providers to more substantially bringtheir innovative and special skills to contribute to tackling unemployment and the causes of long-term unemployment amongst the hardest to help.

— Operate a more “joined-up” approach to long-term unemployment between Governmentdepartment budgets, so that services are not offered in isolation.

10 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by The National Young Volunteers Service

1. v’s Future Job’s Fund programme is delivering 200 jobs with 57 local employer partners from our networkof funded organisations. The job roles are mainly Youth Volunteering Assistants providing an administrativefunction which enhances the host organisation’s support for young volunteers

2. Summary

2.1. The FJF has been a success in matching valuable new work opportunities to unemployed young people.Despite FJF placements lasting only six months, young people employed by our network of partners reportedfeeling “better equipped” to find future employment as they had often been turned away because of a lack ofwork experience.

2.2. As a national provider there have been a number of problems delivering the scheme locally. Theseproblems are often due to the inconsistency of interactions with different local Jobcentres. The processes andprocedures associated with the new programmes need to be better communicated from Jobcentre Plus atnational level to local Jobcentre Plus staff to ensure that providers do not waste valuable time dealing withinconsistent practices across the country.

2.3. With high levels of youth unemployment, the government must ensure that there is no gap in provisionfor young unemployed people between FJF ending and the new Work Programme and apprenticeshipopportunities coming on stream. High quality, accurate information advice and guidance for young unemployedpeople will be key to the success of ensuring a smooth transition.

2.4. The Work Programme and new apprenticeships must be funded and delivered in a way which enablesvoluntary sector organisations to offer placements. Many voluntary and community organisations haveinvaluable experience of supporting young unemployed people and people with multiple barriers toemployment. Such organisations would also benefit from the extra capacity to deliver and enhance frontlineservices.


3.1. v’s FJF Programme focuses on providing work experience to young people in a youth work setting.Primarily serving as administrative assistants, FJF employees are able to experience work to support youngpeople within a voluntary organisation. v’s programme is still in its infancy but there is evidence from v’semployer partners with existing FJF employees that the programme has been positive, especially as the workenvironment is often geared around the cares, passions and interests of inspirational young volunteers.

3.2. We are currently experiencing recruitment challenges where jobs have been profiled by the Jobcentre asyouth work rather than administration. As the jobs are primarily administrative in nature they do not necessarilyappeal to individuals seeking placements delivering pure youth work, and also do not attract young peoplelooking to develop their administrative skills and experience. Once correctly re-profiled we have witnessed anincrease in applications.

4. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed people, and particularly in relation tothe long-term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

4.1. v’s experience is limited to the recruitment process as our FJF programme is in its infancy. v’s FJFemployer partners have welcomed the programme as an opportunity, not only to develop young people whichis often part of their core business, but also to meet critical business need. However, there are numerouschallenges with the programme that cause problems in delivery, especially for a national provider supportingnumerous local employers.

4.2. v led an FJF bid in order to ensure that the smaller voluntary and community sector partners across ourfunded network could benefit from the programme and access FJF employees. There were few organisationsin our network that would have had the capacity to support the minimum number of 30 jobs needed for anindependent bid.

4.3. A major problem is that the programme delivery does not fit with this model, primarily because adviceand guidance provided at a national level does not necessarily reflect the actual delivery model being deployedlocally by Jobcentres. This can lead to confusion and delay in the way in which young people are referred tothe programme. Furthermore, the templates provided to employers to advertise opportunities, do not accuratelyreflect the fields used by Jobcentres, as for example there are word limits in place locally but no indication ofthese limits on the documentation.

4.4. Another significant challenge is the disconnect between the referral process and actual applications.Currently, the Jobcentre records it has referred an individual when they have suggested a vacancy but that doesnot necessarily lead to an application by the individual. In some instances Jobcentres play a much moreproactive role in supporting the young person from referral through to application and v had been told byJobcentre Plus nationally that applications would be supported. This type of engagement and follow through



is an essential ingredient in the success of any programme to support unemployment people. Without thissupport we have noted that the system will reflect a significant number of referrals even if no-one has appliedfor the position. The Jobcentre needs to play a more supportive role encouraging young people to makeapplications and understanding the conversion rates between referral and application.

4.5. The seemingly small issues outlined above are magnified significantly, when as a national provider youare creating 200 jobs, across four regions, with 57 partners while needing to factor in local nuances of delivery.

4.6. Despite the challenges for v as a national provider, the programme has significant merits. Irrespectiveof opportunities for future sustainable employment, young people employed by our network of partners reportedfeeling “better equipped” to find employment as they had often been turned away because of a “lack ofwork experience”.

4.7. If a similar programme is to be introduced in the future, more time should be spent on programmedesign and training Jobcentre Plus staff so that the delivery model is consistently delivered across the country.


5.1. With high levels of youth unemployment there is a risk that there will be a gap in provision for youngunemployed people to gain valuable work experience before the new Work Programme and apprenticeshipopportunities come on board.


6.1. The Government needs to ensure that there is not a gap in provision for young people to gain valuablework experience and employment opportunities. When the FJF comes to an end in March 2011 newopportunities have to be in place through the Work Programme and apprenticeships. Furthermore, theGovernment needs to ensure that Jobcentre Plus staff are have the knowledge and resources to manage thetransition and to familiarise themselves with the processes and procedures of the new programme. This willensure that young people are provided with the right information and advice, and will make it easier fororganisations delivering the new programme to work with Jobcentres.

6.2. The focus of FJF on job opportunities in the public and voluntary sectors was important in enablingvoluntary sector organisations to enhance and improve service delivery at a time when demands on theirservices are increasing. For example, one local employer reports that the FJF employee was dedicated tolooking after their finance freeing up time for other staff to focus on services. The new Work Programmeand funding for apprenticeships should sustain a level of investment in opportunities within voluntary sectororganisations, especially given the Government’s commitment to voluntary organisations’ role in the BigSociety.

6.3. Many voluntary sector organisations partners we are working with are well placed to support youngpeople’s development in their FJF roles, particularly where their confidence, self-esteem and morale may havetaken a hit from being unemployed for 6 months or more. Such organisations are equipped to ensure thatemployees get the most out of the experience because supporting and developing young people is their corebusiness.

6.4. Apprenticeships could potentially offer a stronger alternative to FJF ensuring effective development ofindividuals, building their engagement and commitment for a longer period of time and culminating in astronger skill and experience set at their conclusion. FJF employees are limited in terms of opportunities forpersonal development as the majority of accredited training courses take longer than six months to complete. Italso makes more sense for the organisations who invest a significant amount of time and resource in developingindividuals to do so over a longer period of time so that they begin to benefit from that investment.

6.5. There are opportunities for FJF employees to progress into apprenticeships but the drop in salary presentsa challenge as apprentices are generally paid less. Young people would have to be convinced of the long-termbenefits of taking a cut in income for better development opportunities and future employment prospects.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Gloucestershire First

Summary

— Future Jobs Fund has been an exciting opportunity for young people and organisations, creatingexcellent outcomes for employees and added value for communities through the work undertaken.

— The Third Sector has been particularly adept at creating varied opportunities with benefits tocommunities and providing additional support to young people throughout the process. Theseopportunities would not have been created without this funding or through apprenticeship funding.



— A high proportion of FJF graduates are gaining further employment, whether through their FJFemployer or other employers including the private sector. All FJF graduates are leaving withincreased experience of the workplace, confidence, skills and direction.

— There are weaknesses to the programme and future adaptations of FJF should be more targetedand additional support and guidance should be provided to those furthest from the labour marketand influence job creation. In addition the private sector should be able to create jobs to widen thescope of the opportunities and provide a platform to lead into longer term apprenticeships.


1.1 In Gloucestershire, 127 of 130 contracted starts are underway, well ahead of the initial profile. There hasbeen significant demand from both young people and organisations interested in supplying opportunities whichwe haven’t been able to satisfy within this contract.

1.2 Of the opportunities provided, 35% are in the public sector and 65% are in the Third Sector. The ThirdSector has proven to be particularly flexible in creating appropriate vacancies, supporting young people andadapting recruitment procedures to suit FJF candidates’ backgrounds.

1.3 Of the 32 that have completed their FJF opportunity before September 2010:

1.3.1 Four left their job before completing the 26 weeks. This includes one person who gained full timeemployment, one person with serious mental health issues and one person who could not survivefinancially on the wage due to a previous debt.

1.3.2 16 have gained positive outcomes of employment or full time education. Seven have been kept in fulltime employment by their FJF employer of which six are Third Sector organisations. Seven havegained employment elsewhere and two have gone to university.

1.3.3 Nine are getting additional support to look for employment.

1.4 We are expecting similar success ratios with the remaining young people as they complete and willcontinue to support them until they gain employment.

1.5 FJF candidates undertook a variety of qualifications including NVQs, ILMs and Literacy/Numeracy, andshort courses including Effective Minute Taking, Time Management and First Aid. Young people have beeninspired by their experience into pursuing a career path, for example an HR Administrator has subsequentlyenrolled on an HR qualification and has applied and has interviews for an HR position.

1.6 The nature of the community benefit requirement reduced opportunities to create manual or tradevacancies that would appeal to a certain section of the target group. Most of the vacancies are office based.

1.7 Not enough jobs were accessed by young people from disadvantaged areas, particularly when there werejobs based in those neighbourhoods and we know youth unemployment is more prevalent. As these were realcompetitive employment opportunities, naturally those more qualified and experienced were often successful.Additional support needs to be in place for those furthest from the labour market and perhaps FJF jobs createdspecifically for them.

1.8 We have supported three main subcategories of young people: long term unemployed and unskilled,those with qualifications and limited experience but suffering from a lack of job opportunities and universitygraduates. Additional support and guidance should be provided to those furthest from the labour market toaccess entry level FJF jobs, opportunities for college leavers to gain experience in particular fields should becreated and graduate programmes could be extended.

2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

2.1 FJF has made a qualitative difference to young people struggling to get into employment with little orno experience and low skills. An increase in confidence and ambition has been observed alongside the increasein skills and work experience. The “foot in the door” has given some an excellent opportunity to accessadditional opportunities within the organisation.

2.2 Young people have participated in quality employment opportunities that are both challenging andrewarding. For quality candidates, employers have given them extra responsibilities, encouragement andprogressed often into additional hours, contract extensions and full time employment. For those young peoplewho have required additional support, for a variety of reasons, employers have been supportive, adaptiveand understanding.

2.3 The capacity of, particularly Third Sector, organisations has been enhanced to deliver services in newand innovative ways. Roles such as Community Development Assistant, Community Transport Escort,Volunteer Centre Assistant, Assistant Time Broker and Playworker have improved delivery of a variety ofservices in neighbourhoods across the county. This has also increased awareness of the Third Sector as animportant and viable employer as well as opportunities to volunteer and participate in the Big Society.



2.4 Opportunities were taken by those who perhaps were not appropriate for or in the spirit of Future JobsFund. Graduates undertook roles that were not related to their future goals when perhaps increased investmentin a programme such as Graduate Challenge could have provided more suitable and relevant opportunities.

2.5 Those with financial responsibilities such as rent, children and transport costs found it difficult to surviveon the minimum FJF salary. A particular candidate with rental and debt responsibilities did not undertake abetter off calculation prior to applying for the job and had to subsequently leave their FJF position.

2.6 The quality of application forms and CVs was often not adequate. Young people need further guidanceand support in putting together applications and interview practice, particularly those from disadvantaged areasor with minimal education and experience.

3. Comments from Employers

3.1 Gary Selwyn, Break Charity

“From my perspective the FJF was an excellent scheme.

The three FJF young people we used were able to see all aspects of the running of a retail unit, and weregiven a broad range of duties to fulfil. They have been involved in till work, merchandising, sortingincoming stock, customer service, pricing—I believe this experience will be of significant benefit in addingto the strength of their CV’s, should they wish to gain employment within retail. They have proved willingand reliable.

They have been of significant benefit to Break, freeing up the managers time to concentrate onadministrative tasks, whilst having someone to supervise the sales floor. At our Wotton shop, which tradesfrom 2 floors, this has enabled us to keep the shop open during lunch hours, when previously it hadclosed. This gained us 5 hours trading time a week, which led to a commensurate increase in sales.

I genuinely believe Break—and the FJF people—have mutually benefited, and I am extremelydisappointed that the scheme is ending.

Finally, I thought the administration of the scheme was excellent, the individuals received visits from yourorganisation, and were not placed into Break and left to fend for themselves. As Break relies on volunteers,I have several shops which trade in areas where there are numerous Charity shops. The number of willingvolunteers is not sufficient to staff all these charity shops, so the FJF provided a useful bridge to not onlyhelp our Charity, but additionally provided genuine work experience for the individuals concerned.”

3.2 Lawrence Hughes, Fairshares

“We have taken on two highly successful young people. They had both been out of work for some time.They had tried unsuccessfully to get work, but their rural locations, lack of both personal and publictransport gave them few opportunities.

We would not have been in a position to offer the salary costs (or training) without FJF. The age range ofthe FJF cohort are not usually those that are attracted to the voluntary sector. It is also difficult to getyoung people into volunteering. Both appointments have taken a keen interest in working with youngpeople to try to encourage greater involvement and are operating as role models with their peers.

The work that they have started has enabled us to realise that we can successfully work with youngpeople. On the strength of this we have made several funding applications. Our bids have highlighted thesuccess of their work and given a clear pathway to its development. This new/extended work matchesexactly with the basic concepts within the governments ‘Big Society’; young people mentoring their peersand showing the benefits to society of volunteering.

I am pleased to say that it looks like both young men will be in a position to obtain permanent work withus. Bids have been successful and they are in a strong position to secure work with us. Had we not beenfortunate in not taking on these young people, our work would not have been developed along these linesand we may not have won the awards. Even if we had still been successful in our applications, whatwould our outcomes have been? Probably more of the same; little impact on working with young people.”

3.3 Lesley Gamm, Leonard Cheshire Disability

“We have been involved from the early stages with the scheme, and from the outset I felt it was theperfect opportunity for our organisation to give young people the experience of working in the care sector,at little or no cost to ourselves, other than the provision of our time and expertise.

As a charity, we are not in a position to fund extra posts, and we cannot afford to leave post unfilled, butdo have difficulties recruiting care and nursing staff.

We are rarely in a position to offer people jobs when they have no previous experience or training, weneed people who generally can ‘hit the ground running’, and therefore tend to recruit people who’ve beenin the business for some while and already have their NVQs.

This means that many people who would like to move into the care sector have great difficulty in findingjobs and opportunities.



The FJF scheme has enabled us to take on six extra staff, who have enhanced the service we are able toprovide to our service users as a result, to give these young people in-house statutory training, whilst alsostarting their NVQ 2 in Health and Social Care. I met most of these people at a Jobs fair organised byGloucestershire First, and they were all keen to explore jobs in the care sector, but had no previousexperience at all.

The six people we have taken on are all committed, and enthusiastic about their six month placementswith us. We have already offered two permanent full time posts on completion of their FJF placement. Atthe moment, the others are in earlier stages of their placement, and are still under ‘probation’, but I havehigh hopes that they will also be in a position eventually to be offered work with us. One of the mainadvantages of the FJF for us has been the opportunity to ‘try out’ people, to offer them training, experienceand personal development, while not in any way placing our service users or staff at risk by havinginexperienced staff in substantive posts.

The other advantage is that if we do offer them jobs, we have a staff member who is already trained,familiar with the service and the service users, well on their way to a recognised qualification, and wealready know if they are competent, capable and working to an acceptable standard for the organisation.Equally, if we do not have any suitable vacancies, each FJF person will leave with all mandatory/statutorytraining evidence, six months experience, and the possibility of good, relevant references (as well as theNVQ if completed). In every way, they are then set up to be able to access paid employment more readilywithin the Care Sector in this county or others).

We were looking forward to this scheme continuing for the 18 months, knowing the opportunities thiswould create for so many young job seekers. It is vital that we continue to bring new young people intothe care sector, as so many do not seriously consider this type of work as a long term career, and yet, asa nation, we rely totally on qualified and unqualified care and nursing providers, and will need to do somore and more in the future. Finding quality, dedicated staff is a must for us as a Charity, and ensuringthe future of the organisation through recruitment of staff is a key issue. I am so disappointed that thescheme has been stopped, as it is, in every way, the perfect and most financially achievable way for us torecruit and train future care staff.”

3.4 Ewen Saunders, Gloucestershire County Council“The Council has attempted to match the interests and requirements of unemployed young people in the9 work experience opportunities we have been able to provide. Where possible we have taken intoconsideration the candidate’s preferences.

From our perspective—the initial set up and implementation of the scheme required a lot of work andtime. Developing a strategy to implement the scheme took time given we received very little information,particularly from the DWP, at the outset of the programme. Once further details were provided we wereable to develop a recruitment process in line with council process and policy. The scheme has been asuccess from our perspective as we have managed to place nine young people into roles where they maynot have had the opportunity to undertake if FJF did not exist. On the whole, our department managershave provided only positive feedback on the performance and attitudes of those placed with them. Therehave been many examples of participants adding value to recruiting departments.

The young unemployed people recruited in the council have stated that without the scheme, they wouldmost probably still be unemployed and seeking work. We held an evaluation event with our participantswho did comment that the support, guidance and help provided by the DWP was less than adequate.

A valuable scheme which has provided nine beneficial work experience placement opportunities to ourparticipants will leave a void within Gloucestershire. I can understand the criticism in relation to the“future jobs” that did not materialise but another aim of the scheme was to provide work experienceopportunities as well as develop transferable skills and qualifications for participants which we feel thescheme has achieved. It was always going to be very difficult, given the current climate, for organisationsto guarantee longer term temporary or permanent contracts following the initial six-month placements.

Ending the program early will remove the opportunities for hundreds of people at getting their foot in thedoor of employment. The council already encourages the uptake of apprenticeships and where budget andeligibility allow we will attempt to recruit apprenticeships in line with Government proposals.”

3.5 Hazel Lonsdale, Third Sector Services“The FJF programme gave us the opportunity to employ three young people in differing roles:

Volunteer Centre InterviewerDawn initially shadowed our Volunteer manager in interviewing potential volunteers and helping them todecide on which volunteering opportunity was right for them and arranging placements. She very quicklybecame able to conduct these interviews on her own allowing more time for the Volunteer Manager todevote to advising organisation on Volunteer Management good practice and developing newopportunities. This is very much in line with Government strategies and The Big Society. Dawn has grownsuch confidence and self-esteem that she is now following her dream of studying art and has gained aplace at Hereford to gain a degree. She feels that the placement here has transformed her life and givenher not only aspirations but the self-belief that she can achieve her goals.



EscortJack became an escort on our community transport operation in Gloucester. Dealing with a whole rangeof disadvantaged children, older people and disabled individuals of all ages he has now decided that hewishes to pursue a career in social care and is going back to College in September to study the subjectand gain the necessary qualifications. He has gained confidence and a direction in his life.

Transport booking assistantRhiannon has been working in the community transport office in Cheltenham. She has been exposed to arange of office procedures but her main role has been to answer the phone and take bookings frompassengers who are mainly elderly or disabled people. This involves using computer scheduling softwarewith which she quickly became familiar. Rather timid and quiet when she joined us she has developedinto a confident young woman with a warm and helpful telephone manner which quickly puts people atease. She is in the final stage of completing NVQ 2 Business Administration qualification funded throughthe scheme and is becoming a great asset to the organisation. We have now employed her full time asAssistant Transport Co-ordinator and she has become a valued member of the team with a positive futureahead of her.”


4. Gloucestershire First had asked to double the contract value in order to increase the number ofopportunities on offer. We are aware of employers willing to create opportunities and that young people arestruggling to gain employment. The decision to end FJF means that these opportunities cannot be created.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by South East Diamonds for Investment and Growth

Introduction

The SEDfIG Partnership22 seeks to support the economic performance of the key economic areas of south-east England—the eight “Diamonds for Investment & Growth”. These “functional economic areas” accountfor a disproportionate amount of GVA within the region and will provide the majority of economic and housinggrowth within the south-east in forthcoming years.

The eight Diamond areas are:

— Brighton & Hove.

— Gatwick Diamond.

— Milton Keynes & Aylesbury Vale.

— North Hampshire.

— Oxford / Central Oxfordshire.

— Reading.

— Thames Gateway Kent.

— Urban South Hampshire.

Each of these functional economic areas is supported by sub-regional partnerships, with strong levels ofbusiness engagement and involvement. Since 2006, the authorities at the urban core of these areas have beenworking together as the SEDfIG Partnership.

The SEDfIG has led and commissioned economic research, supported shared EU-funded programmes,arranged pan-Diamond conferences, responded to Government and associated consultations, contributed tonational policy development, shared good practice case studies and learning and sought to articulate and supportthe growth needs of the Diamonds.

The Economy of South-East England

The south-east currently accounts for over 14% of UK Gross Value Added (GVA), as well as over 25%(£3.2 billion) of UK business expenditure on research and development. The region has an existing strongpresence amongst nationally identified priority growth sectors, largely based in the Diamond areas. The regionhas the highest concentration of health technology companies in the UK and is an international centre for theaerospace industry, accounting for 22% of UK firms in the sector.

Independent evaluation23 of business focused programmes in the South East has shown that investments inbusiness development and competitiveness have achieved very high impacts on economic growth, especiallysupport for key industry sectors (£23 GVA per £1 spent), trade (£9 GVA per £1 spent) and foreign directinvestment (£9 GVA per £1 spent). Investments such as these have enabled the private sector and national22 Comprising Basingstoke & Deane BC, Brighton & Hove CC, Crawley BC, Medway Council, Milton Keynes Council, Oxford

CC, Portsmouth CC, Reading BC, Southampton CC and partners.23 Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2009), Impact of RDA Spending.



partners to develop major centres of excellence which are stimulating further private sector investment—forexample the International Space Innovation Centre at Harwell and the International Centre for Excellence inTelecare. Areas of the South East economy with strong potential offer opportunities for high returns on publicinvestment, which will strengthen the UK economy as a whole.

Whilst there are no “core” cities in the south-east, there are a number of strong urban economies—theDiamonds—which drive growth and productivity in the region. The south-east of England relies heavily uponthe economic vitality and success of the Diamond areas to generate employment, GVA and prosperity. The“polycentricity” of the south-east, and the way that smaller urban areas tie together, with London, to form astrong regional economy, is now widely recognised.24 These functional relationships ensure that the GreaterSouth East plays a vital role in the economic success of the capital and the UK as a whole.

The South East is critical to UK economic success, so it is important to ensure there is an overall strategyfor meeting the needs and aspirations of the area as a whole. Growth will bring pressures on the infrastructure,housing, environment, and economic development that must be met. In addition, the south-east of England, isslipping behind competitor regions internationally, dropping ten places on the World KnowledgeCompetitiveness Index between 2005 and 2008.25 There also exist significant pockets of deprivation, largelyfound in urban parts of the region. Across the south-east as a whole, there are 958,000 economically inactivepeople of working age—compared with only 354,000 in the north-east.26

The Future Jobs Fund

The youth unemployment rate remains high, at 17.5%, compared to 6.3% for 25–49 year olds and 4.6% forthose over 50.27 However, the rate of long-term young unemployed fell from March to June 2010. Whilstinitiatives such as the Community Task Force will have played a part, the Future Jobs Fund has also provideda positive mechanism for tackling this inactivity. Whilst the numbers involved have been small when comparedto the scale of the problem, the impact upon individuals has been impressive. Our response to the issues raisedby the committee is provided below:

Q—The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work ExperienceOpportunities to Young Unemployed People:

Evidence from our authorities suggests that the FJF has proved successful in matching new work experienceopportunities to young unemployed people. In addition, through working with other service and learningproviders, work experience has usually been coupled with provision of appropriate training and skillsdevelopment opportunities.

In Milton Keynes, for example, the provision of work experience through the FJF has been complementedby the provision of training through Milton Keynes College, funded by the Milton Keynes Council RecessionBusters Project. A total of 96 young people will be employed through the FJF programme, with appropriateskills development also made available. Employer specific training has also been provided, dependent uponthe positions undertaken, and has included technical training such as engine removal and Level 2 NVQs inbusiness administration, customer services, warehouse and logistics, landscaping and gardening. Such skillsare economically valuable, and give participants a considerable foothold in the employment market. Indeed, ofthe 28 participants who commenced FJF employment in January / February 2010, 13 have secured permanent,full-time employment.

In North Hampshire, a total of 187 young people will be employed through the FJF programme. A widerange of employment opportunities has been offered, ensuring a diversity of provision that allows participantsto pursue their interests. The local Leisure Trust, has, for example, used the scheme to employ and train youngpeople as lifeguards. The local authority community safety team has benefited from four young people, withoutsignificant qualifications, getting involved in a number of community safety projects. One is helping to includecommunity safety information in ward profiles, another is helping to promote community safety events withinareas of high ASB and crime. They are updating their CVs with help from their managers. Two other youngpeople with degrees are working with the Council’s economic prosperity team, to promote their businessexcellence award scheme. In short, a diverse programme has been provided, matching new opportunitiesappropriately to unemployed young people. Likewise, in Berkshire, a total of 167 employment opportunitieswill be created, each accompanied by employer based training. From the first set of 36 starters, 10 have securedpermanent full-time employment.

Q—Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme

As can be seen from the above examples, the FJF has provided tangible opportunities for young people todevelop their experience and skills and, in many cases, secure continuing employment at the end of their sixmonth FJF contract. Clearly, the scale of bids to the FJF has been important—larger scale bids encourage24 Eg. Pain, K. (2006) Policy Challenges of Functional Polycentricity in a Global Mega-City Region: South East England, Built

Environment, 32(2).25 Huggins et al (2008), The World Knowledge Competitiveness Index, Centre for International Competitiveness, Cardiff University.26 Labour Force Survey, March to May 2010.27 ILO figures, via Centre for Social and Economic Inclusion, August 2010



service providers to come together, securing economies of scale but also ensuring a diversity of employmentprovision.

The partnership approach required does, however, place an administrative burden on the accountable bodyfor management of programmes. Evidence from our areas suggests that, once FJF programmes had beenapproved by government, the key barrier to early progress was the need to develop a suitable framework formanagement of contracts and accounts. The time demands placed upon accountable bodies in developing theseprocesses, and managing the provision of opportunities by other employers was significant, and reinforces theneed for bids of scale, to provide greatest efficiency.

However, once established, these procedures have proved manageable. In ending the FJF early, it will beimportant that any new programme or provision maximises the learning from this and adopts, as appropriate,the management procedures developed for FJF by local authorities and their partners. This will avoidduplication of effort and ensure that, despite the lack of a formal evaluation of the programme, learning fromthe FJF is built upon.

Q—The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

As illustrated above, the FJF has had a positive impact upon many of its participants, preventingdisengagement from the labour market and providing tangible experience and learning. Whilst initial set-upcosts for successful bidders was high, policy and procedures are now largely established and manageable.

However, whilst having a positive impact on small numbers, youth unemployment requires larger scalesolutions. The latest ILO figures suggest that there are 324,000 young people currently unemployed—the “real”figure, coupled with the numbers who are “underemployed”, is likely to be much higher. The forthcominground of public spending cuts, following the October CSR, is likely to exacerbate this problem, as are previouscuts to Higher Education provision, which are now being felt by potential students.

There is, therefore, a great need for targeted provision of employment opportunities, coupled with training,specifically for young people. The FJF model encouraged local service providers, and businesses, to cometogether to seek to meet this need—the learning and best practice from this should be maximised in any newprovision. We would suggest that, given the value of the partnership approach, the need to focus on “real”labour market areas, and the scale needed for successful provision, any new funded arrangements or biddingprocesses should be taken forward by new Local Enterprise Partnerships, as they emerge.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Birmingham and Black Country City Region

Executive Summary

The following report outlines a response from the Birmingham and Black Country City Region to the Workand Pensions Select Committee Inquiry into Youth Unemployment and Future Jobs Fund.

The Birmingham and Black Country City Region initially secured FJF funding for 5,844 jobs in Birmingham,Solihull, Coventry, Sandwell, Dudley, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Telford. This figure has altered slightlyfollowing some of the Local Authorities re-negotiating their number of placements due to a late start to theprogramme. Each local authority acts as the accountable body for their allocation of FJF monies and outputswith Be Birmingham managing Birmingham’s contract. These partners have fed into the City Region secretariatto inform this paper. As well as feeding into this report Be Birmingham and Sandwell have provided a separateresponse to the inquiry.

Overall FJF has been viewed as a success by providers and employers. It has increased the employability ofthose who have benefited from the programme which has led to significant numbers of young people going onto find sustainable employment following their placement. The programme has provided young people withthe softer employability skills that employers have identified can often be lacking in candidates. FJF has helpedmany young unemployed people to realise their potential within the workplace at a time of recession.Weaknesses of the programme include a lack of systems to effectively monitor outcomes and support for thoseyoung people who fell out of the programme.

1 Purpose of Report

To outline the response, to the Work and Pensions Select Committee Inquiry into the Future Jobs Fund(FJF), from partners delivering FJF in the Birmingham and Black Country City Region. The report will focuson the strengths and weakness of FJF.

2 FJF Strengths

2.1 Partners within the City Region partnership have identified a number of strengths that the programmeoffers young people in terms of long-term sustainable employment opportunities.



2.2 The programme helps raise the confidence and aspirations of those young people who enrolled with manycommenting that if it were not for FJF they would not have considered applying for the type of employment thatthe programme offered them.

2.3 The programme has provided young people with the basic skills that employers state are vital within theworkplace. This includes communication skills, ability to negotiate, developing a positive attitude, punctualityand being able to work in a team. Developing these skills greatly increases the employability of the individual.These softer basic skills have been complimented by formal training with qualifications up to NVQ level aswell as CRB checks.

2.4 As well as providing the young people with these skills FJF has helped them produce CVs which increasetheir competiveness in the job market. As well as boosting their CVs the FJF programme has providedparticipants with references helping them access sustainable employment opportunities.

2.5 The six month time frame was considered positive by many providers and employers. This provided theyoung person with a substantial amount of work experience but at the same time wasn’t too long a time framethat tested the commitment of the employer.

2.6 The numbers of young people who are going on to gain permanent employment following theprogramme, often with their FJF employer, surpassed expectations. For instance, within Solihull over half ofthe 65 young people who have finished phase 1 to date have gained permanent employment.

2.7 The scope of FJF jobs was vast ensuring that the programme offered young unemployed people theopportunity to be employed in housing, environmental services, retail, 3rd sector, colleges, sports and leisure,youth work, regeneration, libraries and much more. This allows young people to be matched with placementsthat match their abilities and interests helping to ensure retention.

2.8 The programme was attractive to employers because there was a recruitment and selection processallowing employers to select candidates giving them greater choice in who they took on.

3 FJF Weaknesses

3.1 Some employers felt that there was too much paper work which became time consuming when employinglarge cohorts of candidates within one organisation.

3.2 Some partners felt that more could be done to assist those young people who dropped out early or whofinished without gaining ongoing employment.

3.3 Some providers felt that at the start of FJF there was an opportunity to refer candidates more quicklyonto the programme. Some employers also felt that there is an opportunity to better brief candidates about thejob role they are applying for and a need to identify candidates who are not suitable and provide them withgreater support and development before they apply for FJF opportunities.

3.4 Despite there being a need for eligibility criteria some providers felt that there were a number of youngpeople who could benefit from the programme but were not eligible.

3.5 Employers who tried to match the placement with an NVQ qualification struggled to do so with theplacement just being for six months.

3.6 Some partners felt that there was the opportunity to have more robust measures in place to track thedestination of FJF leavers once they have finished their employment to more accurately assess the project’soutcomes. While destination forms help with this process there were significant numbers of young peoplewhose destination was classed as “not known.” Also the destination forms are completed immediately after theyoung person finishes their employment when it may be more revealing to undertake them 3 months after theirplacement. This is in response to many young people not always preparing themselves for further employmentwhile on their placement and having a short time out of work in between finishing FJF and finding furtheremployment. As a result these individuals are not captured as securing employment. Furthermore, more couldbe done to assist young people in obtaining further employment as they near the end of their FJF placement.

4 Ending FJF

City Region partners felt that the impact of ending FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012 wouldproduce a lack of “entry level” jobs leading to an increase in youth unemployment. Ending FJF would alsoproduce a gap in employment provision around providing young people with work place experience and basicskills which employers regard as crucial when recruiting.

10 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Royal British Legion Industries

Introduction:

Royal British Legion Industries (RBLI) has engaged a number of young unemployed individuals throughthe Future Jobs Fund scheme. These young people have worked in various Divisions through the Organisations;in most cases RBLI has tried to match them to specific projects relevant to their education, qualifications andcareer aspirations. In total RBLI created 20 opportunities for Future Jobs Fund participants, three of whichwere unsuccessful mainly due to motivation levels of the participant. Of the remaining 17, two have beensupported by RBLI to get permanent jobs in other organisations, three have been offered permanent jobs withinRBLI and the remaining 12 are still working on their specific assignments. For RBLI and the FJF participantswe feel that this has been an extremely positive experience, giving participants the opportunity to developwork based skills and experience, the absence of which was influencing their ability to compete effectively inlocal labour markets. It has also provided RBLI Managers with an opportunity to mentor and support FJFparticipants to help increase their employability.

Overview of FJF:

In order for participants to gain maximum benefit from the Future Jobs Fund, it is imperative that the co-ordinating organisation manages the scheme effectively to ensure effective job matching and ongoingmonitoring. As well as reporting to a divisional line manager for day to day activities, RBLI provided an inhouse co-ordinator who had over-arching responsibility for the welfare and development of all participants.Many of the participants came with little or no work experience, a real lack of understanding of work placeetiquette (timekeeping, communication, behaviour etc) and low confidence levels. For RBLI, the impact of thiswas minimal as the organisation delivers employment related programmes which support individuals withdisabilities and health conditions to find work. We were therefore well placed to offer the support anddevelopment that FJF participants required to flourish and the feedback we have received along with ourobservations of distance travelled for these individuals is clear evidence that in this environment FJF hasbeen successful. Individuals have had opportunities for vocational training as well as participating in personaldevelopment workshops to improve confidence levels and self esteem.

Summary:

From our experience and observations, the Future Jobs Fund offers real opportunities for young, unemployedindividuals to gain valuable work experience not just to demonstrate to employers via their CV in order toincrease their chances of selection for interview, but also to improve their confidence, work based skills andwork ethic. However, in order for both parties to gain the most benefit from FJF it is key that the employer buysinto the concept of real work experience and personal development, that the scheme is effectively monitored bythe co-ordinator and that the individual makes the most of opportunities for training and personal developmentthat the employer may be able to offer. Without these factors there is a danger of this scheme being exploitedand the FJF participant gaining little tangible benefit in terms of increasing their employability and chance ofsustaining long term employment.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Rhyl City Strategy

Rhyl City Strategy is submitting this written evidence in response to an invitation from DWP. The viewsexpressed in this evidence are those of the Rhyl City Strategy Community Interest Company, and includefeedback from Future Jobs Fund employees and employers. Seven employers attended a feedback session on1 September 2010, another seven employers submitted written evidence and 12 FJF young people attended afeedback session on 6 September 2010.

Report Summary

Background

1. The Rhyl City Strategy Community Interest Company is the lead accountable body for a FJF programmein Conwy and Denbighshire, North Wales, and has created 322 job vacancies across its network of employersfrom the business, statutory, and voluntary and community sectors. Between November 2009 and August 2010,the partnership has achieved 223 FJF jobstarts. To date, of 70 FJF completers, 38% have entered sustainedemployment, and a further 10% have progressed into full time education or training.


2. The Rhyl City Strategy FJF programme has successfully matched 223 young unemployed people to newwork experiences. Jobcentre Plus has played a key and effective role in referring eligible customers to theopportunities, with job profiles being matched to jobseekers’ experience, skills and interests. Monthly jobfairshave supported the matching process.



3. Our FJF programme has provided opportunities for young unemployed people from a broad spectrum,many of whom have had no or limited previous work experience or skills training.

Strengths of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers (including in the ThirdSector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation to the Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

4. The benefits of the FJF programme have been far-reaching for unemployed young people and employersacross a range of sectors, businesses, and the community as a whole.

5. The programme has facilitated the creation of “real” jobs, enabling FJF employees to develop a workethos and demonstrate work-place discipline and reliability, as well as gaining relevant, up-to-date and work-focussed skills and qualifications. For many, this opportunity has broken the continuum of long-termunemployment and enabled the achievement of a portfolio of experience which has proved advantageous insubsequent job search. In many cases, the direct contact between jobseekers and employers has led to realopportunities for progression into permanent, sustained employment.

6. FJF employees come off benefits and many are taking home a wage for the first time. This has helpedchallenge negative perceptions about being “better off on benefits”. The scheme has had significant impacts onmotivation and self worth, enabling young people to improve self-esteem, confidence and interpersonal skills.The more vulnerable employees have the support they need to develop and progress.

7. The FJF programme is highly effective in connecting employers with the worklessness agenda. Theflexibility of the grant funding and up-front funding model has helped to attract employers to the programmeand encouraged them to “take a risk” on someone who they might not otherwise have considered. Theprogramme helps to challenge employer perceptions of the long-term unemployed, and encourages them toseek to recruit from amongst this group, thereby exercising their social responsibility

8. The programme is helping to stimulate local enterprise growth. The flexibility of the grant funding andthe provision of an up-front payment is enabling the participation of smaller employers and organisations andthe creation of a range of additional new posts. This influx of new employees has enabled many organisationsand employers to develop new areas of work, which has stimulated internal growth. This is sometimes leadingto the creation of a permanent position, and an FJF employee being taken on as a permanent member of staff.

9. At this early stage, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the overall long-term potentialof the programme to move people into sustained employment. However, there are indications that there isconsiderable capacity to use this job creation exercise to generate growth in the SME sector. This should beseen to maximum effect as the economy begins to come out of recession and employers seek to take onadditional staff in response to increased business.

10. Rhyl City Strategy’s partnership approach builds on existing relationships with employers from a rangeof sectors and develops local capacity and commitment to engage with the worklessness agenda. By workingthrough a locally based partnership, the FJF has reached a network of employers that would otherwise havenever become involved in such a programme.

11. Through its focus on hot-spots, the FJF targets the most disadvantaged communities, tackling a cultureof worklessness in our poorest communities. By providing a resource for community based organisations, thefund supports local regeneration activity. Over the longer term, this offers potential to create a new generationof people with first hand experience of the voluntary and community sector who will be well-positioned toparticipate in the Government’s Big Society proposals.

12. Employers indicate that the FJF administrative processes are not proving too onerous. Employers areable to use the grant to cover costs of training and associated administration and overhead costs.

Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers (including in the ThirdSector), Employers and Young Unemployed People

13. The community benefit focus of the FJF limits its potential to support business growth within thecommercial sector. This is particularly unfortunate, as in the current economic climate, it is the private sectorwhich is most likely to be able to offer permanent employment at the end of 26 weeks.

14. As JSA claimants, potential FJF employees have had to be “available for work”, and as such have notbeen able to participate in pre-employment training or work trials.

15. Competitive recruitment processes mean there is a potential risk of employers “cherry picking” the bestcandidates, with the “hardest to reach” left at the end of the queue; employers can be reluctant to take onemployees with particular support needs. However, the additional resource provided by the scheme does assistwith this issue.

16. A minority of employers have found the administration onerous.

17. There have been some issues with referrals to vacancies not translating to jobstarts, either becauseadvisors have not been disseminating information on vacancies to jobseekers, or because jobseekers have not



been chasing up applications to employers. In order to overcome this issue, Rhyl City Strategy has establishedmonthly jobfairs in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, which have proved effective in matching eligiblejobseekers to vacancies.

18. 16–17 year olds are not eligible to participate in the programme.

19. Many FJF employees state they would prefer the scheme to last 8–12 months, with a greater number ofminimum hours.


20. There is a concern that the positive gains will be at risk of being lost. With the FJF having only been inoperation for a short period of time, there has been no opportunity to explore its full potential.

21. The FJF has been an extremely powerful tool in engaging employers in the worklessness agenda and instimulating local business growth through job creation; the programme has helped to engender an optimismand confidence at a potentially bleak time. Ending the FJF when the economic recovery is still so fragile runsthe risk of halting the growth of many small local organisations.

22. In previous recessions, it has taken five years for youth employment to get back up to pre-recessionlevels; the decision to end the programme early runs the risk of losing the momentum with employers, anddestroying confidence in some of our most disadvantaged communities.

23. Our local FJF employees have expressed concerns at the impact on a lost generation of young people,who will find it impossible to find work without the scheme.


24. We are still awaiting information on how the transition from FJF to The Work Programme will bemanaged. At this stage, we would wish to see a Future Jobs Fund component built into the model.

25. We have found the focus that the FJF gives to recruitment from hotspot areas particularly effective intackling unemployment in disadvantaged communities, and would wish to see a similar arrangement reflectedin the new Work Programme.

Recommendations

26. Rhyl City Strategy would like to see the FJF programme reinstated until March 2012, giving time todevelop an FJF component within the new Work Programme. There should be continuity so that workingrelationships and good practice are not lost.

27. Any development of the FJF in the new Work Programme should incorporate a model that has a particularfocus on targeting deprived communities at neighbourhood level.

Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund

Background

28. Rhyl City Strategy is one of 15 City Strategy Pathfinders taking part in a DWP programme to tackleunemployment and economic inactivity in the UK’s most disadvantaged communities. Rhyl, situated on theNorth Wales Coast, was a thriving holiday resort until the advent of cheap flights in the 1970s. The town’seconomy subsequently went into decline, leaving a legacy of deprivation. Two of the five wards of Rhyl areconsistently in the top five of the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation and Rhyl West holds the number 1position out 190 wards in Wales. Rhyl City Strategy brings together a partnership of key stakeholders from thestatutory, voluntary and business sectors to pool resources and align activities in pursuit of the shared goal ofimproving the employment rate in the town. Rhyl City Strategy has Community Interest Company status.

29. The Rhyl City Strategy Community Interest Company is the lead accountable body for a FJF programmein Conwy and Denbighshire, North Wales. The LAB submitted a successful bid to DWP to deliver 322 FutureJobs in Conwy and Denbighshire.

Programme Model

30. Rhyl City Strategy (RCS) has an existing network of partner organisations developed over the past fewyears. We have a Consortium of over 180 members from all sectors of the community, all with a shared visionto reduce economic inactivity. The Consortium meets quarterly, enabling joined up working and reducingduplication.

31. In preparing its bid to DWP, RCS received a commitment from its network of employers to create atotal of 322 jobs. These partners span public, private and the voluntary sector and range from small, microbusinesses to the largest of employers in the area—the County Councils. The types of jobs created are widelydiverse across a range of sectors, including accounts, youth workers, childcare, football coaches, conservation



workers, graphic design, IT, tourist information guides, administrators, construction workers, retail and catering,music/creative arts, sports & leisure.

32. Rhyl City Strategy employs a Coordinator and an Adminstrator to run our FJF programme. RCS pays agrant to the employers, who organise all aspects of the FJF employees’ employment, training, support andonward progression.

Rhyl City Strategy Future Jobs Fund: Summary of Outcomes

33. In May 2010, the RCS FJF programme achieved 100% of its Tranche 1 target; a total of 143 jobstarts.The target for Tranche 2 is a further 179 jobstarts by March 2011. Since May 2010 we have filled 80 of these179, with the remaining 99 to fill in the next seven months. Of the 223 jobs we have filled since November2009, there have been just 27 early leavers, of which six left to take up a permanent employment. This givesa retention rate of over 90%.

34. To date, 70 of our FJF employees have completed their 26 weeks. Of these, 27 (38%) have progressedinto permanent employment, and a further 7 (10%) into full time education or training.


35. To date, our FJF programme has matched 223 young unemployed people to new work experiences. Thematching process has been extremely successful. Jobcentre Plus has played a key and effective role in referringeligible customers to the opportunities. A dedicated officer has had responsibility for “matching”, and alladvisors have been actively sighted on the opportunities available; this has ensured that job profiles havematched jobseekers’ experience, skills and interests. In support of the matching process, and in order tomaintain a momentum, we have developed monthly jobfairs, which are attended by all employers with livevacancies, and to which Jobcentre Plus advisors refer all eligible jobseekers. These have proved an effectivemeans of matching young people to work opportunities, offering an opportunity for young people to meet arange of employers and explore a number of options before applying for formal interviews.

36. “The main problem that I faced in finding work was the fact that I had no recent work experience tooffer on my CV due to being in university. The RCS Job Fair combined with JCP for the FJF allowed medirect contact with employers in an interview like environment. This allowed me to demonstrate and explainthe skills I had. It also allowed me to see a wide variety of employers in quick succession.”—(FJF employee)

37. The FJF programme has offered opportunities for young unemployed people from a range of backgroundsand experiences. Some of our participating employers had initial concerns that they would be swamped withapplications from graduates, and that the scheme would fail to reach those young people in particular need ofsupport. In fact, the scheme has provided opportunities for young unemployed people from a broad spectrum,many of whom have had no or limited previous work experience or skills training.

Strengths of the FJF Programme from the Perspective of Providers (including in the ThirdSector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Benefits to individuals

38. In our experience the benefits of the FJF programme have been far-reaching, to unemployed youngpeople, employers across a range of sectors, businesses, and the community as a whole.

39. In marked contrast to previous employment schemes, the programme has enabled the creation of “real”jobs, with young people performing identical tasks to permanent staff. FJF employees have had the opportunityto gain relevant, up-to-date and work-focussed skills, experience of working with colleagues and gainknowledge of the sector. Operating in a real work environment has encouraged the development of a workethos, giving young people often for the first time the experience of a daily routine and a “taste for work”, andan opportunity to demonstrate work-place discipline and reliability.

40. “I have got into a good routine compared to when I was on JSA.”—(FJF Employee)

41. “Before I started the FJF programme I used to sit round at home or go to the Job Centre, but on thisprogramme it builds my confidence up and I think it helps my communicating skills by meeting different peopleeveryday”.—(FJF Employee)

42. For many, this opportunity has broken the continuum of long-term unemployment and enabled theachievement of experience, training, networking and references which have then proved highly advantageousin terms of subsequent job search.

43. The six-month duration of the scheme has allowed time for young people to fully participate in work-place training and in many cases to gain relevant, work-based qualifications. Eligible jobseekers go throughthe process of applying for a job, rather than being sent on a programme, and as such, there is greater individualempowerment and ownership of the process. FJF employees can demonstrate to prospective future employersthat they have experienced the world of work, and have developed a portfolio of experience.



44. FJF employees go through the process of coming off benefits, with support to deal with any arisingdifficulties; support at this vulnerable stage reduces the risk of attrition. In many cases, FJF employees aretaking home a wage for the first time, which can challenge previously negative perceptions about being “betteroff on benefits”. The scheme has had significant impacts on motivation and self worth, enabling young peopleto improve self-esteem, confidence and interpersonal skills.

45. “It’s given me independence and a confidence boost not being on JSA, I am now earning my ownmoney.”—(FJF Employee)

46. “By earning my wage, it makes me feel good been able to pay my own way.”—(FJF Employee)

47. One of the key strengths of the programme is the direct sustained contact between jobseekers andemployers. We have seen this translate into real opportunities for progression into permanent, sustainedemployment, with unemployed young people using the opportunity to get their “foot in the door” and toimpress employers with their hard work and enthusiasm.

48. “Before I started with FJF I would have never worked on a farm, and now I have it is a great experienceas I am also getting kept on full time after the scheme ends.”—(FJF employee)

49. Through providing a resource to employers, the programme ensures that the more vulnerable employeeshave the support they need both to find a position and to develop their skills and behaviour once employed.

50. “One was not a good timekeeper, if he was fully employed then he would have been finished but throughFJF has been able to use this as an opportunity to develop. Another realised that earning a wage was betterthan benefits.”—(FJF employer)

51. “We have taken on people who may not have come forward through the normal routes; they have neededextra support to gain the skills in the workplace”—(FJF employer)

Benefits to Employers

52. In the Rhyl experience, the programme has provided a fresh impetus and an effective mechanism forconnecting employers with the worklessness agenda.

53. The flexibility of the grant funding and up-front funding model has helped to attract employers to theprogramme. The scheme provides employers with a resource that enables them to take on someone who theymight not otherwise have considered, eg someone who needs extra support and mentoring.

54. “Employers can develop the capacity of individuals who are very removed from the workplace—theycould not afford to invest resources in getting individuals up to speed by using their core funding alone, giventhat their core funding is very tight at present”.—(FJF employer)

55. The programme has provided a form of extended “work trial”; where internal resources have allowed,and an FJF employee has shone, the employer has taken them on permanently at the end of the six monthcontract. This has helped to challenge employer perceptions of the long-term unemployed, and encouragedemployers to seek to recruit from amongst this group, raising their awareness of JCP as a recruitment optionand sighting them on the potential of recruiting from amongst the long term unemployed. In our experience,participating employers have been largely impressed with the calibre and attitude of the FJF employees, andhave used the funding responsibly to provide their employees with the skills and qualifications they need todevelop and progress.

56. The programme has also offered employers an opportunity to exercise their social responsibility byplaying an active role in tackling youth unemployment in a recession

57. “The FJF has allowed us to recruit directly from a sector of the community that was under representedwithin our organisation and added a sense of freshness to Co-Options activities.”—(FJF employer)

Stimulating Growth and Opportunity

58. In Rhyl, we have now begun to see the exciting potential of the scheme to stimulate local enterprisegrowth. The FJF provides employers with grant funding for wages, training costs and any associated support,administration and overheads. The flexibility of this funding and the provision of an up-front payment hasenabled the participation of smaller employers and organisations, which have previously been deterred frominvolvement in initiatives because of onerous bureaucracy and their own limited organisational capacity.Through provision of this resource, participating organisations, including small to medium sized enterprises(SMEs) and social enterprises, are being enabled and encouraged to create a range of additional new posts.

59. This influx of new employees, bringing skills and fresh ideas, has enabled organisations and employersto put resource into exploring and developing new areas of work, either through direct use of the FJFemployees, or by freeing their own time up to concentrate on previously neglected areas. In many cases andincreasingly, we are seeing this stimulating growth within the employing organisations themselves, resulting inthe FJF employees being taken on as permanent members of staff. Locally, we have seen this to particulareffect in the social enterprise sector.



60. “In a small organisation the FJF has been a massive help, especially with the recession.”—(FJFemployer)

61. “One of the Future Jobs Fund workers is due to spend a week with a project called Butterwick Trees. Thisis a social enterprise scheme which collects seeds from a local environment, germinates them and then growsand sells trees with a focus on promoting local species. This young man is going to learn about how this worksand the technology associated with this so that he can then inform the developmental plans to develop abusiness here in North Wales on this model. What a fantastic opportunity that is being involved in pioneeringwork which is geared to generating a business which will generate jobs down the road. And apart from theexperience for the young person I think this is also a great example of a participant employer thinking creativelyand evidencing a lot of lateral thinking in relation to the deployment of workers.”

62. This ability of the FJF to increase organisational capacity, thereby generating a self-perpetuating cycleof job creation, is proving itself to be one of the key strengths of the FJF programme. This should be seen tomaximum effect as the economy begins to come out of recession and employers seek to take on additionalstaff in response to increased business.

63. “The FJF has given us a unique opportunity to take on young people and to provide them with workopportunities in areas of potential growth within our organisation. Without the FJF we probably would nothave taken this step and probably continued with our existing staffing levels. Such has been the success ofsome of the placements, that we are able to offer two full time permanent posts on our smallholding and withinour textile recycling facility.”—(FJF employer)

64. “As a small organisation with limited resources CJIW has benefited significantly in terms of growingcapacity and extending reach amongst service-users. Furthermore, significant added-value has been achievedfrom the introduction to the organisation of young new staff who have brought in fresh ideas and perspectives,particularly in terms of additional insight into the needs of the local area, as well the needs of communities ofinterest and identity, thereby helping CJIW to improve its reach and effectiveness.”—(FJF employer)

65. “The flexible structure of the scheme has enabled the creation of a full-time post, with the FJF portionacting as an employment subsidy. This pump-priming has, in turn, led to the securing of ongoing funding toallow the post to continue.”—(FJF employer)

66. At this early stage, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the long-term potential ofthe programme to move people into sustained employment. At the time of writing, the Rhyl City Strategy FJFscheme has seen 38% of FJF employees completing the programme progressing into sustained work, from asample of 70 leavers. A further 10% of leavers have moved into full-time education or training. Our currentexperience certainly indicates that employers are adopting the scheme as a genuine opportunity to offer ameaningful work placement to a long term unemployed person, and that employers are seeking to turn thatshort-term opportunity into a sustained job for the right recruit wherever possible.

67. “I think that if this approach had been in place when everything was much more vibrant economicallythat we would have done some serious damage to reducing some quite established long term unemployment,because I think the environment would have had more capability to use this job creation exercise to generategrowth. For me the weakness has actually been consequent upon the timing and focus being associated withshort term impact on joblessness amongst youth.”—(LAB Board member)

68. Through its focus on hot-spots, the FJF provides an excellent facility for targeting the most disadvantagedcommunities, contributing towards tackling a culture of worklessness which exists in some of our poorestcommunities. The fund has offered an opportunity for community based organisations to develop theiractivities, and to employ local community members. In this way, the fund is actively supporting localregeneration activity and creating new opportunities for the long term unemployed to become involved inneighbourhood renewal. Over the longer tem, this offers a powerful potential to create a new generation ofpeople with first hand experience of the voluntary and community sector who will be well-positioned toparticipate in the Government’s Big Society proposals.

69. “The ARC Communities initiative with CJIW (Community Justice in Wales) in Colwyn Bay has providedan interface between youth and the homelessness agenda by employing young people on FJF to deliver servicesto the homeless. In addition to raising awareness in the young people, we have seen chaotic service usersresponding to and valuing the input of these young people, which has lead to breaking down barriers on bothsides. These young people have learned about and responded to the social care medium which relates to thecommunity cohesion agenda and the “Big Society”—(LAB Board member)

Partnership Approach

70. Rhyl City Strategy’s FJF delivery model has used a partnership approach, building on existingrelationships with organisations from the private, voluntary and community and statutory sectors, developinglocal commitment and contacts, and raising local capacity and interest in the agenda. The FJF scheme hasenabled Rhyl City Strategy to mobilise a network of local employers to play an active role in tackling localyouth unemployment by creating a diverse and exciting range of new work opportunities. The FJF has provideda flexible and highly effective mechanism for engaging employers actively in the worklessness agenda.



71. By working through a locally based partnership, the FJF has reached a network of employers that wouldotherwise have never become involved in such a programme. In administering the scheme locally, Rhyl CityStrategy is facilitating networking and liaison amongst its committed group of employers, and building on thisengagement to promote and raise awareness and take-up of other employability programmes and provision egBasic Skills Employer Pledge/NVQs etc.

Administration

72. Employers have indicated that the administrative processes associated with the FJF are far morestraightforward than with other schemes, with paperwork and reporting requirements not proving too onerous.This in itself is encouraging continued participation. The flexibility of the grant is also a strength of the scheme,with employers able to use the grant to cover costs of training and associated administration and overhead costs.

73. “The administration by Rhyl City Strategy of the scheme has been straightforward and non-bureaucratic.This has resulted in highly-efficient use of government resources, with the direct financial benefits of the schemeaccruing to the young person and VCS organisation rather than being absorbed into overhead andadministrative costs.”—(FJF employer)

Weaknesses of the FJF Programme from the perspective of Providers (including in the ThirdSector), Employers and Young Unemployed People,

74. Local stakeholders have identified a number of areas where the FJF programme could be improved upon.

75. There have been some issues with referrals to vacancies not translating to jobstarts, either becauseadvisors have not been disseminating information on vacancies to jobseekers, or because jobseekers have notbeen chasing up applications to employers. In order to overcome this issue, Rhyl City Strategy has establishedmonthly jobfairs in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, which have proved effective in matching eligiblejobseekers to vacancies.

76. The community benefit focus of the FJF limits its potential to support business growth within thecommercial sector. This is particularly unfortunate, as in the current economic climate, it is this sector whichis most likely to be able to offer permanent employment at the end of 26 weeks. Rhyl City Strategy is constantlyhaving to turn down applications from employers keen to participate in the scheme where no communitybenefit can be identified; eg a firm of solicitors, a carpet fitter & a pub.

77. As JSA claimants, potential FJF employees have had to be “available for work”; this has meant thatthey have not been able to participate in pre-employment training, even where funding for this has beenavailable. This opportunity could have helped prepare people for work, and helped them to get the most oftheir 6 months’ employment. FJF vacancies were not available as work trials.

78. On the whole, employers have welcome the straightforward administrative processes in involved withthe FJF programme. However, a minority of employers have found the administration onerous, particularly asthey are required to make monthly rather than quarterly claims.

79. Competitive recruitment processes mean there is a potential risk of employers “cherry picking” the bestcandidates, with the “hardest to reach” left at the end of the queue; employers can be reluctant to take onemployees with particular support needs. However, the additional resource provided by the scheme does assistwith this issue.

80. It is of particular concern that 16–17 year olds are not eligible to participate in the programme.

81. As far as the FJF employees are concerned, the main weakness of the scheme is the length of contract;they would prefer to see an 8–12 month commitment from the employer, with a greater number of minimumhours.

82. “There’s no security if you’re not kept on, you face having to look for a new job which is very difficultin our current economic climate.”—(FJF employee)

83. “Six months isn’t long enough; by the time you have got into the rhythm of working, it’s time to look foranother job. Also 21-and-under wages need to be addressed, also the amount of hours needs to be more, maybe30 hours minimum.”—(FJF employee)

84. “Obviously the fact you’re not guaranteed a permanent place, I knew it was only definite for six monthsfrom the beginning but it is still disappointing, also I think there should be more hours given instead of just25.”—(FJF employee)

85. “I feel 8 -12 months would give people a better opportunity to get more out of this course.”—(FJFemployee)


86. Rhyl City Strategy has found the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012extremely disappointing. We feel as a partnership that the positive gains made locally will be at risk of being



lost, along with the momentum that has been growing around employer engagement. With the FJF having onlybeen in operation for a short period of time before the decision was made to pull the funding, there has beenno opportunity to explore its full potential; the lessons will be lost before the real gains have a chance tobe realised.

87. “As is so often the case, we are lurching towards abandoning something before we’ve really and trulyexplored its full potential. So we once again have discontinuity and undermine a really interesting piece ofarchitecture.”—(LAB Board member)

88. The FJF has been an extremely powerful tool in engaging employers in the worklessness agenda and instimulating local business growth through job creation; the programme has helped to engender an optimismand confidence at a potentially bleak time. Ending the FHF when the economic recovery is still so fragile runsthe risk of halting the growth of many small local organisations, or worse.

89. “The ARK scheme would have folded without the FJF programme.”—(FJF employer)

90. “This programme has stabilized the small businesses within this recession.”—( FJF Employer)

91. In previous recessions, it has taken five years for youth employment to get back up to pre-recessionlevels; the decision to end the programme early runs the risk of losing momentum with employers, anddestroying confidence in some of our most disadvantaged communities.

92. “People will be disadvantaged again. Back to square 1. Hot Spots will be back to where they werebefore the FJF began.”—(FJF Employer)

93. “One employer had wanted to increased their placements to 10–12 next year, working in partnershipwith other national organisations—everyone was disappointed that this was no longer possible because offunding cuts.”—(FJF Employer)

94. “It’s been a godsend for us. It’s a fantastic scheme, will be a big loss.”—(FJF Employer)

95. The FJF employees themselves have their own concerns about the impact of the loss of the scheme:

96. “Unemployment would rise and the benefit of the cut would not be as significant as many positionswould disappear meaning the employees would go back on JSA, housing benefits etc, which in some caseswould equate to the FJF allowance without giving work experience, confidence etc.”—(FJF employee)

97. “I personally think it would be a STUPID idea to end FJF in 2011. It has given young people a chanceto get back into work. Without it there will be more young unemployed people than ever. Maybe I’m beingdramatic but there is a chance that the more young people are unemployed then the more trouble we’ll haveon the streets. It’s better to have people in work than hanging around on the streets causing trouble or sittingat home doing nothing all day.”—(FJF employee)

98. “More young people will be in jobs, but soon there will be more people young and old in the job centrestruggling for job, finding jobs and the job centre struggling to get everybody in on time.”—(FJF employee)

99. This would leave a lot more people out of a job and people would not have money to survive or dothings they enjoy doing and with people having nothing to do they will need other ways to occupy themselveswhich could lead to a rise in crime and drug use.” (FJF employee)


100. We are still awaiting information on how the transition from FJF to The Work Programme will bemanaged. At this stage, we would wish to see a Future Jobs Fund component built into the model.

101. We have found the focus that the FJF gives to recruitment from hotspot areas particularly effective intackling unemployment in disadvantaged communities, and would wish to see a similar arrangement reflectedin the new Work Programme.

102. “We welcome the opportunity to input to the development of the new Work Programme to ensure thegood practices of reducing long term unemployment amongst young people, particularly in deprivedcommunities such as Rhyl, is not lost. We would like to see that the commissioning arrangements for the WorkProgramme help shape the relationship between the Prime Contractor and the deprived communities theyserve, to ensure the impact of service delivery is measured not just on the outcome of sustainable jobs, but onthe economic regeneration of communities.”—(LAB Board member)

Recommendations

103. That the FJF programme is reinstated until March 2012, giving time to develop an FJF componentwithin the new Work Programme. There should be continuity so that local working relationships and goodpractice are not lost.

104. That any development of the FJF in the new Work Programme should incorporate a model that has aparticular focus on targeting deprived communities at neighbourhood level.



105. That consideration is given to granting the option of extending a Future Jobs Fund job for up to twelveadditional weeks, on submission of a business case. The employer should be offered a gradually reducingsubsidy during this additional period.

106. Meeting the FJF Employees

107. Lee Jagger—Admin Assistant—FJF has now been completed and I have been offered a permanentposition and am now a “Trainee Assistant Manager”.

108. Jennie Jones—Admin Assistant—I am currently three months into my FJF contract, I find itencouraging that they have already offered a previous FJF candidate a permanent position.

109. Cy Williams—Recycling—After completing my FJF scheme I have been offered a permanent positionwithin the company.

110. Daniel Gill—Farm Assistant—I have completed my six months on Future Jobs and I have now secureda permanent position within the company.

111. Lauren Roberts—Front of House—Not happy at not being kept on but this is due to the financialposition of the company.

112. Chris Fone—Front of House—I am not being kept on, however I will use my experience within myFJF 6 months contract in the future for other employment.

113. Janine McSween—Admin Assistant—I have completed the FJF project and have been kept on. Duringmy 6 months I had completed several courses and am currently in the middle of completing my NVQ level 2in Business and Administration. My confidence has grown since being employed.

114. Lloyd Beattie—Admin Assistant—I completed five months of my contract, but was fortunate enoughto apply for a permanent position within another company, using the experience of my FJF placement.

115. Lloyd Buckley—Removals Assistant—I am four months into my FJF and I’m positive that they willoffer me a permanent position at the end of it.

116. With me personally this scheme has succeeded extremely well. I don’t yet know if I am being kept onbut even if I’m not at least I have a reference and experience under my belt. For anyone on the FJF a referenceand experience are the key elements even if someone isn’t kept on. It looks better on a reference that theywere working for six months than being unemployed not doing anything.

117. I think Future Jobs is good because it creates work opportunities for young people out of work.

118. I think it is great that FJF gives young people the experience in different things and all sorts of Jobsand what jobs are out there.

119. Future Jobs is good because it gives you experiences in different things. Future Jobs is good for youngpeople because it will found you a job and it’s better to have a job for six months and get the experiencesneeded for the future.

120. I think it has succeeded and is a brilliant idea giving people the opportunity to earn experience whichshould then stand them in good stead for their future employment

121. I think it is a really good scheme to get young people off JSA and back into work. It does work and Ido think it’s successful.

122. It’s managed to get me into a completely different line of work which I never thought I could get into.Also, it has given me my independence back as I am no longer depending on Job Seekers Allowance to get by.

123. It has succeeded ok and I think it has helped old and young people to get back into work but disagreewith only a 6 month contract. I am very thankful that I got back into work but will be gutted if I’m not kept on.

124. It helps you earn experience within the six months for what trade or job you have. Gives you confidenceand helps you pay your bills instead of relying on JCP, housing benefit and gives you the confidence to find anew job.

125. It has helped me get some construction experience under my belt as I have never had the chance tolearn a trade until I came on this course. I had previously been unemployed for seven months and without thisI don’t know what I would have done. I have gained a CSCS card and a forklift truck license as well whichwill hopefully improve my chance of getting a decent job in the future.

126. The FJF gives another line of hope and confidence to the long term unemployed

10 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Scottish Sports Association

The Future Jobs Fund and Sport

Scottish sport has always prided itself on being innovative and exciting and with this in mind the SSAwasted no time organising a bid that offered a multitude of opportunities for young individuals. The programmeoffered sport a great opportunity to increase capacity, offer exciting roles to individuals and to providecommunity benefit across Scotland.

Within in a week Scottish sport had created some 100 jobs as a Scottish Sports Consortium ranging fromIT to marketing and coaching to administration. The bid was placed as part of the SCVO’s wider ThirdSector Consortium.

The initial co-ordination was undertaken by the SSA who supported its 14 members through the process.The SSA was the first organisation to employ an individual on the Future Jobs Fund in Scottish sport, closelyfollowed by a large number of its member organisations.

With 35 individuals employed across the sports sector, Scottish sport has sought to deliver a comfortableworking environment that both stimulates and challenges individuals to invest in and improve theiremployability skills.

Not only has sport offered a wide array of posts that are interesting to young people today but it has alsooffered them a real opportunity to gain full-time employment in a challenging job market.

Working in sport, and the wider Third Sector, is an opportunity to gain an insight into working in a slightlydifferent environment. Many of our Future Jobs Fund employees have thrived in their settings which have beenwidely recognised by both their employers and partner organisations.

There has never been a more exciting time in sport with the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow now onlyfour years away. Working in sport offers individuals an insight into the build up to a major sporting event aswell as an opportunity to experience the sporting sector as whole. The Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Gameswill require a massive volunteering force, with many of the Future Jobs Fund employees already highlightingthis as a reason to work in sport and as a prospect for the future.

Scottish sport’s aim is to offer every individual that joins the sector through the FJF the opportunity todevelop and grow within their post, equipping them with the appropriate skills to gain full-time employmentwithin or outwith the sector.

Employer’s Perspective

Scottish sport welcomed the first Future Jobs Fund employee on 16 November 2009, as the Scottish SportsAssociation employed Jaimie Henderson in the post of Administrative Assistant. Since Jaimie’s appointment35 individuals have succeeded in gaining a post across the Sports Consortium.

The Sports Consortium has prided itself on the breadth of jobs on offer and the experience it can provide toits employees. The range of jobs include, IT, Administration, Communications and Coaching.

The most prevalent role within the Sports Consortium has been administration based roles, ranging fromcoordinating coaching in the community to membership services. Administration roles have also seen thegreatest success in the uptake of full-time employment with five FJF employees’ now gaining full-timecontracts, four of which are within their original organisations.

Coaching posts comprise a quarter of the total posts filled to date, nine of which are with Scottish Hockey.To date one of these coaches has been employed full-time within the Scottish Hockey team.

The other 75% of posts filled in the Sports Consortium represent the wide range of jobs available in Scottishsport ranging from research and communications to facility maintenance.

71% of the employees are still under their Future Jobs Fund contracts and 9% of those who have completedtheir contracts have moved on with no employment identified to date.

However 20% of those employed in sport through the Future Jobs Fund have gained full-time employment,of which 71% remained in sport.

Sport’s success in delivering the Future Jobs Fund across Scotland has undoubtedly been made easier dueto the diverse number of jobs on offer. This demonstrates that sport as a sector has a lot to offer not only toparticipants but to employees as well.

As a sector that is fast paced and challenging as well as fun and rewarding, employees have a greatopportunity to test and develop skills whilst working in an environment that is both supportive and enjoyable.

The involvement of 14 sports organisations and the range of jobs on offer are both a testament to sport’sability to adapt and to rally together in delivering innovative programmes.

Organisations such as Scottish Volleyball seized upon the opportunity to engage in the Future Jobs Fund.Not only did they find a six month placement for an individual on the programme but created the capacity to



support this person through the term of the programme and offered them a full-time post within the organisationupon completion.

Margaret Ann Fleming, Chief Executive Officer of Scottish Volleyball, recognises the value of supportingindividuals through the Future Jobs Fund in allowing them “to develop into a valuable member of staff.”

Everyone in sport who has been engaged in the programme has strived to support and develop individualsthroughout their time with the organisations. Many recognise that to lose an individual during their appointmentto a full-time post may come as a blow, but more importantly it is the aim of all involved to encourage this.

Kim Atkinson, Policy Director of the Scottish Sports Association highlights this point “the success of sportin helping Future Jobs Fund employees into full-time work is fantastic. 20% of all employees have gainedemployment both within and out with the sector. Whether through participation or employment, sport helps todevelop key life skills from team work and communication to working well under pressure and confidence.”

The Future Jobs Fund has not only supported those individuals who have gained valuable experience, but ithas also enriched the experiences of the wider public. Through initiatives such as Scottish Hockey’s FJFcoaching programme the wider public have had increased access to quality hockey coaching.

Scottish Hockey’s nine coaches have been based across Scotland’s Local Authorities. Supporting the workof Hockey Development Officers, individuals engaged through the FJF have trained in Scottish Governing Bodyrecognised qualifications allowing them to deliver lessons alongside development officers. Working closely withLocal Authorities helped to build confidence in Future Jobs Fund employees and allowed communities acrossScotland to participate in sport at a local level.

From the Employees

The Scottish Sports Association undertook a series of questionnaires with individuals employed through theFuture Jobs Fund to best capture their experiences of working in sport.

87% of employees enjoyed their job always/most of the time with the same value identifying that they madea worthwhile contribution to the organisation/wider community.

Individuals employed through the programme have acknowledged that their placement has offered themvaluable work experience with 87% stating they feel that their experiences have made them more employablein the future.

Applicants highlighted that “work experience in a relevant field” was most important to them. Those whowere not specifically interested in sport detailed “the opportunity to gain very recent experience in a challengingenvironment” would help them in the future.

Of those employed 80% responded saying they would definitely work for their current organisation againwith the other 20% responding with maybe. Despite only 60% of the employees regarding the sector as themain reason they applied for the post, six months later 87% responded that they would definitely want to workin sport again and a further 7% responding maybe to the same question.

Encouragingly, out of the 35 individuals who were employed in sport 80% of them responded positively tothe question would they consider working in the wider Voluntary Sector.

Employees were asked to consider their role as volunteers in sport in the future. A massive 87% of feedbackfrom the individuals said they would consider taking part in sport in a voluntary capacity following their FutureJobs Fund employment in sport.

The Future Jobs Fund of course is ultimately aimed at individuals who have been unemployed to help themback into employment in the future. With this in mind Scottish sport has been very focussed on offering theindividual an exciting yet realistic role within their organisation giving them both confidence and relevantexperience to aid them in their search for full-time employment.

Sports’ success in delivering a programme that is worthwhile and enjoyable for individuals is evident with95% of employees rating their job as enjoyable.

Furthermore 87% of all employees regarded their Future Jobs Fund post as having a positive effect on theirability to source future employment.

Future Jobs Fund employees recognised and highlighted the opportunity to gain “very recent experience ina different working environment” would help them in their search for future employment.

Other candidates acknowledged the wide variety of opportunities on offer within sport. One individual stated“I have worked in an office before, however that was more telephony based, so this [job] will give me a lotmore experience with having to do a greater variety of office tasks.”

Sport, much like the greater Third Sector, believes strongly in partnership working, and all Future Jobs Fundemployees have been introduced to the multitude of organisations, public and non-public bodies and individualsthat operate across the sector. The skills developed within sport not only allow individuals to work withinGoverning Bodies but across these organisations as well. One individual enjoyed working in sport because, “it



is part of a wide range of opportunities, including schools, national championships and the CommonwealthGames.”

Sports Governing Bodies have endeavoured to ensure that individuals employed through the Future JobsFund are given as much insight into the workings of their organisations and are introduced to as many partnersas possible.

Future Jobs Fund employees from Scottish Squash, Snowsport Scotland and the Scottish Sports Associationwere part of a Future Jobs Fund delegation that met Shona Robison Minister for Public Health and Sport atthe Scottish Parliament.

Christine Dunlop (Snowsport Scotland), Ross Cairns (Scottish Squash) and Jaimie Henderson (ScottishSports Association) all had the opportunity to meet with the Minister, a number of Government Officials andpartner organisations to discuss the positives of the programme and how their experiences of working withinsport and their relative organisations have had a positive impact on them.

Case Study One—Scottish Cycling

Scottish Cycling has employed two individuals through the Future Jobs Fund in Administration andCommunications posts. Both these posts are directly linked to the success of their current strategic plan.

Cycling has looked to create posts that are both innovative and challenging and therefore attractive to ayounger age group. They have sought to give people an opportunity to develop in a comfortable yet challengingenvironment that affords the employees a chance to grow and gain real experience in the office and sport setting.

Sine Munro, Corporate Services Manager, for Scottish Cycling said, “these brand new posts have added tothe corporate structure at Scottish Cycling, obviously this presents many challenges however the ability to usethese fully funded posts to help reach corporate goals is twinned with the organisations role in developing andsupporting previously unemployed youngsters.”

The programme has not been all plain sailing for Scottish Cycling, Sine Munro pointed out that, “there wereissues related to recruitment. Application forms were poor presented and the information detailed was oftenwrong or insufficient. There may be scope for better support for youngsters whilst filling out applications bythe job centre.”

Richard Ferguson, Communications Officer and Future Jobs Fund employee, said the programme was,“highly innovative and very attractive to youngsters.” He continued to say that, “the opportunity to work in anoffice like Scottish Cycling was a very attractive and exciting opportunity, it wasn’t the usual volunteeringpicking up litter or anything like that, it was a real office, paid job that allowed you to feel you were contributingto something greater.”

Richard was clear that, “the fact that the job is paid is important. I am not getting up to volunteer or forcedto volunteer. I have had the opportunity to apply for a job that I might not have been able to in the past. Thefeeling when you get paid at the end of the month is amazing; it is a morale boost and a sign that you havedone a good job.”

Richards only criticism is, “it would be better to be a one year funded post. 6 months work is good, but ayear would look far better on a CV, the time you get settled and trained up you are starting to look elsewhere.If I had the chance to work here for a year in a funded post, it would make a fair greater difference to me andmy CV.”

Case Study two—Scottish Volleyball

Scottish Volleyball is a small governing body consisting of three full-time members of staff. Margaret AnnFleming, Chief Executive, got involved in the Future Jobs Fund because, “it offered the organisation andopportunity to increase its capacity and support a young employee in the process.”

The post created was directly linked to Scottish Volleyball’s corporate plan and was aimed to help reach thegoals and targets involved. Volleyball however did not have the funding to create the post and therefore theopportunity to support a young individual through a fully funded post was perfect.

Scottish Volleyball are in fact one of the organisations who have managed to source the funding to create afull-time post for their Future Jobs Fund employee upon on completion of her six month contract.

Stephanie, Former Future Jobs Fund employee and now full-time Administrator at Scottish Volleyball, said,“the Future Jobs Fund has helped me greatly, without the six month experience I would have struggled togain this post, but because of my experience and corporate knowledge I was able to successfully gain full-time employment.”

Stephanie highlighted that, “whilst working here on the Future Jobs Fund, I knew it was a paid post, it wasvolunteering or work experience, it was real work, and I had a duty to work to the best of my abilities.Everyone in the office was very helpful and supported me in the role and it has allowed me to develop andeventually gain full-time employment.”



Margaret Ann, highlighted that, “with the creation of a one year fully funded post, Future Jobs Fundemployees would have a far greater advantage in gaining full-time work. Organisations would be far betterplaced to deliver training, experience, and support. If the programme was one year many organisation in thethird sector and especially sport would have a better chance to work up a business case to keep and fund thepost created. This would benefit everyone involved.”

Conclusion

The Scottish Sports Association and its 13 partner organisations were extremely disappointed by the recentGovernment announcement to end the Future Jobs Fund programme. Although the programme will run tillMarch 2011, Scottish sport had developed a highly successful programme delivering a fun and sociableenvironment with the opportunity to hone lifelong and employability skills.

Although Scottish sport undoubtedly benefits from the programme, when it ends it is our unemployed youngpeople who will lose out on the unique opportunity the programme has provided for them to work withinthe sector.

Scottish sport however recognises and welcomes the value of the programme to date, and seeks todemonstrate its value across the sector and also to the wider public.

The Scottish Sports Association recognises and praises the enormous success of the Future Jobs Fundthroughout sport and thanks our partners for their positive and enthusiastic contributions. The FJF has providedsignificant benefits for individuals, organisations and communities and the SSA hopes the programme will beallowed to continue, and indeed expand, to further these benefits.

The Scottish Sports Association would be happy to present oral evidence to the Work and PensionsCommittee if the committee sees fit and is happy to contribute more evidence up on their request.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

1. Background

1.1. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Future Jobs Fund partnership first met during thesummer of 2009. The partnership was led by the Royal Borough, and comprised the following partnerorganisations who were offering actual placements:

— Royal Borough’s Supporting People team.

— Kensington and Chelsea College.

— Kensington and Chelsea Social Council.

— Dalgarno Neighbourhood Trust.

— Groundwork Trust.

1.2. Delivery was due to begin in October 2009 for a total of 62 starts.

2. Timescale

2.1. The initial timeframe for the programme was challenging not only for contractors and their partners toachieve but also for Jobcentre Plus (JCP) staff for whom the programme was also very new. This did lead todelays with referrals being made to our partners due to lack of staff resources at the central London JCP officebut it was welcomed that there was flexibility from DWP regarding re-profiling and extensions to the contractend dates.

2.2 It was disappointing however that after the end of May 2010 we were informed that unused weeks couldno longer be consolidated to create another start where there had been early leavers. This was an unexpectedchange to our contract which prevented us from passing on the full benefit of our contract to both young peopleand our partner organisations.

3. Systems

3.1. The initial approach to making referrals seemed to create a bottleneck and led to some degree offrustration for all concerned. It was acknowledged that central London JCP were themselves grappling withtrying to launch the programme at the same time as having to make all referrals to fill posts. However, it didfeel as though it took some time for Districts to develop and establish a responsive system. Perhaps it mighthave been helpful to compare best practice at an earlier stage. Certainly it proved to be the case that once staffin local offices had also been briefed about the programme that they provided a helpful role in recruitingsuccessfully. The Partnership had expressed a desire to offer as many jobs as possible to local people and tofacilitate this. Our partners were keen to develop and progress good working relationships with JCP staff atlocal offices.



3.2. At the outset of the contract this was not something that management at central London were able tofacilitate. Their aim was to promote a London-wide programme with referrals to jobs being made to youngpeople from any part of London. This resulted in one example of a young person from Dagenham beingreferred to one of our vacancies—not a realistic daily commute for a young person on a part time wage.

3.3. The lack of staff resource for this programme at central London JCP office also caused significant delaysand frustrations. Our view was that the programme was being process driven rather than adapting the processesto best meet the needs of the employing organisations and young people

3.4. Over time this attitude relaxed and good relationships were built with partners and the local JCP offices.The referral process much improved and of our 62 starts, 26 were from young people who live locally.

4. Lessons learned through Development and Management of the Programme

— Time spent with young people, in preparation and support, before starting employment has been asound investment and led to excellent retention.

— Working with local offices of Jobcentre Plus has significantly improved the success of thisprogramme and also built effective working relationships for the future.

— The decision not to offer the participants the London Living Wage proved to be the correct onefor this contract.

— Inclusion of 3rd sector partners has provided significant benefits in building community capacity.

5. Benefits of the Programme

5.1. Overwhelmingly all partners feel that the programme has been of considerable benefit to all thoseinvolved—both employing organisations and young people.

5.2. In the case of our partnerships there was an aim from the outset to include partners from the 3rd sectorwho would not have the resources to take the risk to employ someone under normal circumstances. Being ableto utilise the programme has created opportunities for partners to take on a young person, see how they respondto a working situation, develop their skills, and be far more likely to find funding at the end of six months toretain that person. This benefits both the organisation and the young person and would not have happenedwithout the support of Future Jobs Fund.

5.3. Similarly one of our community focussed partner organisations are located within a very specific areaof the borough which has high unemployment and deprivation and have been able to recruit 75% of theiryoung people from the surrounding area. By offering the young people a chance to develop their skills inemployment they have not only enhanced their future job prospects but also helped to integrate them into thewider community and to become more active in supporting it.

5.4. There are still some young people participating in the programme so final outcomes statistics are notcomplete but already there have been considerable positive outcomes for the young people participating inthe programme:

— Attainment of NVQ/ITQs.

— Movement into external jobs.

— Retained in jobs created for FJF—due to other funding being secured by partners.

— Development and attainment of new skills.

— Significant increase in confidence and motivation.

5.5. There will be more job outcomes to record as our contract reaches its end.

5.6. One of our partners particularly noted that there were graduates who were referred to the programme—young people for who it should have been easier to obtain employment but nevertheless had been unsuccessful.Future Jobs Fund has provided them with just the opportunity to gain actual work experience and references,allied to their increased confidence has made all the difference to them gaining employment—a difference thatwould not have been possible otherwise.

5.7. There have been some difficulties encountered with young people who have not responded to theopportunity offered, where high levels of support and intervention have not resulted in any appreciable benefitsto them. But these have been clearly outweighed by the majority.

5.8. All partners strongly believe that Future Jobs Fund has been an excellent use of funds with tangiblebenefits for participating organisations and young people alike. It has been a distinct disappointment that it isnot being taken forward, especially after such a short lifetime, and that the skills and capacity developed toestablish and manage will not be used to run the programme for a longer period.

10 September 2010



6. Summary

— The initial phase of the programme caused some teething troubles that might have been avoidedbut these were improved upon during the lifetime of the contract.

— Partner organisations have experienced benefits to themselves from the participation andemployment of young people.

— New jobs, that would otherwise not have existed, have been created and sustained as a result ofthe programme.

— Young people have gained valuable work experience and retained jobs that they would nototherwise have done.

— Valuable and effective working relationships have been developed between partners and localJobcentre Plus offices as a result of this programme.

This report is submitted on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Future Jobs Fundpartnership.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Liverpool City Region

Liverpool City Region Future Jobs Fund: Summary of Key Points

Our experience in running FJF has been largely positive from the point of view of the intended beneficiariesi.e. the young unemployed and longer term unemployed residents of our most deprived areas—but also for theemploying organisations and the wider economy and community. Our evidence submission suggests that FJFcreates benefits at a number of levels.

For Individual Unemployed People

— It works through the natural processes of the labour market by providing real job opportunitiesacross the local labour market and not constrained by local authority boundaries.

— It is attractive to unemployed people because we have maximised the weekly earnings availableby persuading employers to either offer more than 25 hours work per week or pay above theMinimum Wage.

— It addresses significantly the problem of the collapse of confidence which goes with unemploymentamongst the young and long term unemployed by offering an extended period of real workingexperience.

— It becomes a stepping stone to the acquisition of skills and qualifications and in the case of FJFapprenticeships, provides real employment opportunities and skills support as part of a coherentintegrated package.

— It has good potential to create sustainable job gains as we focus on social and private enterprisesas well as the public sector for FJF employment opportunities.

— It changes significantly the attitudes of employers towards recruiting the young and longer termunemployed, leaving a substantial positive legacy.

For FJF Employers

— It gives employers an opportunity to test out a potential employee—both in terms of theircompetencies and whether they are effective employees more generally- and reduces the risk forboth parties.

— It helps employers develop a more diverse workforce in terms of age and other characteristics.

— It helps build the capacity of social enterprises to become more effective organisations.

— Employers are supported and engaged in embracing more strongly the benefits of investment inskills and workforce development in a way that they may otherwise not have.

— It introduces employers to a range of workforce development and employee support functions.

— It provides extra resource to facilitate accelerated business growth.

For Liverpool City Region’s Economy and Communities

— It raises the employability of the workless population, benefiting existing employers and raisingthe attractiveness of Liverpool City Region to prospective employers.

— It helps create a vibrant set of social enterprises more able to deliver good quality services to moredisadvantaged groups and localities in particular.



Lessons Going Forward

— From our Future Jobs Fund experience there are key lessons for us in five areas.

— There must be an effective transition from FJF to the Work Programme through the design andimplementation of a sound transition plan. For the longer term, DWP must make every effort alsoto ensure that there is room for an FJF-type of approach in the Work Programme.

— Any impediments raised at the national level to the more effective integration of all relevantservices at the local level to facilitate sustainable job entry need to be removed, including barriersto effective integration of employment and skills interventions.

— The delivery of FJF on a City Region basis has demonstrated convincingly the added value of thisway of working. The new Local Enterprise Partnerships must be able to reproduce this type ofworking in the employability arena.

— The importance of the provision of Information, Advice and Guidance as part of a comprehensivepackage of wrap-around support throughout the course of the programme.

— The process of securing jobs through application, interview and assessments needs ot be reviewedfor both employees and employers.

Future Jobs Fund in Liverpool City Region

When Future Jobs Fund (FJF) was announced in the 2009 Budget the partner organisations driving the DWPCity Employment Strategy (CES) pathfinder in Liverpool City Region (LCR) decided that this was a majoropportunity to make a significant contribution to reducing worklessness among young people and residents ofmore deprived communities. In the light of this:

— The bid was a collective effort by the six local authorities (Liverpool City Council and theMetropolitan Borough Councils of Halton, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens), JobcentrePlus, Skills Funding Agency and other City Region partners to create an intervention withgenuine scale.

— It was also felt that a city regional approach would fit better with the realities of the local functionaleconomic area and travel to work patterns crossing local authority boundaries.

The LCR bid submitted to DWP at the outset of Future Jobs Fund:

— Asked for £40 million funding to create 6,170 places across timescale of the funding.

— Identified the detailed jobs that would be created, of which 2/3 were in the community andvoluntary sector.

— Described the additional wraparound services that would be delivered to support jobholders, inparticular emphasising the importance of Information, Advice and Guidance as part of the packageof support.

— A second bid for an additional 3,000 jobs was submitted in January 2010, building on the initialsuccessful delivery, with 500 jobs being approved from this.

How We Deliver FJF

Our broad approach to delivering FJF across LCR is as follows:

— Rather than seek to impose a standard format in each local authority area with their differentemployment structures and worklessness problems, we decided on a strategy of augmentingexisting provision. Here we were able to build on a long tradition of employability service deliveryby a number of the local authority partners and organisations with whom they have worked overtime, in a decentralised manner which met local needs.

— The City Region and delivery partners were committed to deliver a strategic intervention thatwould support long term unemployed people get skills and experience in work that would berequired in the longer term by businesses.

— To maximise the synergies, including the exchange of good practice across local authorityboundaries, we set up an FJF implementation team bringing together the various lead officers ona regular basis.

— Although FJF was set up with certain minimum criteria in terms of wage rates and hours of workwe went into this with the aspiration to create the best possible package of hours and rates of payon an employer by employer basis: there was an intentional approach to create jobs with differenthours of work to meet individuals’ choice.

— Wherever possible we have tried to maximise the percentage of the budget available which flowsthrough either to pay the FJF employee or to raise their employability through training and otherinterventions. Additionally, where Working Neighbourhoods Funds and other local resources havebeen available these have added to the resource pot to support the effective implementation of FJFin the City Region.



— As a city region we developed a “wraparound model to provide vital support for both FJFemployers and employees throughout the process. This model incorporated agreed minimumstandards of service across the LCR, but reflected local area needs.

— The City Region viewed opportunities under FJF as real jobs and therefore required applicants tosubmit to standard application processes.

— Collaborative marketing of an LCR branded FJF in partnership with Jobcentre Plus. This includedweb and media coverage and also successful Jobs Fairs. The Jobs Fairs provided the opportunityfor young people to meet with prospective FJF employers. Employer stereotypes of youngunemployed people were challenged in the excellent way they prepared and presented themselveson the day.

Below we set out in more detail our approach.

Attracting Clients: Wages and Hours of Work

As noted above, we sought to maximise the earnings associated with FJF jobs by increasing hours beyond25 and/or enhancing the wage rate above the Minimum Wage. This was for two main reasons.

— We wanted to make the FJF opportunities as attractive as possible to jobless people to create asignificant incentive for coming off benefits. Additionally, it is only at higher weekly hours ofemployment that Working Families Tax Credit kicks in. In Wirral for example, all employers wereoffered the opportunity to provide “the going rate for the job”. This enhancement was funded inpart by Working Neighbourhoods Fund but also importantly by a cost effective delivery modelwith minimal delivery costs and no intermediary management fees; providing a real job, with areal wage.

— By generating a good level of weekly earnings we are hoping to embed the idea that work paysnot just for the individual involved in FJF but also for other family members and/or peers in groupsor neighbourhoods characterised by persistently high unemployment. For us, FJF is an interventionthat changes cultures within households and communities.

Because the management of our delivery of FJF was devolved to different delivery partners, we have beenable to build upon existing relationships with employers (whether sector based or geographically focused) tosecure a better package of hours and pay rates.

Targeting Different Types of Employers

Although practice varies across the City Region we have typically focussed on creating FJF jobs which aswell as being additional are also potentially more sustainable.

— Although we have secured FJF opportunities within local government which have provided muchneeded diversity to the spectrum of occupations available, we have pursued a heavy emphasis onjobs in social enterprises and the third sector more generally given the impending major cuts inpublic sector funding (which will impact significantly on local authorities) and the opportunityprovided to contribute to the creation of the Big Society.

— We have begun to develop opportunities with private sector employers as this is where growth injobs is likely to be greater as the economy recovers from recession. We have developed innovativeways of building a genuine community benefit aspect into these private sector jobs as required bythe FJF regulations. Knowsley Council has recently begun to deliver on a major agreement withJaguar Land Rover to take on young people through FJF where there is a period of working in thecommunity built into the job. Young people completing their six months then are guaranteed aninterview for a permanent job with Jaguar Land Rover at which point they receive a significantearnings enhancement.

Building in Skills and Qualifications

In order to increase the employability of FJF participants we have built in opportunities for enhancing skillsand qualifications where appropriate. Sometimes this has been built around the skill demands of the FJF jobitself but we have also where necessary put resource into improved basic and core skills. We have done thisin a number of ways.

— Where possible we have used mainstream skills interventions to resource the upskilling elementand a good example here is work done through the Skills for Health Academy.

— We have used some of the £6,500 available to buy bespoke training services to meet the needs ofspecific individuals although we have organised this in different ways across the City Region.Wirral, for example, has a modest allowance for employers and for FJF employees which can bedeployed in specific circumstances.

— Training in some areas was focused on the basic requirements of that sector e.g. St Helens Chamberand Fusion 21 supported employees in construct Ion to gain their CSCS card.



— In some instances, young people are being employed as apprentices or graduate trainees withinlocal authorities where the first six months is spent as an FJF employee. This is an excellentexample of the integration of employment and skills interventions.

We continue to search for ways of building more skills and qualifications into the package as we feel this givesthe individual FJF participant a valuable legacy in terms of enhancing their employability and their earningsonce in employment. In all cases, the support from the Skills Funding Agency in securing funding has beeninvaluable.

Providing Ongoing Support for FJF Employees and Employers

7. We know that unemployment very quickly exacts a toll on the confidence and sense of well being ofindividuals. We also know that the longer they remain unemployed the more fragile people tend to become,with vulnerability to physical and mental illness developing alongside the collapse of self belief. As FJF is ademanding intervention because it involves a real job with the pressures that this brings, we have institutedsystematic processes for supporting FJF employees but also their employers who may be confronted withissues. We also recognise that voluntary and community sector organisations often do not have the capacity tooffer wider support mechanisms in a way that larger workforces may potentially be able to access fromtheir employer.

8. This support sits inside of an overarching framework developed as part of the City Employment Strategy.The central feature is a continuum of employability services that can take the most disadvantaged clients alonga pathway from long term unemployment to sustainable employment. In addition to the core employabilityservices illustrated below health, housing and other cognate services can wrap around these to provide a moreholistic and integrated service journey customised to the needs of individual clients.

Targeting,

outreach +

engagement

Information,

Diagnosis,

Signposting

Pre-

employment

support

Transition

into work

Job Retention

Skill building +

progression

Progressing clients to jobs beyond FJF

9. We have 4 broad approaches here.

— At the outset we are trying to create or facilitate the creation of FJF jobs which themselves havesustainability. We noted this above with a strong focus on jobs in the third sector and particularlysocial enterprises with revenue generating capability. We also see our private sector FJF jobshaving great potential here.

— FJF employees all have access to internal vacancies within their organisations and there have beena number who have gained sustainable work in this way, with a number of the graduate internshipsat Halton BC being an example of this.

— Some of our arrangements with specific employers maximise the probability of job retention andwe have already given examples of this in relation to apprentices employed by local authoritiesand Jaguar Land Rover’s FJF employees.

— We provide support for active job search in the later stages of an FJF job.

Statistical Evidence of Effectiveness to Date

10. Delivery to the end of August has shown that:

— 3,755 jobstarts were delivered to the end of August 2010, against an original profile of 4,726. Ofthese starts 2,108 were aged 18–24 and 1,647 over 25, whilst 2,499 were male and 1,256 female.The City Region was determined to maximise the impact of the funding available, leading to aslightly later start on second phase delivery.

— 689 jobs (19%) have been created in the four sectors identified by partners as being most likely todeliver economic growth in the medium term (Culture and Visitor Economy, Knowledge Economy,Low Carbon Economy, Superport and Logistics).

— We have achieved a wide spread of occupations available under FJF, with a significant number inhigher level jobs. Out of the 5,407 notified to Jobcentre Plus to the end of August, 1,360 were inadministrative and secretarial occupations and 1,016 in associate, professional and technicaloccupations.



— Of the 847 completers and 455 leavers to the end of August 2010, partners have tracked 379 (29%)of them into sustainable work: of these, 187 are permanent and 269 are fulltime.

— The delivery of FJF has enabled partners to capture a dynamic picture of movement across thefunctional economic area, with significant evidence of the distances that people are willing totravel for attractive jobs.

— Over 200 organisations are involved as employers or placement providers.

Strengths of Approach

Feedback from FJF Employees

11. An ongoing independent evaluation sourced the views of FJF employees in the City Region. The keyfeatures attracting them to these opportunities included:

— Six months guaranteed work. It is viewed as a “foot in the door” and a chance to prove themselveswith that employer.

— In most cases, FJF employees worked more than the 25 hour minimum and earned more than theMinimum Wage hourly rate—which was welcomed as this increased weekly earnings significantlyrelative to benefit levels.

12. The strong features were identified as the following:

— Many have enjoyed the type of jobs they have been doing—e.g. working outside on a constructionsite; working face-to-face with clients and employers; doing work with the community.

— There have been many opportunities to participate in training and to study towards a qualificationsuch as NVQs, ECDL, driving lessons, CSCS card, etc.

— Being in work for six months is seen as being really beneficial as it looks good on their CV, buildstheir confidence and gives them a reference. The perception is that employers too readily dismissthe unemployed and favour applicants who are currently employed—and being on FJF helps here.

— Working with other people has helped employees to find out about other job opportunities throughword of mouth.

— Some FJF employees see the potential to be kept on by their employer as they have provided newskillsets for that employer and demonstrated their effectiveness and reliability. In their eyes, theywere “in the right place, at the right time”.

Feedback from FJF Employers

13. Our independent evaluation also captured feedback from some employers, mostly social enterprises.

— Some employers flagged up that recruiting FJF employees made more sense than under previousprogrammes as they were able to recruit from across the City Region as a whole rather than oneparticular Borough: this better reflected the functional economic area.

— The vast majority of FJF employees were considered to be well-presented, reliable and punctual,with disciplinary issues extremely rare.

— Focused specialist support from Jobcentre Plus was seen as a significant positive.

— Some employers felt having six months gave them enough time to get FJF employees competitivein their sector—whereas previous approaches were too short to get all the training, qualificationsand experiences needed.

— Peoples’ perception of the long term unemployed as being lazy and not wanting to work havechanged; employers are also reviewing recruitment processes for entry level jobs to have lesscomplex application forms and clearer job descriptions.

— FJF employees are helping to build the capacity of social enterprises as organisations deliveringkey services in their areas. They have the opportunity through FJF to try out potential employeesand help address some of their skills problems as employers. This can only be beneficial to themas they look to play their part in creating a Big Society.

14. A key aspect of employer feedback was the positive impact of FJF on how they viewed the unemployed,despite the fact that most employers consulted were social enterprises more used to recruiting unemployedpeople. The case study below illustrated the experience of one such employer.

— Initially the project manager dealing with FJF within the employing organisation had had concernsabout whether they would be able to get the quality of applicants they needed to fill their FJF posts.

— In reality, the problem they faced was deciding between a large number of extremely suitable andskilled individuals.

— Supporting the FJF employees “has proved a complete joy” because of their responsiveness anddesire to become more effective employees.

— Other staff within the organisation are now approaching the FJF project manager to see if they canget an FJF employee.



— The project manager would like her organisation to change the way it recruits to ensure:

— That they are giving the unemployed more of a chance to compete.

— That as an employer they are accessing the skills and viewpoints young people can bring. The vastmajority of the 40 individuals they recruited had never previously considered working for them(despite being a major local employer).

15. We view the impact on employer attitudes and behaviours as a significant legacy from FJF. The moreintense involvement of employers through FJF has generated these changes in a way which simple wagesubsidies do not achieve. This means that the benefits for the employability agenda in terms of reducingworklessness are likely to extend many years beyond the end of the FJF.

Weaknesses of Approach

Feedback from FJF Employees

16. Although generally positive about FJF, a number of weaknesses were identified.

— That there is no guarantee of a job beyond the end of their six months.

— While the opportunity for training is generally flexible, in some cases specific training could notbe offered as it was too expensive and/or could not be sourced locally.

Feedback from FJF Employers

17. Most employers felt that the FJF design was strong. Some suggested weaknesses or at least scope forimprovement lay in the following areas.

— A number of employers favoured extending the period of FJF from six to 12 months to allow thedevelopment of higher levels of skills and qualifications and to provide the FJF employees with astronger CV.

— Make it financially more beneficial for FJF employees as there was a perception that some werenot much better off than on benefits.

— A number of employers have noted that the overall standard of written applications is lower thanthey would have expected but that the calibre of individuals is high when they have an opportunityto meet them.

— Introduce a specialist job brokerage service to help FJF employees find other work where the FJFemployer is unable to keep them on. This has already been implemented by Jobcentre Plus in theMerseyside District Office.

Benefits of Working at the City Region Level

18. We are pleased to report that our decision to work collectively as partners across the City Region provedwell founded. Many benefits have accrued as a result.

— The number of 18–24s on Jobseekers’ allowance for over six months in the City Region has fallenform 3,920 in October 2009 to 2,750 in July 2010: the City Region’s FJF delivery has had asignificant role in this reduction.

— The principal benefit accrues to the individuals taken on as FJF employees. They are able to accessa wider pool of job opportunities than those within their local authority boundaries and a greaterdiversity of opportunities. This is critical as unemployed people are a very heterogeneous groupwith divergent talents and aspirations. Additionally, by placing no barriers in the way of cross-boundary travel for FJF jobs we support a process of taking people out of their local comfort zoneand so improve their long term employability. This has provided significant statistical evidence totackle the assertion that people from particular areas would not travel far for entry level jobs.

— It is easier to engage employers who, of course, do not recognise local authority boundaries inrelation to their recruitment processes. Additionally, it is easier to find a larger number ofindividuals who are attractive to employers for specific FJF vacancies where we draw from thewider pool.

— Significant dedicated support from Jobcentre Plus has made it possible for operational processesto be effectively designed and implemented, events supported and issues addressed quickly andconsistently.

— By working as a City Region, we are able to maximise our capacity to come in on target (or better)because we are able to manage on a broader scale the natural over and under-performance whichoccurs within smaller areas, given that the work is focused on a natural economic area.

— The common wraparound services being delivered by all partners has meant that common supportis available to all FJF employees on jobsearch and advice (over and above the support availablefrom Jobcentre Plus) wherever they live or work: this was achieved through delivery partnersinvesting a further £3.5 million over and above the FJF funding.



— By refusing to go with a one size fits all approach across the City Region we have benefitted fromthe diversity of and innovation in local approaches to implementation through rapid implementationand transfer of good practice.

— Operating at the scale of the functional economic area has enabled us to target strategic demandside interventions whilst working within (and in some cases adding to) existing local supply sideinterventions: this is critical as FJF was seen as an opportunity to equip long term unemployedpeople with the skills required for jobs in the future.

— The scale of delivery has meant that close working relationships with Jobcentre Plus were able tobe formed and developed. The response from Jobcentre Plus has been sustained and of a highquality and has again identified a model for future working.

— The design of FJF has enabled a significant amount of community benefit to be delivered in arange of different communities across the City Region. However, the overall design also made itdifficult, but not impossible, to engage more effectively with the private sector.

— The scale of our partnership and its FJF contract allowed us to establish a good quality, high levelworking relationship with DWP. We found them to be flexible and responsive making every effortto facilitate the effective implementation of FJF in Liverpool City Region.

— For us, the City Region approach is a singularly good use of scarce employability resources.

Impact of Closure of FJF Recruitment from April 2011

19. In broad terms the closure of the programme poses two dangers.

— In the short run, unless the transition to the Work Programme is handled carefully, the latter stagesof FJF will lose momentum making it difficult to sustain the commitment of those managing FJFin the City Region as well as participants and their employers. We feel a detailed transition planneeds to be developed by DWP in close consultation with some of the major FJF areas and/or providers.

— In the longer term, the disappearance of such a cost effective intervention will detract significantlyfrom the portfolio of employability services available in Liverpool City Region to raise theemployability of young unemployed people and longer term unemployed people from our mostdeprived communities.

Lessons for Going Forward

20. We have learnt a lot within Liverpool City Region from designing and delivering substantial jobstartsfrom Future Jobs Fund. It is essential to capture this learning and to build as much of it as possible into howwe move forward in terms of creating interventions that generate sustainable employment for youngunemployed people and longer term unemployed residents of our most deprived communities. We feel thefollowing need to be taken into account in moving to the new world of the Work Programme and wider policydevelopments around skills and apprenticeships.

Transition to Work Programme

21. The Work Programme will become the dominant employability intervention across the UK from April2011.

— We have already indicated the need for a secure and detailed transition plan from FJF to the WorkProgramme to maximise the value of FJF for those unemployed individuals and employersinvolved. We would wish to see DWP give priority to this and consult appropriately with areassuch as Liverpool City Region which have significant delivery.

— We understand fully the “black box” principle that will underpin the Work Programme. We feelthere is value in DWP commissioning a rigorous independent evaluation of FJF so that its costeffectiveness more generally can be demonstrated so raising its appeal to potential WorkProgramme prime contractors as a key element in their employability service delivery.

— We see great potential in developing the relationship with private sector employers for the finalphase of our FJF. We feel that it is critically important that the potential for this type of relationshipis maximised within the Work Programme.

— We expect fully that DWP will encourage its Work Programme prime contractors to work closelywith local employability partnerships such as our own where there is the potential to broker specifictypes of intervention in the style of FJF by combining resources.

Support for More Integrated Service Delivery

22. We feel strongly that the high level of effectiveness of FJF in our City Region is in no small part due toour capacity to mobilise other services to be delivered alongside FJF. This has involved the following.

— More generally, the effective integration of all services impacting on employability.



— More specifically, the better integration of employment and skills interventions. We would highlightour work through the Skills for Health Academy and the deployment of FJF as the first six monthsof the apprenticeship programme for some of our local authorities.

23. We would value the support of the Coalition Government to remove any barriers to and promote theopportunities for greater service integration by making sure that government departments as well as theiragencies such as DWP and the Skills Funding Agency do their utmost to improve their integration at thenational level to ensure that there are no top-down impediments to more integrated working at the locallevel. DWP itself can make a significant difference by expediting the development of more open data sharingarrangements between JobCentre Plus and local partners at the District level and below.

24. Delivery partners and employers have been disappointed with the overall standard of application formsfrom applicants. This was frustrating as all referrals originated from a Jobcentre Plus Advisory intervention,with employers in the main using the standard Jobcentre Plus application form. Employers interviewed themajority of applicants, and at this point initial impressions were overturned. We are concerned that withoutFJF intervention young people will not pass first hurdle with employers. Providing more informal opportunitiesfor employers to meet applicants through jobsfairs have proved to be more successful. The process ofsubmitting applications and support to progress to interview must be addressed in the Work Programme

25. Given the need to rebalance the economy, particularly in vulnerable areas such as the City Region, itwill be essential that the Work Programme draws on the lessons of FJF: this is particularly important in lookingmore creatively at how resource can be invested to join together supply-side support interventions with genuinejob creation measures. This goes much further than the more traditional approach to generating (as opposedto creating) vacancies and matching clients. This will be critical in areas where overall increases in demandmay be sluggish due to the reduction in public sector opportunities.

Strength of City Region Approach

26. We are living proof of the added value that can be achieved by working across local authority boundariesin a context where this makes sense. Local authority areas rarely conform to functional economic areas. Wewould hope that the detailed specification of what can be done by Local Enterprise Partnerships reflects fullythe experience of sub regions such as our own in terms of maximising the value of national and local resourcesto reduce worklessness. In a world where “more for less” is the mantra, collective working at this level is amechanism for delivering this in a sustainable way over a long period of time.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Centrepoint

Summary

— Centrepoint is disappointed that the Government has decided to end the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) ayear earlier than planned.

— Our experience as an FJF employer has shown that the placements represent a valuable workexperience opportunity for many young people.

— We therefore urge the Government to include a similar system of work placement opportunities inits upcoming Work Programme.

— Many of the young people we have recruited were previously unable to find work due to a lack ofexperience. But since gaining some experience during their placements, several are securing jobinterviews and one young person has been given a permanent job at Centrepoint.

— We have, however, found that the FJF programme has been less successful for some of thehomeless young people we support due to the effect that moving into low paid work has had ontheir finances.

— It is therefore crucial that any new system of work placements takes account of the financialarrangements of young people who are living independently with no support from their family.

— It is also important that young people are given ongoing support after they move into workplacements to make they are coping with the transition, and begin preparing for their next stepwhen the post ends.

— Despite the challenges faced by some, Centrepoint believes that the FJF programme provides animportant opportunity for young people who are ready to undertake it, and believe that scrappingthe programme will leave some young people without any opportunities to gain the experiencethey need to find permanent work.

— This will particularly damaging for young people as the ending of the programme comes at thesame time as conditionality of benefits are set to increase, for example, with a cut in housingbenefit after a year on JSA. This is deeply unfair to young people who could be actively seekingwork but still not find a job in the current high level of youth unemployment.



— It is therefore crucial that the Work Programme includes work experience opportunities for youngpeople. Increasing the number of apprenticeships could be a way to achieve this but these postsmust provide sufficient financial and pastoral support to ensure that vulnerable young people livingindependently have a fair chance of successfully pursuing them.

Introduction

1. Centrepoint is the leading national charity working with homeless young people aged 16 to 25. We are aregistered social housing provider, a charity enterprise and a company limited by guarantee. Established 40years ago, we provide accommodation and support to help homeless young people get their lives back on track.

2. We work with around 800 young people a day and have over 30 services across London and the NorthEast. Young people can stay at Centrepoint for up to two years, during which time they receive intensivesupport to help them develop the skills they need to live independently.

3. Two-thirds (65%) of young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET) when they arriveat Centrepoint28, and few young people we work with receive any financial support from family or friends.Many are therefore entirely dependent on welfare benefits to support themselves as they try to rebuild theirlives and move towards employment and independent living. Many young people at Centrepoint have additionalsupport needs and find it difficult to find work due to the chaotic nature of homelessness. Many have also hadtheir education disrupted due to crises or traumas in their childhood and adolescence, leading to a lack ofqualifications. This means that many young people find it difficult to find work, particularly when competingwith increasing numbers of young people in the current period of record youth unemployment.

4. Centrepoint has also been a provider of Future Jobs Fund (FJF) posts as a subcontractor of GroundworkUK. Centrepoint currently has eight young people working with in the organisation as part of the Future JobsProgramme, several of whom are nearing the end of their six-month placement. A further 15 posts are soon tobe filled. This submission includes feedback from the young people currently in FJF posts within Centrepointon how they have found the programme, as well as feedback from Centrepoint support workers about theexperience of young people they support who have been given placements at other organisations.

5. Centrepoint’s experience has shown the FJF programme to be extremely valuable for many young people,helping them to gain experience and develop new skills. Some young people have experienced problems onthe programme due to a lack of support and financial pressures. But overall we believe the programme to be avaluable source of work experience for young people, and are concerned that the programme is to be endednext year. We therefore urge the Government to provide similar work experience opportunities through its newWork Programme, learning lessons from problems faced by some under FJF.


6. The extent to which young people were matched with appropriate work placements seems to have variedwidely between different Jobcentre Plus (JCP) branches and employers.

7. Some young people felt as though their areas of interest and existing qualifications had been well-exploredand taken into account by the JCP, meaning they had been effectively matched with an appropriate placements.Those with such experiences very much valued this level of service, and thought the placement they had beengiven would be even more useful to their long-term progression as it effectively utilised and build upon theirexisting skills.

8. Others, however, felt that they had been pushed into the first placement that became available and thattheir interests were not taken into account. Some were forced to take the first job they were offered, eventhough they had interviews coming up for other posts that may have suited them better. Several of the youngpeople currently employed by Centrepoint reported that they found the opportunities themselves rather thanthrough their personal advisor who had given them little assistance.

9. A number of homeless young people supported by Centrepoint had experienced particularly poor servicefrom the JCP. Several young people were put forward for a job which was not in the sector they had hoped tomove into, but had no choice other than to attend the interview and later take the job or they would have facedbenefit sanctions. The process happened extremely quickly, leaving the young people with little chance to reflecton whether the post was right for them or the implications that taking the job would have on their finances.

10. Young people reported that in some cases the employer organisation had a big role to play in matchingthem with the right placements. For example, a number of young people made a general application toCentrepoint encompassing a number of different posts, and after their interview and a discussion of their skills,Centrepoint matched them with the most appropriate role they had available. Young people who were placedat other organisations did not receive this level of tailored service. The quality of the recruitment team at theemployer organisation therefore appears to have been a key factor in placing young people in an appropriateposition.28 Centrepoint statistics 2008–09.



Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme, particularly in relation to the Long-TermSustainability of Employment Opportunities

11. Overall the Future Jobs Fund has proved to be an extremely valuable programme, giving young peoplea valuable chance to gain work experience. The young people recruited to Centrepoint had been unemployedfor between six and ten months. When applying for previous jobs, they had been told that the main barrier totheir employment was a lack of experience. Some had had short-term or part-time work but could not makethe step up to a more permanent position.

12. Since taking part in the scheme, a number of young people reported that it had boosted their confidenceand given them more material to include on their CV. They also emphasised that they were grateful for thewide range of activities they had had a chance to gain experience of during their placements. One young personalso felt that working for a large, recognised charity would be good for their CV.

“It makes us look more employable”.

13. The young people working at Centrepoint also felt that the training budget which they had received hadbeen extremely valuable. They appreciated that Centrepoint had taken a broad view of the value of trainingand allowed them to pursue training opportunities that were good for the individual’s long-term developmenteven if the particular course had little advantage for the organisation in the short-term.

14. A number of young people who were coming towards the end of their placements believed that takingpart in the FJF programme had had a big impact on their long-term employment prospects. For example, anumber were now getting interviews for permanent jobs when, prior to the FJF post, they had not managed toget any. One young person employed at Centrepoint (and who was also a former resident of a Centrepointservice) has been offered a permanent position within Centrepoint following her FJF post. She does not believethat she would have managed to achieve this without the FJF post. Please see the Annex for more details.

15. There are also huge advantages for the employer organisations. The young people recruited at Centrepointhave added huge value to the teams they have been working in, particularly as we would have been unable tocreate the post without FJF funding.

Financial rewards

16. While the FJF programme has been a great chance for some to gain some experience, the situation ismore complicated for the homeless young people Centrepoint supports. Some young people may be able torely on family and friends to support them, but the young people we work with must support themselves andmaintain their own tenancy. The weekly salary and the impact of on their benefits is therefore a keyconsideration. As FJF posts are limited to 25 hours a week at minimum wage, 18–20 year olds will onlyreceive £120 a week, and 21–25 year olds will receive £145.

17. Many of the young people who have been recruited to Centrepoint positions have been able to live withtheir parents during their six month post. They have therefore not found the salary prohibitive. Several are,however, graduates and are therefore disappointed at the wage given the hard work and money they investedin their degree. But overall they took the decision that it was worth taking a low salary for a month in orderto get some good experience.

“The pay’s not great but it gets you by while you’re getting experience.”“I’m treating it more as a paid internship in a way. But it’s worth it as it’s giving me such goodexperience.”

18. The situation is far more complicated for the homeless young people Centrepoint support. They areunable to live at home and therefore have large financial outgoings in order to support their tenancies. Formany of young people in this position, the FJF wage has proved insufficient to meet their outgoings, particularafter the reduction in their benefits is taken into account. This has led some young people to give up theirpositions, and others have built up large arrears and face eviction.

19. For example, one young man in a Centrepoint semi-independent housing project was organised a FJFposition by the JCP. It was not in a field that he was interested in but he agreed to take the job in order toavoid being sanctioned. After the cuts to his housing benefit were taken into account, he had virtually nofinancial benefit from working. When he started work, his HB was suspended while the local authorityreassessed his claim. After a few weeks, it was calculated that of his £120 a week rent, he would have to pay£70 from his £145 a week earnings. To make matters worse, the job he had been given was in a different areaof London meaning that he had high travel costs, particularly as weekly travel cards were not cost effective ashe only worked a three day week. This meant that he was paying around £25 per week in travel. After rentand travel he therefore only had £50 a week to meet his £10 a week service charge, previous arrears paymentsand basic costs such as food—the same amount as he had had when claiming JSA. This financial pressure ledhim to drop out of the programme after less than a month as he felt the temporary sanction this would imposewould cause him fewer problems than the long-term implications of working for such a low income.

20. The young man in question had a history of arrears, but this was not taken into account when he wasplaced into an FJF post. It is crucial that young people’s wider circumstances are taken into account before



matching them with positions as it may be that some young people living independently cannot afford to workpart-time at minimum wage.

21. More effective joint working between different agencies could help to make the scheme work better forvulnerable young people. For example, it may be that some young people can get Discretionary HousingPayments to help them pay their rent once their HB drops, but as the name suggests, this is not guaranteed.But if the local JCP and HB office could work together on an individual’s case, it may be that a suitablepackage of financial support could be created.

22. Roll-on of housing benefit when a young person moves into work is also crucial. One Centrepoint youngperson was placed in an FJF post two weeks before the 24 week threshold which would entitled them to ahousing benefit run-on. This caused him to build up large arrears as they had to back pay their rent shortfallfor the period in which it had taken the HB office to reassess their claim. It is crucial that vulnerable youngpeople who move into work receive a few weeks run on to help them adjust to their new financial situation.

Travel

23. As mentioned in the case of the young man above, travel payments are a major barrier to some youngpeople taking on FJF posts. Ideally young people should be matched with job opportunities within their localarea. Many of the young people that Centrepoint works with have been out of work for a long time or havenever worked. It is therefore, important to match them with realistic options for them while they make thetransition to work, for example, in a post that does not require long and expensive journeys each day.

24. If young people must travel long distances for their post, the JCP should consider providing free orsubsidised travel to work. A couple of the young people working at Centrepoint received a free travel pass forthe first month to help them adjust, but others received no such support, including the young people inCentrepoint services. Providing assistance with travel may make the difference for a young person strugglingon a tight budget.

Level of support while in FJF post and preparation for next steps

25. Feedback from FJF participants suggests that there is a lot of inconsistency in the level of support beingoffered by JCP once they start working. Some young people had monthly check-ups with their personal advisersto assess progress whereas others had no contact once they had been appointed.

26. Additional support can be very important for young people, particularly those who have face additionalchallenges such as mental health problems or a history of debts. Some of the young people supported byCentrepoint encountered problems when they moved into FJF posts as the JCP had not taken account of theadditional needs they faced. It is therefore crucial that a needs assessment is part of the job matching processand that they are given support throughout their placement to make sure they are coping. Otherwise, there is arisk that they could end up in a worse position than when on benefits, for example, with mounting debts.

27. Moving into work can have a big effect on the mental well-being of vulnerable young people so it isimportant that they are helped through these transitions. For example, one Centrepoint resident managed tobuild her confidence significantly after starting her FJF post. But when the six months post came to and endand she could not find work, her mental well-being sunk lower than before. It is therefore crucial that sufficientsupport networks are in place to help young people cope with these changes. This support package shouldinclude any agencies working with the young person to make sure a plan is in place to ensure the young personhas the support they need to cope with their new situation.

Follow on

28. It is also important that plans are put in place for what happens to the young person at the end of thesix months. Some young people received help to find follow-on work but this was most often from the employerorganisation. For example, some young people received help from their line manager to write applications forpermanent positions or with interview advice. However, not all young people received this level of help so itis important that JCP also plays a role in finding young people follow-on opportunities so they progress madeduring the FJF post is not lost.


29. While improvements could have been made to the organisation of the FJF programme, it has proved tobe an extremely valuable programme providing crucial work experience opportunities for young people. Endingthe programme early with mean that fewer young people will have the opportunity to benefit and increase theirchances of finding long-term employment. This will mean that youth employment is likely to increase at aneven faster rate.

30. The young people employed by Centrepoint were asked what they would have done if it had not beenfor the FJF programme. Most said that they would likely still be long-term unemployed. Others thought theymight have found work eventually, but that it would have been in a sector they were not interested in and with



little or no prospects. One FJF employee said that he felt the programme had given him “an out” from dead-end work. Others felt that they would have had to work for free in order to gain experience which would haveleft them in growing debt.

“[Without the FJF programme] I’d had to have taken out a graduate loan and taken an unpaidinternship.”

31. But others said that they would not have been able to afford to volunteer as they had rent to pay or noaccess to credit, meaning that many would have been left with no options other that to continue signing on. Ifvolunteering was to become a viable option for young people, they felt that they would need additional financialsupport through travel and lunch reimbursements. They also emphasised the importance of any volunteeringplacements being well-structured and relevant to their interests to ensure it gave them valuable experience.

32. Centrepoint is particularly concerned about the cancelling of the FJF programme at a time when theGovernment has indicated that they will increase conditionality of welfare benefits. It will be deeply unfair ifyoung people are sanctioned for not finding work if they comply with all the JCP requirements but there aresimply no job opportunities available. For example, we are particular concerned about the proposed 10% cutin HB after claiming JSA for a year. Without offering job opportunities, many young people, particularly thosewith more complex needs, are unlikely to find work and will be subject to the HB cut. This likely to lead tothem building up arrears, risking eviction and homelessness.

33. When the young people were asked about the scrapping of the programme, several raised the potentialcosts to the taxpayer of doing so. For example, they noted that the cost of an FJF placement is much less thanthe Treasury would get back from that individual in tax if they later manage to secure a good long-term job.The programme was therefore seen as a good investment which would prevent further development of a cultureof worklessness.

34. Young people also highlighted the cost of ending one new programme and starting up a new programme.They acknowledged that savings had to be made but encouraged the Government to instead considerstreamlining existing services. For example, young people believed that prioritising different elements of theJCP offer was necessary. For example, they felt that money for work experience elements should be protected,by cutting back on other support such as the job programme sessions which many young people felt to be oflittle use. They suggested that help with CVs and interview technique could be the responsibility of employersas part of any JCP funded placements. However, they argued that the posts themselves must not be cut orreduced as young people living independently would not be able to cope on even lower salaries.


35. Centrepoint strongly urges the Government to include work experience opportunities for young peoplein the Work Programme to reduce the impact ending the Future Jobs Fund. With competition increasing foreach vacancy, having work experience is becoming more and more important. Fewer employers are offeringpositions for those straight out of education, so is important that the Government is working to secure workopportunities to give young people a first step on the ladder.

36. If new apprenticeships are created in sufficient number they could help to fill this void but is crucial thatsufficient financial rewards are attached to these placements or they will not be a viable option for the homelessyoung people we support. It is crucial that the Work Programme does not focus only on those young peoplewho are easiest to help. Young people who are furthest from the labour market should also be considered toensure they have support packages in place that give them a realistic chance of moving into work.

37. When designing work experience opportunities it will be important to build in:

— Detailed tailored planning to ensure young people are matched with the right post.

— Mechanisms to ensure good quality support from the employer.

— Well-rounded support packages that are coordinated by JCP throughout any placement to ensurethat the young person is coping in their post and are preparing for next steps.

— Financial support packages that reflect the individual young person’s situation and ensure they arenot put at risk by moving into work.

38. Tapers within the benefits system will also have a big impact on the success of the Work Programme. Itis important that young people who move into work do not see their benefits cut at too sharp a rate or it willnot be sustainable for those without family support networks to access opportunities.

39. It is important the Work Programme does not end at the point when a young person moves into theirfirst placement. Personal advisors need to help young people to develop a long-term plan, where there arefollow-up opportunities for young people to access once they have gained some experience. If apprenticeshipsare properly organised they could help to provide this pathway of progression, but is important that youngpeople are supported until they can find permanent, sustainable work. This should help prevent young peoplefrom simply returning to unemployment once the placement is completed.



Apprenticeships

40. Centrepoint welcomes the Government’s proposal to fund more apprenticeships, as our experiencesuggests that they good apprenticeship placements can be extremely beneficial for young people. However, itis crucial that the new apprenticeships are accessible to the young people that Centrepoint supports. Theapprenticeship system must not simply “cream off” the more able young people. Centrepoint’s experiencesuggests that the employer-led apprenticeships often present the best opportunities, offering a full wage ratherthan just an allowance. Unfortunately, however, these opportunities often required young people to have fiveGCSEs at A*-C which many young people at Centrepoint do not have due to their educational being disruptedby crises in their past or additional support needs. It is therefore crucial that at least some employer-ledapprenticeship opportunities are accessible to young people without qualifications, giving greater weight toyoung people who show potential in other ways.

41. If access to apprenticeships is to be fair, it is also important that the opportunities are targeted on groupswho are traditionally less likely to access apprenticeships. For example, the intake for many apprenticeshipsremains distinctly gender biased. Traditional apprenticeships in manual trades tend to be male-dominated, andnewer apprenticeships focusing on other vocations such as hairdressing often have worse terms and salaries. Itis therefore important that efforts are made to encourage more young women to apply for the full range ofopportunities and that the assessment process is fair and open to give women and equal chance of success.

42. Apprenticeships can provide an excellent opportunity for young people, but those without support fromtheir families will be limited by the salary and conditions of the individual placement. It is therefore crucialthat young people are matched up with the right opportunities which allow them to support themselves andgive them a real opportunity for a long-term career.

Conclusion

43. Centrepoint has found the Future Jobs Fund to be a very valuable programme for many young people.We therefore urge the Government to include a similar system of work experience opportunities within thenew Work Programme. It is, however, crucial that these opportunities are linked with necessary support toensure that homeless young people without family support can pursue the same opportunities as their peers.

Annex

Experiences of young people employed at Centrepoint as part of the Future Jobs Fund programme

Case study: Sarah29

Sarah became homeless at 19 and lived at a Centrepoint service before moving on to another youthhomelessness organisation. She was eager to work but did not have the necessary experience. Through theFuture Jobs Fund, she gained a job in Centrepoint’s Participation team. This is a post which Centrepoint wouldnot have been able to fund itself, but has been of huge value to the organisation, as Sarah has played a crucialrole in encouraging other young people to get involved in the Parliament. Working at Centrepoint has noticeablyincreased Sarah’s confidence and helped her develop important administration and project management skills.As a result of her experience in the participation team, Sarah has been offered a permanent post in Centrepoint’svolunteering team, helping to establish a peer mentoring programme.

“I have really enjoyed my placement at Centrepoint and feel that schemes like this will become more andmore important as the number of graduates entering the labour market increases. The Future Jobs Fundhelps bridge the disconnection between education and employment and effectively mitigates the catch-22of no experience-no work. Without the Future Jobs Fund it was becoming likely that I would need to takeout a graduate loan to fund either an unpaid internship or enrol on a post-graduate course to staycompetitive. However, with the skills and training I have gained on my current placement I am moreconfident in my own ability and feel that application to a similar position is much stronger.”—Phil.“The FJF has given me the opportunity to get a job where I could learn new skills, rather than being stuckin the same jobs using the skills I already had. In my role I have been given responsibility and havegained experience that has made me more confident when looking for future employment. If the schemewas scrapped, people like me who had little experience will struggle to find employment at a time whenexperienced workers are also looking for jobs.”—Steve.“I have found the programme very beneficial. It has given me the chance to broaden my knowledge andexperience in what I want to do. I now have something more up-to-date to put into my CV and feel moreemployable and confident within myself, and am ready for long-term employment!”—Jasmin.“I think its amazing and they shouldn’t scrap future job funds as it has given me confidence in wantingto work more and how to speak to people. If this works for me I believe that others that have theexperience to participate in a future job fund role will also gain confidence and become more organisedin time keeping and working environments. Some people need this to give them the experience they needto make them feel as if they can move into permanent work.”—Tony.

10 September 201029 The young person’s name has been changed to protect her identity.



Written evidence submitted by Suffolk County Council

Summary

The experience of delivering the Future Jobs Fund programme as a Lead Accountable Body (LAB) has beena rollercoaster ride of frustration to understanding to successful delivery and back to frustration again. Thespeed of the programmes roll out was done too rapidly and both the Job Centre, DWP and LAB’s were notready to run the programme. The time required to bed down processes and understand the needs andrequirements of both the DWP and the managing agents from JC+ was not built into the programme. Thisconsequently had a knock on impact in terms of meeting outputs in the initial stages. The programme from adelivery perspective once we had bottomed out the process and had given more resources (outside the fundingfrom DWP) to the programme the successes started to flow. The frustration ultimately lies in the fact that aprogramme which in real terms has been successful has been removed before it really had a chance toconsolidate the good practice and relationships it had developed.


There was little or no real matching of people to opportunities by JC+. We had many reports from bothemployers and candidates that the candidates didn’t know anything about the jobs they were applying for andquite a number consequently didn’t bother to turn up for their interviews. We know the JC+ advisors had onlya few minutes to spend with their jobseekers and only a couple of lines about the jobs to discuss/match oneven though there was a lot more information on the job templates provided by the LAB. The successes havebeen more due to hard work by the Brokers working for the LAB, some luck and positive/supportive employersthan “matching” and several people who left early for other jobs went into a different type of work. We haveexperienced a drop out rate currently running at approximately 13% following job offer, including not startingat all or failing to attend after starting. We also found alternative placements for a further 3% before they eitherdropped out or were dismissed. In most JC+ employment programmes the provider would do a comprehensiveassessment on their clients to enable proper job matching and assistance with applications, CVs and interviewskills prior to placing them. We think it was a mistake not to incorporate this into FJF—if it had been part ofthe programme from the beginning it would have improved:

— the number and quality of applications submitted;

— attendance at interview;

— number of candidates offered opportunities following interview.

It would also have reduced the number of drop outs following job offer/start and made everyone morepositive about the programme. Instead it had a very negative impact on providers, candidates and employersalike.

2. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Strengths

The fact that the programme was based around paid work experience gave it a positive image to participants.For those who made it onto the programme and managed to stick with it, it gave;

— a real experience of current expectations of the workplace and for some of earning a wage for thefirst time;

— improved the chances of getting a further job by being able to include recent paid work and newtraining/qualifications in CV’s and on application forms;

— ongoing, paid employment for a number of candidates;

— job search help for those who wouldn’t otherwise have sought help to look for work;

— provided all the positive benefits to individuals we already know work brings, e.g.: increasedconfidence and self esteem, feeling of independence and inclusion etc.

Weaknesses

Omission of proper time and capacity to undertake job matching (see 1st paragraph).

Most participants were not prepared for the programme because of capacity issues within JC+. Many wouldhave benefited from an induction into/refresher on work ethics/expectations, help with job search skills andmore information about the jobs available. Because the programme was for 25 hours per week it preventedmany people taking up opportunities due to the cost of travel and caused others to drop out. Funding was notsufficient to support the number of people for whom travel was an issue. The pre-requisite of using a percentageof community based organizations—many of which rely on charitable, public or other “funding” made it less



likely that they would be able to offer ongoing paid work opportunities. Also making it a numbers basedexercise instead of providing a quality programme that boosts positivity in job seekers and employers made ita missed opportunity to improve on the many successes which have been achieved within the programme.


With the recession impacting deeper on the jobs market than was originally thought meant that the numbersof young people out of work for six months or more increased therefore making the premature ending of theFJF programme a missed opportunity. The programme has in our view had a better outcome level than itspredecessors and there are no other programmes that focus on work based learning whilst in paid employment.The early closure has meant that the learning from developing a new programme from scratch means that inthe intervening time between the closure of FJF and the new Work Programme may be lost. The FJF programmewas developing a good momentum with local employers and young people with a high level of learning andemployment opportunities had been identified but may be lost in the subsequent welfare to work void. Howeverwe are taking steps to ensure wherever possible that this learning is captured, disseminated and used in otherareas of our work.


Apprenticeships are important for young unemployed people but less are available due to the current workclimate. The transition from FJF to the Work Programme is unclear at present. However we believe that theFJF programme was in real terms a shortened or fast tracked form of the apprenticeship programme andtherefore transition may not be an issue.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by North Tyneside Council

Summary

1. In July 2009 North Tyneside Council as lead accountable body for the Tyne and Wear City RegionEmployment and Skills Partnership submitted a Future Jobs Fund (FJF) bid on behalf of the seven LocalAuthorities in Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and Durham.

2. The partnership was successful in gaining an allocation of funding to create 3,450 jobs between October2009 and March 2011, 1,650 in Phase One to March 2010 and 1,840 in Phase Two between April 2010 andMarch 2011. 70% of all jobs created were to be targeted at young people, the remaining 30% were to be topeople in unemployment hot spot areas.

3. The Tyne and Wear City Region programme centres around a commitment to provide a quality experiencefor young people and utilise a commissioned Post Employment Support (PES) service to provide additionalsupport to FJF employees with their career progression and job sustainability. The service has providedmentoring / coaching, support and advice, training and job search to assist employees in finding permanentemployment.

4. To date we have placed 2,927 vacancies with Jobcentre Plus and filled 1,664 of these jobs. In terms ofopportunities for young people, we have advertised 69.5% of the vacancies specifically for young people

5. A recent review of the sustainability of jobs has provided evidence that 53% of leavers are progressingto jobs either with their FJF employer or alternative employers.

6. In response to the inquiry, we have outlined the following local evidence as a response to the highlightedareas of focus:


Performance

7. Across the Tyne and Wear City Region (TWCR), FJF has offered young unemployed people the chanceof a real job, with a living wage (paid at least the national minimum wage). So far, the scheme has provided1,664 unemployed people with an opportunity to gain valuable experience and skills working in real jobs.These jobs have helped to ensure that the young people do not become disengaged and the experience hashelped them to market themselves competitively for future employment opportunities.

8. The impact of the programme is demonstrable. Between July 2009 and July 2010, claimants aged between18–24 years have seen their numbers decrease by 15.2% (2,565) across the TWCR, and 18–24 year olds as aproportion of all claimants have also reduced over the same period from 31.4% to 29.8%.

9. In addition, whilst across England the numbers of 18–24 year olds claiming over 6 months increased by2.5% between July 2009 and July 2010, the numbers of 18–24 year olds claiming over six months in TWCR



has actually decreased by 26.5% (865 claimants) over the same period. Although not wholly attributable, thesuccess of the FJF programme will have contributed significantly to these figures.

10. The seven Local Authorities have provided a key role in supporting local community and voluntarysector organisations to create suitable vacancies. Despite initial concerns, job creation has been relativelystraightforward and this can be attributed to the capacity provided by the Local Authority officers to supportand mentor the end employers, and the effectiveness of the partnership to work with the Public, Private andVoluntary and Community Sectors to provide opportunities for young people. Considering the short timescalesfor delivery the number of jobs created has been in excess of the original profile.

11. The “matching” element and filling jobs has presented more of a challenge, particularly during PhaseOne. Initially, the programme experienced low referral rates of clients from Jobcentre Plus to the vacancies.These referrals did improve as delivery progressed and awareness of the programme was raised. However,conversion rates of Jobcentre Plus referrals into actual job applications remains a concern, with conversionrates as low as 20% in some cases. This has been tackled in a number of ways in partnership with Jobcentre Plusincluding the challenge of national guidance and reviewing local processes to ensure they work as effectively aspossible. Phase 2 has seen further improvements in the processes to match individuals to jobs, in particular inthe streamlining of recruitment practices, with new jobs being filled in shorter timescales.

Employer Feedback

12. Feedback from employers has been very positive with evidence that the programme is making a hugedifference to both the employers and employees.

13. In August 2010, a survey was undertaken with 117 employers (response rate 54.2%) who have employedFJF employees as part of the programme. The results of the survey illustrated that the FJF has been a highlypositive experience for the majority of employers taking part.

14. Employers reported a wide range of benefits to the infrastructure and sustainability of their organisations.Through the FJF, they have been able to become more responsive to customer needs, develop ICT provision,improve staff training and market their services to new funders and client groups. For some employers, theadditional resources have enabled existing staff to take on more strategic work thus contributing to the longer-term sustainability and success of the organisation.

15. Many new and improved services have been enabled by FJF (69.4% of employers stated that had beenable to improve existing services because of FJF), which have delivered an important benefit to the localcommunity. A number of new services have related to environmental improvements and maintenance workwhilst employers also cited improvements in customer service. Employers have also been able to use the FJFto undertake one-off projects such as tree planting, research and production of a directory (23.6% of employersreported being able to undertake additional one-off projects).

16. Employers also cited a range of community benefits that had been enabled by the FJF. In addition togreater employment opportunities, the FJF has boosted the confidence and self esteem for many of theindividuals taking part. It has resourced services that support vulnerable and excluded groups in the localcommunity and enabled improvements to the physical “fabric” of the community to take place (42.6% ofemployers reported that benefits to the local community would be sustained beyond the end of the programme).

17. Many of the FJF workers have been able to use their experience as a “springboard” into employment.The employers taking part in the survey collectively reported that 97 workers had already been offered furthercontracts of employment (58.2% of employers had offered FJF employees a further contract of employment).Many also intended to offer further contracts to those workers not yet at the end of their FJF-funded post. Inaddition, the FJF workers gained valuable experience and there are examples of workers being able to usethese to gain employment elsewhere. The FJF has therefore provided a real opportunity for many long-termunemployed young people to obtain work (70.3% of employers reported that a lack of funds would be a keyreason for not offering permanent contracts of employment).

18. In a broader sense, the FJF has also been highly successful in changing attitudes towards the long-termunemployed amongst those employers taking part (74% of employers stated that they were impressed with thequality of the people taking up FJF jobs and 50.6% reported that they were more inclined to recruit long-termunemployed people in the future). Employers praised highly the commitment, energy and abilities that the FJFworkers brought to their organisations and reported that their attitudes towards recruiting and retaining longterm unemployed people had changed significantly (34% reported that involvement in FJF had led to changesin the way their organisation will recruit people in the future).

19. Overall, these findings support the view that FJF has been a success. The employers have shared anumber of “success stories” that illustrate how the FJF has brought long-term unemployed people back intothe workforce whilst simultaneously delivering a range of new and improved services for the local communityand improving the infrastructure of many of the organisations taking part. Many of these benefits will besustained in the future.

20. With significant impacts reported on the young persons motivation, self-esteem and general well being,the £6,500 per person it costs has been worthwhile. The programme has provided a realistic chance to support



people to break out of the benefits dependency trap and to gain permanent and sustainable employment. Thebreadth and variation of the types of jobs provided through FJF, including jobs in health and social care,business and administration, ICT, contact centre skills, youth work, catering and hospitality, communitydevelopment, sport and recreation and environmental activities and recycling has also allowed young peopleto explore fields of interest to them where entry level positions would not normally be created.

Jobcentre Plus Guidance

21. One of the key challenges faced in matching young people to opportunities has been the nationallydirected Jobcentre Plus guidance that limited the widespread marketing of FJF opportunities. Local authoritypartners initially wished to include information, advice and guidance sessions for all benefit claimants interestedin FJF jobs to ensure that the programme reached as many young people as possible. The intention was alsoto enable the additional matching of individuals to jobs.

22. The Partnership has worked hard to identify areas where flexibilities in the programme can be establishedto improve performance. An example is Local Authorities working with Jobcentre Plus advisers to identify aneed for locally based matching events to engage young people and provide information, advice and guidanceregarding opportunities available; addressing the limited scope to do this via standard interviews and signingprocesses in Jobcentre Plus offices.

23. Flexibility was granted in Gateshead to hold an event to stimulate and increase job starts. This provedvery successful and is now being replicated on a monthly basis. The format has also been rolled out across therest of the City Region. The relaxation of the national guidance has enabled this to become part of the matchingprocess with Jobcentre Plus and provided a much smoother and immediate transition for the young personfrom referral to being placed into employment.

24. Moving into Phase Two of the programme, performance has improved significantly with a greater numberof jobs being filled month on month. This is mainly due to processes now being embedded and Jobcentre Plusadvisers having an improved awareness of the Future Jobs Fund and the benefits it presents to young people.Jobs are being filled faster and the potential of young people being offered permanent employment hasimproved, as demonstrated through the results of the Employer Survey.

Skills

25. The FJF programme has demonstrated that many organisations are willing to invest in training to providetheir employees with the practical skills they require for the job.

26. The Post Employment Support (PES) provision, which is being delivered to support all FJF employeesacross the City Region, has assisted in providing the basic soft employability skills for young people. Thismakes it more likely that they will be retained, increasing the employer’s willingness to continue to employthem. The addition of this type of support has also ensured that the skills gained make the young person amore attractive prospect to other employers in the future, leading to career progression. The young people havegained new skills leading to renewed ambition for their future careers.

27. Whilst it is early days in identifying retention and the progression of individuals, there is evidence thatthe young people may not have remained in work for six months without this complimentary support to resolveissues and mentor individuals. This additional support whilst in work has supported the sustainability of aclient group that is diverse and has a wide range of needs.

28. The target group for Future Jobs Fund have been unemployed for over six months and many have lowskills and generally have been unable to compete in the jobs market. The programme has aimed to create entry-level jobs with a basic skills level and provided an environment for learning and development, supportingindividuals to progress in the wider labour market. The chart below shows the breakdown of jobs by skill level.

29. From a sample of FJF employees, we found that 33% had less than an NVQ Level 2 qualification or noqualifications prior to starting their placement, 8% had an NVQ level 3 and only 0.8% held NVQ 4 or 5 or anA/AS level. This would indicate that we are pitching the jobs at the right level for the target audience andcreating jobs for those young people who may not access opportunities without support.



Vacancy Skills Requirements

No Skills

2%

Basic

80%

Intermediate

8%

Specialist

5%

Physical

5%

30. Where jobs have not been filled or there has been a difficulty in identifying entry-level jobs, we havebeen proactive in reviewing job descriptions and skills levels. For example in Northumberland, vacancies werepreviously hard to find for young people with little or no experience. Very low numbers of vacancies wereadvertised with Jobcentre Plus. As a result the Local Authority have been proactive in working with the ThirdSector to create as many jobs as possible requiring little or no skills, the result has been that many of the jobshave been created are within the cultural and tourist sectors which are growth sectors in Northumberland.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Below we have outlined the key strengths and weaknesses of the programme in the Tyne and Wear CityRegion:

Strengths

General Points

31. Good approach in terms of encouraging City Region partnerships bidding to deliver outcomes in linewith the needs of a functional economic geography, maximising the efficiency savings of a central team, whilststill embracing the devolvement to a local level.

32. The programme shows the value of devolving programmes to a local level. Local partnerships understandtheir local labour markets and employer base and have been committed to creating a range of job opportunitiesand providing ongoing support where required for both employees and employers.

33. It is essential to enable local provision of experienced employer contacts with existing employerrelationships able to persuade them to create appropriate jobs and support employers throughout theprogramme.

34. Supporting local partnerships to provide joined up services and additional support e.g. in TWCR, thePost Employment Support (PES) contract added value to the programme by supporting the inclusion ofaccredited training and job search activity as well as providing an in work mentoring service. It is clear thatretention levels would have much lower without offering this joined-up, wrap around support.

35. The Tyne and Wear City Region have commissioned independent evaluation of the FJF programmeincorporating an employers and beneficiaries survey. The comments on how the programme has helpedorganisations develop and individual case studies collated demonstrate many of the positive impacts of theprogramme. A selection of these can be found in the appendices 1 & 2 of this report.

36. The criteria of more than 6 / 9 months unemployed is an advantage in that it ensures the FJF opportunitiesgo to young people who would not have found work without FJF.

Range of Opportunities

37. It has provided excellent, new and previously inaccessable opportunities for young people / NEET’s(Not in Employment, Education or Training).

38. FJF has created basic level jobs to match the skills level of many of the target group. These jobs wouldnot have been available through normal channels and therefore has opened up opportunities for the mostdisadvantaged groups and has also provided a progression routeway.



39. The range of jobs created has been varied (from chocolatier to grave digger) allowing young people towiden their horizons and not “pigeon hole” them into applying for traditional service sector jobs.

Format of Jobs

40. Setting the minimum payment level at the national minimum wage has encouraged young people to takethis opportunity seriously and not consider this as a standard welfare to work programme.

41. Creating the jobs as real jobs where the employees are treated equally alongside substantive posts hasresulted in a respect for the post and the post holder in a way that previous “trainee” or supported job creationprogrammes have not.

42. The programme has created jobs that would not have been available in the wider labour market, andprovided a wide range of opportunities that individuals may not have thought of.

43. The simplicity of job creation ensured there was sufficient scope to create diverse, quality jobs whilstalso managing eligibility criteria such as community benefit.

44. FJF opportunities are bona fide jobs, albeit with an initial time limit, and not just a “scheme” or“programme”. This has the dual benefit of the employer having real ownership over the job and the employeebeing more motivated and having a genuine experience of a job in a real workplace. Experience and evidenceshows that this has a more profound impact on raising employability.

Community Benefit

45. Providing jobs that are of a benefit to the local community has ensured that the jobs are appreciated bylocal people from the communities the FJF employees reside in. It has also opened up new and additionalopportunities in the community and voluntary sector that has increased the awareness of this sector

46. There have been a wide range of community benefits in terms of infrastructure and the sustainability oforganisations. Examples include the employers becoming more responsive to customer needs; developing ICTprovision; transporting the elderly; improving staff training; play schemes; marketing services to new clientgroups; community sports and healthy living information / activities; improving the physical environment withgardening and low cost maintenance and repairs services; and resourcing services that support vulnerable andexcluded groups.

Employers Response

47. Unlike work experience that employers don’t particularly rate, it gives “real” job duties andresponsibilities that are of benefit to the business. It also provides a higher quality experience to the individualto be included on a CV, which impresses employers and gives some advantage when applying for future jobs.

48. An independent employer survey has shown that the programme has been highly successful in changingemployers attitudes towards long term unemployed (50% said that FJF had challenged their expectations ofthe contribution that long term unemployed people can make to their workforce, 51% said that they would bemore inclined to recruit from this group and 74% stated that they were impressed with the quality of the peopletaking up FJF jobs).

49. FJF has increased the awareness and the previously negative perceptions of the service that JobcentrePlus can provide. Employers engaged via Future Jobs Fund in Gateshead, particularly within the third sectorand SME’s, reported that they did not traditionally recruit successfully via Jobcentre Plus customer groups.Future Jobs Fund has presented the opportunity to increase awareness of the benefits of recruiting from thisgroup providing matching is appropriate and co-ordinated. Appendix 3 provides some employer comments thatdemonstrate the changing perceptions from involvement in the FJF programme.

Additional Benefits

50. Third sector organisations have been able to develop the capacity to actually employ someone else.Recent evaluation has shown that many organisations have increased productivity, successfully bid for furtherfunding to support the organisation and sustain their employee’s job.

51. The impact on service development and business growth for participating employers has beendemonstrated through developing new or extending services, improving services and bidding for new work.Further examples of additional capacity in the third sector include an increased number of crèche places, ITtraining courses and community gardening contracts.

52. The young people have proven themselves throughout the six months and been able to apply forpermanent jobs within the organisation they have been placed. For example, the Home Group has a 70%success rate of retaining employees beyond the FJF opportunity. While conceived as a short- term measure theFJF legacy will be longer term and impact on a number of young people and employers.



Weaknesses

General Points

53. Some conflicting elements exist within the programme around additionality and sustainability—additionaljobs are treated as a stepping stone towards permanent jobs however the fact that they are additional increasesthe chance that they do not continue when the funding ends. This will result in temporarily removing youngpeople from the claimant count only to see them return, more demoralised than previously.

54. The programme has been criticised as a short-term reaction to the recession, when although the recessionhas intensified the impact, youth unemployment is not purely a recession induced problem and the supply sideissues with NEET’s need to be tackled alongside a demand side intervention like FJF on a long-term basis.

Community Benefit

55. In order to provide community benefit, most of the jobs are in the public sector and with a range ofvoluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations. However, it is acknowledged that there will beconstraints in the third sector as well as cuts to be made to public services in the next year. There is a dangerof setting people up to fail if the long-term opportunities are not available.

Private Sector Involvement

56. The lack of opportunity to create jobs in the private sector where sustainability is more likely is thoughtof as a key omission to FJF. The programme could have been used as a catalyst for creating more privatesector jobs and therefore supporting the aim to rebalance the local economy reduce the reliance on the publicsector. Extending to SMEs, or even only small employers, in the private sector could have helped stimulatedemand for jobs. This would have a genuine community benefit by boosting the business base in some verydeprived communities.

57. It is agreed that local partnerships could have addressed the “State Aid” and market displacement issuesthat were a constraint in enabling private sector involvement.

58. The Tyne and Wear Employment and Skills Board private sector members who manage some sustainablebusinesses expressed their dismay that they could not be an integral part of this programme.

Implementation

59. Unlike many DWP programmes, this scheme was not piloted and therefore it hasn’t really been giventhe opportunity to prove how successful it can be. Administration and delayed guidance led to some teethingproblems and it is only recently that the programme’s processes have become smoother and more interest hasbeen gained from potential employers and young people.

60. There has been a lack of flexibility in processes regarding recruitment—i.e. no self-referral or widespreadadvertising of vacancies, therefore resulting in the reliance on Jobcentre Plus to fill vacancies. This lack offlexibility in the programme hindered appropriate local partnership working to match young people to jobs,impacting upon the submission and conversion rate. As Future Jobs Fund was only one part of the YoungPerson’s Guarantee there was little direct matching undertaken by local Jobcentre Plus advisers who hadknowledge and understanding of their customer needs.

61. Varied approaches by Jobcentre Plus nationally affected providers delivering across several regions.Centralised, district based matching and co-ordination, although promoting a cross boundary approach, did notreflect the geographical reality of travel to work areas and partnership infrastructures already in place.

62. The lack of true local flexibility to deliver a programme to fit local need e.g. no localisation due tonational guidance. It is considered that given the strong, local partnership in place in the Tyne and Wear CityRegion we collectively could have implemented the programme quicker and more efficiently in the early stagesif we had been empowered to do so.

63. There was also a lack of immediate guidance—late guidance was provided that contradicted processesalready put in place by strong effective partnerships. An alternative approach of empowerment to deliver whatworks would have supported increased early performance.

64. Constant changing of guidance—again the programme could have been more effective by empoweringlocalities to deliver within their own collectively agreed processes and rules, particularly where partnershipshad previously demonstrated comprehensive and effective local approaches e.g. through DWP City StrategyPathfinders or strong employment led MAA’s.

65. There was a lack of promotion of opportunities to customers due to hierarchy of options within YoungPerson’s Guarantee.




66. It is too early to say one way or another about the long term success of the programme but given timeand further development, the opportunities given to young people may provide reductions to the long termunemployment rate that would have balanced (if not outweighed) any cost in the present. In addition, it hasprovided a solution to high numbers of young people being caught in the position of being long termunemployed potentially remaining on benefits for long periods of time with the resultant personal demotivationand mental health issues related to long term unemployment.

67. Our independent employers survey asked employers to consider what the main impacts will be when theFJF programme finishes, their responses are as follows:

— Less jobs/opportunities for young people (78.9%).

— More unemployed young people (73.7%).

— More long-term unemployment (64.2%).

— Loss of community benefit (57.9%).

— Reduction in available resources for business growth (48.4%).

— Reduction in business growth (29.5%).

— No impact (1.1%).

68. We understand that in place of the Future Jobs Fund, there is a plan to create apprenticeships for youngpeople, although the numbers will be much less than the FJF opportunities created. One of the key differencesbetween the Future Jobs Fund and apprenticeships is that apprentices will be paid much less (£55 per week).

69. The loss of financial support for the employer will have an impact, consequently some form of wagesubsidy or national insurance exemption would encourage employers to sustain these jobs or create new ones.

70. The decision to end FJF may have a serious impact on reducing the opportunities for young people. FJFhas helped young people to stay in touch with the labour market at a time of recession and high youthunemployment. Skills, the work ethic, workplace experience etc. have all been retained. As young people aremore vulnerable to unemployment and more likely to be “scarred” by periods out of work, it is important tohave similar future options for young people particularly when there is slow labour market progression andjob instability.

71. If the Future Jobs Fund programme had been able to run until March 2012, it could have complementedthe Work Programme activity by creating jobs and progression routes for individuals thus increasing it’ssustainability as an outcome funded programme. There would also have been more time to gather the evidencebase to prove the success of the programme and therefore build a concrete case for incorporating FJF typedelivery into the Work Programme. At present, it is unlikely that this type of delivery will be included.


72. In the transition from FJF to the Work Programme, consideration needs to be given to local economiese.g. vulnerable economies, reliance on public sector, private sector jobs gaps and the longer term absence ofappropriate “starter” jobs in the DWP ITT’s. ITT’s should specify that prime contractors should reportperformance and engage in Local Enterprise Partnerships to ensure there is local support and challenge for theWork Programme delivery

73. There is real concern that the Work Programme will not provide an effective transition if job creationand brokerage are not an integral part of the responses to the ITT’s. There is also a real risk that with the blackbox approach anticipated in the Work Programme, the specific needs of young people will not be taken accountof. The recession is causing the labour market to become more competitive; therefore young people becomeless attractive than more experienced candidates. Qualified people end up under employed (lowering their joband wage expectations) and thus making the most basic level jobs harder to get.

74. There is also the danger of young people being excluded as not eligible under Work Programme criteriaas they will be new claimants when they leave an FJF opportunity.

75. Tyne and Wear City Region are providing a City Region Prospectus for the Work Programme for PrimeContractors. The prospectus will include; what the partnership can offer in terms of the local infrastructure,existing initiatives and strategic framework; the context, key features of our economy, trends and LabourMarket Information; the challenges and opportunities for our area; and set out expectations of the partnership.

76. As our initial findings on the Future Jobs Fund Programme support the view that it has been a successfulprogramme, within this prospectus, we will include a request for a FJF type intervention to be included in theWork Programme. We will encourage prime contractors to discuss with us the differing needs of young peoplein our locality. This is the type of response that many local partnerships will be supporting and thereforecommunication and empowerment that working with and to Local enterprise partnerships or employment andskills local governance arrangements will be critical to success.



Summary

The Tyne and Wear City Region partners have welcomed the opportunity to deliver the FJF programme andare committed to providing high quality similar type services in the future that supports young people intosustainable work.

APPENDIX 1

EMPLOYER QUOTES REGARDING DEVELOPING, EXTENDING AND IMPROVING SERVICES

“The FJF has allowed us to expand our services into three new sites, which will give us a good starting pointwhen applying for funding to maintain the services as they will have a track record of six months. This hasalso allowed us to branch into developing training and IAG with the under 25s.”

“Having extra staff that cost us nothing makes a huge difference to delivery of service and allows us to bemore creative with our play opportunities—ultimately offering better playcare experience for the children inour care. “Now that we have two Charity Shop workers we have extended the Charity Shop to a market stallonce a week as well as being able to have the shop open.”

“FJF has enabled managers to develop staff by assigning them to mentor an FJF employee. This has givenstaff development experience including; being involved in interview, supervision and one to one's and generalstaff management. FJF has also given a very positive impression of young people as [it] dispelled myths thatyoung people do not want to work.”

“Our service had limited capacity—but we are now able to offer it across the region without a waiting list.”

“The service that we offered was a loss making venture, we needed it to break even this financial year otherwisewe would have to stop the service—and make a number of people redundant. The FJF has allowed us to workon more older people's gardens faster, and with less cost.”

“By having more staff members, it has allowed our service to grow and improved the skill sets of both thesenior gardeners and the garden assistants. This has had a knock on affect to the customers themselves—whoget a less expensive, higher quality service.”

“Created a role which involves communicating directly with customers on issues to do with the delivery oftheir specs. This has assisted other departments in turn, to allow more one to one time with customers in store,and improve the service we offer to the community.”

APPENDIX 2

CASE STUDIES DEMONSTRATING BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS

“Our first FJF employee moved into a full time role with us only five weeks after starting. He had never hadan interview before in his life, having worked and trained as a bricklayer with his Grandfather. Although hiscurrent role is in maintenance, he has been identified through our succession planning as a replacement for abricklayer due to retire very soon. When that occurs, his salary will be almost double what he first startedearning. He is looking to move out of his parent’s house into a house of his own with his partner who has justgiven birth to their baby daughter. Without Future Jobs Fund the whole family would be living in anovercrowded property, relying solely on benefits.”

“One young man has transformed from an insecure, shy individual to a competent, friendly, highly thought ofimportant member of the lab team in the six months he has been with us.”

“...Working in the cafe has allowed [her] to develop new skills, and gain qualifications. [She] has passed threeexternal qualifications. She is able to run the kitchen and the sandwich areas well. She can prepare coffee usinga barista machine. In addition she can use an EPOS till. All these skills her help move forward into another job.”

“One of our trainees came with no experience at all and had a difficult few weeks settling in. He has matureddrastically during his time here, no longer scruffy and in trainers, he is smart. No longer shy with clients, hefinds a common bond with everyone. He still makes mistakes, but he no longer reacts badly to being told howto rectify them, but takes the experience and learns. He is a fine example of what the programme wantedto achieve.”

APPENDIX 3

EMPLOYER QUOTES REGARDING THE CHANGE OF PERCEPTION IN EMPLOYING YOUNGUNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS

“Before the success of our FJF employees, we may have assumed that people were out of work long term fora reason. Either because they didn't want to work, or because they were not great employees.”

“Any preconceptions we had regarding long term unemployed people have been removed by the hard workingand friendly colleagues we have seen through future jobs.”

“It has shown that there is a good pool of employable people in the unemployed numbers.”



“I have a better understanding of how to develop and progress young people within the workforce. Providingan opportunity has enabled the trainees to develop skills that they did not have previously which has beenextremely rewarding for line managers and mentors.”

“Everyone in the business sees long term unemployed in a different light. We believe that given the chancethey are able to develop their skills fairly quickly and offer a lot to an organisation.”

“I initially expected the Future Jobs Fund people to work in these posts because their benefits would be affectedif they did not take up an offer. This has been proven wrong, the contribution and commitment of the peoplewe have been able to place is amazing and has changed my outlook on the long term unemployed.”

“The programme has demonstrated how effective the partnership between local companies and unemployedpeople can be. We have secured an excellent candidate with appropriate skills who will hopefully stay withthe company for a long time to come.

Written evidence submitted by North Yorkshire Learning Consortium


2. This report provides evidence which demonstrates that the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) has been an extremelyeffective programme for providing short-term interventions for unemployed young people, which have longterm, sustainable benefits for both individual young people and the communities in which they live. It examineskey strengths of the programme for all stakeholders and draws on individual case studies to highlight specificareas of effectiveness that can inform future programme development.

3. Key strengths of the existing programme are examined, including the role of the third sector, the emphasison community benefit and use of a sub-regional model which allows provision to be managed locally by LABsthat understand their geographical area and know local employers. It examines the adoption of a flexiblefunding model which can provide support to employers and act as an incentive for engagement as well aspresenting the advantages of creating genuine jobs rather than work placement or volunteering opportunities.

4. Finally, recommendations are given about how lessons learned from FJF can be incorporated into the newSingle Work Programme and potential areas for further development such as any potential benefit of a similarscheme for adults experiencing significant disadvantage in the labour market for example customers withlearning disabilities. Recommendations are also given about how the transition from FJF to the Single WorkProgramme may be supported and the potential benefit of a comprehensive cost analysis to explore if FJF wasas expensive as it appeared or if it actually represented a significant saving in real terms.

5. Brief Introduction to NYLC

6. Formed in 2007, North Yorkshire Learning Consortium (NYLC) was established to provide a newConsortium approach for the Third Sector in York and North Yorkshire with a main purpose of achieving andmanaging contracts for Third Sector providers in learning, skills and employability services. Developed by thesector, for the sector, with initial funding and support from the (then) Learning and Skills Council, we are anot for profit company limited by guarantee, that re-invests all surplus money into driving up quality andproviding exceptional value for money.

7. NYLC is a champion for a thriving Third Sector economy in York and North Yorkshire. We provide avehicle to win and effectively manage contracts/grant funds, enhance the workforce and benchmark andimprove the quality and scope of provision by member organisations. By providing access to contracts,information, representation, and development activites we aim to ensure high quality services are delivered toand by our partners to enable them to meet the requirements of funders.

8. NYLC is designed around a “hub and spoke” consortia model. This enables the Consortium to providean “honest broker” role and this model has worked well in relation to our Future Jobs Fund contract. We offerfree affiliate membership to a diverse range of Third Sector organisations giving our members the opportunityto engage with the “hub” at whatever level is appropriate to them at any particular time.

9. NYLC was one of the first organisations in the country to begin delivery on the Future Jobs Contract withdelivery commencing on 12 October 2009 and the first person entering employment on 17 November 2009.To date, NYLC has advertised 163 positions and filled 146 of these, with the final 17 positions remaining beingadvertised this month.

10. Factual information for the Committee

11. The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to youngunemployed people

12. NYLC has significant evidence to support the fact that the FJF has been extremely successful in matchingnew work experience opportunities to young unemployed people. One of the most common themes of one-to-one review meetings with young people is the fact that FJF has given them the chance to “try” a job that iscompletely different to anything they have done before and gain work experience in a new area. All jobs



created have been designed as entry level positions so that lack of previous experience would not be a barrier,with training provided to all young people as part of the programme. Many young people have commentedthat without this, they would never have had the confidence to apply for positions in new areas or that whenthey had applied for similar jobs in the past had not been successful due to a lack of experience.

13. In addition, the role of NYLC as the main point of contact for both employers and young people hasbeen vital to creating community benefit jobs that are genuinely in line with the interests of young people. Keyto this has been the excellent communication with local Job Centre Plus colleagues who have providedinformation about the main areas of interest for young people in their area so employers with relevant positionscould be targeted. An example of this is the high number of young people who had expressed an interest ingardening jobs. NYLC was then able to approach several third sector organisations running cooperative farmsor walled garden projects that support clients with learning disabilities and mental ill health, as well as otherthird sector organisations with their own grounds (i.e. care homes, specialist colleges etc). One organisationneeded a new head gardener to provide supervision and mentoring to the FJF young people and NYLC wereable to broker a link with another FJF customer who had recently completed his 6 months at another employerand was then successful at securing this permanent position.

14. Strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers (including in the thirdsector), employers and young unemployed people, and particularly in relation to the long-term sustainabilityof employment opportunities

15. Provider (NYLC)—Strengths—The main strength of this programme from the perspective of NYLCwas the up-front management fee which enabled a Future Jobs Team to be recruited at the beginning of theproject and significant staff resources to be invested in the project throughout. This also enabled NYLC tomake monthly payments to employers in advance so small organisations would not be prevented from engagingdue to cash-flow restraints. The initial investment by DWP enabled NYLC to also invest in the programmefrom the outset and this resulted in vacancies being created and filled more quickly and enhanced the overallsuccess of the project.

16. Another key strength is the opportunity the programme has given third sector organisations to increasetheir capacity and attract young people to the sector. Facilitating effective workforce development is one offour strategic aims of NYLC and this project has enabled third sector employers to employ young people witha wide range of skills and previous experience who had never previously considered a career in the third sector.In turn, third sector organisations that provide essential front-line services to some of the most disadvantagedand marginalised people in our community have been able to offer enhanced services to their clients, which isparticularly relevant with the emphasis of providing more for less and demonstrating value for money.

17. Provider (NYLC)—Weaknesses—One weakness of the project for NYLC has been the perceived highunit cost of £6,500 in comparison to other welfare to work provision where the unit cost to DWP isapproximately half this value. However, NYLC have undertaken a “real terms cost analysis” of the projecttaking into account the money saved in JSA payments, council tax benefit and housing benefit, as well as thecost to JCP of administering these benefits and fortnightly signing-on. This has shown that the cost ofsupporting a young person who remains on JSA throughout their programme is significantly more than £6,500.(N.B. NYLCs cost analysis was based on case studies of real young people and conservative estimates ofJCP costs).

18. Employers—Strengths—Key to the success of this model was the provision of a highly flexible £1,000training and support budget for all employers engaged in the project. As well as acting as an initial incentivefor employers, this enabled employers to put in place the support and training necessary for each young personto develop into their role and remove any barriers to future employment. Additionally, the “light touch”monitoring of the young person once they have been employed ensures that the FJF employee is not treateddifferently to other employees and does not represent a burden to the employer. This contracts with workplacements and volunteering opportunities that rarely provide funding to the employer and are often verybureaucratic.

19. Employers—Weaknesses—Though the vast majority of employers felt that the FJF had been a positiveand worthwhile experience for their organisation, many noted that this had been due to the investment madeby them in staff time and training (via the £1,000) and that it had, consequently, taken some for their FJFemployee to become an asset to the company. As such, their contribution was only increasing the capacity ofthe organisation towards the end and this did not give employers enough time to generate new business to fundtheir role in the future. Several employers noted that if they had received part-funding to employ the youngperson after 26 weeks, they may have been able to match-fund another six months.

20. Young people—Strengths—Throughout the project NYLC has collected feedback from all young peoplefrom the initial “matching events” to the “nine months—life after FJF interviews.” Below are listed the mainthemes that have been seen throughout:

(a) Position is a real job—young people have highlighted the difference between FJF and previousexperiences they have had with work placements and volunteering opportunities where they have notfelt they were doing a real job or necessarily making a difference.

(b) Not reliant on JSA—for many young people there is a real sense of achievement in no longer being



reliant on welfare benefits and one young person actually refused to sign on after his FJF position hadfinished, despite taking three weeks to secure another job.

(c) Build confidence—the majority of young people described a lack of confidence that had arisen frombeing unemployed and all said FJF had helped to increase their confidence.

(d) Not with other Jobseekers—a common criticism of other programmes was that they were comprisedof a room of jobseekers with varying levels of motivation with many people just “going through themotions.” By contrast, young people on FJF are in a work environment with other colleagues who arealso employed and focused upon their jobs.

(e) Working in the Third Sector—a large number of young people have cited working in the ThirdSector as being a key strength of the project. Many had not previously thought about a career in thesector, or even knew they could have one. Feedback has also indicated that Third Sector employershave been much more supportive and understanding of barriers than previous private sector employershad been.

(f) Community Benefit—young people cited the chance to make a noticeable difference as part of theirday job as a particular highlight of the project. Several young people have become volunteers as aresult of being on the project who had previously stated that they would not be interested involunteering as earning money was their main motivator.

(g) Influence over training/support budget—NYLC has encouraged employers to work with youngpeople to establish their individual training and support programme. Young people have identified thisas a strength as they are involved in setting the direction of their personal development and the fundingcan be used to fund non-traditional activities to overcome barriers—i.e. driving lessons for youngpeople in isolated rural communities.

21. Young people—Weaknesses—Like employers, young people also identified the length of the programmeas being a barrier to sustainable employment, citing 26 weeks as too short a time to learn a job in a new areaor for employers to secure funding to continue what had been an additional and previously unfunded position.


23. The decision to end FJF in March 2011 and not release further funding to high-performing LeadAccountable Bodies (LABs) will impact in the following ways

(a) On NYLC—NYLC recruited three new staff to deliver on FJF who may not be retained until theWork Programme is rolled out due to funding restraints and no overlap on programmes.

(b) On young people—Reduced numbers nationally will result in thousands less young people securingemployment through the programme, particularly school leavers from summer 2010.

(c) On employers—NYLC already had a number of additional employers who were interested in engagingin FJF who cannot engage as there are no more targets.

(d) On DWP—there will be four months between March 2011 and July 2011 where there is neither FJFnor Work Programme provision which may lead to higher unemployment.

(e) On the Community—Fewer community benefit jobs being created will result in third sectororganisations potentially having less capacity to support their local communities.

(f) On the third sector—The reduction in young people entering the sector at the beginning of theircareers will support the widely held belief that the third sector is not somewhere that young peoplecan begin and develop a career.

(g) On the economy—100% of the funding for this project has been paid to young people in salary or tothird sector organisations for support costs and management by NYLC (itself a third sectororganisation). Prime Provider contracts covering large geographical areas are likely to be top-slicedby private sector companies with share-holders and profits that are not reinvested into the UK economyfor the benefit of local communities.

24. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be playedby the Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships

25. One key message from young people at our “Matching Events” was the fact that there is no “one sizefits all solution” to supporting a diverse range of unemployed young people into employment. As part of ourFJF delivery mode, NYLC provided a highly flexible budget of £1,000 to employers who could source themost appropriate support or training for each young person and work with young people, in a needs-led way,



to overcome previous barriers to employment. For many young people, low skills or qualifications were not abarrier as they had level 4 and 5 qualifications already and did not identify higher skills or qualifications aslikely to increase their employability. These young people stated that other employability courses they hadattended had not met their needs and had been more of a “box-ticking” exercise and had contributed tolosing motivation.

26. The NYLC Chief Officer, who has 15 years experience of working on employment projects rangingfrom NHS Graduate Recruitment to managing multi-million pound European Social Fund projects, has recentlystated that “Future Jobs is, without doubt, the most effective project for improving the long term prospects ofunemployed people I have ever worked on.” Key to ensuring a smooth transition to the Work Programme willbe indentifying and enhancing the positive aspects of FJF and ensuring that choice for young people andflexibility of routes to employment are maintained.

27. Additionally, NYLC has worked with over a dozen unemployed people over 25 who live in “Hotspot”areas or where vacancies were not filled within 28 days. Though lack of experience was not their main barrierto employment, most cited lack of confidence in themselves and their ability to try something new as asignificant factor leading to their unemployment. This implies that a job-creation programme like FJF could bean effective route to sustainable employment for a much wider range of people who have been long-termunemployed regardless of age. Similarly, a programme where paid work administered via the employers payrollthat replaces a dependency on welfare benefits may also be an effective programme for unemployed peoplefacing additional barriers to work such as mild to moderate learning disabilities.

28. Recommendations

29. (a) A job-creation strand is created a part of the Single Work Programme.

30. (b) That it is tendered separately to the Single Work Programme so it is available to third sectororganisations in individual sub-regions who have run successful FJF projects.

31. (c) That any future programmes retain an emphasis on community benefit of jobs created and thatsurpluses on the project cannot be paid to shareholders of private companies.

32. (d) That further development of the model to reduce welfare benefit dependency in long term unemployedadult and other disadvantaged groups be considered.

33. (e) That any future programmes include incentives for employers to make the job creation possible andflexibility over how support money can be used to remove barriers.

34. (f) That the extremely effective Funding Model of up-front investment as a way of enabling third sectorproviders to engage be considered in future programmes.

35. (g) That the role of the third sector is safeguarded as part of any future programmes with anacknowledgement of the fact that third sector providers offer excellent value for money and by earning theirmoney through programmes like this become less reliant on grant funding and can offer better services totheir clients.

36. (8) That a comprehensive real terms cost analysis is undertaken on the cost of FJF nationally and thesavings made as a result of the programme.

37. (9) That the introduction of additional vacancies be considered for highly performing LABs to “bridgethe gap” between the end of FJF and the start of the Single Work Programme.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Trades Union Congress (TUC)

Introduction

1.1 The TUC is grateful for this opportunity to present evidence to the Select Committee.

1.2 The TUC is the voice of Britain at work. With 58 affiliated unions representing 6.2 million workingpeople from all occupations, we campaign for a fair deal at work and for social justice at home and abroad.We negotiate in Europe, and in Britain we build links with political parties, business, local communities andwider society.

Summary

2.1 Youth unemployment rates are significantly higher than for other groups and have risen more duringthe recession.

2.2 The gap between unemployment rates for 16 and 17 year olds and other age groups mainly reflects thefact that, over a long period, the unemployment level for this group has remained the same, whilst many youngpeople who would have gone into employment in previous years now stay in education. Once this is taken into



account there is, however, still an increase in unemployment in this age group, reflecting the decline ofmanufacturing and the fact that the New Deal only recruits young people over the age over 18.

2.3 There is a slight upward trend in the proportion of 16–18 year olds not in education, employment ortraining. The fact that this problem has persisted and that the proportion of young people in this position hasnever fallen below 8% is very worrying.

2.4 Youth unemployment is important because it has a “scarring” effect: even 20 years later, people whosuffered long-term unemployment in their youth face lower wages, a greater likelihood of unemployment,worse health and lower levels of life satisfaction.

2.5 The Future Jobs Fund was based on principles for the design of employment programmes that have asubstantial consensus behind them. The TUC is very disappointed that the new government chose to scrap theFJF at a time of high unemployment and before alternative provision was available.

2.6 The TUC believes that, by offering long-term unemployed people real jobs with fair pay and normalemployment rights, the Future Jobs Fund offered a model for the future of active labour market policy. Evenat this late dates we hope that the decision to cancel it will be reversed.

Young People and the Labour Market

3.1 In April—June 2010 there were 196,000 unemployed 16 and 17 year olds and 724,000 unemployed18–24 year olds. The unemployment rate for 16–17 year olds was 33.1% and that for 18–24 year olds was17.5%, compared with an overall 16–64 rate of 8.0%.

3.2 There has been a gap between the unemployment rates for young people and adults for some time:

40.0

35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

Mar-

May 9

2

Oct-

Dec 9

2

May-J

ul 93

Dec-F

eb 9

4

Jul-S

ep 9

4

Feb-A

pr

95

Sep-N

ov 9

5

Apr-

Jun 9

6

Nov-J

an 9

7

Jun-A

ug 9

7

Jan-M

ar

98

Aug-O

ct 98

Mar-

May 9

9

Oct-

Dec 9

9

May-J

ul 00

Dec-F

eb 0

1

Jul-S

ep 0

1

Feb-A

pr

02

Sep-N

ov-0

2

Apr-

Jun 0

3

Nov-J

an 0

4

Jun-A

ug 0

4

Jan-M

ar

05

Aug-O

ct 05

Mar-

May 0

6

Oct-

Dec 0

6

May-J

ul 07

Dec-F

eb 0

8

Jul-S

ep 0

8

Feb-A

pr

09

Sep-N

ov 0

9

Apr-

Jun 1

0

All 16 and over 16-17 18-24

Unemployment Rates by Age, 1992 - 2010, UK, Seasonally Adjusted

3.3 We would expect the gap between unemployment rates for young people and the rest of the populationto rise during a recession. This is because they are entering the employment market for the first time, and comeup against the fact that employers stop hiring before they start firing during the down phase, and then use upspare capacity before hiring new workers as the recovery begins. The 18–24 gap has followed this pattern, butfor 16 and 17 year olds the picture is of a (nearly) continuously rising gap:



Ma

r-M

ay 9

2

De

c-F

eb

93

Se

p-N

ov 9

3

Ju

n-A

ug

94

Ma

r-M

ay 9

5

De

c-F

eb

96

Se

p-N

ov 9

6

Ju

n-A

ug

97

Ma

r-M

ay 9

8

De

c-F

eb

99

Se

p-N

ov 9

9

Ju

n-A

ug

00

Ma

r-M

ay 0

1

De

c-F

eb

02

Se

p-N

ov 0

2

Ju

n-A

ug

03

Ma

r-M

ay 0

4

De

c-F

eb

05

Se

p-N

ov 0

5

Ju

n-A

ug

06

Ma

r-M

ay 0

7

De

c-F

eb

08

Se

p-N

ov 0

8

Ju

n-A

ug

09

Ma

r-M

ay 1

0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

16-17 gap 18-24 gap

Gaps Between Youth and Overall Unemployment Rates

3.4 The 16–17 gap reflects the fact that young people under 18 who previously would have entered workhave increasingly been staying on at school and are therefore usually classified as economically inactive. Thelevel of unemployment in this age group has been more stable, ranging from 127,000 in November 1994 to218,000 in June 2009.

3.5 Nonetheless, we should be concerned that there is a definite upwards trend. The chart below uses a 12month moving average to eliminate minor fluctuations:

Ma

r-M

ay 1

99

2

Ja

n-M

ar

19

93

No

v-J

an

19

94

Se

p-N

ov 1

99

4

Ju

l-S

ep

19

95

Ma

y-J

ul 1

99

6

Ma

r-M

ay 1

99

7

Ja

n-M

ar

19

98

No

v-J

an

19

99

Se

p-N

ov 1

99

9

Ju

l-S

ep

20

00

Ma

y-J

ul 2

00

1

Ma

r-M

ay 2

00

2

Ja

n-M

ar

20

03

No

v-J

an

20

04

Se

p-N

ov 2

00

4

Ju

l-S

ep

20

05

Ma

y-J

ul 2

00

6

Ma

r-M

ay 2

00

7

Ja

n-M

ar

20

08

No

v-J

an

20

09

Se

p-N

ov 2

00

9

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

-

16 - 17 unemployment, 12 month moving average

3.6 This trend does not map easily to other developments, such as the economic cycle or changes inemployment regulation. An important article in the DWP’s Employment and Labour Market Review last year(Barham et al) suggested that young people’s employment may have been affected by the decline ofmanufacturing. The figures may also reflect the fact that this age group does not qualify for the New Deal foryoung people.

3.7 Concern about young people not in education employment or training is entirely reasonable. The DfE’s“NEET statistics” show that about one in six in this group are “out of scope”—those in custody, on a gap yearetc—but the others are likely to be highly disadvantaged in the labour market. (DfE, 2010) The number of16–18 year olds in this position has rose substantially in the early noughties, from 146,000 in 1999 to 210,000



in 2006. The most recent figure is 183,000 in 2009. The proportion has ranged from eight to 11 %, withsomething of an upward trend, probably due to the recession:

end end end end end end end end end end end end end end

96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

16 - 18 year olds not in education employment or training (%)

Source: DCSF, 2009; DfE, 2010.

Why Youth Unemployment is important

4.1 There is strong evidence for “scarring”—people who are unemployed when they are young find it harderto get jobs and have lower wages for many years. This is especially so for people who are unemployedstraight from leaving school. Gregg (2001) used data from the National Child Development Study to show thatunemployment before the age of 23 was a driver of repeated unemployment in later years.

4.2 Using the same source, Gregg and Tominey found that there was “a large and significant wage penalty,even after controlling for educational achievement, region of residence and a wealth of family and individualspecific characteristics.” The wage penalty for suffering youth unemployment was substantial at the age of 23and still noticeable at the age of 42. At that age, people who had suffered six months or more of unemploymentin their youth were earning eight to 10% less than those who had never been unemployed; if they had sufferedrepeated unemployment the scar was 12 to 15%.

4.3 Bell and Blanchflower used the NCDS to look at the impact of being unemployed in youth on lifesatisfaction and health when respondents were 46/7:

— People who had been unemployed in youth had lower reported levels of life satisfaction; what isparticularly significant here is that a spell of unemployment at 33 did not have this effect: itwas youth unemployment that was harmful. (Recent unemployment at any age is associated withsignificant unhappiness.).

— 34.3% of those who had not suffered youth unemployment reported that their health was excellent,compared with 27.8% of those who had. Again, unemployment at 33 did not have a significanteffect.

4.4 The ILO notes US research estimating that a 1 percentage point increase in unemployment causes collegegraduates a 6 to 7% reduction in wages, this gradually falls but is still statistically significant after 15 years;the impact for young people with lower qualifications is even more severe (ILO, 2010, 42).

Labour Market Programmes for Young Unemployed People

5.1 In the 1990s, the international experience of the operation of active labour market programmes made itpossible for a number of lessons to be learned about what does and does not work. Gradually a consensus hasbuilt up about many of these lessons.

5.2 Writing for the ILO in 1997, Meager and Evans found that there was an emerging consensus that“programmes closely linked to the regular labour market and economy, and which involve jobs, traininginitiatives or work placements in regular workplaces, appear to have greater effectiveness in improving theemployability of disadvantaged groups such as the long-term unemployed.” (73–4)

5.3 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has suggested (Martin, 2000) that workprogrammes may be useful in keeping unemployed people in contact with the labour market, and that this maybe especially useful when vacancies are scarce. It is important for Governments to ensure that schemes are of



limited duration and do not “become a disguised form of permanent employment.” The OECD’s conclusionson programmes for young people were rather depressing, as they found few that had worked well, but JohnMartin quotes a study that suggests a number of “precepts for success”:

— Close links to the local labour market.

— Target jobs with “relatively high earnings, strong employment growth and good opportunitiesfor advancement”.

— “An an appropriate mix of academic education, occupational skills and on-the-job training”.

— Include “pathways to further education”.

— Offer support services for participants and their families.

— Monitor the results—and act on what is learned.

5.4 Most recently, in their survey of the evidence for the DWP, Daguerre and Etherington concluded:

— Those most in need benefit from personalised support and early intervention.

— Staff: client ratios should be adequate.

— Attention should be paid to preventing people dropping out.

— “Subsidised work placements combined with on the job training and other appropriate measuresachieve sustainable employment outcomes”.

The Future Jobs Fund

6.1 On 24 May the government announced that it planned to save “£320 million from ending ineffectiveelements of employment programmes, including ending further rollout of temporary jobs through the YoungPerson’s Guarantee (the ‘Future Jobs Fund’) and removing recruitment subsidies from the ‘Six-Month Offer’.”(HMT, 2010)

6.2 The TUC was rather surprised that the government felt able to describe the Future Jobs Fund as“ineffective”. It is simply far too early to make this sort of judgement—the programme only recruited its firstfew workers in October, and was just beginning to get up to speed when it was cancelled. The TUC was a strongsupporter of the FJF, which we thought was the most progressive employment programme for a generation, butwe would be much more cautious about describing it as a success or failure—we need time to see the resultsand for the independent evaluations to be carried out.

6.3 The fact that the government described the programme as a failure in advance of these evaluationsstrongly suggests that this judgement was politically determined. The Future Jobs Fund had provision for205,000 jobs for young long-term unemployed people; 118,000 had been confirmed and another 80,000 werebeing arranged. (Wintour, 2010) Withdrawing it before any replacement was available seems particularly short-sighted at a time when the economy needs all the support it can get.

6.4 Although it is far too early to evaluate the programme, the prospects were very positive. By the end ofMay, there were 40,720 starts to Future Jobs Fund placements (DWP, 2010a), indicating that, after a slow start,it had built up speed.

6.5 The FJF was designed after taking into account the lessons outlined in section 5. The FJF was createdto offer real jobs. This means that people on the Future Jobs Fund are workers, not trainees. They have normalemployee rights and laws against discrimination, on health and safety at work, unfair dismissal, rights toholidays and maximum working time all apply.

6.6 A key feature of FJF jobs is that they pay a wage (at least the minimum wage), not benefits. Thisdistinguishes the FJF from workfare and twenty years of work experience schemes: we object vehemently toschemes that fail to meet this standard. “Benefit plus” schemes that pay an hourly rate well below the minimumwage are unfair to participants and threaten the jobs and pay rates of existing workers. Paying a fair wagemakes FJF jobs a far more realistic preparation for employment in the open labour market: participants willtake the programme more seriously and prospective employers will know that time spent on the FJF is morelikely than other programmes to have meant that an applicant was exposed to real work discipline.

6.7 The Future Jobs Fund only provides enough money to pay for six months’ employment. Some criticshave objected to this limited duration, but that was one of the key lessons listed in section 5—the point of theFuture Jobs Fund is to give participants experience of a real job that will help them to get work in the openlabour market, not to provide a permanent subsidised job. The FJF only provides sufficient funding for a joblasting 25 hours a week; this leaves time for job search, which we believe should continue all the time someoneis working on the programme.

6.8 The TUC believes that, far from being abolished, the Future Jobs Fund is a model of how to design aprogramme with a view to both equity and effectiveness. “Job Guarantees” like the FJF offer the realisation ofan old trade union demand for unemployed people: “work or full maintenance”.

6.9 But, at the same time, they also offer a model of fair reciprocity. When someone is guaranteed a job thatmeets decent minimum standards with any necessary adjustments to meet their access needs or family/caringresponsibilities it is perfectly reasonable to require them to take up the offer.



6.10 That is why we welcomed the 29 March decision by the last government that the Future Jobs Fundwas to be extended to all long-term unemployed people. Combined with a substantial expansion of the Accessto Work programme (which we hope the current government will confirm) this policy prepared the way for aninclusive labour market that offered employment to all.

Conclusion

6.11 Youth unemployment has risen substantially in this recession and the increase has been greater than forother age groups. But this is not just a problem that has developed in the past two years: unemployment among16 and 17 year olds has been rising gradually for 20 years. At the same time, the number of young people notin education, employment or training is a persistent problem.

6.12 Youth unemployment deserves to be a priority for all governments because of the serious long-termeffects it has for individuals as well as its potential to undermine social cohesion by creating a “lost generation”.

6.13 The TUC was therefore very disappointed that the Future Jobs Fund was scrapped before anyreplacement was available. The labelling of the FJF as a failure before any evaluation could possibly be carriedout betrays the principle of evidence-based policy making.

6.14 The FJF had very good prospects for success. The design was based on widely-accepted principles foractive labour market programmes, this realism was combined with a fair balance of rights and responsibilitiesthat made it, in our view, the most progressive employment programme for a generation. We still hope that itwill be a model for future jobs programmes.

References

BARHAM C, WALLING A, CLANCY G, HICKS S and CONN S, (2009) “Young people and the labourmarket”, Economic & Labour Market Review, Vol 3 No 4,http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/04_09/downloads/ELMR_Apr09_Barham.pdf

BELL, D and BLANCHFLOWER, D (2009) What Should Be Done about Rising Unemployment in the UK?IZA Discussion Paper 4040,http://www.operationspaix.net/sites/politiquessociales.net/IMG/pdf/dp4040.pdf

DAGUERRE, A and ETHERINGTON, D (2009) Active labour market policies in international context: whatworks best? Lessons for the UK, Middlesex University for DWP, Working Paper 59,http://campaigns.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/WP59.pdf

DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES (2009) “NEET Statistics—Quarterly Brief”,September 2009,http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000870/NEETQuarterlyBriefQ22009.pdf

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (2010) “NEET Statistics—Quarterly Brief”, August 2010,http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STR/d000950/NEETQB2_2010.pdf

DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS (2010a) Young Person’s Guarantee Official Statistics, 11–8-10,http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/jsa/ypg/YPG_Statistical_Release_August_2010.pdf

DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS (2010b) Building bridges to work: new approaches to tacklinglong-term worklessness,http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm78/7817/7817.pdf

GREGG, P. (2001). “The impact of youth unemployment on adult employment in the NCDS”, EconomicJournal, vol. 111(475).

GREGG, P and TOMINEY, E (2004) The Wage Scar from Youth Unemployment, CMPO Working Paper 04/097,http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2004/wp97.pdf

HM TREASURY (2010) “Government announces £6.2 billion of savings in 2010–11”, Press Notice 04/10, 24/05/10,http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/press_04_10.pdf

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (2010) Global Employment Trends for Youth,http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_emp/—emp_elm/—trends/documents/publication/wcms_143349.pdf

MARTIN, J (2000) “What Works Among Active Labour Market Policies: Evidence From OECD Countries’Experiences”, OECD Economic Studies, No. 30, 2000/I,http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/35/2732343.pdf



MEAGER, N with EVANS, C (1997) The evaluation of active labour market measures for the long-termunemployed, IES for ILO, Employment and Training Paper 16,http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_120317.pdf

WINTOUR, P (2010) “Frank Field warns coalition over Labour jobs guarantee scheme” Guardian, 10 June,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/10/frank-field-labour-jobs-guarantee-coalition

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Association of Learning Providers

Summary

I. There is little doubt that the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) succeeded in its stated purpose of putting youngpeople into work. (Para 1)

II. Particularly in its early stages it was felt that some jobs being filled under it did not meet the statedconditions, particularly regarding “community benefit” and/or took account of possible job displacement.(Paras 2–4)

III. FJF, limited placement funding to six months, thereby conflicting with other contemporaneous modelsof welfare to work programmes that emphasised job sustainability above all else. (Para 6)

IV. It was disappointing that no mandatory training element was included in the design of FJF placements.(Paras 6/7)

V. Funding was very limited and in many—if not most —cases led to the delivery of an unviable programme.(Paras 8–11)

VI. FJF compromised referrals to other strands of welfare to work provision, thereby creating sometimessevere operational and viability problems in these as well. (Para 12)

VII. The impact of the abolition of the extension of FJF is unlikely to be marked. The impact of its abolitionin more general terms will be difficult to assess until the replacement elements of the Work Programme areunderway. (Paras 13–18)

VIII. If the rationale for the abolition of FJF is that Apprenticeships do the same job but better, then in orderfor this to be the case Apprenticeships need to be more firmly integrated into the planning model for the WorkProgramme than they currently are. (Paras 19–20)



1. There is little doubt that the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) succeeded in its stated purpose of putting youngpeople into work. It was always intended to be a relatively short-term response to the recession in order toprovide some form of work experience for young people, rather than a fixture of the welfare-to-work (W2W)armoury, and it appears to have been treated as such by providers participating in it.

2. That said, what has been evident from speaking to members involved in the programme was its popularitywith the young people that undertook it. The employment found under FJF has generally been felt to beworthwhile, and because it was waged rather than undertaken on a voluntary work experience basis, has meantthat the roles have given the young people concerned very valuable experience and skills, and crediblereferences to use in any subsequent jobsearch.

3. Some members noted that, particularly in the early stages, many of the jobs that were on offer tended tobe “swept up” by unemployed graduates, although over time this tendency was replaced by more success formore disadvantaged and/or under-qualified groups. Whether or not this could be perceived as a weakness inthe policy is debatable, given the numbers of graduates currently struggling in the employment market, but itis likely that it was not an intended outcome of the programme.

4. It was evident, particularly in the early stages, that many jobs being advertised under the FJF did notseem to meet the requirement that it should not displace other work and should be of “community benefit”.We are aware for example of one case in which an Executive Personal Assistant’s job within a local authoritywas advertised under the FJF, which somewhat stretched the definition of “community benefit”, and seemed tocompletely ignore the possibility of job displacement. This sort of example led to some initial criticism thatsome placements were being “waved through” for political purposes rather than because they filled the statedpolicy aims of the programme. It does seem however that after a period of time this tendency abated, withlater vacancies much more of the nature originally envisaged.



5. Related to this there was also the tendency for many FJF jobs to be placed in the public sector—usuallylocal government. This was not in itself a bad thing, but given the current government’s approach to publicexpenditure it seems unlikely that FJF could succeed in the current climate without a reasonably significantreconfiguration.

6. A concern with any “sheltered” project like this is the sustainability for the clients, and in this case at theend of the programme there was no aftercare / continuation for those unable to progress within the timeframe.The fact that the longevity of the jobs was limited (in terms of funding) to six months sent a slightly mixedmessage, given that it came at the same time that the government was promoting the idea of sustainedemployment becoming central to funding provision under W2W programmes. In fairness, and as stated before,it was always promoted as a short-term measure in response to particular circumstances, but even so it wasdisappointing that there was no requirement for any form of training within the period funded. This wouldhave been an excellent opportunity not only to try and ensure young people were not totally lost to the labourmarket at a time of severe recession, but also to provide training whilst this was happening. This could havebeen funded by levering in other funding streams such as Train to Gain, for example.

7. However, the fact there was no such requirement meant that in the vast majority of cases it just did nothappen, although jobsearching sessions and support were generally undertaken. In policy terms we view thisas a regressive step when it is clear that there is an imperative to ensure that our working age population isemployed and trained, not only to boost productivity but in order to raise the likelihood of sustained (orrepeat) employment.

8. The funding for FJF placements (£6,500) looked initially attractive; however over time it was found tobe only marginally viable at best, and indeed many providers ran it at a loss. For example, a young personaged between 18 and 21 on the minimum wage of £4.83 for 35 hours a week would use around £4,400 of thatfunding. Those aged 22–24, on the higher minimum wage of £5.80 would use up around £5,300 of the funding.From the balance—£2,100 or £1,200 respectively—the provider needed to cover the costs of overheads, offinding and setting up the placement, and of maintaining it and supplying jobsearch etc capabilities duringthis time.

9. Employers were also on occasion hampered in their efforts to “do the right thing” for young people onplacement with them by the limited funding available, some of which had already necessarily been “top sliced”by the provider to pay for their costs. For example, one reported to us that :

a. “Our young people came with only £500 of funding on top of their salary, leaving us to pick up thebill for equipment, materials, training and welfare. This did make the task of supporting young peoplemore difficult and we were unable to dedicate a mentor to them as initially planned. .... it was our stanceto take on some of the harder-to-help candidates, and consequently we .... had to divert resources fromother work to give them the necessary coaching and pastoral care to ensure retention and progression.” 30

10. Another weakness of the financial model was that it did not employ the “rolling-up” method that othercontemporaneous W2W models were using. Under this model, where a young learner left a scheme early togo into work the provider could “roll up” and claim the balance of unused funding. This would have made theprogramme overall more viable and have incentivised providers to convert limited six-month placements intosustainable employment at the earliest opportunity. As it was, there was no incentive for them to do anythingother than to let placements run their course, and (as wages were being funded) no incentive on the employerto change the situation either.

11. Most providers who ran this programme therefore did so on what amounted to shoestring budgets, andin many cases continued to do so merely from the social motivation of “doing the right thing” for their youngpeople rather than because it was viable. In the longer-term this could not be a sustainable model, and indeedit was so marginal that it is surprising that it was as successful as it proved to be in its short existence.

12. Another problem that became evident was that the FJF conflicted with other models of W2W provision.The relatively early eligibility of young people for FJF in their period of unemployment meant that significantnumbers of young people that were forecast to run into Flexible New Deal (FND) Phase 1 areas did not do so,and this contributed to some significant difficulties in getting the FND under way, with many providers notreceiving the numbers of referrals they had envisaged and thus suffering financially as a result. This in turnmeant that much “firefighting” had to take place to trim FND offers in a very short space of time, at the sametime as they went live, using the actual volumes being referred instead of the higher volumes that had beenforecast by DWP for many months previously. This led to considerable disquiet and criticism of DWP, and anavoidable destabilisation of the provider infrastructure.


13. Given that FJF was originally due to end in March 2011 in any case before its extension to March 2012in the first 2010 budget, it seems that this is merely the original plan being reinstituted. The original extension30 It is only fair to point out however that the same employer also reported that the local authority concerned offered to match the

£6,500 funding in order to enable the placement to last a full year. For confidentiality purposes the member and local authorityconcerned cannot be named at present but a copy of the relevant correspondence is kept by ALP.



though did promise a widening of access to the FJF beyond 18–24 year olds—for example to ESA claimants—and this was welcome (subject to the reservations on funding expressed above).

14. The impact of the decision to abolish FJF is therefore unlikely to be accurately judged until anyreplacement programme is under way, (for example as highlighted in paragraph 15 below). The plans for theincoming Work Programme promise to better cover the needs of a wider cohort of unemployed jobseekers. Itis to be hoped that this indeed proves to be the case, in which case the opportunity cost of the abolition of theFJF will be minimised.


15. There is a question about whether, as has been claimed, the extension of Apprenticeships is actually asuitable replacement for the FJF. Given that the main benefits of the FJF were for young people who werepreviously unable or unwilling to join Apprenticeships programmes, it has to be questioned how true this willprove to be. If the rationale that an Apprenticeship is basically just an FJF job with training that is more likelyto sustain, then this somewhat underestimates the complexity of an Apprenticeship and the commitmentrequired to complete it. Many unemployed 18–24 year olds are simply unable, for a wide variety of reasons,to access Apprenticeships and unless this situation is resolved then the loss of the FJF will be marked for them.

16. Certainly one of the plus points of the abolition of FJF in the view of our members is the resultingincrease in the availability of Apprenticeship places that this has made possible. As Apprenticeships are nowstrictly employed-status only, the link between employment and skills is increasingly being thrown into relief,and the incentive for W2W providers to utilise the expertise of Apprenticeship providers in engaging employersis very clear. In itself, this will encourage a more integrated, coherent and efficient usage of the wider providerinfrastructure in achieving the aims of welfare to work programmes, rather than merely engineering processesto achieve the blunt aim of “a job—any job”.

17. There are no major operational difficulties from the provider perspective of transitioning from FJF toApprenticeship provision because for the most part they will have been delivered by different types ofproviders—as we alluded to above, the cohorts accessing FJF and Apprenticeships will probably onlymarginally coincide therefore it is unlikely that the same companies are likely to be running FJF down at thesame time as extending Apprenticeship provision. Any operational difficulties that arise are therefore morelikely to be of a nature that would emerge from the closure or start-up of any strand of provision, rather thanbeing specific to the relationship between FJF and Apprenticeships.

18. One set of providers are therefore effectively being displaced for another and there are not thereforedirect “transition” issues as such. Such problems as will exist will centre on the impact of FJF withdrawal onproviders for whom it was a key part of their business. As very few providers will have made an exclusivebusiness of FJF, nor made it so central to their business model that they cannot survive without it—bearing inmind the problems with funding that we noted above—therefore it is unlikely that provider businesses willsuffer terminally as a result. Either way, these problems will not directly affect the customer—they are strictlyof a supply-side nature.

19. However, it is vital that the undoubted expertise of Apprenticeship providers in engaging employersshould be utilised in welfare to work more generally. If PCs were to pay Apprenticeship providers for recruitingWork Programme customers into Apprenticeship places instead of merely converting the existing workforceinto these opportunities, this equates to giving a cost-neutral (to the UK economy) incentive to Apprenticeshipproviders to place long-term unemployed people into sustainable work with training. This reinforces andconsolidates the welfare to work agenda at the same time as delivering an existing policy remit to increase theskill capabilities of the workforce.

20. Therefore, if the rationale for the abolition of FJF is that Apprenticeships do the same job but better,then in order for this to be the case Apprenticeships need to be more firmly integrated into the planning modelfor the Work Programme than they currently are. If not, they will continue to work independently, and thebenefits of sustained employment that they produce will not be enjoyed by the Work Programme. It wouldtherefore be difficult to use expanded Apprenticeships as justification for the abolition of FJF.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Barnardo’s


1.1 Barnardo’s is working with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to create over 700 employmentopportunities for 18 to 24 year olds through the Future Jobs Fund (FJF). Barnardo’s has been awarded fourgrants as Lead Accountable Body (LAB) and holds several subcontracts with Local Authorities where they areLABs for FJF. We are working in partnership with charities, social enterprises and corporate partners to createreal jobs for six months, supporting young people to achieve sustained employment.



1.2 In preparing this response we have consulted over 100 employers that we are working with through theeight partners in our London FJF project in which we both manage the supply chain and undertake directdelivery. We have also consulted young people we have supported through FJF.

1.3 Large national employment initiatives for young people, delivered by the voluntary sector can createmeaningful programmes that help to kick start the careers of young people Most of the young people we workwith come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have left school or college lacking the qualifications, skillsand confidence that they need impress employers. Barnardo’s and the third sector has shown that it has thecapacity and expertise to deliver these initiatives on a large scale, working successfully with young peoplefrom vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds in particular. We would welcome another opportunity to helpmany more young people to make a successful transition to work, giving them hope and real opportunities toaspire to something more than a life on benefits.

1.4 We have found that incentivising employers to take on young people and give them a chance to see whatthey can achieve and contribute has been extremely positive. Barnardo’s recommends that a nationalprogramme to encourage employers to recruit young people, supported by specialist providers, should becontinued and expanded to include apprenticeships.

1.5 Barnardo’s was disappointed that it was not given the opportunity to extend its FJF agreements with theDWP for another year. By ending the programme without a clear, structured replacement in place, there is adanger that the momentum, relationships and the goodwill of partners created through this programme will belost during a period of rising need due to rapidly increasing youth unemployment.

1.6 Longer term contracts or funding agreements offer better value to Government, providers, employersand young people. Performance and efficiencies improve over time, and time allows providers to fine tunedelivery and encourages suppliers to invest and build further links with employers to source vacancies.

1.7 The FJF scheme could have been rolled over into an Apprenticeship programme to include accreditedtraining and aligned to Skills Funding Agency priorities, to coordinate employment and skills provision foryoung people. Barnardo’s would like the DWP to consider options for Prime Contracting for the 16–24 agegroup in the new the Work Programme to ensure that expert suppliers can support young people, who remainthe hardest hit by the recession.

1.8 Presently, it is unclear whether Apprenticeships will be included within the Work Programme or throughseparate funding streams. One of the strengths of the Future Jobs Fund is that not all young people considerthemselves or are suitable for an apprenticeship, some just want a job they enjoy and they can progress in,something the FJF has provided them with.

1.9 Barnardo’s supports the Government’s plans to expand apprenticeship placements for young people.Barnardo’s recommends:

(a) Pre-Apprenticeship programmes—in the workplace, supported by charitable training providers likeBarnardo’s for young people who are apprenticeship-ready, but represent more of a risk to employersdue to disadvantaged and chaotic backgrounds.

(b) Incentives should be given to employers for giving young people an opportunity to work and learn.

(c) Access DWP programmes for unemployed people should be widened to include the 16 and 17 yearolds, who have already left school or college because they want to work and learn in the workplace,but who often kept waiting to access these programmes.

2. Introduction

2.1 Barnardo’s has extensive experience of helping unemployed young people to gain qualifications and findwork. We have been helping young people work towards sustainable employment since the late 1800s, whenDr Thomas Barnardo opened training centres to give young people the skills they would need to enter trades,

2.2 Today, working in partnership with local employers, schools, colleges, and other charities, we train andsupport over 2,500 young people every year. We work across the UK in a range of sectors includingconstruction-related trades, catering, vehicle maintenance, business administration, horticulture, retail, andwarehousing.

2.3 Barnardo’s provides a wide range of services to support young people through the transition back toeducation, training or into work, where necessary offering intensive support to meet the needs of young people.Key to their success is a strongly personalised approach, working flexibly with each young person and “stickingwith them”, even when difficulties occur.

2.4 Barnardo’s is working with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to create over 700 employmentopportunities for 18 to 24 year olds through the Future Jobs Fund (FJF). Barnardo’s has been awarded fourgrants as Lead Accountable Body (LAB) and holds several subcontracts with Local Authorities where they areLABs for FJF. We are working in partnership with charities, social enterprises and corporate partners to createreal jobs for six months, supporting young people to achieve sustained employment.



2.5 In preparing this response we have consulted over 100 employers that we are working with through the8 partners in our London FJF project in which we both manage the supply chain and undertake direct delivery.We have also consulted young people we have supported through FJF.


3.1 In Barnardo’s experience the FJF has been very successful in matching new work experienceopportunities to unemployed young people. This has been achieved through effective recruitment processessuch as job fairs, meet the employer events, straight forward and easy to understand job adverts and jobdescriptions. In London, our partners have worked with employers collaboratively and successfully, creating ahuge variety of jobs in sectors including film production, finance, catering, hospitality and services for childrenand young people. This has offered considerable choice for candidates, meaning that they are more likely tofind a match for their skills and interests.

3.2 The Future Jobs Fund has developed the employability, skills, confidence, and career aspirations ofyoung people whilst providing a tangible benefit to the community. The community benefit aspect of theFJF has enhanced the reputation of the voluntary and community sector as a rewarding career pathway foryoung people.

Case Study—Barnardo’s Retail

To date we have created 145 jobs in Retail, and will create a further 155 opportunities by April 2011. Manyyoung people are moving into permanent positions both within Barnardo’s and externally and some are applyingfor Management positions. All young people are working towards Retail qualifications to help further theircareer and provide the essential platform for economic independence.

Our FJF Retail Programme has proven to be very popular with Job Centre Plus staff as there are limitedRetail opportunities for young people on benefits. This is because many Retail opportunities in the privatesector operate “zero hour” contracts, where employees do not have set shift patterns, so a steady income is notguaranteed. By contrast, our jobs guarantee a minimum of 25 hours per week. Consequently, unemployedyoung people who are interested in Retail are able to gain new work experience with employment prospectswhilst earning a wage.

Jobs with Prospects—Barnardo’s has used its existing relationships with corporate partners including RoyalMail and Orange to source permanent vacancies for its FJF employees.

3.3 Key Recommendations—Large national employment initiatives for young people, delivered by thevoluntary sector can create meaningful programmes that help to kick start the careers of young people Mostof the young people we work with come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have left school or collegelacking the qualifications, skills and confidence that they need impress employers. Barnardo’s and the thirdsector has shown that it has the capacity and expertise to deliver these initiatives on a large scale, workingsuccessfully with young people from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds in particular. We wouldwelcome another opportunity to help many more young people to make a successful transition to work, givingthem hope and real opportunities to aspire to something more than a life on benefits.

4. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF Programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed people, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term sustainability of Employment Opportunities

4.1 Barnardo’s is involved in delivery of the Future Jobs Fund at many levels; we are an employer, aprovider, a Lead Accountable Body through which we manage supply chains and we are a sub-contractor inseveral areas of Scotland, Wales and England. Having consulted a range of partners and stakeholders andyoung people, the response to FJF has been very positive. Its strengths lie in the engagement of employers,who have seen the value young people can add to their organisation, the quality of jobs created for youngpeople, and the experience and progress they have made.

Employer Perspective

4.2 The Future Jobs Fund has enabled Barnardo’s to create an entry platform for young people to gain workexperience and paid employment in social care roles, including Play Workers and Community Support Workers.These jobs were created specifically to be filled by young people, who would not have been considered forstandard vacancies as they didn’t meet the threshold criteria to apply for our usual positions. After six months,the training and experience gained by the young people has put them in a position to apply for standardpositions within Barnardo’s and other social care organisations. The employers we have worked with externallyhad their expectations surpassed by the quality and motivation of the young people taking part in FJF.

Young Persons Perspective

4.3 During a Barnardo’s consultation event held in London for young people in a wide variety of FJF roles.The common views of young people were very positive:



— Increased confidence and understanding of the world of work and feeling like achieving something“real” through paid employment.

— Increased ambitions for their career and future employment.

— Training and development opportunities have enabled young people to develop essential andspecialist skills that make them more competitive in the job market.

— Increased understanding of available jobs and opportunities/possible career paths.

— Sense of purpose and responsibility because being relied on in a role.

Case Study—Young Person’s Perspective“I’ve been working at Barnardo’s North West Regional Office in Liverpool for just over a month now. Ireally like my job—especially working on reception where I get to meet and greet people. It feels greatto be a part of a team and everyone I work with has been so nice and welcoming.

Getting this job through Future Jobs Fund has really meant a lot. Being out of work for so long reallyknocked my confidence, but since working at Barnardo’s my confidence has really come back and I feelbetter about myself”—Louise Lockley—Admin Assistant for Barnardo’s North West.

Provider Perspective

4.4 Referrals onto FJF are reliant on the knowledge, ability and attitude of the JobCentre Plus Advisers.

4.5 Our partnership work allows us to work alongside other charities and social enterprises to share bestpractice and to create positive experiences for young people.

Partner Perspective

4.6 Our experience as a partner has been mixed; some LABs allow £5,700 per employee, another £6,485and the rest somewhere in between.

The FJF experience has been so far incredibly positive, has helped creating new jobs, placed young peoplein “meaningful” (for their aspirations) jobs, increased their skills level and improved their chances to stayin employment. From Rathbone’s point of view, it is disappointing that the FJF will end in March 2011,as it has so far been the most successful youth unemployment programme we worked on.—AlessiaRinaldi—Policy and Development Officer—Rathbone.

4.7 Key Recommendations—We have found that incentivising employers to take on young people and givethem a chance to see what they can achieve and contribute has been extremely positive. Barnardo’s recommendsthat a national programme to encourage employers to recruit young people, supported by specialist providers,should be continued and expanded to include apprenticeships.


5.1 Barnardo’s was disappointed that it was not given the opportunity to extend its FJF agreements with theDWP for another year. By ending the programme without a clear, structured replacement in place, there is adanger that the momentum, relationships and the goodwill of partners created through this programme will belost during a period of rising need due to rapidly increasing youth unemployment.

5.2 The initial impact of the decision to end Future Jobs Fund in March 2011 has already been reflected inthe work of JobCentre Plus, where attitudes and priorities have changed. For example, in Blackpool, a fulltimeFJF coordinator’s priorities had changed and their workload, meaning that they now spend less than a third oftheir time on FJF. This has impacted negatively on the ability of providers and employers to fill vacancies, andin some cases, increased the period of unemployment for young people.

5.3 Barnardo’s concern is that there will be a gap in provision for young people, at a time when the youthlabour market, particularly at the unskilled/low skilled end, is rapidly receding. The Future Jobs Fund comesto an end on March 2011, with the roll out of the Work Programme due to commence in June 2011. There isa danger that young people will be left drifting as the FJF falls away as it gets nearer to its end date whilst theWork Programme is not fully up to speed until some time after June 2011. Experience from previous recessionsdemonstrates the long-term scarring effect of unemployment at this age31.

5.4 Key Recommendations—Longer term contracts or funding agreements offer better value to Government,providers, employers and young people. Performance and efficiencies improve over time, and time allowsproviders to fine tune delivery and encourages suppliers to invest and build further links with employers tosource vacancies.

5.5 The FJF scheme could have been rolled over into an Apprenticeship programme to include accreditedtraining and aligned to Skills Funding Agency priorities, to coordinate employment and skills provision foryoung people.31 Gregg, P and Tominey, E (2004) The Wage Scar from Youth Unemployment, CMPO Working Paper Series No. 04/097.




6.1 The Work Programme will bring together client groups from very different backgrounds, with complexand varied needs and issues, such as long term IB claimants who may be moving on to ESA or JSA, loneparents, ex offenders and young people. Britain is currently at risk of creating a “lost generation” of youngpeople falling into long-term unemployment because of the recession unless action is taken now.32 In ourview unemployed young people are the longest term risk and targeted specialist interventions now can realisethe greatest savings for the public services and spending over their lifetime.

6.2 Due to the gaps in funding between the end of the Future Jobs Fund in March 2011, and the roll out ofthe Work Programme in June 2011, in effect, there won’t be a transition. Young people will cease to be referredto FJF and will move onto mainstream welfare to work provision, such as the old New Deal provision.

6.3 Key Recommendations: Barnardo’s would like the DWP to consider options for Prime Contracting forthe 16–24 age group in the new the Work Programme to ensure that expert suppliers can support young people,who remain the hardest hit by the recession.

6.4 Presently, it is unclear whether Apprenticeships will be included within the Work Programme or throughseparate funding streams. One of the strengths of the Future Jobs Fund is that not all young people considerthemselves or are suitable for an apprenticeship, some just want a job they enjoy and they can progress in,something the FJF has provided them with.

6.5 Barnardo’s supports the Government’s plans to expand apprenticeship placements for young people.Barnardo’s recommends:

(d) Pre-Apprenticeship programmes—in the workplace, supported by charitable training providers likeBarnardo’s for young people who are apprenticeship-ready, but represent more of a risk to employersdue to disadvantaged and chaotic backgrounds.

(e) Incentives should be given to employers for giving young people an opportunity to work and learn.

(f) Access DWP programmes for unemployed people should be widened to include the 16 and 17 yearolds, who have already left school or college because they want to work and learn in the workplace,but who often kept waiting to access these programmes.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association

Introduction

1. In late 2008, the LGA was particularly concerned about the impact of the recession on young people andmade the case to government for a temporary, locally led job creation programme, with opportunities suited tolocal needs, for young unemployed people.

2. We subsequently welcomed the announcement of the Future Jobs Fund in the March 2009 Budget. Wewere pleased that DWP departed from its central commissioning model of delivery using either Job CentrePlus or large scale contracts with private and voluntary sector providers, and looked to local government andlocal partners for the solution. In May 2009 hosted an event for over 100 councils at Local Government Houseto discuss the design of the programme with DWP officials.


3. Councils across England played a major role leading and taking part in partnerships to provide FutureJobs Fund opportunities. These opportunities were different from place to place but offered young people theopportunity to provide sports coaching, work in museums and libraries, on environmental programmes, insocial care and in a range of other settings where the work provides community benefit.

4. In some cases, councils directly provided opportunities, despite a tightening financial climate in the publicsector. In others they worked with public and voluntary sector partners to identify opportunities.

5. The first opportunities were provided in October 2009—six months after the programme was announced.The volume of the opportunities on offer varied from place to place, depending in part on the local variationin the number of young people in the locality at risk of long term unemployment.

6. There were however concerns in some councils about the programme’s design features. For example:

a. programme referrals were made exclusively through Job Centre Plus;

b. funding limited the opportunities to six months;

c. access to the programme initially required a period of twelve months unemployment (subsequentlyreduced to six); and

32 From Recession to Recovery II—A Focus on Unemployment LGA 2009.



d. the programme formed part of a wider guarantee for young people which some found confusing.

7. Taken together, these factors tended to depress demand for the places.


8. Sustainability is an issue with the FJF—but the programme was intended as a short-term measure. Toimprove the quality of the experience, a number of councils, using discretionary area based grant, Europeanand other funding added to the FJF funding extended the time period of the programme and added in ahigher quality training component—making opportunities more attractive, more rewarding for the young peopleparticipating and more likely to lead to a sustainable job outcome.

9. Youth unemployment remains a problem. The LGA has argued for a place based approach—bringingtogether the totality of public investment in a place to engage young people into a single budget, from whichthe local council strategically commissions employment support provision to meet the needs of local youngpeople and local employers. Where there is a choice based funding model, for example in training, the councilis well placed to ensure that local provision is high quality, meets local strategic needs and where necessaryintegrates with other public services.

10. At present there are too many public sector agencies and too many funding streams seeking to re-engageyoung people. This “crowd around the customer” is both inefficient and confusing for young people. It alsoprevents the integration of services needed to provide young people with the package of support they need toget into work, training or other meaningful productive activity. Providers, especially in the voluntary sectorwho offer personalised services, have to navigate through different funding streams to make a holistic serviceoffer to disengaged young people.

11. Evidence from the Total Place pilots, for example in Worcestershire, has shown that a place basedapproach to funding services for young people would lead to back office and overhead savings and allow moreeffective services to be designed around the needs of local young people.


12. Youth unemployment remains a problem, with particular concentrations in some places. A reduction inarea based grant from 2011 will also impact on the provision of locally provided employment opportunities. Aplace based approach which maximises the opportunities to drive down public sector overhead and transactionalcosts and commission services strategically will offer the best opportunity to minimise the impact of frontlineservices.


13. Some councils would like to take the responsibility for commissioning employment support programmes,others would like to co-commission and some would like greater involvement in the commissioning process.There is a concern that DWP is centrally commissioning the new Work Programme without properly involvingcouncils, and that there is a risk this could lead to a disconnect with other public services, and a continuitygap with current provision.

10 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by The National Skills Academy for Sport & Active Leisure

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The National Skills Academy’s response uses its experiences from implementing a major FJF programmeengaging 120 employers in the creation of 5,500 jobs, and discusses how using wage subsidy to support jobcreation can form a successful part of the government’s welfare to work policies.

2 Executive Summary

2.1 The following are the main points that the National Skills Academy wishes to make about the FJF andthe development of any similar initiative in the future.

2.2 The National Skills Academy supports a policy using wage subsidy to encourage the creation of jobs asan effective bridge between worklessness and employment, provided that formal training and the developmentof skills accompany it.

2.3 Employers must lead on the implementation of any job creation programme. This is the only way tomake sure that young people gain the skills and experience to secure employment after the funded period. Withsupport, employers should have full involvement in developing job descriptions, work with JobCentre Plus on



the recruitment process, identify (and sometimes deliver) suitable training for the role, and provide mentoringand support for candidates as necessary.

2.4 It has been clear from the initial development of the programme, right through the phases of its delivery,that employers in the sector need this programme in order to provide the “seed corn” funding necessary forthem to develop their businesses and create jobs in line with their growth aspirations. Because the FJFprogramme allows employers to employ, train and develop new employees to the point where they make a netcontribution to the business, new jobs are being created which would not exist without this programme.

2.5 While it is too early for the success of the FJF programme to be formally determined, early results forthe first cohort of 280 leavers from the Academy-run project show that 43% of young people have remainedin employment after the funded work period.

2.6 The National Skills Academy is encouraged because FJF employees are gaining recognised NVQs aspart of the initiative. The programme has acted as a catalyst, setting young people on a path of learning andopening the way for them to progress to higher-level qualifications and apprenticeships.

2.7 As a training facilitator, the National Skills Academy is also ensuring that those candidates unable tostay with their FJF employer have routes into apprenticeships or further training; or have access to otheremployment opportunities, wherever possible. The Academy has a service level agreement with employers,which sets an expectation that they will place 50% of people into full or part-time employment that they donot retain at the end of a placement.

2.8 The National Skills Academy is concerned that the FJF initiative has ended before any sort ofreplacement has been fully considered.

2.9 The proposed Work Programme has the potential to improve welfare-to-work provision. However, it isessential that wage subsidy to support job creation continues as an economically viable tool for outsourcedproviders of the Work Programme to use in getting young people into work. This viability in part rests onan adequate settlement in the government’s proposed “payment-by-results” contract with outsourced WorkProgramme providers.

3.0 Sector skills councils and national skills academies are an essential link between the unemployed andindustry. It is essential that any Work Programme providers have strong links with both of these organisationsto ensure welfare-to-work programmes develop skills and qualifications that meet the demands of the UKeconomy.

4.0 The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experience Opportunitiesto Young Unemployed People

4.1 Since November 2009, the National Skills Academy has placed almost 1,500 people into newemployment opportunities with 46 sport and active leisure industry employers through the FJF programme.

4.2 The FJF initiative has been extremely successful at getting young people into work. The National SkillsAcademy’s own project will work with over 120 employers and by the end of the programme place 5,500young people. Even with delivery of new job opportunities on this scale, the demand from sector employersoutreaches the availability of funding; and continues to grow.

4.3 This level of demand from employers can partly be explained by the continued growth of the sport andfitness industry throughout the recession. It is an important point for the committee to note that programmessuch as FJF are most effective in industry areas or time-periods where economic growth is occurring; andwhere employer demand for a larger workforce with greater skills is not being met. Any judgement on theeffectiveness of FJF should take this fact into consideration.

4.4 The sport and active leisure sector is particularly suitable for the development of job opportunities forunemployed young people. Employers in the sector tend to be developmental in their approach to businessdelivery and are able to extend into new business areas when offered incentives to do so.

4.5 In addition, work in the sector is very appealing to the target audience of 18–24 year olds because sportoffers an exciting, vibrant and youth-relevant employment environment. Employers have reported that thescheme has been particularly beneficial to young people who have been put off formal education due tonegative school experiences, and whose interest in training and personal development has been rekindled.

4.6 While it could be said that the FJF initiative has been successful at matching young people to workexperience opportunities, the real measurement of success sits with the proportion of people who then enterpermanent employment when the wage subsidy ends. From the National Skills Academy’s programme, it isstill too early to be able to prove conclusively the full extent of permanency of job creation. This is becausenot enough young people have gone through the programme or time elapsed after placement to assess theproportion in permanent employment. However, of the 280 young people to go through the programme so far,120 are now in permanent employment (43%). This represents a very positive indication of the scheme’s abilityto propagate long-term improvements in the job landscape.



4.7 Long periods of unemployment for a young person can have a continued negative impact on their earningpotential, sometimes for their entire working life. Swift action to reduce worklessness can therefore have asignificant, although hard to measure, long-term benefit on an individual’s increased earnings and taxcontributions. In the short to medium term, young people who successfully stay in permanent work will reducetheir claims for welfare benefits. As a statistically significant number of young people complete the NationalSkills Academy’s FJF programme, research will be conducted to determine the returns made by thegovernment’s investment of £6,500 per person who participate in the FJF.

4.8 Lastly, the National Skills Academy believes that the FJF programme should not be considered as a workexperience programme. The intention from the outset was to use the programme to create job opportunities andthe sector’s employers responded positively to this. Additionally, the Department of Work and Pensionsrequired these jobs to be new opportunities, rather than seasonal or previously existing roles. This approachmeans that young people are filling a genuine and sustainable need in organisations. We would therefore askthe committee to be clear in its mind the difference between work experience and the FJF.

5.0 Strength and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young People, and particularly to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

Strength: The FJF is led by the needs of employers

5.1 The National Skills Academy programme is employer-led and this is a great strength in maximising thechance for sustainable long-term employment following any wage subsidy. Employers define job descriptions,the pre-requisite skills needed to start work, as well as the skills to be learnt over the funded period. They alsointerview applicants in the same fashion as for any other job. All this ensures that any use of the FJF remainsfirmly anchored to employer need and not any government target. The National Skills Academy believes thatsuch an approach is essential because if the FJF does not develop people to have the skills and experience thatare needed in the workforce, then the chances of permanent employment are that much reduced.

5.2 Many participating employers in the Academy’s FJF programme are small organisations, so the potentialimpact of gaining even one or two new members of staff can be significant. There is anecdotal evidence tosuggest that this has helped the economic growth of employers who were previously not able to risk an initialoutlay of costs to hire new staff. For example, Charlton Athletic Community Trust (CACT), a small communityorganisation linked to Charlton Athletic FC, took on 12 FJF employees, five of whom were placed intopermanent roles with CACT even before they had completed their funded placement. CACT has been sopleased with the impact of FJF that it is now looking to staff a new community project with a further threeFJF employees. While not the primary purpose of the Future Job Fund, its impact on smaller organisationscannot be ignored or understated.

5.3 However, the need for bids to DWP to be for over 30 jobs, while understandable from a desire to reducebureaucracy, limited the opportunity for these smaller enterprises to participate in the scheme. To reduce theimpact of this high participation threshold, DWP allowed consortia bids. Through this facility, the NationalSkills Academy programme was able to bring together over 120 employers from across the sector—many ofwhom would have been otherwise ineligible to take part. The sport and active leisure sector, which the NationalSkills Academy serves, is over 90% made up from micro and SME-sized organisations. Without the work ofthe National Skills Academy, the sector would have been largely excluded from the FJF initiative.

5.4 The National Skills Academy is therefore concerned that, as the new government develops its welfare-to-work policies, similar opportunities should be available to ensure that SMEs are included, either directly, orthrough organisations such as the National Skills Academy taking a similar bid management approach as it haswith the FJF.

5.5 It is essential for the FJF programme that it creates actual jobs and not simply “work experience”. It isthe performing of a specific role within an organisation that gives a young person the skills and experiencethat they need to enter sustainable employment. An important element in achieving this has been that there isno direct payment to employers to participate. This has encouraged them to make sure that any placed youngpeople are in roles that give maximum benefit to their organisation. If there were no organisational need orbenefit to an employer’s business then there would be no demand for the Fund. If they had received paymentfor just taking someone on then there is less of an incentive to engage the young person in profitable workbecause the employer benefits from just having them turn up to work. Therefore a lack of direct payment toemployers encourages the establishment of roles that have a long-term future.

5.6 There is always a need to balance Government investment in skills development, particularly when it isseeking to achieve social objectives, against the needs of employers and their drive to meet business objectives.It is important therefore that the FJF programme, or whatever replaces it, fulfils this balance and truly meetsemployers’ requirements. In the current economic climate, it is essential that any future welfare-to-workprogramme includes both wage subsidy and training elements, to ensure that employers’ work to create newjobs, and invest in the candidates’ long term future.



Strength: The FJF includes both employment and training

5.7 FJF jobs include both formal and informal training and the gaining of qualifications for participants. TheNational Skills Academy believes that this will significantly improve the success of the programme than if theFund had only involved funding for wage subsidy. Such an approach would also not have met employerdemand—who as well as trying to attract new people to work for them, also need higher levels of skills thanis currently available within the sport and active leisure sector. Employers are able to shape training and thismeans young people are therefore getting skills that employers want them to have. This increases their futureemployability even in the cases where an employer does not retain them after their FJF placement.

5.8 All young people employed through the National Skills Academy’s FJF programme are given theopportunity to undertake a nationally recognised qualification including an NVQ or a National Governing Bodycoaching or fitness instructor qualification. They also receive an employability skills training package (if theirpersonal circumstances require it); and those with hands-on jobs (for example as a coach or gym instructor)are provided with first aid and health and safety instruction. Any that work with children also receivesafeguarding training.

5.9 The development of qualifications and skills as part of the FJF contributes to the progression of youngpeople gaining level 2 qualifications and progressing to higher levels through the use of apprenticeships.Unemployed young people often do not have the basic numeracy or literacy skills needed to start anapprenticeship. However, through the FJF they can get those skills and become ready to start an apprenticeshipon completion of the FJF funded period. Achieving such a progression is a stated objective of the new coalitiongovernment’s skills policies. The National Skills Academy has just received additional funding from the SkillsFunding Agency for 545 apprenticeship places to encourage this progression of FJF employees to higher levelsof skills and qualifications.

5.10 A great advantage of the FJF is that it recognises that the development of highly necessary, but basic,soft skills can only really be embedded at work. These are as much behavioural habits as any formal skills—such as punctuality, a proactive nature, team work or communicating effectively with colleagues—all of whichcan only really be learnt through experience. There is also a big boost to young people’s confidence. Manypeople who are out of work for a long period of time lose their confidence and face mental health challenges—often building bigger barriers to return to work. It is the development of these “soft” but vital skills, confidence,gaining the habit of work while also learning formal skills and qualifications, that makes the funded job creationproposition such a powerful one.

5.11 There are many young people who get locked into a cycle of short-term and low-skilled employmentfollowed by extended periods with no work. To get more stable employment individuals need to get moreskills and experience. The National Skills Academy believes that wage subsidy, accompanied by training,breaks the cycle because it provides both work and training at the same time.

5.12 Many employing organisations utilise sport and active leisure as a vehicle for achieving social andcommunity goals and the sector can offer a significant number of attractive entry-level job opportunities. Inmany cases however, the employers cannot afford to invest the initial salary and training costs needed todevelop young people to the point where they are contributing to the delivery of business or income objectives.The FJF scheme has offered the support where it is needed, allowing candidates to become fully work ready,and making a net contribution to the business.

Strength: The FJF benefits the wider community

5.13 The Academy’s FJF programme has also brought significant community benefits. A key criterion of theFJF programme was that participating employers needed to demonstrate the wider benefit to the community ofany placement. Sport and active leisure as a sector has plenty of scope in this regard. Community sports clubsexist across the country and provide the foundation for national sporting excellence. The programme will, oncompletion, have placed a significant number of young people in such community organisations. Increasingand improving the number of people working in leisure centres and fitness clubs impacts the health andwellbeing of communities. Also, a number of organisations that participated are charities that use sport andfitness to give young people a second chance to learn new skills and to get them into work. Using sport andfitness careers as a way to give purpose to young people who may not have achieved at school has a powerfultrack record.

5.14 Many of our employers work within schools and youth groups through School Sports Partnerships andthe Youth Sports Trust. They have found that well-trained, enthusiastic and motivated FJF employees makeexcellent role models for children and young people. A significant number of FJF employees have also beenplaced with community outreach charities who work with disadvantaged groups—particularly young people,those with disabilities and ethnic minority groups—to engage them in sport and active leisure activities thatmeet their diverse needs. Community sports clubs such as County Football Associations have been able toincrease the use of public spaces and promote community cohesion through participation and attendance atsports events.

5.15 The government’s public health agenda including Change4Life has also been supported by the NationalSkills Academy’s Programme. FJF Employees in the private sector (primarily leisure centres and fitness clubs)



have become trained in health and wellbeing skills, which they are now able to pass on to others in theircommunities as part of their work.

5.16 The FJF programme is supporting entry and career progression in the third sector and social enterprises.At a time when government is encouraging greater use of community groups to lead in the delivery of publicservices, growing the available workforce in this area converges the policy objectives of tackling worklessnessand making the Big Society a reality.

Weaknesses: The FJF can be improved

5.17 The Future Job Fund, however, is not without weaknesses. These fallings rest not with the principle ofwage subsidy as a way of getting people back into work, but with limitations in its integration with broaderwelfare-to-work support; and certain policy restrictions on who is eligible to participate in the scheme.

5.18 The National Skills Academy, in its successful bid, has the responsibility for monitoring what happensto candidates at the end of the funded period, and for facilitating their route either a) into long-term employmentwith that employer, b) employment with another organisation, or c) into an apprenticeship or other furthertraining. The National Skills Academy has in place a mentoring package for candidates to support this, whichis provided from existing FJF funding.

5.19 However, support for young people, both during the initial six-month placement and after, needs to befar more integrated with both the JobCentre Plus and the National Apprenticeship Service than it currently is.The National Skills Academy alone lacks the broader awareness and access to interventions available toJobCentre Plus advisors so there is a lack of integration with wider welfare-to-work initiatives. A further optionwould be for organisations such as the National Skills Academy to have a wider capability to deliver otherwelfare-to-work schemes. This would allow individual young people working with the Academy to get betteraccess to the full remit of support that is available to them to help them into work.

5.20 Getting a young person into sustained permanent employment is an involved process that does not endwhen someone first starts work. A flexible approach is needed, with tailored mentoring support provided before,during and after a person successfully gets a job in order to keep them on track. Such an approach increasesthe chances of any intervention being successful—including schemes like the FJF. An integrated approach alsoallows for any issues, such as a need for more intensive training for someone to be work ready, to be flaggedup. This reduces the chances of a problem that could be quite easily overcome with the right intervention fromde-railing an entire welfare-to-work programme for an individual.

5.21 A further issue is that if an FJF employee leaves work and goes back into unemployment, they enteras if they have only just become unemployed and cannot access any FJF or similar scheme until they havebeen unemployed for a further six months. Such a situation halts any momentum created through their originalemployment with FJF. If an integrated approach was taken with other interventions then such a situation couldbe avoided.

5.22 The 18–24 age restrictions applied to whom is eligible to enter the FJF are too prescriptive. Age doesnot determine the success of job creation. Older people and returners to work have additional skills whichmany employers find valuable. The age restriction, whilst understandable, is essentially a political decisionand, in our view, consideration should be given to removing this restriction in any future scheme.

5.23 As already highlighted the FJF can be a successful way to break the cycle of low-skilled, short-termwork followed by long periods of unemployment. However, the wage restriction of 25 hours per week atminimum wage poses a challenge for individuals to stay for the entire investment period. Young people oftenhave to earn a basic wage because they have to support themselves or only get limited help from familymembers. So the offer of a job elsewhere at a 35-hour working week at minimum wage can seem moreattractive than what the FJF can offer.

5.24 While on the surface this may seem like a good thing for the government as it gets someone into full-time paid employment, this is often in fact a false economy. Many of these jobs are low skilled and in effectkeep the young person within the low-skilled/unemployment cycle. Desirably, any funded programme shouldbe for a 35-hour working week, set at minimum wage. While a young person may still receive other job offers,these would need to be above the minimum wage they currently earn for them to be attractive. Many “dead-end” jobs do not pay higher than minimum wage so by raising the hours worked to a standard working week,the risk of a young person going back into low-skilled short-term work followed by unemployment is reduced.


5.25 The National Skills Academy FJF programme is not directly impacted by the decision to end theinitiative a year earlier than originally planned because it has always intended to complete its programme bythe March 2011 date. However, the Academy is concerned about the potential ongoing impact on reducingunemployment if no job placement programme replaces it. The Academy strongly supports the use of seedcorn funding for wages and training and would like to see this continue, in whatever form the new government’swelfare-to work programme takes in future.



6.0 How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the partto be played by the Government’s proposals to fund New Apprenticeships

Transition from FJF to the Work Programme

6.1 The NSA is concerned that the FJF will end before any other initiative replaces it. The use of subsidisedjob creation schemes is an excellent way to bridge young people from worklessness into employment andneeds to be an option for those people that are ready and able to complete a placement.

6.2 The establishment of a single Work Programme has the potential to overcome the weaknesses of the FJFoutlined in this submission. It should be up to a person’s advisor to take a holistic view of what interventionswill work best with an individual, regardless of age or any other limit that is not based on their abilities. TheWork Programme, in giving freedom to external providers, has the potential to achieve this.

6.3 Work Programme providers will be paid by results in getting people back into work. Ensuring theappropriate level of remuneration for them from government for achieving this will be a critical factor onwhether schemes such as paid wage subsidy are used as a welfare-to-work tool. If remuneration is too lowthen this will financially restrict the options available to Work Programme providers to use to get people backinto work and limit their chances of achieving a successful intervention.

6.4 The National Skills Academy is keen to ensure that a strong link to skills and qualification developmentis maintained as part of welfare-to-work programmes. Sector skills councils and national skills academies havebeen established to ensure an employer-led system in the development of vocational skills, work relevantcompetencies and qualifications. It will be important that Work Programme deliverers work within thisemployer-led principle and use the knowledge and experience gained by sector skills councils and nationalskills academies to do this. If employers’ needs are not being met through a welfare to-work initiative (suchas being able to ensure someone gets the relevant training) then the chances of achieving sustained permanentwork is that much reduced.

The Government’s proposals to fund new apprenticeships

6.5 Apprenticeships have been shown to be an effective way to build vocational qualifications and theNational Skills Academy welcomes the Government’s increase in provision in this area. However, it isimportant to note that not all people in welfare-to-work programmes are ready for an apprenticeship andemployers do not always require staff trained to that level. Many employers prefer shorter periods of trainingon specific skills for their staff.

6.6 As with the use of wage subsidy, apprenticeships should be undertaken by people who are ready andwould benefit from them. In deciding the value of training it is important that employers lead the agenda byindicating the skills that they need from their staff.

6.7 There is a risk that the use of apprentice training becomes supply driven rather than needs led by eitheremployers or individuals. By stating a specific number of apprenticeships that will be delivered within a timeperiod the government risks developing a system that will deliver this target—regardless of whether that pieceof training is of value to individuals or employers. Apprenticeships should be just one government-fundedoption with an unemployed person’s advisor free to decide what training is most appropriate in consultationwith employers. The government’s recognition of this issue in its recent consultations on the development ofa new strategy for skills, due to be published in autumn 2010, is viewed as a positive sign by the NationalSkills Academy.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The early figures from the National Skills Academy’s FJF programme are extremely positive in theproportion of young people staying in permanent employment following an FJF placement. However, theAcademy accepts it is still too early to give conclusive figures on the success of the initiative or its return oninvestment. The Academy would like to offer the committee more conclusive evidence as its programmeprogresses.

7.2 There has been a view promoted that the FJF is a false economy and only serves to mask unemploymentfigures and places young people in “non-jobs”. The National Skills Academy disagrees with this view. Thejobs that are being created in the sport and active leisure sector are real jobs. They have been developed inmost cases for the long-term, deliver business growth and contribute to the national economy and enhancedGDP. There is also significant benefit to social enterprises and the third sector in delivering community services;and in establishing a workforce for the future in this important area of society.

7.3 While the National Skills Academy accepts the ending of the FJF, it is equally concerned that thesuccessful combination of work-subsidy and training is not lost in future welfare-to-work initiatives.

14 September 2010



Written evidence submitted by Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations

Summary

Outlined below is the role ACEVO played in the establishment of the Future Jobs Fund, followed by ourand our members’ serious concerns around ending the Fund a year early. There are a handful of short casestudies at the end of the document to contextualise the issues raised.

1. ACEVO was a key player in the establishment of the Future Jobs Fund. It was launched as a result of areport that we presented to James Purnell when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. ACEVOalso sat on the Government steering group which determined how the bidding process and administration ofthe first round of funding would work.

2. In a statement at the time of the Fund’s launch Purnell said: “Without the work of ACEVO thisannouncement would not have been possible. In particular, the paper Stephen Bubb [ACEVO’s ChiefExecutive] prepared demonstrated that the voluntary sector has the ideas to create employment for people outof work. This budget provides the funding that will enable the voluntary sector to develop local, useful jobsfor the young unemployed.”

3. Following the launch of the Future Jobs Fund, ACEVO commissioned the Work Foundation to producea report on how this programme could deliver positive outcomes for communities by focusing on tacklingyouth unemployment, while also harnessing the unique value of the third sector. “Unemployment and the Roleof the Third Sector” can be downloadedhttp://www.skillsnortheast.co.uk/object/download.cfm?lib=liDownload&id=16057. For more information onACEVO’s work on the Future Jobs Fund please visit our websitehttp://www.acevo.org.uk/.

4. ACEVO has real concerns about the Government’s plans to scrap the £1.4 billion Fund which wasdesigned to target unemployed young people, disadvantaged groups and others in deprived communities bycreating 150,000 new “socially useful” jobs.

5. Below are a few of our early conclusions about the impact of cancelling this programme and some of thestories we have been hearing from our members about the impact the Fund has had on the young peopleinvolved.

a. It is still too early to judge the effectiveness of the Future Jobs Fund as most placements have not yetended. However, of the tiny percentage that have reached their conclusion, a significant proportion ofthose we are aware of have ended in offers of longer-term employment.

b. As the Future Jobs Fund was geographically targeted at unemployment hotspots removing it will hitsome parts of the country more than others. Some of these areas are the ones that Cameron hasspecifically identified as being disproportionately impacted by cuts in public spending, e.g. Yorkshire.We are aware of many third sector organisations in these regions that are ready to place people intojobs and were mid-way through bidding for funding from this programme. Amongst these was anapplication to fund a number of employment opportunities supporting women in the communitythrough a Women’s Refuge. The result of this move by the Government means there will be lesssupport for these vulnerable women and local people will not benefit from the additional jobs. Unlessnew programmes are introduced in areas like this to mitigate against the impacts of cutting thisprogramme, communities (and particularly third sector organisations) could be left supporting highlevels of unemployment.

c. Research has demonstrated that youth unemployment has a “scarring” effect—if someone isunemployed before the age of 24 then the risk of unemployment throughout the rest of their life ismuch higher. Furthermore, early experiences of worklessness can initiate a cycle of disadvantage thatis transmitted across generations.33 To add to this argument we are currently working with ourmembers to produce a set of reliable stats on the link between mental health issues, criminality, alcoholabuse etc. If the Committee would be interested in receiving these, they can be sent through.

6. There has been some excellent coverage in the Guardian which highlighted the story of Nathan Mooneyto show the big impact the Future Jobs Fund has had on the lives of many young people. Having been out ofwork for almost two years, he worked with the charity TAG to undertake training to become a Fitness Instructor.He came top of his class and was offered a full time job at CityPoint Club while on a four-month workplacement. He is quoted as saying,

“I feel like my life is meaningful again, I can’t wait to get to work. I’m happy to be getting out of bedand doing something. It’s amazing and it’s a ticket out of where I was. I could still be sitting aroundbumming, doing nothing.”

More information on this story can be found herehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/22/budget-2010-jobs-scheme-case-study.33 Unemployment and the Role of the Third Sector, Ian Brinkley, David Coats, Will Hutton, The Work Foundation, June 2009.



7. Over the last few weeks we have been asking our members to send in similar stories. Below are some ofthe early responses we have received. We intend to build on these over the coming weeks and publish all thecase studies on our recently launched support site, CutsWatch http://www.cutswatch.org.uk/main/.

BTCV is an international volunteering organisation supporting conservation projects in the UK andelsewhere. They took on two employees, Steve and John, through the Future Jobs Fund. Both young men hadqualifications and experience in landscaping and the construction industry. In their time at BTCV they bothreceived further training and on-the-job support for environmental/land management tasks. This built up theirconfidence, and gave them an insight into the kind of jobs available in the green economy. They have nowstarted their own landscaping business together using recycled materials.

Lloyd Beattie, 22, was unemployed for over six months. He lost a lot of confidence during this time andstarted believing he would never find work again. Through the Future Jobs Fund he obtained a job working asan administration assistant for BTCV, while also working part-time at the organisation’s partners DenbighshireCountryside Service. After six months Lloyd had gained the experience needed for working in the industryand was offered a permanent job working for Rhyl City Strategy as an administrator.

Haswell and District Mencap is a local charity working with people with learning disabilities. This smallorganisation has taken on five employees through the Future Jobs Fund, one of whom had been out of workfor three years. When she started working as a catering assistant her confidence was so low that she needed alot of support. However, through intensive mentoring and one to one training her self-esteem levels have startedto rise. Her supervisors have noted how well she responds to their service users and are now trying to find thefunding to keep her on permanently.

Washington Citizens Advice Bureau is an independent charity which offers free, confidential and impartialadvice to everyone in the local community. Chris Fletcher had been unemployed for 8 months after graduatingwith a BA (Hons) in Law. He was offered a post as an Administrator at Washington CAB through the FutureJobs Fund. They were keen to utilise the skills he built up at university and worked with the Future Jobs FundAdviser to create a trainee caseworker position for him. Chris has now been at the Bureau for a month and isenjoying his experience:

“After months of unsuccessful attempts to gain employment as a paralegal, I was left lost and dejected.Competition is fierce, places limited and law firms prefer candidates with experience. Just when I had lostall hope, I was offered this opportunity and I cannot thank Washington. I’m sitting in on interviews,researching and learning a lot. Hopefully this experience will prove to be the kickstart my legal careerneeds!”

15 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Kirklees Council

Executive Summary of Main Points— FJF has given those who would not compete well a real chance to gain valuable work skills and

earn income.

— FJF has helped breakdown stereotypical views of what long term unemployed and young peoplebring to the work place.

— FJF has allowed organisations to recruit from a more diverse base of prospective employees—including more younger people—which has enriched the organisation and given their work afresh perspective.

— Success comes from delivering FJF through strong local partnerships.

— Over 50% of Kirklees FJF leavers are moving straight to into further employment.

— The ending of the programme in March 2010 has prevented more businesses and communitiesfrom benefiting from the impacts.

Evidence

The extent to which FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployedpeople

— FJF has helped people generate job opportunities which have given those who would nottraditionally have competed as well as more able/skilled JSA customers a real chance to gainvaluable work skills and earn income.

— What has been quite profound for us is the ability of a scheme like this to breakdown stereotypicalviews of what long term unemployed and young people bring to the work place—and to encouragethat stigmatisation of what people are like to be removed. I know that one of our legacies will bethat local employers will look on this group of people in a very different light in the futurewhen recruiting—and this has to be seen as a real break through for reducing inequalities in thelabour market.



— We have also found that whilst many of the jobs were for only 26 weeks that young people inparticular were pleased that they were able to gain valuable work experience to allow them toprogress in the labour market and to make more informed choices about their future.

— Results to date show that 51% of leavers are moving straight into further employment—this isexceptional for these types of programmes.

— Sally Wilkinson Kirklees Active Leisure experience.

“I joined KAL on a six month government funded job scheme. My job role is of the sales andmembership assistant to Karen Doyle. Since the day I started on 7 December I have enjoyed everymoment; everyone made me feel at ease straight away, which enabled me to fit in easily within theexisting team.

I enjoy completing the different jobs that I am set on daily basis such as inputting customers detailson plus2, Out reach (making people aware of KAL and what we can offer them), and dealing withcustomers on the phone giving them friendly helpful advice.

Nothing is the same on a day to day basis which I prefer as it gives me other challenges to achievewithin the day.

I am still learning each day that I am with KAL, and feel at ease due to the relaxed and helpfulattitude of not only Karen Doyle but all my work colleagues.

I hope that other people get the chance to have this opportunity like I have, as I believe that workingwithin KAL has built my confidence within the working place benefiting me for any future job thatI may have.”

Sally has completed her 26 week opportunity and is now working for KAL as a Lifeguard(permanent position)

— Quote from “Steve” at Lifeline:

“I was really excited when I found out about the opportunity, and even more pleased to find out I’dbeen successful. Even though I’d kept myself busy and volunteered to learn new skills, there is astigma attached to not having a job and I feel much better now I am paying my own way and gettingon with my life.

My past is well and truly behind me but I am so pleased that I am being given this chance to helpothers; I can connect easily with clients as I know what they are going through. Without Future JobsI would still be applying for jobs and working for free, but now I’m thinking about the future andplanning what to do next.”

The strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers and employers,particularly in relation to the long-term sustainability of employment opportunities

— Local Authorities have provided a strong local partnership framework to take forward this type ofintervention and to embed the support needed to move people to a sustainable outcome within alocal employment and skills infrastructure. We are keen to boost the proportion of positivedestination outcomes and are supporting the appointment of an officer dedicated to working withproviders to improve the numbers of FJF employees transferring directly into work or training

— Evidence has shown that where National Bidders have worked in areas they have not been able totap in to this support framework and have been unable to properly support the employee as wellas they should have been.

— Since November 2010 320 long term unemployed people have been offered work in Kirklees—320 people who would not otherwise have gained work with 52% of those who have nowcompleted gaining and staying in work—this is quite amazing and just can not be underestimatedin terms of its impact on people’s life There have been no other Government Schemes which haveturned out results like this in such a short amount of time, with our local and regional JobcentrePlus also agreeing with this claim.

— FJF has also contributed to the development and capacity building of the third sector by allowingthem to create jobs to develop their organisation which they would not have been able to. Thethird sector is able to be more creative and responsive in the jobs they are creating than somelarger and/or public sector organisations and reductions in government spending may create someopportunities for more sustainable jobs in this sector.

— Providers have reported that the FJF programme has allowed them to recruit from a more diversebase of prospective employees—including more younger people—which has enriched theorganisation and given their work a fresh perspective.

— Providers also report that FJF employees have tackled the work enthusiastically and become valuedand valuable members of their teams.



— A key outcome, regardless of initial destination for leavers from the programme, is the ability ofan FJF participant to be able to call in future on a recent, credible and detailed reference whenmaking applications to other organisations or institutions. This cannot be underestimatedparticularly for young people who may have had little or chaotic employment history and wouldhave been relying on school or college references which may be both hard to secure, out of dateor vague. Compounding this, many young people will have changed behaviours and attitudes inthe interim, and it can be demoralising to have to feel that their past may well be impactingadversely on their future opportunities many years after the school relationship has ended.

— Comment from Alasdair Brown, KAL’s Chief Executive:

“The Future Jobs Fund has provided KAL with a group of enthusiastic young staff members, whohave taken to the range of tasks asked of them with energy and commitment.

Staff across the organisation have been pleasantly surprised at the impact made by these young peopleand the positive way in which they have completed the work set for them. Indeed, many staff havefound it hard to believe that the people appointed have been unemployed for so long, such is theirability and approach.

KAL would certainly recommend any employer with the opportunity to get involved in the FJFprogramme to do so and to help develop the skills, self-confidence and ability of these young peoplethat will hopefully lead to their permanent employment in the longer term.”

The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012, which was the dateoriginally planned

— The Kirklees allocation of 742 jobs in total is fully profiled to organisations, so the ending of thescheme prevents current partners delivering more jobs and prevents new partners from joining theprogramme—and we have had interest in both.

— The high profile announcement of the ending of the FJF scheme has led to some reduction in theprofile amongst potential applicants and Jobcentre Advisers which has made hard work ofgenerating applicants to jobs in existing contracts and to some extent stalled the momentum wewere creating locally.

— Kirklees Council and its partners have core ambitions to provide a clear sense of direction, focusingon improvements which will deliver a bright future for all our communities. The recession makeslife tougher for all of us, but here in Kirklees we are seeking local solutions to a global problem,with one of our top priorities being to help people in a very real way, making a difference to theirlives and trying to ensure there are good, secure and better paid jobs. In addition, the Councilwants to close gaps in employment, wages, skills, housing, attainment and health, and by achievingthis, help reduce inequalities. Our partners have shown real commitment and creativity ingenerating interesting and rewarding job opportunities—this response is an indication of howserious local organisations are in wanting to make a real difference to people’s lives. Ending thefunding in 2012 is a disappointing response to all our partners for the hard work, commitment,ingenuity and early results of embracing the FJF programme.

— The absence of other dedicated funds (e.g. Failure to secure WNF monies) was part of the impetusfor selecting the LAA (2008–11) Indicator NI153 (Reducing levels of worklessness in the mostdisadvantaged parts of the District), as one of the Councils Priority indicators. Analysis of theworkless population identified those parts of Kirklees where the benefit claim rate was over 25%of the working age population. Twenty-one Super Output Areas met this criteria at May 2007. FJFis a central pillar of activity to address this agenda. The early closure of this programmeconsiderably reduces our ability to.

— Kirklees Council therefore sees the receipt of FJF as being very important in the absence of otherfunding coming in to the district to help those removed from the labour market or at risk ofbecoming long term unemployed gain valuable work skills to help them access local opportunitiesin the future. This importance can be viewed through the Councils successful application in thefirst round, the only Local Authority in West Yorkshire to do so, to ensure help was made availableas soon as possible, for those who most need it.

How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be played by thegovernment’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships

— We welcome the Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships and recognise the value ofaccredited industry standard qualifications. However, we also know that we need to support avariety of options to ensure all those at disadvantage in the labour market can access relevant andappropriate pathways to employment.

— We would caution against too simplistic a response, with a “one size fits all” approach. Ourexperience shows that personalised plans which consider not only specific work issues but widerissues that impact on the individual’s ability to sustain work—including housing, health, familyand caring responsibilities—lead to better longer tem outcomes.



— Our experience also shows that locally based providers that can demonstrate a real commitment tothe area and the communities they serve.

— It is also important to make sure that the transition is effected without a time lag which woulddisadvantage people caught in the middle of two schemes. This means also giving sufficient leadtime for the providers to make adequate preparation to establish the new scheme effectively.

Recommendations

1. The success of this scheme has been to offer real jobs—the new Work Programme should retain thiselement.

2. Ways of involving the private sector as programme partners should be fully investigated to maximise theopportunities for job creation.

3. The delivery focus should remain local—where established networks and partnerships offer real addedvalue to any programme.

17 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by The Healthy Hub CIC

Introduction

The Healthy Hub CIC was awarded its first round of funding through the Future Jobs Fund in October 2009.This contract secured 35 jobs to employ people who had been out of work for 26 weeks or more at the Hub.This involved roles in the kitchen, reception, admin and maintenance.

The Hub has a history of providing opportunities to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds thatdon’t always have the confidence to enter the workplace or the opportunity to receive training and development.This is a tradition we very much wanted to continue through Future Jobs Fund and indeed it allowed us toprovide a greater service with dedicated employment support workers and a training co-ordinator to sourcedevelopment opportunities.

With our first contract completed we were awarded a second round of funding to provide another 96 jobs.We teamed up with a group of 20 consortium partners including Lincolnshire Police and City of LincolnCouncil to provide these jobs across the county.

The commitment and belief of our partner organisations in delivering the Future Jobs Fund has beeninstrumental in the success we’ve had and this report is the result of a consultation between all partners andThe Healthy Hub CIC.

Social Return on Investment Analysis

The Healthy Hub CIC is committed to exploring social accounting techniques to fully demonstrate theimpact and value of our activities to society as a whole. Our recent experience with the Future Jobs Fund wasidentified as an excellent candidate for Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis as it is a fairly large scaleproject, delivered in-house and the model also demonstrates the core activity of our business. The model weadopted also received a great deal of acclaim and was held up as an example of good practice in its field.

We are delighted with the results of the Social Return on Investment analysis that demonstrates a socialreturn of £1.79 for every £1 invested in the Future Jobs Fund scheme during 2009–10. This figure must alsobe considered in conjunction with the story of change experience by our stakeholders, particularly the youngpeople whose quality of life has been significantly improved as a result of the training and development activitythat was undertaken.

Point 1: The extent to which FJF has succeeded in matching New Work ExperienceOpportunities to Young Unemployed People

1. The Healthy Hub CIC and its partners believe that there has been great success in matching new workexperience opportunities to young unemployed people.

2. Some minor issues surfaced around the completion of application forms and JCP advisors not explainingto the young people what Future Jobs Fund is.

3. Communication and the effectiveness of the JCP process could be improved, but despite this the youngpeople gained have been well suited.

4. Below are some case studies demonstrating successful matches.



Case study from Larkfleet Homes: Caroline Geddes, Research Assistant.

In April I began working for Larkfleet Homes as part of the FJF scheme. I am a research assistant toLarkfleet’s Investment Director. Prior to obtaining this opportunity I was trying to gain an office-based job butbeing constantly told that despite having a degree I lacked experience in this environment. How was I supposedto gain experience if no one was willing to give me the break I needed? The FJF scheme has given me thismuch needed break. After working hard for three years at university I didn’t want to have to work in a jobwhich I could have done without gaining a degree which I believe based on the local job market and currenteconomic climate I would have had to have done without this opportunity.

What more could I want? I work a few miles from my house, in an office-based environment for an awardwinning house builder. I enjoy what I do and like the people I work alongside. I strongly believe that workingfor Larkfleet Homes will set me in good stead for looking for subsequent employment and will be a fulfillingand rewarding learning curve in which I gain a whole range of new skills and knowledge which I can takeaway with me and apply to any future job. I will not just have a CV with my qualifications and interests listed,but a CV that demonstrates that I have the required experience needed, making me more employable forfuture employers.

Since working for Larkfleet I have learnt a considerable amount. Not just your office basics likephotocopying and filing, but I completed a project regarding housing information by district area and haveplayed a key part in compiling each month’s kickstart reports.

Case study from Louth Parish: Ryan Sherwood, Admin Assistant.

Before gaining employment through The Healthy Hub I had been out of work for the best part of ninemonths. The Jobcentre informed me of the Future Jobs Fund and the current vacancies.

Although only temporary and with no guarantee of further employment, the current duties I am undertakingwill nevertheless be useful for job applications and future employment.

One of the key benefits of The Healthy Hub is that they monitor your performance and have regular meetingswith you and your host employer to assess whether you are comfortable, if there are any problems and howsatisfied the host employer is with your performance. They also help to give you additional qualifications. Ithas taken a while for things to get going in terms of qualifications but hopefully I will soon be doing an NVQLevel 2 in Business.

It would be a great shame if the Future Jobs Fund was scrapped, especially in the current economic climateas it provides people, some of which may not have the experience or skills to gain employment, with theopportunity to get work experience, temporary employment and gain additional qualifications. As a universitygraduate who came out of education with little work experience to show employers I find The Healthy Hub isan invaluable gateway into employment.

Case study from Jobcentre Plus: Amanda Kent, JCP/FJF advisor.

Future Jobs Fund has been extremely successful in improving the lives of young people. Many have had thechance of finding employment and having a taste of work that they would never have had the opportunity todo so under normal circumstances.

A large percentage of young people have been from homes dependent on benefits and so have no real workethic. Young long term unemployed people often have many other barriers to finding employment such asdrugs issues, criminal records, lack of confidence and health issues. Future Jobs Fund providers have workedin partnership with these people to overcome issues and have given the extra support they need.

Although some have returned to the register there has been a marked improvement in their self confidence,and now having work experience and a reference, have a much better chance of moving into moresustainable employment.

Some vacancies have been harder to fill due to asking for higher level qualities, e.g. support work, managingstaff and analysing statistics—most young people struggle to fit these categories. The most popular jobs havebeen manual outdoor labourers, gardeners and jobs in the catering industry.

Future Jobs Fund has given opportunities for hundreds of young people to improve their lives and althoughthere has been a cost, it is impossible to put a price on improving a young person’s future.

Case study from Pelican Trust: Rifat Akhtar, Teaching Assistant.

After finishing my A Levels at college, I was unsure about what I wanted to do; whether to go onto FurtherEducation or start working. I knew I wanted a career but could not decide which route to take. I didn’t haveany previous experience of the working world as I had been in full time education and this led me to decidethat I definitely wanted to work.

An opportunity arose with the Healthy Hub through the Future Jobs Fund that provided training foremployment. This Pre-Employment Training meant that I would be able to gain the skills needed for the



workplace. The courses I completed included Customer Service Skills, First Aid, Food Hygiene and Healthand Safety at Work.

I applied for the vacancy for a Trainee Teaching Assistant at Pelican Trust because teaching was somethingI have always been interested in. I had volunteered to work with children and teenagers in the past and alwaysenjoyed it, so when the opportunity to work with adults arose, I knew it would be perfect.

The work was challenging but very rewarding and I loved every minute of it. There was a steep learningcurve for me because I hadn’t worked with adults before but I feel I have gained a wealth of knowledge andskills. It has been an eye opener to the pressures and targets involved with teaching that need to be met andhas really made me realise just how much organisation, planning and effort is involved. What I enjoy the mostis being able to able to work with so many different people, because it gives me the chance to share myknowledge with them and learn from them as well.

Working at Pelican Trust has made me realise that I definitely want to go into teaching, and I am evenconsidering teaching adults rather than children. The experience I have gained is so valuable and beneficial tome and I know I can utilise the skills I have developed. This opportunity has given me the confidence I neededto go to University; it has made me sure of myself and increased my motivation. It has influenced me in themost positive way as I now have a clearer, set path ahead of me and I hope I have given back as much as Ihave gained.

Case study from Lincolnshire Police: Daryl Pearce, Chief Inspector.

Lincolnshire Police provides training, mentoring and support to nine young people to help them build a CVand give them a better chance of succeeding in a long term career. Five of the nine youngsters have beendirectly assigned to neighbourhood policing teams where they will provide administrative support. This givesthem much needed work experience and frees up more time for teams to work in and with local communities.

The young people also undertake “mystery shopper” roles to help the force ensure services in the countyare properly regulated. The learning that comes from hosting the young people will be used to shape furtherprojects in the force as it increases its voluntary capacity.

Chief Inspector Pearce said: “I have seen nine young people grown in confidence and experience. Not onlydo they provide the organisation with a valuable resource but they also give us constructive feedback from ayoung person’s perspective. It can be at time difficult to engage with young people. We are keen to continueour involvement in Future Jobs Fund and bring more young people into the organisation.”

Point 2: Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

5. The strengths identified by the consortium were as follows:

— Future Jobs Fund targeted a specific group of young people and gave them employment anddevelopment opportunities they might otherwise not have been afforded.

— Job opportunities were additional, i.e. wouldn’t have been possible without the help of FJF.

— Job opportunities benefitted the community.

— Young people were able to realise their strengths, leading to improved self confidence.

— Six month contracts mean young people are a lot more employable even if not kept on.

— FJF is a positive advertisement for changing society’s views on young people.

— Health and wellbeing—takes young people out of a downward spiral.

— FJF has provided a lot of soft outcomes not only for the young person but also for theorganisations involved.

6. The weaknesses identified by the consortium were as follows:

— Not all young people had been properly advised by their JCP advisor.

— Poor completion of application forms—lacking information.

— Transport issues—many young people don’t have a driving licence, refusal to use public transportand claims that getting to work costs too much. Managers have had to collect and ferry youngpeople. The rural nature of Lincolnshire has made this a particularly important issue for ourconsortium.

— Transport allowances provided by JCP would have been extremely useful as young people oftencan’t afford travel expenses after six months without work.

— There was an impression from some employers that young people would be more prepared (thoughthis was offset by a Pre Employment Training scheme we conducted with Lincoln College).

— Some placements have resulted in unrealistic expectations of the real world workplace.



— The eligibility criteria was too restrictive and a lot of young people missed out on the opportunitybecause they were considered to have been unemployed for “too long”.

7. The supported employment model of The Healthy Hub has meant that we have been able to achieve a53% success rate of young people moving into sustainable employment at the end of their FJF contract. Thisfigure increases to 60% when further and higher education is included. This is double the national average.


8. With a recruitment freeze in the public sector and spending cuts across the board looming the decision tocancel Future Jobs Fund could not have come at a worse time as the young people who benefitted from theopportunities it provided will be the very same people who find themselves out of work again.

9. Cancelling the scheme also comes at a time when increased competition for university places saw recordnumbers of young people being rejected from higher education institutions. These young people will now bein direct competition with those who would have qualified for Future Jobs Fund for any available opportunitiesthat present themselves. The worse off will end up suffering even more.

10. Although organisations suffered teething problems in the initial stages of Future Jobs Fund, many of ushave learnt from past mistakes and now have policies, procedures and structures in place that maximise theoutcomes of the scheme. The rug has been pulled away just as the scheme was starting to yield positive results.

11. Important community organisations such as Lincolnshire Police had already planned for two more intakesof young people through Future Jobs Fund. Of the nine young people they took on in their first intake eight ofthese are being offered full time positions, and the other one is taking up a place at university. They are atremendous example of how the scheme can benefit local communities and are fully committed to the ethos ofproviding these opportunities to the most disadvantaged. The local community will be worse off if these jobscannot be provided.

12. All the organisations involved in the delivery of Future Jobs Fund are now left in limbo as theGovernment hasn’t explained the specifics of the Work Programme. It raises important questions as to when itwill be delivered, how and by whom, and importantly when will it start providing much needed opportunitiesfor young people?

13. There is a likely impact of the Government’s decision to scrap the statutory retirement age. Although itis envisaged that many employee’s may still choose to retire aged 65, it does nonetheless increase the risk ofyoung people being able to obtain full time, sustainable employment as the number of opportunities willbe reduced.


14. Future Jobs Fund has been a success because it has put young people into jobs instead of the numeroustraining schemes that were around before it. It is vital that the Work Programme does not revert to the oldtraining model, but instead continues to create work opportunities for those who are most in need of them.

15. The transition in terms of delivery should be seamless as all the organisations involved in Future JobsFund have learnt from the experiences of the past year and the processes used to deliver one scheme could bereplicated for the next.

16. With regard to apprenticeships many of our partners fear that this area would be dominated by largetraining providers swallowing up all available funding and making it impossible for smaller organisationsto compete.

17. FJF captures all people, with or without qualifications and supports them holistically. It is unclear whetheran apprenticeship scheme would do this.

17 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Cornwall Council

1. Cornwall Council was an early adopter of the Future Jobs Fund, with jobs starting back in October 2009.A total of 285 jobs will be achieved through the lifetime of our project, with clear need, capacity and desireto achieve much more.

2. The project is currently delivering 25% above profile, with 249 job starts. Our success has been due to astrong Job Centre Plus presence, the enterprising nature of our employers, the fund management expertise ofthe council’s economic development delivery body (Cornwall Development Company) and the willingness ofthe young people involved.

3. We feel the programme has been very effective and would like to see the positive lessons learnt reflectedin new Work Programme activities.



4. Our participants, employers and partners have all been keen to engage in the response to your questions,as we outline below.


5. The Future Jobs Fund in Cornwall has been massively successful in placing young people intoemployment.

6. Many young people that had been unsuccessful under previous government schemes found employmentthrough FJF in Cornwall. In many cases, the jobs do not go on to become permanent but the value of actualwork experience, training and the offer a reference have provided our young people with a life changingopportunity.

7. The programme offers the opportunity for the Job Centre, the Council and Employers to come togetherto offer something that the young people have really wanted.

8. “We had four places in the County programme and could have filled 100.” (Employer quote)

9. Academic vacancies have been harder to fill but can be more rewarding for the individuals. Hands-onjobs have and continue to be filled easily.

10. “The FJF has not matched me to a role which I am specifically trained/qualified for but it has providedme with an opportunity to gain experience and skills at a time when I desperately needed them.” (Participantquote)

11. “I was extremely grateful for the opportunity offered to me at a time when I had been receiving nopositive responses from prospective employers.” (Participant quote)

Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of Providers (includingin the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly in relation tothe long-term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities

12. FJF Strengths

12.1. Employers are taking on young disadvantaged people and supporting them in employment even if notinitially job ready. Many of those not being offered work following the six months employment are notreturning to benefits and are finding work elsewhere.

12.2. As its paid employment, there is much better buy-in by young people, as opposed to new deal typeprogrammes; the incentives are clear.

12.3. The six months timeframe is just about right, enough time to be effective.

12.4. “With all of our placements so far, we have seen marked improvement and progression—its been a realsuccess” (Employer quote)

12.5. The training attached to the placements means that the person leaves the placement with specific skills,more confidence and experience.

12.6. “We have used a wide range of funding streams e.g. ESF, Train 2 Gain, Mainstream alongside FJF togive participants multiple/wide ranging qualifications whilst with us.” (Employer quote)

12.7. “I would say that the strengths of the programme lie within its ability to provide access to the workenvironment for those who have been out of the system for a long time. The programme will obviously help mebecause I can now show employers that I am working for a brilliant company, I am making an effort to bettermyself and I desperately do want to work.” (Participant quote)

12.8. “Even though the contract only lasts six months, I hope that what I learn from working here will enableme to reach my future goals and gain access to employment under my own achievements and not because ofmy failure to find a job.” (Participant quote)

13. FJF Weaknesses

13.1. Some employers expected fully functioning employees at day one without any barriers, despitereceiving considerable funding.

13.2. With so many social enterprises involved, it has been difficult to see how many of the jobs could becontinued beyond the six months, because of the nature of social enterprise funding models (although not inall cases).

13.3. Readiness for work is a continued challenge, applicants need a lot of help with interview skills andapplications.

13.4. Few opportunities in hands-on commercial business where individuals are likely to be better suited.




14. Long term unemployment for the 18–24’s has dramatically reduced in Cornwall, throughout most of thecounty. Many young people have found stretching opportunities through FJF that probably would not have gota job elsewhere.

15. The Cornwall Council programme intended to bid again in May 2010 for a further 200 FJF posts,reflecting our good performance and the ease of finding great employers and suitable participants. With theannouncement of the early end to FJF, there are a large group of young people that will forego the opportunityafforded by FJF.

16. FJF ending will result in many more individuals:

16.1. not being able to gain valuable “real” work skills.

16.2. not being able to show prospective employers how they could help grow their business.

16.3. not having access to the qualifications that can boost their employment prospects and give them theedge at interview.


17. We do not yet have a clear understanding of the Work Programme.

18. However, a FJF type programme provides opportunity for preparing for an Apprenticeship programme—it could give the prospective employer the chance to assess the individual’s performance in a real work situation,before committing to full time employment/apprenticeship.

19. It gives the individual the opportunity to confirm their suitability to the occupation and their suitabilityto that particular employer.

20. This could result in reducing the amount of early leavers on the Apprenticeship programme, improvedemployer confidence in the Apprentice programme, supported recruitment, additional employer/participanttraining support and clear progression routes.

17 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Hampshire County Council


1.1. This evidence is given by Hampshire County Council on behalf of the New Jobs, New Futuresconsortium. Furthermore, some consortium partners will be submitting their own evidence to the inquiry.

1.2. The purpose of this paper is to provide supporting evidence to The Youth Unemployment and FutureJobs Fund Inquiry from the Provider, Employer and Employee perspectives in the delivery of the Future JobsFund in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region.

1.3. This paper seeks to demonstrate the significant benefits experienced from all perspectives with specificreference to matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people and the sustainabilityof the future jobs fund.


1.5. Significant findings show that in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 47% of those leaving Future JobsFund employment are going into employment. Whilst only 7% of those in Future Jobs Fund employmentleave early.

1.6. The impact of the decision to end the Future Jobs Fund in March 2011 rather than March 2012 haseffectively reduced the vacancies available to young people by 900 positions.

1.7. The Future Jobs Fund has engendered extremely successful partnership working and although lessonslearnt are valuable, without the delivery of a joint programmes such as the Future Jobs Fund, these partnershipswill diminish.

2. Introduction

2.1. Hampshire County Council is the lead accountable body for the “New Jobs, New Futures” project, aconsortium initiative that covers the Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region, funded by the Future Jobs Fund.The New Jobs, New Future project is creating 900 real jobs for long-term unemployed 18–24 year olds andcontinues to 31 March 2011.



2.2. In June 2009 unemployment figures among Hampshire’s young people had nearly doubled from theprevious 12 months. 5.5% per cent of the county’s 103,000 18–24 year olds were out of work. Of these 5,600unemployed young people, 754 had been Jobcentre Plus customers for over six months. In addition to this,vacancy numbers were shrinking; in Hampshire, the May 2008 rate stood at 10,234, by May 2009 this hadshrunk to 7660.34 The neighbouring authorities of Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight were alsonoticing a considerable increase in youth unemployment and this prompted a joint consortium approach to theFuture Jobs Fund.

2.3. The New Jobs, New Futures consortium partners have significant experience in delivering Europeanand Nationally funded employment and skills initiatives and have joined together from the public, private andthird sector to deliver the New Jobs, New Futures project. The lead consortium providers are HampshireCounty Council; Portsmouth City Council; Southampton City Council; Southampton Solent University;Wheatsheath Trust; Groundwork Solent; The City Growth Business Group; VT Training; and CommunityEmpowerment Ltd. In addition to these partners, jobs are being delivered across a range of employers from allsectors. The consortium structure is shown in Annex I.

2.4. The Future Jobs Fund is specifically intended to help those individuals that need the most support. Inaddition to long term unemployment Future Jobs Fund employees in Hampshire experience multiple barriersto work with 26% having a disability or medical issue; 9% having a positive CRB return and 80% having noformal qualifications beyond secondary education. The New Jobs, New Futures project provides a wide rangeof wrap-around support for individuals including personal development, vocational training, mentoring, jobsearch and support to progress into permanent employment.

2.5. The New Jobs, New Futures project sees partners creating job opportunities across a wide geographicarea to deliver a variety of community benefits, fitting broadly into the following categories: Conservationand countryside; Environmental improvements and regeneration; Leisure, recreation and tourism; Improvedcommunity facilities and public places; Social enterprise support and development; and Sector support ofhospitality, construction and tourism. The tangible practical improvements of creating these jobs will includebetter access to green space, safer and more welcoming urban centres, better access to and awareness of healthylifestyles; improved leisure and recreational facilities; improved community facilities and more opportunitiesfor young and older people.

3. Matching New Work Experience opportunities to Young Unemployed People.

3.1. The job opportunities identified in the New Jobs New Future project were specifically selected to besuitable for young unemployed people with no or little work experience. Working closely with their assignedJobcentre Plus Partnership Managers the consortium providers have developed opportunities to meet both theneed of the employee and the employer.

3.2. In preparation for the New Jobs, New Futures project on-flow data was produced to estimate theconcentration of long term youth unemployment by geography over the period of the project. This data wasused to create a monthly profile of job delivery across partners agreed with the Department for Work andPensions


3.4. Those employees leaving employment before completing the duration of the Future Jobs Fund contractis recorded at 47. This equates to a overall employee turnover rate of just 7% compared to the average UKrate of 13.5% for employment generally35.

3.5. The success of matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people is attributedto a number of factors, these being:

3.5.1. Accurate profiling of job delivery by consortium partners and the Department for Work and Pensions:The Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region has a varied demographic with concentrations of youthunemployment. To ensure an equitable spread of opportunities on-flow data has been used to estimatewhere and when provision is more likely to be needed.

3.5.2. The creation and selection of suitable employment opportunities for young unemployed people byconsortium partners and Jobcentre Plus Partnership Managers: A significant focus has been ondeveloping roles that match both the need of the employer and that of the employee with jobs beingspecifically created to overcome some of the barriers faced by unemployed young people. The rangeof partners in the consortium has afforded diverse employment opportunities and experiences. Inparticular, the varied services delivered by the public sector has opened a range of opportunities toyoung people that would not otherwise be available.

3.5.3. The effective selection of candidates and support given to JSA claimants in taking up Future JobsFund opportunities by Jobcentre Plus: The New Jobs, New futures project has worked closely withJobcentre Plus through all stages of recruitment. The invaluable partnership working between

34 ONS—DWP.35 CIPD 2010 Resourcing and talent planning survey.



providers and the Jobcentre Plus Partnership Managers has enabled quick and effective selectionof candidates.

3.5.4. The flexibility of the Future Jobs Fund criteria allowing providers to design project delivery tospecifically support local need: With its rural, urban and coastal zones the Hampshire and Isle ofWight sub-region affords a diverse range of industries and as such project delivery requires multiplesupport options. The flexibility of the Future Jobs Fund has allowed bespoke delivery mechanisms toaddress need in a specific area.

3.5.5. The effective partnership working between the public, private and third sector to provide cross-sectoralsupport across the consortium area: The consortium has drawn on expertise from the public, privateand third sector; sharing resources and expertise to deliver the project.

3.5.6. The high profile and recognition of the Future Jobs Fund gives organisations the tools to make tacklingyouth unemployment a priority: Being involved with the Future Jobs Fund has enabled organisationsto pursue their aims of tackling youth unemployment. As well as giving organisations the resourcesto employ young people, the Future Jobs Fund has equipped them with the skills, experience andpurpose to address this key issue.

3.5.7. Willingness of providers and employers to support young people into employment: All the consortiumpartners have come together to support unemployed young people through the Future Jobs Fund. Thisproject is working with young people that are often not “work-ready”. The good will of employers inproviding extra support to these vulnerable employees who not normally be afforded suchopportunities is essential in making the Future Jobs Fund a success.

4. The Provider and Employer Perspective

4.1. The employment opportunities created for the New Jobs New Future project have, in line with theFuture Jobs Fund criteria, been additional posts providing a wide range of benefits to local communities. Thediscrete nature of the jobs means that the opportunities are time limited. The consortium partners have howeverfound innovative ways of retaining staff beyond the initial six months Future Jobs Fund positions. InSouthampton, for example, the Future Jobs Fund has contributed to 30 apprenticeships within the local primarycare trust.

4.2. With its rural, urban and coastal zones the Hampshire and Isle of Wight sub-region affords a diverserange of industries and as such project delivery requires multiple support options. The flexibility of the FutureJobs Fund has allowed bespoke delivery mechanisms to address need in a specific area.

4.3. Although not all employees have been recruited “work-ready”, the Future Jobs Fund allows foradditional support to be given, in most cases making the employee an asset to the employer and adding valueto the community initiatives they are involved in. Many employers have found alternative employment fortheir employee once the Future Jobs Fund opportunity is complete.

4.4. The Future Jobs Fund has enabled closer working relationships between sectors and between multipleagencies. The Jobcentre Plus Partnership managers have facilitated new relationships between local authoritiesand Jobscentre Plus, which, whilst always in existence were often not coordinated.

4.5. The delivery of the Future Jobs Fund is however hindered by the seemingly unnecessary duplication ofprocesses and delays from other agencies. For example, the Future Jobs Fund delivery requires a quickrecruitment process, however waiting on candidates to produce identification already supplied to Jobcentre Plusand the unnecessarily long wait for CRB check, does cause significant delays.

4.6. Future Jobs Fund candidates often undertake extra support with Jobcentre Plus to move them towardswork prior to taking up a placement. In some cases this intervention is clearly failing and results in a continuingneed for intensive support during the Future Jobs Fund placement.

5. The Employee Perspective

5.1. Current leaver data for the New Jobs, New futures project shows that 47% of employees are moving onto other employment following the completion of all or part of their Future Jobs Fund opportunity. This statisticclearly demonstrates the sustained improvement the Future Jobs Fund is making to the employment prospectsof young people.

5.2. The strengths of the new Jobs New futures project in terms of its impact on young people’s lives havebeen observed and documented through numerous discussions held with FJF employees and their managers,these being:

5.2.1. Young people have been given an opportunity to learn and develop transferable skills to enable themto be more competitive in the labour market. The Future Jobs Fund is helping young people to adjustto work patterns and prepare them for the world of work.

5.2.2. Young people are not simply given a job, the approach of the Future Jobs Fund project equips themwith skills to find a job and learn about the competitive job application process.

5.2.3. The Future Jobs Fund has seen placements in various industries, broadening young people’s mind tothe opportunities and career paths that they may have not previously considered.



5.2.4. The Future Jobs Fund improves young people’s confidence, skills and knowledge within particularindustries.

5.2.5. The Future Jobs Fund project breaks down barriers to employment for those young people faced withlong-term unemployment, learning and other disabilities and/or troubled background increasing theirchances of future employment.

5.2.6. The Future Jobs Fund gives young people financial independence allowing them to contribute tothe economy.

5.2.7. Giving young people the opportunity to undertake work that genuinely benefits communities willengender a sense of community pride and ownership in participants long after the Future Jobs Fundprogramme.

5.3. The anecdotal evidence given by the employees is strengthened by the leaver data showing anemployment rate of 47%. Additionally this is supported by two case studies in Annex II

5.4. The employee experience on the whole has been a positive one however the Short-term nature of a sixmonth contract in some cases appears to be too short for young people to build solid transferable skills toenable them to compete confidently in the open labour market.

6. Due to the successful delivery of the New Jobs, New Futures project Hampshire County Council waseligible to bid for further funding from the Future Jobs Fund. This would have equated to another 900 jobs forunemployed young people across the sub-region. The impact of the decision to end the Future Jobs Fund inMarch 2011 rather than March 2012 has effectively reduced the vacancies available to young people by 900positions. The Future Jobs Fund has facilitated extremely successful partnership working and although lessonslearnt are valuable, without the delivery of a joint programmes such as the Future Jobs Fund, these partnershipswill diminish.

7. The nature of the transition from the Future Jobs Fund to the Work Programme is unknown at this stageas consortium partners have had little or no involvement in the development of the Work Programme as therehas been no consultation to date. Hampshire County Council is already working closely with the NationalApprenticeship Scheme to deliver apprenticeships within the council and is applying to become anApprenticeship Training Association. Apprenticeships will be an option to some Future Jobs Fund employeesbut there is nor formal transition.

17 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Action for Children

Over the past year Action for children has successfully recruited 14036 young people under the FJF initiative(many of whom would never previously have considered applying for a job with us). Many of these youngpeople have been languishing in the derogatory not education, employment or training (NEET37) categorisationbut now realise that they are able to make a valuable contribution to the workforce.

1. Executive Summary— The Government has an obligation to provide appropriate opportunities and support for all young

people especially the most vulnerable38 and those who are most disengaged from education,employment and training.

— The most vulnerable young people across the UK need extra support so that they are equipped totake advantage of any future opportunities. More must also be done to raise their aspirations tosucceed in life and to prevent intergenerational worklessness39.

— The Government’s new Work Programme due to be launched in 2011 must be accessible tovulnerable young people, be flexible enough to meet their needs, learn lessons from the FJF andbuild on its successes.

2. Action for Children40

2.1 Action for Children is committed to seeing all young people fulfil their potential; this is not just aboutattaining certain grades at school but setting and achieving their ambitions.36 We did have a grant award to deliver 200 vacancies; our contract like others had a time-order-variation option which meant we

could recruit past our end date on the 30 June. However, under the new Government rules this option was removed- meaningthat out final figures are below the original bid. We were confident that we would have recruited the full amount by August2010. This would have included posts in our head office and in one of our schools.

37 For the purpose of this submission we will not use the acronym “NEET” as young people have told us that they find itstigmatising. We will therefore not abbreviate.

38 We understand vulnerable young people to be, care leavers, young carers, young offenders, disabled young people. Young peoplewith mental health and behavioural problems, those who have large gaps in their education, due to poor attendance and leavingschool early, negative relationships within their families and with peers and coming from families where they may be the thirdgeneration to be unemployed, reliant on benefits, having few or no role models or support.

39 About 1.9million children now live in workless homes, the Office for National Statistics, September 2010.40 Action for Children works with 156,000 children, young people and their families at around 420 UK projects. For 140 years, it

has been supporting some of the most vulnerable people in the country, helping them transform their lives and realise theirpotential. We provide a range of high-quality, flexible and innovative services that meet the complex and diverse needs ofchildren and young people across the UK.



2.2 Our services:

— Support young people to stay in or enter education, employment or training.

— Work with young people who are disabled41, homeless, leaving care, have caring responsibilities,and who are at risk of, or who have, offended.

— Help young people to become independent.

— Enable young people to become active citizens in their own communities.

2.4 In all of our work with children and young people we seek to open up opportunities, overcome barriersand build resilience—employability is a key aspect of this approach. Our services take a holistic approachaddressing wider problems such as participation in education, employment and training. We do this by meetingthe needs of a young person based not just upon their age but on the stage that they are at in theirdevelopment.42

3. Action for Children and the Future Jobs Fund (FJF)

3.1 Action for Children recruited 140 young people under the FJF initiative, 69 are non operational staff(admin based roles) and 71 operational staff (early years and youth support roles).

3.2 We created posts in youth support, business support and early years support. We worked hard to identifythese real roles and were acutely conscious of potential safeguarding issues and risks due to the vulnerabilityof many of our service users. We did not allow for safeguarding and child protection issues to be compromisedat any point, but nevertheless have been able to place young people in real work situations allowing them getthe best experience and a real insight into the work we do. Our employees under the FJF are real members ofthe Action for Children team. We value the young people we employ and have never treated the FJF as aninitiative for voluntary work or work experience.

3.3 Our internal evaluation of the FJF will be based on feedback from employees and line managers. Weaim to complete this evaluation in January 2011. It will look at:

— The distance travelled by employees in terms of skill base and personal development i.e.confidence/self esteem.

— The ways we can improve internal procedures regarding recruitment and ongoing support, helpingus to shape future services and programmes.


4.1 We would like to stress that our experience as an employer under the FJF initiative has been extremelypositive. We have successfully matched 140 young people to real roles within our organisation and those youngpeople have become valuable members of our workforce.

4.2 We have matched young people to the following posts and roles:

— Business support /administration function. This role is vital to our services as it is the first pointof contact for people visiting or telephoning a project/office. These employees engage withcommunity users, enquirers, established partners and other key stakeholders.

— Youth Support Workers have direct contact with their community. In this role they supportindividuals, groups and in some instances families in activities such as mentoring, coaching,outreach, residential, trips and outings. All of which involve face-to-face communication withchildren, young people and their families.

— Early Years Support Workers This role provides FJF employees with the opportunity to havedirect contact in some of our services with pre-school children, young children, their parent/carers,frequently with social workers and other professionals. This can be through working in crèches,play sessions, food preparation, parenting, pre-school and after school sessions.

4.4 The young people employed as part of the FJF have a full employment plan. This includes: acomprehensive induction process which is tailored to the role they will be undertaking; a key one-to-onesession detailing objectives and training plan with their line manager; and a mentor based at the project theyare working who will provide additional support throughout their six month placement. The focus of thetraining and support is on participants strengths and areas for development. As part of their induction, newstaff complete training courses; intranet based learning and shadow existing workers. Examples include:

— City and Guilds Level one certificate in employability and Personal Development.

— Action for Children core training (Introduction to Action for Children—welcome day, diversityand inclusion, safeguarding).

41 Young people with learning difficulties and disabilities are twice as likely to be NEET as those without—DCSF, Reducing theproportion of 16–18 year olds NEET: The Strategy, 2009.

42 Centre for Social Justice and LGA (2009) hidden talents II supports this argument and states that “there is mounting evidencethat young people continue to mature for longer than was originally thought… and that people’s passage into adulthood is likelyto be more prolonged and unpredictable”.



— Digital Literacy Curriculum and Microsoft Office Essentials (both part of the Britain Workscampaign through Microsoft).

— Internal training within projects such as introductions to internal IT systems/ health and safety etc.

— In addition, we have provided a small fund for external training for example in Newcastle one ofour business support officers is undertaking an IT qualification at the local college which weare funding.

This training will provide our FJF employees with a legacy of transferable skills that will serve them in theirfuture employment choices.

5. Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme

Strengths

5.1 Helping employees on the FJF become more employable

For many young people their FJF placement is their first experience of real work. Their new roles supportthem to develop; to take responsibility for themselves (i.e. getting to work on time); to take responsibility intheir workplace and to develop communication skills and appropriate work place behaviour. Many of the skillsthe young people have developed can be defined as “soft skills”, i.e. confidence and self esteem, qualitiesthat are difficult to measure but are critical for employability. Measuring these elements is a part of ourinternal evaluation.

We have many examples of how the FJF employees are developing skills such as using their initiative andcreativity along with interpersonal skills. This foundation of real work experience for FJF employees meansthat when they do seek further employment they will be in a more advantageous position. After their FJFemployment we believe these young people will have moved closer to the labour market and to securingemployment due to receiving the right “on the job experience”, training and emotional support.

Experience of the FJF—employee

“The Future Jobs Fund initiative has provided me with employment that seemed unavailable because Ilacked the hands on experience most jobs look for. This initiative has substantially benefited my careerand I would recommend the Future Jobs Fund path into employment to anyone”.

5.2 Supporting FJF employees with additional needs

As a FJF employer we have been able to offer a holistic package of support, which has meant young peopleworking with us are unlikely to leave their placement. We understand that young people who have beenunemployed for an extended period often have additional needs such as: apprehension and uncertainty towardsthe work place, finding it difficult to integrate into the working environment, motivational issues and/or lowskills. As our services are community based and highly experienced in welcoming and engaging the mostsocially excluded young people, our staff have used their experience to nurture the young people to feelconfident in the work place alongside developing their skills.

The young people we have employed through the FJF come from a diverse range of backgrounds andcircumstances with a variety of needs. All our line managers have the flexibility to put in extra support for anindividual and specifically tailor it to the individuals identified needs such as another member of staff mentoringthe employee to integrate into the workplace. The dedicated resource we assign to manage this role (the FJFcoordinator) ensures the direct line managers have additional support.

Due to our experience and expertise with working with hard to reach young people we have been able todemonstrate our flexibility when faced with challenges to retaining an employee. The importance of thisapproach is further supported by our charitable objectives.

Case study—Preventing a FJF placement from breaking down

A young man working in our fundraising team has been displaying aspects of autistic behaviour I.e. difficultyin remembering instructions, poor communication skills and a lack of interpersonal skills.

These behaviours were not disclosed during the recruitment process which led to problems during his firstmonth of employment. The staff team took time out of their own schedules to repeat instructions and guidethis young man. After discussions in supervision and with the FJF coordinator, the line manager was able toidentify key areas of the employee’s progress that were proving successful in particular his attention to detailand his IT skills.

After a small adjustment to his working duties the employee is now making good progress and the staffteam is now working together productively. Taking the time out to focus on what this young man could doinstead of what he couldn’t made all the difference to him still being in employment today.



5.3 Keeping young people off benefits after FJF placements

Whilst it is still very early days for the majority of the young people on the programme with us, we willhave a small number of leavers in September and October and we are confident that after their time with usthey will be better equipped to apply for jobs in the future.

Within our organisation we have been able to offer further employment opportunities to some of the youngpeople who have been successfully involved with the FJF initiative (for example a permanent Business SupportOfficer level 2 post was filled in one of our services in the Wirral and Youth Support Worker in Millom). Manymanagers working with FJF employees are looking at the option of keeping staff on permanently when theircontract is completed. Without the FJF it would have been unlikely that these young people would have evenapplied for these posts; they are now a great addition to our workforce. In addition, a number of FJF employeeshave been given additional working hours due to the level of their performance so far. Furthermore,

5.4 FJF employees positively impacting the Action for Children work force

Reports from our managers about their involvement with the FJF employees have been extremely positive.We have run internal FJF Employee Coaching Sessions43 for all those who are supervising an FJF employee.This covered the portfolio qualification which looks at putting together evidence of competencies gained fromthe time on the initiative and also at ways of making the time the most positive and productive for the youngperson i.e. motivational techniques.

We have found that the FJF employees have both complimented and enhanced our existing staff teams, withyoung people teaching our staff a great deal. For example, a number of employees are extremely proficientwith their IT skills and have come into our workplace and set up new admin systems and recording procedures.

Furthermore, one of the by-products from the FJF programme is that it supports development opportunitiesfor our own permanent staff within Action for Children. There are a high number of project/office managersacross our organisation that have delegated the mentoring to staff team members in order to build their ownskill base by supervising a FJF employee.

Experience of the FJF—Line manager“I am finding the Future Jobs Fund employment opportunity a positive experience, Melissa is a verycapable and willing employee, she has worked on specific jobs and covers general office tasks whenrequired. As a new line manager, the experience for me to work with Melissa from the recruitment stage,and throughout her employment has been very rewarding.”

Weaknesses

5.5 Job Centre Plus (JCP) procedures presenting barriers to young people

We had very little time to establish our new working relationships with JCP offices and leads at the beginningof the FJF initiative. We identified in the early stage a number of barriers preventing those more vulnerableyoung people from applying for roles with us. These included JCP advisors being unclear of the FJF process,advisors not promoting the roles, and the application process being a “hurdle to high” for some young peopleas they were not given the adequate time or support to fill in an application form.

To counter some of these issues, Action for Children adjusted several of its existing recruitment proceduresin order to successfully recruit the 140 young people—for example reducing by half the length of our jobapplication forms. In some cases we did remove our application form altogether by using the JCP genericapplication form. We also held open days in three of our projects where potential candidates could comefor interviews.

Nevertheless, these factors along with the existing stigma, which inhibits young people from even enteringJCP offices, was a significant reason behind why we have found it difficult to recruit vulnerable young people.

5.6 Post Employment Support

As part of the contractual agreements under FJF, JCP advisors are supposed to re-engage the FJF employeesat months 4 and 5 to help to support them to secure permanent work. This has not consistently been takingplace. We believe that if our experience is shared across other organisations, this will impact on the number ofleavers who may return to claim government benefits. Furthermore, we are concerned there will be a largedemand on this service closer to the end of the year when many of the FJF placements complete. In Actionfor Children 95% of our FJF employees finish in December.

5.7 Training not being an essential requirement

With the training element being central to the positions we have offered and knowing the positive impactthis has made, we feel that this crucial element should have been a requirement for the initiative not optional.43 Approximately 80 out of possible 85 supervisors of FJF employees across England, Wales and Scotland attended the sessions.




6.1 We believe that the likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012will be to exacerbate the current situation for many vulnerable young people who are unable to accessemployment opportunities. The programme itself was a “ray of hope” for many young people who felt therewas really no way out of their unemployed status. It gives young people without the connections to certainprofessions or employers a “helping hand” or a route through the “back door” into employment opportunitiesthat would not normally be open to them without such state intervention.

6.2 The most vulnerable young people need extra support during this recession so that they are best equippedto take advantage of any future opportunities. The opportunities they thought would be available to them atthe time they entered the job market are now not there. We are concerned that as youth unemployment rises(on current trends), any opportunities will be snapped up by those better connected and more academicallysuccessful young people—further increasing the divide.

6.3 For the most vulnerable and excluded the impact of the recession will not just be felt now—but maypersist across generations. Some families trapped by previous recessions are still feeling the impact today andthe current recession appears likely to widen this gap still further. The repercussions both for individuals andfor our society in terms of wasted aspirations and lost opportunities will resonate for years.

6.4 We acknowledge that the situation for many young people who are leaving further education or universityis bleak. It is right for Government to support these young people. However, we are very concerned that withinall this activity the needs of the most vulnerable young people, those who do not see employment as a rightor an aspiration44, will become lost as the impact of the recession plays out across the whole labour market.

6.5 More immediately, with the decision to end the FJF in March 2011, many young people who are currentlyunemployed and have been without work for nearly 6 months, who would have been eligible for the programmein the coming weeks will have had their expectations raised and dashed. Their only hope for employment hasbeen taken away. The gap between the end of the FJF and the start of the new Work Programme in the summerof 2011 will mean a substantial cohort of young people with languish for months without real employmentopportunities and will become further removed from the labour market.


7.1 We are pleased that the Government is seeking new ways to support unemployed young people throughthe New Work Programme and apprenticeships. This should present a real chance to ensure that opportunitiesare available for all young people, and in particular for those with additional needs, who are vulnerable andlikely to be out of work for the longest period of time. We are pleased that under the New Work Programmeproviders will be paid predominantly for sustained job outcomes with higher payments for the hardest tohelp45. We would like to ensure that the Government includes those young people who we believe are the“hardest to help” such as care leavers, young carers, young offender, lone parents, incapacity claimants anddisabled young people.

7.2 It must be noted however that the reduction in employment opportunities during a recession and theconcurrent increased risk attached to business investment in “on the job” training means that we need toidentify the “best” initiatives to address the issue and to do this urgently.

7.3 The most vulnerable young people need extra support during this economic downturn so that they areequipped to take advantage of future opportunities. We are therefore pleased that the Government is proposingfunding new apprenticeships and with this in mind we would like to highlight Youth Build (example below),a supported apprenticeship service. This service is not seen much outside the third sector and we believe thatthis is an ideal way of supporting vulnerable young people into training and employment.

Action for Children Service—Youth Build

Action for Children plays a key role in providing supported apprenticeships through programmes designedto increase work experience and provide accreditation on key skills.

Action for Children Scotland’s innovative Youthbuild model offers training and employment opportunitiesin the construction industry for vulnerable young people. Scotland has one of the highest rates in Europe ofunemployment among young people.

An independent evaluation of the Youthbuild programme (2007) highlighted the successes of the Youthbuildprogramme. These findings include:44 Action for Children through our range of services works with those young people who will be hardest hit by this economic

downturn. For example, in interviews with young women using our care leavers’ services pre and post recession, their answersabout the impact of the recession were ambiguous. While very worried about not being able to find a job or make ends meet,these young women did not see the recession itself as the problem—the problems they were facing were too deeply engrainedand persistent.

45 Helping people back into work, DWPhttp://dwp.gov.uk/about-dwp/customer-delivery/jobcentre-plus/stakeholders-and-partnerships/keeping-in-touch/in-touch-july-2010/



— Up to 80 per cent success rate across the three projects for helping young people move intoemployment following their involvement in the programme;

— high completion rates for the programme, with 32 of the 43 young people who entered theprogramme completing and moving into either construction or some other form of employment;

— considerable savings of working with this cohort—for example, the annual cost for a male in ayouth offenders’ institution is estimated at £47,000

A three year longitudinal study of this work has been commissioned with the first year report due out at theend of September; the emerging findings from this work show that:

— The major strength of Youthbuild is the offer of paid employment once the six week training hasbeen completed, which attracts young people, keeps them engaged, and provides hope for thefuture, which raises their aspirations.

— Its balance of practical skills training, Personal Social Development and supported employmenthas proved a successful formula.

— The approach is not only helping young people to gain employment related skills, but it is havingsignificant positive impacts on young people’s relationships, income, and risk management. Inparticular a number of young people are reporting that they are keeping out of trouble with thepolice because they know they now have something to lose.

16 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by Third Sector Consortium Management Sector LLP

Executive Summary

1. 3SC holds the largest combined award under Future Jobs Fund of any national provider, and is recognisedby DWP and Jobcentre Plus as being the top performing national provider on Future Jobs Fund.

2. 3SC is a management organisation offering a unique approach to delivering contracts for the public sector.Whilst civil society and local organisations often have the knowledge and skills to deliver employment andwelfare services at a local level, they lack the opportunity to secure those contracts, because individually theycannot deliver on the scale that is required. 3SC therefore champions a partnership approach, adding valuewith efficiency to a contracting process and subsequent delivery, by bidding for large contracts and managingdelivery by civil society organisations.

3. Every 3SC provider responding to this question commented that FJF has been very successful in matchingnew work experience opportunities to the needs of young unemployed people.

4. FJF has been effective in matching work with the needs of young people from those leaving educationwith no or few skills and qualifications (including NEET young people) through to graduates who have beenunable to secure jobs after leaving university.

5. Strengths of FJF were that the participants gained very valuable skills because the opportunities were inreal jobs, and not on training programmes or placements. Many jobs have been sustained because the FJFemployee has benefitted the organisation and enabled it to generate sufficient income to support and sustainthe job. Our delivery organisations report that it’s a strength of civil society organisations that the work istypically sustained afterwards, either in the same job or in another one in the sector.

6. Employing organisations have benefited, particularly during the economic downturn, by being able toafford to take on additional staff as a result of the funding for FJF.

7. Many young people have been able to progress into other jobs as a direct result of their participation in FJF.

8. Employers and young people have however consistently suggested that 26 weeks was not a sufficientlylong duration for the funding. An apprenticeship could not be completed fully by an FJF employee in thistime, and many providers found it hard to complete NVQ2 in 26 weeks.

9. Jobcentre Plus were not seen as sufficiently resourced to fully support the delivery of this scheme eitherfor employers or potential FJF employees.

10. The lack of equivalent alternative or transition arrangements for young people previously eligible forFJF is preventing a cohort of young people from benefiting from this scheme.

11. In some cases, the cessation of the programme will mean that the managing staff in some deliveryorganisations will have to be laid off where there is insufficient work for them.

12. The civil society sector will not thrive as much as it was able to do when FJF was in place, with manyorganisations unable to deliver critical services without FJF employees.

13. Deprived communities, particularly with extensive generational unemployment, will lose the opportunityfor their young people to gain valuable experience and real opportunities to find sustainable work.



Introduction to 3SC

14. 3SC is an organisation providing management services, formed in response to an express need by civilsociety organisations for a co-ordinated, effective and quality response to the changing requirements of publicsector commissioning.

15. 3SC offers an opportunity for commissioners to procure high quality services delivered by civil societyorganisations. It is unique in that it combines national reach gained from its founding partners with localdelivery by a network of civil society organisations. It is a sustainable model which can be replicated acrossdiverse commissioning areas including criminal justice, health and social care and welfare to work.

16. 3SC is structured to enable all civil society organisations, whatever their scale, to participate incollaboration with other members in delivering large public service contracts. At present, 1000 civil societyorganisations have registered their interest in playing a part in consortia managed by 3SC. Since a number ofthese members are regional consortia it is estimated that in excess of 3,000 organisations are thereforerepresented; it is anticipated that this number will grow significantly as 3SC expands its operations.

17. 3SC acts as a prime contractor, bidding to manage contracts on both a national and a regional basis andenabling delivery by a network of member organisations. In short, 3SC bids for and manages contracts; thenetwork of civil society organisations are sub-contractors in a supply chain made up of 3SC memberorganisations.

18. 3SC operates as a social enterprise and is a limited liability partnership, incorporating the appropriaterestrictions on income distribution and an asset lock. Ten leading organisations across the civil society arenahave committed to invest and manage 3SC. These organisations are recognised civil society providers incriminal justice, education & training, health & social care, social housing and welfare to work. These foundingpartners are: CLINKS, Eastside Consulting, Eden Trust, London Learning Consortium, National HousingFederation, National Youth Agency, QED, Sadeh Lok Housing Group, The Social Investment Business andWell UK.

19. 3SC’s priorities are:

— To increase the percentage of public service contracts won by civil society organisations.

— To utilise the local understanding and connections across the civil society sector.

— To improve the lives and well being of individuals and local communities.

20. 3SC recognises that civil society organisations can deliver greater impact through creating partnershipsand gaining access to larger public sector contracts. This benefits individuals seeking quality employment andwelfare services, as these are best served by strong civil society organisations in local communities whounderstand their needs. Whilst civil society and local organisations have the knowledge and skills to deliveremployment and welfare services, they lack the opportunity to secure those contracts, because individuallythey cannot deliver on the scale that is required.

21. 3SC was therefore created in order to bid for large scale public sector contracts. It was awarded its firstdelivery contract from the DWP’s Future Jobs Fund not long after inception. A considerable achievement inits own right, this was also a vote of confidence in the model as a viable solution to secure a wider supplierbase whilst recognising the resource pressure on DWP and Jobcentre Plus in engaging with delivery by a widerange of new, innovative and often small providers.

22. 3SC has managed over 150 lead organisations in the delivery of Future Jobs Fund to date, representingnearly 1000 different employers. At the end of August 2010, 3SC’s performance was 100% of the initial Round1 award of 2,932 jobs and 100% of the Round 1 extension grant for a further 1,000 jobs. These jobs have beencreated by 3SC members to provide opportunities for long term and young unemployed people who had facedsignificant disadvantage in the labour market. A final Round 7 grant for a further 1,610 jobs is due to bedelivered by the end of March 2011.

23. 3SC holds the largest combined award under Future Jobs Fund of any national provider, and is recognisedby DWP and Jobcentre Plus as being the top performing national provider on Future Jobs Fund.

3SC Submission

To what extent do you feel that the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to theneeds of young unemployed people?

24. Every provider for 3SC responding to this question commented that FJF has been very successful inmatching new work experience opportunities to the needs of young unemployed people.

25. Some providers worked with young people who had never previously worked, and said that for them,FJF gave them the opportunity to prove to themselves what they could contribute and achieve.

26. 3SC providers typically offered opportunities with civil society organisations, and this appears to havebeen a major factor in the success of the programme. Civil society providers understand the needs of potentialemployees and give support with the barriers this client group faces.



27. Civil society organisations feel that their employment opportunities are often overlooked by young peoplewho don’t recognise the job titles or the environment in which they would be working, and that FJF hasenabled such organisations and employees to meet and match.

28. The benefits of FJF on employability of young people are not just related to the time the young personis employed through FJF. Young people have said that they find it easier to get another job when they arealready in a job. Others have increased in confidence and desire to enquire about training and academicqualifications that will enable them to progress further in the workforce in the future.

29. “Soft skills” including time-keeping, teamwork, demonstrating and taking initiative, telephone techniquesetc have been improved for many young people as a result of participation in FJF. Many providers report thatthis has given young people the opportunity to demonstrate that they are an asset in the workplace and canmeet the expectations that employers have of their employees. This is not just relevant to those young peoplewho have limited academic or vocational experience—graduates who have participated in FJF have been ableto gain skills beyond their academic qualifications and demonstrate their worth to future employers.


30. Two specific strengths of the FJF programme that are consistently identified are that this offered paidemployment, which was seen as beneficial by the FJF employees who had a purpose to participate and couldsee the possibility of real progression into work after participating, and that often small employers were ableto increase their capacity through the process of recruiting and employing FJF employees.

31. Other strengths identified included a benefit for employing organisations that were able to select theparticipants using their own recruitment and selection criteria and that the participants were not on a mandatoryprogramme (which is often seen as demotivating for the participants).

32. Civil society organisations trying to identify additional sources of funding during the economic downturnhave consistently praised the FJF because they could use FJF employees to undertake work that could not beafforded otherwise, and even in some cases, has created additional funding opportunities because fundraisingresearch and activities have been undertaken by FJF employees, or new business opportunities have beendeveloped by FJF employees.

33. Two specific weaknesses have also been consistently identified. Firstly, that the programme was only 26weeks long was seen as too short for many young people, as they had often only just started to develop theirtechnical, academic and softer skills. An NVQ2 typically takes at least six months to complete, so have beenhard to complete alongside an FJF job, and apprenticeships take 12 months and so could not be completedfully alongside an FJF job.

34. Secondly, the funding for 25 hours meant that some young people entered the benefit trap by participatingin FJF, as the income they received meant that they had a reduction in the other benefits they were previouslyentitled to, which often left them worse off financially. It would have been better if the scheme had paid for30 hours work at least, as then young people would have been able to access tax credits.

35. Furthermore, another disadvantage that has been identified by some organisations was the role ofJobcentre Plus. The standard of applications sent to employers was generally seen as poor, and didn’t alwaysfulfil the requirements of the employers. Many FJF employers have said that they employed FJF employees inspite of, rather than because of, the standard of their applications. It was felt that Jobcentre Plus should havesupported the applicants more specifically in order to raise the quality of the applications being made forFJF jobs.

What do you think is the likely impact (if any) of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather thanMarch 2012 (for you as a delivery organisation, young unemployed people, or your local area or sector)?

36. There is a consistent agreement that the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 is detrimental to thebeneficiaries, delivery organisations and the local areas and sectors. This is underpinned by concern that theremay not be transition arrangements in place from 1 April 2011 that will replace the specific benefits gained bythe FJF cohort.

37. Delivery organisations had put in a lot of work to ensure that the FJF programme began successfully,particularly given a lot of delays in the first few months of the programme where Jobcentre Plus offices inparticular were not equipped to rollout and manage FJF.

38. A large number of delivery organisations have had to reduce their own staff levels as a result of thisdecision, having often recruited new staff to deliver this programme.

39. Many young people are disappointed that they have missed out on excellent FJF job opportunities,particularly where many of these jobs were interesting and relevant to the needs of young people in theFJF cohort.



40. A lot of FJF opportunities delivered by 3SC providers have been offered in areas of high unemployment,particularly as 3SC has responded to requests from Jobcentre Plus to deliver job opportunities in areas of veryhigh unemployment or limited supply of work opportunities. This response of 3SC to delivery of this schememeant that many of the most deprived communities and individuals were able to experience the benefitsof employment.

Recommendations for Action

41. Future welfare to work interventions should fund real employment opportunities, not programmes.

42. Eligibility criteria should not be limited to JSA claimants, but broadened to include ESA claimants.

43. Eligibility should not be based on age, but on relative experience in the workplace. Anyone withoutrecent employment experience should be able to participate in real work.

44. There must be synergy between interventions to ensure that there are no inherent disincentives toparticipation (such as a loss of other benefits leading to financial disadvantage), such as 30 hours of wagefunding to allow tax credits to be accessed simultaneously.

45. Welfare to work interventions need to be available for at least 12 months, and in some cases potentiallyeven longer, for individuals needing such support. Interventions should be flexible and be able to last of ashorter duration if this is the right solution for the individual concerned.

46. Delivery organisations and prime contractors should be rewarded based on overall achievement and alsoan assessment of the quality of interventions and the results achieved for the target customer groups.

47. Civil society organisations should be specifically targeted to offer welfare-to-work interventions.

48. Civil society organisations should be funded to provide careers advice and employment support insteadof Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentre Plus offices should focus solely on benefit claims and identify eligibility ofcustomers to access schemes and programme.

27 September 2010

Written evidence submitted by The Commission for the New Economy on behalf of the Association of

Greater Manchester Authorities

Background

The Greater Manchester bid was developed by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (tenCouncils and other key authorities in Greater Manchester). The bid was developed in the spirit intended byDWP from the beginning, building on the findings of the Houghton review—that Local Authorities and theirpartners could and should be at the heart of supporting young people back to work at a time of risingunemployment, particularly in areas where there are long-standing issues of worklessness. The bid is the largestin the UK and in total amounts to £52 million over its lifetime—a total of 8,000 jobs have were approved intwo stages—1,500 jobs by March 2010 and a further 6,500 jobs by March 2011. The scale of the bid reflectedthe projected JSA figures for youth unemployment across the sub-region. In phase one of the FJF AGMAachieved 100% of its job starts target—1,500 jobs. Up to 20% of leavers are already known to have gone onto other employment, with others moving on to other positive outcomes. .

Partners

All the partners who originally committed to the bid have been involved in delivery: all 10 councils acrossGM; The GM Passenger Transport Executive; Greater Manchester Police; Greater Manchester Fire and RescueService; Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce; The Association of Greater Manchester PCTs; GreaterManchester NHS Acute and Mental Health Trusts; Greater Manchester Employer Coalition; ManchesterAirport; Greater Manchester Cultural Partnerships; A range of existing employment providers includingGroundwork, Remploy, Manchester Solutions, GM colleges; Greater Manchester Centre for VoluntaryOrganisations. Since then more partners / employers have come on board. More than 200 employers many ofwhom are from the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors, including Inspire to Independence, theSalford Foundation, Pathways CIC, Bolton Wise, Refugee Action, Lancashire Wildlife Trust and many more.

Vision

Partners were very clear that this was not going to merely be a “job creation scheme” but a real chance tooffer transformational change to people’s lives in GM by offering:

(a) Opportunities that are as near to having a real job as possible—this includes referring to people as“candidates” and not “clients” for example.

(b) The chance of progression so that young people can “see the point” of the training and developmentthey are undertaking.

(c) Opportunities for young people to learn transferable skills that can apply to other jobs, and set them



up for a future where they have an improved chance of competing for jobs throughout their careersand in the open labour market.

(d) Variety—so that there is something of interest to as wide a wide cohort of young people as possible,with jobs that meet varying skills levels and abilities.

(e) Aspirational and inspiring opportunities—in that we want young people in our jobs to grow inconfidence and self esteem, so that they are inspired to want to work and do well in their futures.

The Greater Manchester Model

GM has a mixed delivery model—a core GM wide framework which ensures minimum standards but localflexibility. Some key features are:

— Every job has to offer work, training and personal development.

— A commitment to create only full time jobs—35 hours per week @ the national minimum wagebased on a clear rationale—that we did not want to dis-incentivise young people from coming offbenefits; that most of the FJF fund should be in people’s pockets (and not in the system tied up inbureaucracy and administration); and we want to use FJF to get people out of the poverty trap.

— The ability to use the services of a managing agent (procured through a full OJEU processundertaken between September and November 2009). Whilst this delayed our start to November2009, this was not too far behind other regions.

— A set pricing structure ensures a fair allocation of resources and creates a level playing field—especially for those who opt out of the managing agent model.

Point 1: The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching New Work Experienceopportunities to Young Unemployed People

Key to the AGMA bid has been the ability to use its collective strength to generate jobs across the public,voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and in some cases the private sector.

Over 8000 jobs have now been pledged across GM and 4,000 have been filled.

Employers have understood the need to create additional jobs that give people a chance to build theirconfidence and self esteem. This has undoubtedly helped improve the quality of life and life chances of peopleon FJF and their families—by being in a job for the first time, or through the contributions they have made totheir communities. Jobs are assessed by a central team, in liaison with JCP, to ensure consistency and quality,and this has been welcomed. Many young people are travelling out of their own borough for a job—expandingtheir travel to work horizons. They are not just working close to home, but are taking advantage of a widerange of jobs created right across the sub-region. We have facilitated this by brokering discounted travel acrossthe entire GM Passenger Transport network for FJF employees. They can now purchase one month’s travel for£15—a saving of 75%. Our ability to broker this huge benefit has undoubtedly been as a result of all publicsector partners seeing FJF as their collective response to youth unemployment. FJF employees regularly reporthow much they like their job and how much more confident they now feel about getting the next job. Ourindependent evaluator reports:

84% are satisfied or very satisfied with their job—they are very positive about having a full time job; 99%felt they had raised their employability.

A small sample of job roles to date

Arts Development Outreach Workers; Young Carers’ outreach workers; Reading buddies; Expansion ofallotments project for adults with learning disabilities; diverse range of in our vibrant third and social enterprisesector; Community Reporters; Garden Maintenance Operatives; Personal Buddy programme for health andsocial care; Public transport/travel assistants; Community policing in priority neighbourhoods; Sports coaches /dance instructors to target disaffected youth and produce reductions in anti-social behaviour and offending;Fire safety; Community Animators; Parent Mentors; jobs in the Enterprise Academy; Arts and Culture—inmuseums, theatres and music venues.

Point 2: Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers(including in the Third Sector), Employers and Young Unemployed People, and particularly inrelation to the Long-Term Sustainability of Employment Opportunities.

The areas of strength:

1. Flexibility of design—from DWP to local delivery

DWP allowed the design and delivery of FJF to be determined locally. This has been a huge positive forpartners in GM and has ensured we have been in control more when we have needed to be, for examplespeeding up recruitment and plugging gaps in delivery. It also means we have been able to avoid FJF feelinglike it has “parachuted in”—and it has been integrated with other public service policies around the individual



and family at a neighbourhood level, through our neighbourhood/Life Chances pilots for example (an approachthat has been agreed with government).

2. Ability to create sustainable jobs and support progression

This includes: the ability to link FJF jobs to apprenticeships; employers keeping people on; additional (local)resource to extending some jobs to 12 months; employers opening up their internal vacancies to FJF recruits;setting up a Talent Pool (Manchester city council) where people can be matched to career opportunities;engaging the private sector in recruiting FJF people before they complete 6 months.

FJF is creating a new and lasting legacy across Greater Manchester. Employers’ perceptions about youngpeople is changing as a result of FJF and we believe this will open up more sustainable job opportunities overthe longer term, alongside more inclusive recruitment practices.

In addition:

— Many host employers are reporting that despite people being long term unemployed, they haveshown a positive work attitude, enthusiasm, ability and willingness to learn, which has meant theseemployers are now more likely to want to employ young unemployed people in the future.

— The inclusion of enhanced inductions, training and personal development support as part of FJFhas been important. We have learnt to build generic jobs with transferable skills that young peoplecan take with them into the wider labour market, we are confident that time spent in a GM FJFjob places young people in a better position to navigate what will undoubtedly a turbulent labourmarket now and over the next few years, developing the skills required to sustain employment inthe long term—confidence, motivation, self belief, a good reference from a good employer.

— The scale of FJF means we can offer a diverse range of accessible real employment opportunities—i.e. by working across a sub-region we have been able to create something for everyone’s skilllevel and job aspiration.

— FJF jobs have been targeted at people in communities who for whatever reason have felt work isnot an option or have not been able to find a job. FJF has allowed people to overcome the firsthurdle in getting a job that includes training.

3. Maximising resources—leadership from the top and working together

The most important factor in how the GM model is able to work is the immense partnership effort thatAGMA has brought to bear. This has meant that every Leader and Chief Executive of each of the 10 Councilsin GM have dedicated at least 1 full time role to FJF (at no cost to FJF) and in some cases a lot more (includingWNF). This unseen “cost” is real and hugely important. It now extends to: the involvement of large numbersof council staff to create jobs and coordinate local efforts; the involvement of hundreds of line managers whogive their time to supervise people; the use council funded training courses that FJF people can attend; materialsand equipment supplied in the workplace; some CRB checks; additional WNF provision to add value to theFJF experience. Other employers have done the same—recognising that they have a role to play in tacklingyouth unemployment in the city at a time when their support was needed.

In the GM model 2% of the £6,500 is used on administrative support for a core team including: financialmanagement; claims to DWP; contracts; procurement; development of all systems/ forms / processes, assessingjob quality and consistency; advice and guidance on all aspects of FJF; quality assuring delivery; GM partnersjob development (e.g. with police, fire, health, GMPTE, GMCVO, the airport and others); guidance on PR andcommunications; DWP guidance and dissemination; relationships with JCP and LSC; national links with DWP;links with other FJF providers; sharing of best practice. Up to 85% of the FJF income is spent on wages (thisdepends on how long people stay in the job and is based on a 35 hour working week). The remainder funds aflexible menu of services, including job search and in work support.

FJF is also proving a success in resolving the multiple issues faced by some people with more complex ormultiple needs—such as ill health, debt, housing issues, criminal records, low levels of literacy as well as longterm unemployment. Many host employers are targeting jobs and are in effect using “work” as a replacementor at least a catalyst for more complex and multiple interventions. Providers and support services note that FJFhas been more successful for those with complex needs than any other they’ve been aware of and that the costof £6,500 is far less than the repeated and multiple service interventions that would be otherwise needed—andpaid for.

The sub-regional benefits we have experienced can be transferred to the Work Programme(1) Working together has generated economies of scale—at least in the number of conversations with key

partners, administration, developing a bid, raising questions with DWP/CLG, creating jobs, findingwork experience opportunities, sourcing training.

(2) A single offer or framework but with the capacity to accurately reflect and promote local variation,innovation and texture that has not been an “imposition” on any area.

(3) Focus on influencing mainstream in to one joined up solution resulting in a better offer to local peopleand employers.



(4) Creating a large and more flexible resource for the city region to build on—staff, time, physical assets,materials, equipment, leadership in place, cross-boundary working, best practice, sharing ideas.

(5) Partners working together to “share the load” allowing a shifting balance of activity between them,enabling those ready to deliver first to take the lead giving others more time to plan their response.

(6) To explore the possibility of city region rather than DWP contracting, with the possibility of cityregion based funding options being developed

4. Strong employee feedback and employer engagement

The well-known adage of “it’s easier to get a job when you’re in a job” is the simplicity of FJF.

The GM experience is very much that the simple fact of having a job IS the thing that makes FJF so popular,successful and unique. By pairing people up with managers we can see people taking responsibility for theirown next job, building new social networks, and learning from managers as mentors and role models.Supplemented with opportunities for learning and training (such as NVQs, ECDL, driving lessons, CSCS card,etc) they are CV building all the time, gaining confidence and getting a good reference from a reputable andrespected employer.

Employers are reviewing their recruitment practices as they can see they can exclude the very people theywant to attract, and that they are missing out on talent pool in their local communities. This is beginning to beseen as a huge legacy of FJF and one that partners are now very committed to capitalising on for the future.This is being shared as best practice across GM.

Host employers value the level of control they have in the recruitment process when compared to otherDWP / JCP employment programmes, whilst at the same time are happy to work closely with JCP. For example,Manchester City Council implemented an innovative recruitment method to ensure no-one was excluded fromgaining employment. This meant not using traditional CVs and application forms and implementing large-scale“speed dating” events instead. Over 200 young people met with dozens of managers over the course of oneday, resulting in over 100 people in to work. Managers have overcome tendency that unemployed people haveto “self label” or “self eliminate” from applying for a job, thereby not exploring all job avenues. By slimmingdown the recruitment process, young people have taken on wider and more diverse job activities, and managershave recruited people from more diverse backgrounds.

People now have a wider spectrum of new job prospects open to them because of FJF.

Managers have been able to focus on peoples’ potential rather than formal qualifications or work record.This creates a level playing field when it comes to supporting vulnerable groups and the hardest to help,particularly young offenders in to work.

5. Good community benefit

Many FJF jobs have been embedded as part of community transformation projects that could not havehappened otherwise. These are too many to list but are creating a lasting legacy and that can expand in towider approaches such as volunteering and greater leadership from the 3rd sector:

— GM Fire and Rescue Service is running a community based project using FJF recruits who willbe developing, from scratch, proposals to increase the usage of fire stations as community assets,showcasing their ideas in a “dragon’s den” and turning their ideas in to real enterprises. TheSalford Foundation and the Dame Kelly Legacy Trust are working as providing mentors.

— Pathways CIC is employing FJF young people to peer mentor other young people to increase thetake up sexual health screening and other health related checks.

— Stockport’s Neighbourhood Renewal Teams have employed additional local people who haveconducted a community survey into local employment and skills needs of residents and employersin deprived areas.

— Tameside Council and the Fire and Rescue Service have piloted new ways of preventing fires.New FJF jobs coincided with the north west having a long period of very dry weather, resultingin hose pipe bans and droughts, which typically lead to having to police more secondary fires.The Station commander in Tameside Borough attributes the significant drop in secondary fires

and directly to the appointment of the FJF team.

— Rochdale is supporting young disabled people to work with the 3rd sector and local leisure servicesto access, audit and develop sports and inclusion activities for disabled people, with a view to theircontinuing as a social enterprise as a progression route.

The areas of weakness in FJF are:

Although our experience is overwhelmingly positive about FJF, partners have some weaknesses to report.The AGMA bid embraced the initial intention of FJF—that Local Authorities could take the lead in tacklingworklessness at a time of rising unemployment amongst young people in particular. However, with the certainty



of public sector cuts, progression routes are hampered. We have found some opportunities to create FJF jobsin the private sector but this is limited given State Aid rules at the need to create jobs with a community benefit.

It is vital that we involve the private sector now in FJF to maximise the links to their jobs as a progressionroute, but also by creating FJF jobs in the private sector now.

We are very keen to be able to gather robust evidence about the success of FJF. We are developing localtracking mechanisms but would prefer a national system that can not only share data but track people once theyhave left FJF. For example, HMRC are best placed to monitor and report on who has sustained employment andfor how long.

Some progression routes are not open to people leaving FJF due to funding criteria established. For example,some SFA funded provision requires that people are unemployed to be eligible—it would be better to be ableto move directly from FJF to training without the need to be unemployed in between. Whilst we have learntmuch about how to support people in to work in short space of time, we must not overlook the issues thathave prevented people gaining jobs in the open labour market in the first place. Our employers have beenflexible, imaginative and have worked with us. Most have abandoned application forms. But, any future DWP /Work Programme provision must equip people better to be able to fulfil employers’ processes.


Creating 8,000 jobs through FJF in GM by March 2011 means that as many as 208,000 weeks worth ofwork will have taken place. Already we have employed 4,000 people in to jobs and up to £19 million hasreached people’s pockets in wages—people who are not now claiming out of work benefits, but paying tax andcontributing to the economy of GM, spending money in our shops and businesses. Given a further year withFJF GM would, realistically, have bid for a further 6,500 jobs based on the fact that the infrastructure is nowin place and working well.

GM still has a significant youth unemployment issue—23,545 people or 31.5% (August 2010) of all JSAclaimants were under 24 in GM, peaking at 33.7% in Shaw in Oldham and compared to 29% for the UK. Theneed for specific action to support young people back to work exists in GM.

FJF has provided a unique opportunity—having a job that keeps people actively engaged and connected tothe labour market, as opposed to disconnected and disillusioned, makes them work ready for when jobs in theprivate sector gather momentum. We now know that, with the impact of major public sector contraction andfewer jobs being available, there is more reliance on the private sector for progression into work beyond FJF.Coupled with the introduction of the new Work Programme that will take time to find its feet, there is a concernthat young people in GM could have limited options to get back to work. If FJF had continued throughout2011/12, there would have been more time for the private sector jobs market to rebuild its strength.

A further year of FJF could have meant an additional £35 million circulating in wages and a further decreaseon the levels of youth unemployment in GM. Nationally, youth unemployment fallen five times quicker thanthe rate for over 25s since FJF introduced. Between April and October 2009 (the six months prior to FJF)18–24 year old JSA claimant numbers rose by 11.4%, but since the start of the programme, figures have fallenby 13.6% (August figures).

Key is the feedback we get all the time from JCP and employees—people want a job and FJF is a simpleand effective mechanism that achieves this. Once they are in a job they are more likely to want to keep it—orget another job. Our strong belief is that FJF as a transitional employment programme works.


AGMA and its partners would prefer that FJF continues beyond March 2011. We want more clarity fromGovernment on how it sees the transition from FJF to the Work Programme, or indeed how it views the roleof transitional employment programmes more widely.

Stronger recognition needs to be given to the role Local Authorities and partners at a local level can play inthe development and delivery of the Work Programme. We need to look to ensure that the prime contractorsfor the programme work in an integrated way with other local partners and service providers, thus giving thebest chance of creating sustainable work opportunities for the residents of Greater Manchester.

As we understand it, the “black box” nature of the Work Programme contracts will mean that it is the PrimeContractors who will decide what is delivered. Whether they then choose to include provision such as FJF—for young people, or adults—is not for us to determine. We agree with the principle of black box commissioningand the potential it offers to deliver individually tailored and locally relevant provision. We are already workingwell with potential Primes to enable them to understand which local services, including FJF, could be continuedunder the Work Programme. But the lack of clear involvement of Local Authorities in partnerships in the WorkProgramme commissioning process means that there is no guarantee that the successes or legacy of FJF willbe continued in the Work Programme.



In the last week we have received notification from DWP that local authority partners will no longer have aclear role in relation to DWP commissioning. This, coupled with the black box nature of commissioning, meansthat it will be up to individual Primes to decide whether or not they continue successful local programmes, oralign with other services like Apprenticeships. We will work hard to ensure that the FJF legacy can bemaximised by the Work Programme Primes, but this may not be the case in areas where there FJF team /delivery has not been as strong, or of scale, or indeed where the bidding Primes are not forward thinking.

We would recommend that DWP commission a rigorous independent evaluation of FJF which could bemade available to potential Work Programme Primes. And we would welcome further reiteration by DWP ofthe importance for potential Work Programme Prime Contractors to work closely with local employabilitypartnerships such as our own to identify opportunities to continue successful programmes (whether FJF orWNF-funded), and to ensure there is clear alignment with other Council, NHS and Skills Funding Agencyprogrammes to maximise the impact of public sector investment and to offer the most comprehensive offer toWork Programme clients.

In GM the tangible lessons learnt and outcomes that can be taken from FJF in to the work programme:

— The legacy of a large scale sub-region transitional employment programme which has had over 12months to establish itself and is now very effective in re-connecting people with the labour market.

— An unprecedented level of employer support at the highest level—with many hundreds of linemanagers involved in offering work experience to long term unemployed people.

— Employers who are open to changing their recruitment practices to be more inclusive and willingto employ young people or people who have been out of work for many years.

— Is linked to apprenticeships.

— Is developing links to private sector employers—as an exit for FJF employees.

— The commitment of GMPTE and its operators to 75% discounted travel has outcomes for theenvironment and increases take up of public transport.

— is flexible enough for DWP/ prime contractors to take forward in to the work programme.

Lessons for Going Forward

The Government’s aim of rebalancing the economy will hit the north west and Greater Manchester hard.The legacy of FJF is real and must feed in to the design of the Work Programme. DWP need to ensure primecontractors are made to connect to the large FJF Lead Accountable Bodies to ensure the lessons andinfrastructure of FJF moves forward.

We are concerned that the private sector economy will not be ready to pick up where we leave off once FJFends. Add this to fewer jobs in the public sector and their supply chains, and we run the risk of young peopleand those in our hotspot areas being further removed from any real prospect of leaving benefits and creatingtheir own prosperity.

Local Enterprise Partnerships need to build on and incorporate much of what FJF has achieved, extendingthe concept to the private sector, as well as create new opportunities through self employment and businessstart ups.

AGMA would very much like to extend their support to the Select Committee and Chief Executives arewilling to give evidence in person if required. Please contact [email protected] is the Chief Executive of The Commission for the New Economy (GM’s economic commission) if this isof interest.

Written evidence submitted by Manchester City Council

Manchester City Council is a partner in the Greater Manchester FJF Programme which aims to create andfill 8,000 jobs between September 2009 and March 2011. In Manchester, we are committed to creating andfilling 1,500 of those posts and to date we have created and filled 916. Our response to this consultation isbased on our experience of delivering FJF placements and our wider experience of developing approaches toentrenched worklessness in some of our neighbourhoods.


FJF in Manchester has proved very successful in matching employment opportunities to young unemployedpeople, targeting some of the most difficult to help in our community, and for whom working is not the norm.We have achieved this by:

— Mobilising key partners to provide FJF placements & progression opportunities for young people.

— Pioneering new recruitment methods avoiding the traditional CV & application form process. Thefocus is on the young person’s potential rather than academic achievements or previous experienceand is particularly important when placing vulnerable groups e.g. young offenders.



— Providing an enhanced induction and direct personal support to young people during their first fewweeks of work to deal with any barriers they might have to sustaining employment e.g. conflictbetween work hours and caring responsibilities.

— Identifying a number of employment opportunities for young people who come through the FJFroute e.g. ring-fencing MCC entry level positions for young people completing their six monthson FJF and recommending particular young people whom we have “talent spotted” through theprocess to other employers.

— Making young people aware of all of their progression routes (further education, apprenticeships,ring-fenced vacancies and volunteering) with a single point of contact for each, as they come tothe end of their placement.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the FJF programme from the perspective of providers, employersand young unemployed people and particularly in relation to the Long-Term Sustainability ofEmployment Opportunities.

Strengths

The key strength of the Future Jobs Fund is that the programme design and delivery was devolved to a locallevel and by developing it at a Greater Manchester level we were able to link it with a natural economicboundary and travel to work patterns in the conurbation. This enabled us to design a flexible programme whichwe could enhance and vary to meet the needs of individuals as we learned lessons from its delivery. Cruciallywe were able to wrap other public services around the needs of the individual and family to improve theirprospects for success. Equally we were able to work with local partners e.g. Manchester College to ensure thatyoung people leaving FJF could secure an appropriate learning opportunity when their placement wascompleted rather than waiting for the start of a new course /term.

Secondly we have recognised that FJF opportunities can act as a “proxy intermediate labour market” whereyoung people can make the transition to work in a relatively safe but real work environment. We have providedan enhanced induction and personalised support to deal with any particular barriers that a young person mightface in their early weeks at work. Overall, the training and personal development programme for FJF candidateslooks to build generic, transferable skills that a young person can take into the wider labour market and theexperience they gain on a FJF placement should make them more competitive in the labour market and betterable to sustain employment in the long-term.

The scale of the FJF programme and the long-established partnerships that we have in the City around thework and skills agenda, meant that we were able to offer a diverse range of real jobs and target to communitiesthat have felt in the past that work is not an option. Once young people have engaged in the programme wehave been able to identify with and deal with other barriers to employment e.g. poor literacy and numeracylevels. The AGMA model of 35 hours paid employment as opposed to the national standard of 25 hours perweek, which equates to £54 additional income per person, has made the jobs more attractive and means thereis more money circulating in our most deprived neighbourhoods.

Over and above the benefits to the individuals involved there have been long-term benefits to our localcommunities. One example is the Zion Arts Centre, which is a community based creative and mediaorganisation that works with young people in Manchester. They provided a number of FJF opportunities andsupported the FJF young people to establish a youth theatre that will provide a legacy beyond the FJFprogramme. One of the FJF candidates progressed on to a creative apprenticeship with the Zion uponcompletion of their FJF placement. There are many other examples across the City with two of the City’scemeteries recently achieving Green Flag status thanks to the hard work and dedication of FJF employees.

Weaknesses

The most significant weakness with the current FJF programme is that private sector employers have notbeen able to take on Future Jobs Fund candidates. The private sector represents the best opportunity forprogression routes to permanent employment and is even more critical in an environment of spending cuts anda reduction of jobs in the public sector. Our approach to “talent spotting” as part of the FJF programme andother initiatives that we have developed with partner organisations and large employers, such as Aspire anemployment agency that recruits workless residents into temporary employment, have demonstrated thattemporary employment with the right support is a sustainable route to permanent employment. These are theytype of local approaches that we would wish to see incorporated into the Work Programme.

As FJF was a volume programme that was designed and delivered within a short timescale, the “carrot”and “stick” aspects of the programme were not as balanced as they could have been. There can often be a timedelay between a young person disengaging from the programme and benefit sanctions. Our experience suggeststhat a short, sharp shock in terms of sanctions would have a more immediate effect on the behaviour /engagement of the young people involved.

Tracking of young people and sharing of personal data between agencies has, as with other programmes,been a barrier. This results in incomplete data about the destination of young people and a significant investment



of time by the delivering agent in trying to track young people who have left the programme. Tracking anddata sharing issues are particularly pertinent to this programme as young people can often be transient.

There have been issues with progression routes because of eligibility requirements of other programmes e.g.SFA funded programmes where you have to have been unemployed for six months or more to be eligible.Because of our partnership working arrangements and our ability to be flexible locally we have found localsolutions to some of these problems but it has been time consuming.

Retention— our experience has shown that people moving into work for the first time, or after a long timeout of work, require much more intensive support, both before starting work and whilst in work, than had beenpreviously assumed. Whilst Manchester’s drop-out rate on FJF has been low (less than 5%), there is a spike atseven weeks. Reasons given include the new lifestyle proving too difficult or stressful, or people’s hithertogood experience in their new job marred by a small disciplinary issue, or externalities such as caringresponsibilities. A lack of local knowledge and or wider family / community experience of how to cope withsuch difficulties can lead to dropping out of employment. We have found that enhanced induction at the startof the process has to be followed up with help to develop emotional and practical resilience, as well as technicaland educational job and skills based support

The likely impact of the decision to end FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

The most immediate impact is likely to be an increase in youth unemployment or in a best case scenario areduction in the recent decreases in youth unemployment, which we have seen since the introduction of FJF.In a City like Manchester where we have over 64,000 people of working age out of work, concentrated in ourpoorest communities, the impact of ending FJF earlier will be felt disproportionately in those communities.

Continuing the FJF programme to March 2012 would mean that there would be an overlap with theintroduction and embedding of the Work Programme provision. This would provide the potential for the FJFprogramme or parts of it to become part of the Work Programme supply chain. It would also enable us tofurther develop our pathways from FJF into employment opportunities with the private sector which againcould be built on by Work Programme contractors. The decision to end FJF in March 2011 means that therewill be a significant gap between the ending of this programme and commencement of the Work Programme.

The FJF programme adds value locally where projects are developed that are used / enjoyed by the localcommunity e.g. the restoration of the Victorian Kitchen Garden in Wythenshawe Park. These tend to be visibleand contribute to pride of place. One of the progression routes for FJF employees is structured volunteering.It is as yet too early to determine whether the experience of our young people on FJF means that they aremore likely to volunteer /be actively engaged in their local communities.


Manchester has a fairly unique set of economic opportunities, alongside some of the poorest neighbourhoodsin the country. As a City Council, we want to maximize long-term sustainable economic growth and ensurethat our residents are best able to benefit from that growth by ensuring that they have the skills to activelyparticipate in our economy. At its heart, this policy will address, and break, the cycle of long-term benefitdependency experienced by many of our residents, and help them play a more productive role as active citizens.But to be effective, welfare reform and the Work Programme must be developed in an integrated way withlocal services and opportunities so that the right support is in place to address the range of barriers that peopleface along the pathway to employment.

Stronger recognition needs to be given to the role Local Authorities and partners at a local level can play inthe development and delivery of the Work Programme. Our models for intervention as demonstrated with ourexperience of the FJF show that the best results are delivered when employment and skills support is deliveredto individuals with other services wrapped around to meet individual and community need. This approach takesa holistic approach across all public services to enable and support people into work and off benefit dependency.

We support the Government’s commitment to localism and ask therefore that local flexibility is built intothe delivery of the Work Programme. We need to ensure that the prime contractors for the Work Programmework in an integrated way with other local partners and service providers, thus giving the best chance ofcreating sustainable work opportunities for the residents of Manchester. We should not though overlook that ina significant minority of cases, a “flagship” programme—focussed on pre-employment support and with someof the principles of FJF embedded within it can play an invaluable part in galvanising the commitment ofemployers. Demonstrating real success enabling those “hardest to help” back into work can have a catalyticeffect in our communities.

8 October 2010



Memorandum submitted by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills

Summary

1. Employer Perspective on the Future Jobs Fund

— Employer awareness of the Future Jobs Fund is low in comparison to other more establishedinitiatives such as the New Deal. In total 15% of employers are aware of the Future Jobs Fund.

— Overall1 1% of employers have used the Future Jobs Fund but in looking at sectors, employers inthe public sector are far more likely to be aware and to have used the Future Jobs Fund.

— Employers who use the Future Jobs Fund are generally satisfied with it, scoring it 7 out of 10 onaverage for satisfaction. Just 8% of employers were “dissatisfied” ie scoring their experience ofFuture Jobs Fund between 1 and 4 out of 10.

— Of the small proportion of employers who were dissatisfied (8% of those who had used the FutureJobs Fund) the main reasons for dissatisfaction included breakdowns in communication withJobcentre Plus and issues with candidates, such as the general standard of candidates, candidates’lack of interest in the role and candidates not showing up.

2. Employer Perspective on recruitment of young people

— Only a minority of employers (22%) recruit young people aged under 24 directly from education(either from school, college or university)

— Employers who have recruited young people generally find them to be well or very well preparedfor work and the perceived level of work–readiness increases with the amount of time youngrecruits spend in education.

— For those young people that are poorly prepared for work, lack of experience is cited as the mainreason by employers. By contrast employers citing poor education and/or literacy and numeracyissues make up a very small minority overall.

— Recent trends in recruitment suggest that employers have reduced their recruitment of youngpeople, this may be partly due to the recession although the trend appears to have started beforethe recession. Equally employers may be recruiting fewer younger people because more arechoosing to stay on in education.

Background to the UK Commission for Employment and Skills

3. The UK Commission aims to raise UK prosperity and opportunity by improving employment and skills.

4. Our ambition is to benefit employers, individuals and government by advising how improved employmentand skills systems can help the UK become a world-class leader in productivity, in employment and in havinga fair and inclusive society: all this in the context of a fast-changing global economy.

5. Because employers, whether in private business or the public sector, have prime responsibility for theachievement of greater productivity, the UK Commission strengthens the employer voice and provides greateremployer influence over the employment and skills systems.

6. Having developed a view of what’s needed, the UK Commission provides independent advice to thehighest levels in government to help achieve those improvements through strategic policy development,evidence-based analysis and the exchange of good practice.

7. Last year DWP (one of our co-sponsor Departments) and Commissioners expressed concern about thelarge number of young unemployed people across the UK. Moreover, DWP were keen to get the employer’sperspective on the government’s youth offer to employers and asked the UK Commission to undertake somework in this area. As a result the UK Commission is undertaking its own internal inquiry into youthemployment.

8. The UK Commission’s research in this area aims to answer three key questions:

— Who and where are the young unemployed?

— What works from the employer perspective with increasing youth employment?

— How well are the current initiatives working?

Methodology

9. Our research involves a range of research methods combining both quantitative and qualitative research.These include the following.

10. The 2010 Employer Perspectives survey, which is a biennial UK wide survey of 13,500 employers. Thissurvey asks questions around awareness of, use of and satisfaction with a range of employment and skillsinitiatives including some aimed at the recruitment of young people. This survey is our primary source for thesection in this paper on employer perspectives on the Future Jobs Fund. Analysis of this survey is at a veryearly stage hence our limited response to this inquiry so far. A full report on the findings of the survey as awhole is forthcoming.



11. Every two years the UK Commission carries out one of the largest surveys of employers in the country.The National Employer Skills Survey for England surveys around 80,000 employers across England andprovides in-depth analysis of recruitment of young people along with detailed analysis of training patterns andskills gaps. The most recent survey was conducted over the summer of 2009. The survey establishes whichemployers recruit young people (directly from school, college or university), how well prepared for workemployers found their young recruits, if recruits are not well prepared the reasons for this and recruitmentpractices during the recession. This is the source for the section in this paper on employer perspectives onrecruitment of young people.

12. A series of interviews with employers have been taking place throughout the summer period. Theseemployers include Commissioner organisations, employers we surveyed and followed up and employers wemade contact with through regional Employer Coalitions. The Commission has also done some researchthrough Jobcentre Plus via their Employer Engagement Division.

The Employer Perspective on the Future Jobs Fund:

13. Awareness of the Future Jobs Fund amongst employers is low in comparison to other initiatives

but there is a strong sector and size dimension. Only 15% of employers in Great Britain are aware of theinitiative, this compares with 55% awareness for the longer established New Deal. Awareness variesconsiderably across different sectors with public sector employers far more likely to be aware. For example,only 5% of employers in the agriculture sector are aware of the Future Jobs Fund while 37% of employers inthe public administration and defence sector are aware of the initiative. Awareness among key sectors for theemployment of young people, namely retail and hospitality, is below average. In hotels and catering 12% ofemployers were aware and in retail 10% were aware.

14. The larger the employer the more likely they are to be aware of the Future Jobs Fund. Only 13%of employers with between 2–4 employees are aware while 32% of employers with over 250 employeesare aware.

15. Overall 1% of employers across Britain used the Future Jobs Fund. Use of the Future Jobs Fundwas far greater in the public sector than private with 6% of employers from public administration and defencesector and 7% from the health and social work sector recording use. In terms of the private sector 1% ofemployers in business services, transport and hotels and catering had used the Future Jobs Fund. Less than 1%of employers in all other sectors recorded use of the Future Jobs Fund. Variations in size are also apparentwith larger employers using the initiative more than smaller employers. Four per cent of employers with50–249 employees used the Future Jobs Fund and 8% of employers with more than 250 employees used it,while only 1% of employers employing 2–4 employees used the initiative.

16. Employers who used the Future Jobs Fund were generally satisfied with it. Employers who hadused the Future Jobs Fund were asked to score their experience of it out of 10, with 10 signalling high levelsof satisfaction. The average score across all employers who had used the Future Jobs Fund was 7 out of 10.The analysis categorises those employers who score their experience between 1 and 4 as “dissatisfied”, in totaljust 8% were dissatisfied.

17. Reasons for dissatisfaction were varied. The main reason given for dissatisfaction with Future JobsFund was communication problems with Jobcentre Plus, this was cited by 37% of those employers who hadused the Future Jobs Fund and were dissatisfied. Other major reasons were to do with the candidatesthemselves: 36% stated that the quality of applicants wasn’t high enough, 29% found applicants were notinterested in the position and 19% stated that applicants didn’t turn up. Other reasons cited by dissatisfiedemployers included complaints about the length of the process (19%), too much bureaucracy (10%) and lackof a response to an advert.

Employer Perspective on the Recruitment of Young People:

18. Only a minority of employers (22%) recruit young people aged under 24 directly from education.Employers who have recruited young people generally find them to be well or very well prepared for workand the perceived level of work–readiness increases with the amount of time young recruits spend in education.Two-thirds of employers recruiting 16 year olds (66%) found them to be well or very well prepared for work.Almost three-quarters (74%) thought 17–18 year old college or school leaver recruits were well prepared forwork. Recruits from university are considered the most work-ready of the three groups, with 84% of employersrecruiting recent graduates finding them to be well prepared. Just 12% found them to be poorly prepared.

19. For those young people who are poorly prepared, lack of experience is cited as the main reason.Just over half of employers who felt young people were poorly prepared for work said that a poor understandingof the working world was the most common reason. Poor attitude or lack of motivation is cited as the secondmost common deficiency for 16-year olds and 17–18 year old recruits. Concerns around quality of educationor literacy and numeracy abilities were only cited by a very small minority of employers.

20. Recent trends (2005 to 2009) suggest that employers have reduced their recruitment of young

people partly in response to the recession, but recruitment of school leavers seems to be on a downward trendfrom before the recession. Equally employers may be recruiting fewer younger people because more are



choosing to stay on in education. In response to the recession only in the public sector did the proportion ofemployers who increased recruitment of young people outweigh those who reduced it. Again there were largesectoral variations with a quarter of construction employers reducing recruitment straight from education.

21. Variations at the local level are far greater than those found at the regional level. In Swindon,Manchester and Bournemouth 30% of employers have recruited a young person. This contrasts with Bury,Harrow and Rutland where 14% of employers have recruited a young person.

Further Assistance

The UK Commission would be happy to offer any further assistance to the Committee in support of its work.

10 September 2010

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited12/2010 006989 19585

Documents

Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund...Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund First Report of Session 2010–11 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by The House