Minutes:
The Committee endorsed the undernoted response to the above-mentioned consultation:
Council Response
Overall comments
The Council is broadly supportive of the draft strategy and looks forward to seeing a more detailed proposal in due course. The Council also recognises the good work that has already been done in this area by DEL.
While not directly affected by the proposal, the Council sees this strategy as impacting on its priority to support children and young people and to reduce poverty. It also aligns with our work to increase employability and create jobs while helping local businesses and growing the economy. The Council is already involved in several relevant programmes. These include, support for people who may wish to become entrepreneurs, yearly work placements for university and school age students, outreach programme for the long term unemployed people and programmes to help long-term unemployed into jobs (such as our HARTE scheme), attending career fairs and similar events, providing mock interviews and other learning opportunities for young people, various skills and employability training across our community centres, and programmes to deter young people from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
The Council’s main concern with the proposals is the focus on Category B NEETs as described in sections 2.9 to 2.11 and 2.23 to 2.24. Firstly, according to DEL’s figures:
· 16% are Category A – people doing a gap year or voluntary work and so do not need help.
· 18% are Category B – those 16-19 year olds with a child or who are experiencing serious illness or disability, a significant proportion of which may be unable to work or undertake training no matter what support is available.
· 66% are Category C – those that despite no identifiable barrier are still NEET.
Assuming category A will not need help, that means of those that need support, 79% are Category C compared to only 21% who are in Category B. Normal business logic (as well as ethical concerns) would suggest therefore that targeting Category C would help more young people and hence provide a bigger impact with the resources available.
Secondly, the barriers described for Group B (16 – 19 year olds with a child or who are experiencing serious illness or disability) seem to be factors that are not easily dealt with under DEL’s current remit and are already being addressed by other departments such as DHSSPS. While reluctant to reduce the debate about young people who can not find employment or training to a ‘numbers game,’ using the report’s own argument from section 2.23 – 2.24 suggests that more people will be helped and the cost to society will be lower if the strategy focuses on category C.
Regarding categories of NEETs, the Council also wonders if DEL has any information relating to the breakdown of numbers in other ways. For example, what are the relative percentages in the groups mentioned in section 4.6 of the report? Or do we know the breakdown using the method mentioned by Prince’s Trust, Barnardos, the Gerry Rogan Investment Trust, Opportunity Youth and Business in the Community etc. That is, how many are those with ‘A’ levels who are motivated to look for work; those with GCSEs who would be amenable to training provision; and those uneducated young people who need help with their motivation. While we appreciate the difficulties of getting figures for these categories, having a better understanding of the split would help identify which interventions are most appropriate. Approximate figures may be possible to obtain via sampling surveys.
We appreciate the philosophy of supporting those most at need but, taking the points highlighted in the previous four paragraphs, we wonder if a focus on category B is the best use of resources in this instance. The data provided by DEL suggests that a focus on category C would be more effective. More importantly, and based on general good practice, we suggest that the strategy’s focus should not be on target Groups at all but on the target underlying causes that lead to being NEET.
If we have misunderstood the rationale, perhaps a fuller breakdown of the figures and costs would be appropriate in the report. This might show the numbers from the different groups, the short and estimated long terms costs of them remaining as NEETs, the estimated numbers that will find their own way out of NEET status, and the estimated numbers that the interventions can actually help within each group.
The Council also has some concerns that the work within DEL may be slightly fragmented. In recent months we have seen consultations launched for tuition fees, widening participation in higher education, a strategy for higher education and this strategy for those not in education, employment or training. These four strategies obviously all overlap and affect each other and we hope they have been developed and will continue to be refined with clear reference to each other.
1. Do you agree with the suggested strategic direction?
No
Comments:
See overall comments. In summary the Council has some concerns over the focus on Group B as described in sections 2.9 to 2.11 and 2.23 to 2.24. We appreciate the philosophy of supporting those most at need but wonder if this is the best use of resources in this instance (a key priority in section 2.27). Our concern is twofold. Firstly, according to DEL’s figures, 79% of NEETs that need support are in category C and normal business logic (as well as ethical concerns) would suggest that targeting this group would help more young people and hence provide a bigger impact with the resources available. Secondly, the barriers described for Group B (21% of those that need support: 16 – 19 year olds with a child or who are experiencing serious illness or disability) seem to be factors that are not easily dealt with under DEL’s current remit and are already being addressed by other departments such as DHSSPS.
2. What elements of the supporting evidence do you believe are most compelling?
The total numbers involved, the likelihood of them continuing to struggle to find employment and the cost to society.
3. Is there other evidence you would suggest?
A fuller breakdown of the figures and costs. The numbers from the different groups, the short and estimated long terms costs of them remaining as NEETs, the estimated numbers that will find their own way out of NEET status, and the estimated numbers that the strategies interventions can actually help from each group.
A breakdown of the relative percentages in the groups mentioned in section 4.6 of the report. Or any further breakdown that helps identify the underlying problems and hence where interventions are likely to have the biggest impact.
4. If you disagree with the direction please suggest an alternative direction?
A focus on where we can achieve the most good e.g. the largest numbers in groups determined by the underlying causes that we can address regardless of whether they might also be in category A, B or C.
5. What evidence do you propose to support this alternative as a more effective approach?
Your own evidence presented in the report with further refinement as mentioned above.
6. Do you agree that the initial suggested set of strategic actions is a good start?
Yes
Comments:
7. What actions offer the best outcome and what actions need to be further enhanced?
4.16 The development of relationships with businesses, colleges and training organisations and the development of exchange and employability programmes will be considered in the context of ‘Preparing for Success’.
4.21 Structured youth activities that lead to improved self?confidence and self-esteem.
4.42 Initiatives to help young people to become self?employed.
8. What are any other actions/enhancements you would suggest?
We suggest the direct work with NEET’s to understand their needs, what support works and what does not, may be useful complemented by studying what measures have worked elsewhere. (This is referenced at the bottom of P44). Though we understand that there will be differences in the education and benefits systems elsewhere.
Central departments should also consider the significance of their procurement power, especially on larger projects and contracts such as those mentioned in section 4.50. It may be possible to include clauses that encourage the winning suppliers to provide opportunities for NEETs.
The strategy may benefit from a greater reference to the need to create actual jobs for NEETs. While we fully agree that their time while unemployed should be filled with training and learning opportunities these need to be done with a realistic expectation of employment to follow. This affects both the motivation of the young person and also the longer term cost to society.
(Referring to section 5 of the consultation document)
9. Do you agree that the suggested plans for further work will effectively take forward the initial actions required to reduce the numbers of young people who are in the NEET category?
Yes
Comments:
We agree with the need for improved coordination and encouraging collaboration but have slight concerns about the formation of new partnerships as listed on page 45. We agree that partnerships can provide coordination and alignment between existing activities and new partnerships may be necessary to address any gaps or opportunities that emerge as part of the research work. However, we must avoid establishing new partnerships that exist for little more than the sake of existing or that feel the need to launch new programmes with little regard for the overall NEET strategy.
10. What other strands might need to be further considered?
It may be worth having a specific strand aimed at raising awareness of the scale of the NEET problem, its impact on young people and longer term affect on society. In particular, this could be aimed at potential employers.
11. Are there other specific ways of working you would suggest under any particular strand?
12. What level of commitment are you prepared to offer to help make the work plans (at Section 5 of the consultation document) effective? Please tick one or more of the following:-
a) No commitment at this stage.
b) I wish to be kept informed. ü
c) I wish to be a participant and contribute my experience. ü (Through our Economic Development Unit and Children and Young People Unit)
d) I will put myself forward to lead a particular strand.
e) Other Please specify:
(Referring to section 6 of the consultation document)
13. Do you agree that the mechanism suggested will co-ordinate the implementation of the strategic actions?
Yes
Comments:
14. What other co-ordination actions might offer an enhanced outcome?
15. Are there any other actions/enhancements you would suggest?
It is not clear from the document whether there will be representation from the various delivery agents of the final strategy. If this was not the intention we would strongly suggest that they are involved in the steering group.
16. If you have any other general comments please include these below:
We appreciate the difficulty in trying to coordinate the activities across departments to address this very important issue. We hope therefore that our feedback is not viewed as overly critical but seen as an indication of how much we hope that the problem of young people not being able to find employment or training can be addressed.”