Introduction

1. This is the second evidence gathering session for the CPB Scrutiny Panel

in relation to the partnership activity for young people who are not in

employment, education or training (NEETs). At the first session, the Panel

heard from representatives from Job Centre Plus, the Careers Service and

a third sector representative who had run several projects with those NEET

young people who are hardest to hear. The Panel also scrutinised the

Thriving and Prosperous Economy Programme’s partnership activity and

explored some of the issues relating to NEETs with the relevant officers.

2. From their scrutiny the Panel heard the following key messages:

The Youth Engagement and Progression Framework (YEPF) is now

the key Welsh Government document in relation to NEETS.

There are two new offers to young people through the Framework.

The first is the allocation of single point of contact (a lead

worker) to the most at-risk young people to help ensure that

support is delivered in a joined up and coordinated way and that

works to meet their needs.

The second is the development of a proactive and positive

Youth Guarantee that will help to ensure that every young

person has access to a suitable place in learning post-16.

Cardiff Partnership Board Scrutiny Panel Evidence gathering around Young People who are Not in Employment Education or Training (NEET)

Cover report Tuesday 18th February

County Hall, 3pm Committee Room 3

The YEPF makes the local authority accountable for a young person’s

engagement status with the Careers Service monitoring the young

person’s guarantee.

There is now a five tier monitoring model in place and it was felt that

the assessment of where a young person is on the scale must be

conducted in partnership.

The importance of having a dedicated key worker that young people

are happy to approach and plan with was emphasised by all witnesses.

3. Some of the key issues that witnesses identified in relation to partnership

working were:

The importance and difficulties of sharing information between schools,

colleges, third sector organisations, the Careers Service and Job

Centre Plus.

This relates not just to general statistical information but also to

personal information that could help organisations work more

effectively with that young person.

How effective information sharing protocols with an emphasis on

implied consent rather than explicit consent can help alleviate data

protection issues relating to personal data.

That mapping provisions was important, but analysing that map and

ensuring the right services were in the right places was the next vital

step.

Organisations need to be aware of the different limitations of their

funding and provisions, e.g. Job Centre Plus difficulties working with

European funded projects for their work centre programmes.

CPB partners need to consider what they can do as an organisation to

help address the issue of NEETs.

4. These were some of the key findings of the last meeting and will be

included in the final report to help provide recommendations. Whilst the

Panel learnt a great deal about the Partnership agenda in relation to

NEETs they also felt that they required additional information about the

transition from secondary education to further education and / or

employment. The Panel will therefore hear from external witnesses to help

inform them of some of the latest practice in these areas and how

partnership working can help improve transitions and reduce the number of

NEETs. The witnesses attending this meeting are:

John Phelps and David Brookes - Coleg Morganwwg - To provide

information on how their colleges work with NEETs, schools and

employers.

Emma Pike - Keeping In Touch (KIT) coordinator from Swansea - To give

evidence on how KIT works with schools and colleges to ensure a smooth

transition of young people from standard to further education or

employment.

Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours - To discuss their recent research report on

partnership working in the 14 - 19 pathways sphere in London (a summary

of this is provided in the additional information). The full report can be

found at http://www.ioe.ac.uk/14-19_partnership_report_Final_22-5-13.pdf

5. The Panel also wanted to hear from young people who are currently (or

have been) NEET. Therefore in the final part of the meeting young people

have been invited to give their views on being NEET and where things

could be improved.

6. All of the information provided by these witnesses will help in the Panel’s

scrutiny of the CPB and relevant partners in the final NEETs meeting in

March. The Panel are therefore advised to think of relevant areas of

questioning which will help improve their knowledge of partnership working

of the NEET agenda and effectively scrutinise the CPB.

7. To help assist the Panel in this area, some additional information has been

provided below. This is taken from some of the latest European and British

studies into NEETs, and the Panel are asked to consider their potential

impact on the local partnership agenda.

Additional information

The three reports summarised below all take a slightly different perspective on

issues relating to NEETs. The first is a study from London which explored

partnership working in the 14 – 19 sphere and highlights some of the

challenges being faced in this area. This highlights some very important

aspects of partnership working which may be directly transferable to Cardiff.

The second report is a study that explored the NEET agenda across Europe

and looks at where there were similar issues and how different organisations

can help to address them. Despite being focused across Europe there are

again lessons which are relevant at a local partnership level.

The final report gives the Institute for Public Policy Research perspective on

the type of reforms that are required to address the NEETs situation in the

UK. Once again there are many recommendations which relate to the UK

government but also an emphasis on what is required locally. Some of the

reforms are also quite dramatic and may help the Panel to think ‘outside the

box’ when exploring what partnership work can achieve in relation to young

people who are NEET.

‘Rebuilding and extending 14 -19 partnership working in London to improve participation, progression and transition for young people May 2013’ – a Summary

Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours, Centre for Post-14 Research and Innovation, Institute of Education, University of London

8. The Panel will be hearing from Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours at the

meeting. However, as their recent study focussed on partnership working

and young people’s progression, it may be useful for the Panel to consider

the summary of their work.

9. The report focused on 14 -19 partnership working across London and

wanted to map the current condition of partnership organization and

activity. The research also explored ways in which collaboration might be

developed to improve opportunities for young people in the current national

and regional contexts.

10. The research methodology comprised a mix of desk research; an

electronic questionnaire sent to all local authority (LA) 14 -19 leads;

consultations with 14 -19 leads representing 20 boroughs and two

feedback events.

11. The main findings of the research which are of most relevance to the Panel

were:

That partnership working in London has been taking place against a

challenging economic and political background. There have been

significant changes to the14-19 curriculum and qualifications,

institutional and governance arrangements, and performance

measures. These changes have taken place alongside reductions in

local authority expenditure.

Local authorities are still statutorily responsible for ensuring that there

is adequate 14 -19 provision for the whole range of learners in their

area and have a central role in supporting Raising the Participation Age

(RPA) to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015. They are therefore having to

explore new ways of carrying out these functions.

An analytical framework for mapping and analysing the breadth and

depth of partnership working across London was produced. This

framework is attached in Appendix A. The Panel may wish to explore

whether this framework could be used to assess the effectiveness

of partnership working in Cardiff.

The national context has affected all London boroughs differently.

Some partnerships have fared better than others. This has depended

on:

the rootedness of 14 -19 collaboration;

the degree of trust between education providers and the local authority

(LA);

the level of local political commitment to the 14 -19 phase;

how adversely a particular LA has been affected by expenditure cuts;

how far schools have been prepared to work with and buy back LA

services.

12. Following a difficult period between 2010 -12, there now appears to be an

upward trajectory of 14 -19 partnership activity based on the need to

implement the Raising of the Participation Age (RPA); the emergence of a

post -16 performance agenda linked to Ofsted; responses to continued

government reform in this area; and the pressing need to tackle youth

unemployment.

13. The research suggests that this resurgence could be attributed to:

Commitment by elected members and senior LA officers.

Local Authority leads rebuilding a 14 -19 team by co-ordinating the

efforts of officers with related roles (eg those with responsibility for

school improvement, apprenticeship and economic development or the

youth service).

14 -19 leads acting as a ‘champion for young people’, fostering good

relationships and taking an even-handed approach to all providers.

The fostering of good relationships between the LA and education and

training providers, with an emphasis on personal contact and

networking.

Being a source of data and up-to-date and reliable information about

national, pan-London and local policy.

Being prepared to adapt 14 -19 partnerships in terms of structures and

ways of working.

Using current national policy agendas (e.g. RPA) in an expansive way.

Gaining education provider buy-in either through subscriptions or

through seed-corn funding and then goodwill.

Carefully reading different policy contexts in order to initiate new

initiatives and forums for engaging local institutions and other key

stakeholders.

14. At the same time new challenges and potential foci are emerging that will

require further innovation such as:

Apprenticeships and opportunities for youth employment.

14 -19 curriculum and qualifications changes, with particular attention

being paid to what has been termed the ‘overlooked middle’.

The development of a stronger vocational learning offer across

London.

A focus on post-16 performance and improvements in teaching and

learning.

Links between education/training and economic regeneration agendas.

Cross-borough working to realize efficiency gains and to address

issues on a wider scale.

Learning from the rich and diverse practice in relation to 14 -19

activities taking place across London.

15. The Panel may wish to consider these findings and how they may be

relevant to the Cardiff partnership situation. It may also be useful to

examine the framework in Appendix A and assess if this would be

beneficial to use in the Cardiff context.

16. This report summary is obviously quite specific to London but may have

similarities to the partnership situation in Cardiff, as partnership issues are

often similar across geographical boundaries. However there have been

two other recent reports into NEETs which provide a wider geographical

exploration of the issues faced by young people who are NEET, and some

suggested potential solutions. The first looks at the issues of NEETs

across Europe and where the main problems are. The second explores

some potential solutions to NEET problems in the UK at both the national

government and local level. These two documents are summarised in the

next sections.

Education to Employment: Getting Europe’s Youth Back Into Work - a Summary Mourshed et al (2013)

17. One of the key findings from the research across Europe was that lack of

jobs was not the main contributor to the number of NEETs but rather the

lack of skills and experience. The study found that the lack of availability of

jobs in Europe is part of the problem, but was from the whole story. In

many countries, the number of people employed has actually remained

steady, and in some countries, increased, since 2005. The study found

that while there are more people looking for work, employers in Europe

cannot find the skills they need. Furthermore, there was also found to be

greater competition for jobs for younger people, who are disadvantaged by

their lack of proven experience.

18. So, why is it that young people are not getting the skills that employers

need? One reason that the study points to is the failure of employers,

education providers, and young people to understand one another,

as they operate in “parallel universes.” The study found that in Europe, 74

percent of education providers were confident that their graduates were

prepared for work, but only 38 percent of youth and 35 percent of

employers agreed.

19. The report identified three key ‘intersections’ on the education-to-

employment (E2E) pathway:

enrolling in postsecondary education;

building the right skills; and

finding a suitable job.

The authors concluded that in Europe there are roadblocks at each of

these three intersections.

20. With regards post-secondary education, the most significant barrier in

Europe is cost. In a number of countries, non academic, vocational

courses are not subsidized and can therefore be prohibitively expensive.

Students also lack information: except in Germany, less than 25 percent

said they received sufficient information on post-secondary courses and

careers to guide their decisions. And finally, most of those surveyed said

they perceived a social bias against vocational education; less than half

of those who wanted to undertake a vocational course actually did so.

21. At the second intersection, young people are often not learning a sufficient

portfolio of general skills while they study, with employers reporting a

particular shortage of soft skills such as spoken communication and work

ethic. Employers and providers are not working together closely to

address this.

22. At the final intersection, young people find the transition to work difficult.

Many lack access to career-support services at their post-secondary

institution. Many more do not pursue a work placement, in spite of this

being a good predictor of how quickly a young person will find a job after

his or her studies are completed.

The impact of Small Businesses

23. The E2E structure is not just failing for young people, but also has a

significant impact on small businesses. Small firms were found to be more

likely than large ones to report problems in their business due to lack of

skills. They also have the greatest problems in identifying and recruiting

new staff and are less likely to work with education providers or other

employers to tackle their skills problems.

Solutions

Innovate the design, course delivery, and financing to make education

more affordable and accessible.

24. The authors argue that the cost and structure of post secondary education

needs to be reformed. To reduce the cost of courses, one solution is to

break up degree or vocational programs into individual modules that focus

on building a particular set of skills while still counting toward a degree or

formal qualification.

25. These modules would be short (weeks or months) and self-contained,

enabling young people to combine and sequence them in the order that

makes most sense for their career aspirations. This model also enables

young people to take a break in their studies to work for a period, and then

return and pick up where they left off.

Focus young people, employers, and education providers on improving

employment readiness.

26. Young people, employers, and providers must change how they think

about the E2E process. To make rational decisions, young people need to

think more strategically about their futures. Students need more and

better-quality information about different career paths, and need to be

motivated to use it.

27. To improve student prospects, education providers should work more

closely with employers to make sure they are offering courses that really

help young people prepare for the workplace. Employers cannot wait for

the right applicants to show up at their doorsteps. In the most effective

interventions, employers and education providers work closely to

design curricula that fit business needs; employers may even

participate in teaching, by providing instructors.

28. Employers might also consider increasing the availability of work

placements and opportunities for practical learning. Larger enterprises

may be able to go further, by setting up training academies to improve

required skills for both themselves and their suppliers.

Sharing information.

29. Despite the large amount of employment data currently available there

remains a deficit in knowledge about where employment

opportunities lay across Europe. The report advocates the creation of a

“system integrator” to gather and share information on the most salient

metrics: job forecasts by profession, youth job-placement rates, employer

satisfaction with the graduates of different programmes, etc. The system

integrator should also identify and share examples of successful programs

and work with employers and educators to create sectoral or regional

solutions based on these.

Reducing costs.

30. There is a recognition of the cost of apprenticeships and other training and

placement opportunities on employers and governments. The report

argues that technological solutions can also help to compensate for

shortages of apprenticeships and other forms of short-term work

placements.

31. “Serious games”, for example, that mimic the workplace context, are low-

cost, low-risk ways for students to receive a personalized learning

experience through repeated “play” of the game. While not a full substitute

for an actual apprenticeship, this approach can offer a substantial step

forward in providing the applied skills that employers say young people

lack. Furthermore, such initiatives can be made available to greater

numbers of young people without needing to find more employers to

provide work placements.

32. The report concludes with two main recommendations on what role the

European Union can play in alleviating the issues and making practical

progress:

Information.

33. The authors argue that the European Union could develop and share a

more comprehensive labour-market platform incorporating the most

relevant data to capture employment trends in each sector and region.

This would help institutional decision makers, employers, and job seekers

make better decisions. This could take the form of helping users

understand the implications of the data—whether on the courses they

should offer as an education provider or the skills gaps they should try to

fill as a group of employers within an industry.

Sharing relevant practices on matching labour-market demand and

supply.

34. The authors feel that the European Union is in the best position to take the

lead on helping national public-employment services compare their

successful interventions, and then disseminate and promote those that are

relevant to similar-context countries.

35. As much of the information from this report relates to Europe it may seem

difficult to see the relevance to the Cardiff partnership context. However

there are a number of themes in this report which also emerge in the next

report ‘No more NEETs’. These will be summarized at the end of this

report and the Panel are asked to consider them when exploring the

partnership agenda in relation to NEETs in Cardiff.

‘No more NEETs’ – A Plan for all Young People to be Earning or Learning - Cooke (2013) – a summary

36. The final report which is summarised in this section is called No More

NEETs. It was written by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) and

identifies what the author feels are some of the biggest challenges for

NEETs, as well as solutions to these problems. The passages below are a

summary from this report. The full report can be found at

http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/11516/no-more-neets-a-plan-for-all-

young-people-to-be-learning-or-earning

37. Cooke (2013) argues that the key priorities for young people should be to

acquire a solid initial education and practical work experience. However he

feels that back-to-work services are not organised around either of these

factors and instead focus on monitoring people’s job-search activity.

Furthermore he feels that further education courses remain of variable

quality, with qualifications that are not always valued in the labour market.

Employer engagement is also patchy, with too few firms offering

apprenticeships. Echoing the Mourshed et al (2014), Cooke argues that

these issues are compounded by deep dissatisfaction among the business

community concerning the employability of young people.

38. Much like the current Cardiff Council Administration, Cooke strongly

believes that the goal for society should be to eliminate all but the most

temporary experience of being NEET among young people. He recognises

that this will require close working between a number of bodies, including

central and local government, schools, colleges, employers and the

voluntary sector – not to mention young people themselves.

The solutions

39. Cooke argues that there should be a distinct learning and earning track for

young people built around three core reforms, the combination of which

‘would collapse the division between educational and employment

pathways for young people, prevent a drift into long-term inactivity, and

spread the principle of mutual obligations, or ‘give and take’. They would

also mobilise the energy and leadership of local areas to support their

young people’.

Reform 1 – Changing youth benefits:

40. A youth allowance should replace existing out-of-work benefits for 18–24

year-olds and provide financial support for young people who need it. This

would be conditional on participation in purposeful training or an intensive

job search. Furthermore, access to inactive benefits should be closed off

for all but a very small minority.

41. There should also be a presumption that young people are housed by their

parents until they are over 21, with exceptions for those with a child, a

disability or in employment. Under this reform, entitlement to Job Seekers

Allowance (JSA), Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and income

support for under -25s should be ended, given that none of these benefits

is capable of serving young people’ s distinctive needs.

42. In their place, a youth allowance should be made available to young

people who need financial help while they gain skills or seek work,

conditional on participation in agreed activities. It would also mean those

under-25s who currently claim ESA or income support moving on to an

active and reciprocal system of financial assistance, but not one with a

narrow focus on immediate labour market entry.

43. However, the aim should not be to provide extra resources to young

people in continued learning who have other means of financial support.

Therefore the youth allowance should be subject to a means test on the

basis of parental income until a young person is over 21, with minor

exemptions. Furthermore, until young people are over the age of 21,

access to housing benefit should be subject to an assessment of whether

they could be housed – or be supported to be housed – by their parents.

44. There should not be an automatic right to receive support with housing

costs from the benefit system for those in this age group who are out of

work or studying. This principle should include exemptions for those with

children or a disability, in employment, unintentionally homeless or

estranged from their parents. There would also be a case for making

receipt of housing benefit and child tax credit conditional on participation in

learning or job-search for those young people not also receiving youth

allowance.

Reform 2 – The establishment of a Youth Guarantee.

45. Much like the Youth and Engagement and Progression Framework (YEPF)

in Wales, Cooke advocates the establishment of a young person’s

guarantee. However, he goes further than the YEPF arguing that a youth

guarantee should be established that offers young people access to further

education or vocational training plus intensive support to find work or an

apprenticeship.

46. Furthermore, for those not learning or earning after six months, paid work

experience and traineeships should be provided, with no option to refuse

and continue receiving the youth allowance.

47. Cook argues that the personal adviser model should be central to the

youth guarantee. Advisers should be responsible for working consistently

with young people to identify life aspirations and specific goals, codified in

a personal contract that underpins receipt of the youth allowance. This

should treat young people as individuals, rather than administering

standardised ‘doses’ of support based on benefit category.

48. The youth guarantee would ensure that young people can complete their

initial education and gain practical employability skills, while not drifting into

inactivity. To pay for this substantial expansion of provision for young

people, expenditure on 18–24-year-olds in the Work Programme should be

re-directed, along with adult skills and apprenticeship funding for over-24s.

In addition, parents’ entitlement to child benefit and child tax credit should

cease at the end of the school year after their child has turned 18.

49. To ensure that the youth allowance is successful in promoting participation

in meaningful activity, Cooke argues that it must underpin good-quality

learning and earning opportunities for young people. Therefore

responsibility is placed on training providers as well as the young people

themselves.

50. Under such a system, the clear offer to young people should be advice and

guidance from day one, with learning or work guaranteed within six

months. In return, the obligation on young people should be to participate

meaningfully or forfeit entitlement to the youth allowance. The path for

young people within the youth guarantee should depend on their own

circumstances and be agreed with a personal adviser, guided by a set of

broad principles.

51. Once young people are over 21, the focus should shift strongly towards

labour market entry, with any learning directly related to a specific

occupational pathway or job opportunity. Work trials with employers;

support to become self-employed or to start a business should also be

made available. If young people are not learning or earning after six

months, they should be provided with up to six months of paid work

experience or a paid traineeship. There would be no option to refuse and

continue receiving youth allowance.

52. This would require a dramatic increase in the number of good-quality

apprenticeships, in both the private and public sectors. This means that

employers must also recognise their role in the reduction of NEETs

and the development of young people. Indeed Cooke strongly

emphasises this point by putting considerable responsibility on employers

in these reforms. He argues that to increase opportunity and drive

employer engagement, large firms that do not offer apprenticeships for

young people should pay a ‘youth levy’ to train and prepare the future

workforce. The levy would be in proportion to a company’s size, and

resources raised should be controlled by employers, via Local Employment

Partnerships (LEPs) and used to fund vocational training and

apprenticeships, potentially focused on supporting smaller firms. These

moves should be combined with a major drive to ensure that all large

public sector employers offer good-quality apprenticeships for young

people.

53. Under such a system, employers would not only have obligations in this

relationship. As an incentive to provide apprenticeships and placements,

Cooke argues that employers should be central to the governing and

commissioning of the youth guarantee. They could then oversee the type

and standard of training available and help commission where there are

local gaps in training needs. This could create an incentive for employers

to actively engage in school-to-work transition arrangements in their area

to gain further knowledge of the type of skills being taught and the offers

available to local young people.

Reform 3 - Local solutions

54. Cooke’s final reform would see the government setting national objectives

and priorities for the youth guarantee, but the leadership of local areas

being responsible for the organisation and delivery of it. He argues that

cities should establish strong governance arrangements, including a

central role for employers, along with plans for commissioning a diverse

network of local providers.

55. The personal adviser model should be paramount and data on

performance against headline national objectives should be regularly

published. There is also the need to overcome the gap between the

employment and education sectors for young people, rather than trying to

work around it.

56. Therefore, the ambition should be the mobilisation of local areas to take

responsibility for supporting their young people, within agreed national

goals for the youth guarantee. This would make it possible to bring

together all those with a stake in supporting young people in that area and

to bridge institutional divides between employment support and further

education provision in particular parts of the country.

57. Cooke observes that many local areas have recently taken the initiative in

responding to rising youth unemployment. A number have established

apprenticeship agencies, youth employment commissions or intermediate

labour market programmes to support their young people. There is

evidence of a real appetite to act on this issue within local government, as

well as the foundations of new local institutional arrangements.

58. Governance arrangements should reach across traditional service and

professional boundaries, with local authorities, employers, colleges,

welfare-to-work providers, trade unions and young people themselves

represented. Within this, clear lines of executive decision-making,

responsibility and accountability would need to be agreed, with local

authorities, employers (ideally via the Local Enterprise Partnerships) and

young people in the lead.

59. They should also cultivate and engage with a diverse base of provider

organisations, enabling them to commission a range of educational

provision and back-to-work support, as well as linking in other statutory

funding and services. This should include more specialist organisations,

such as those working with young people who face substance abuse,

housing, debt or mental health problems. Local areas should also develop

‘shadow’ school-to-work transition institutions – led by local authorities and

engaging employers via the LEP – to advise on or co-commission this

provision.

60. A key goal of these reforms should be to improve the quality of further

education and apprenticeships, building on moves already underway.

Apprenticeships should be restricted to new hires that are working towards

a recognised qualification, with substantial off-the-job learning (increasingly

over a minimum of two years and at level 3). A reformed school-to-work

transition system should also develop proactive strategies for engaging

with young people identified as at risk of becoming NEET when they leave

school or college.

Key Themes from the reports:

61. The three reports summarized above all look at similar issues from a

different geographical perspective. The first was an in depth study into

partnership working relating to 14 – 19 pathways in London. The second

was an exploration of the issues facing NEETs across the Europe. The

third explored potential solutions to NEETs in the UK through considerable

reform. However, despite their different perspectives and foci, there are

definite themes which emerge across all of the reports which the panel

may wish to consider when exploring the partnership issues in Cardiff.

These are summarised below:

The importance of Information

62. All of the reports emphasise the importance of information in addressing

the NEETs issue. This is in respect of collating the right information,

sharing information between partners and analysing information to shape

provisions. Some of the key areas highlighted from the reports were:

The importance of sharing information on good practice, across

Europe, the UK and in local areas.

Providing effective information to young people on the opportunities

available locally as well as the skills required for the jobs they have an

interest in.

Having accurate data on employment trends across Europe,

nationally and locally so that young people can assess which

professions / skills might be most appropriate.

Sharing information about a young person throughout their education

and employment journey, from school, to college, through careers, JCP

etc to allow for a individual informed support based on need.

All organisations being aware of what provisions are aware to support

young people locally.

63. Importantly the reports not only underline the importance of data, but also

that this data needs to be analysed and actions taken as a result of that

work. Eg training providers developing courses resulting from skills

analysis data. Provisions being commissioned / de commissioned resulting

from the analysis of local geographical provisions.

Key workers

64. This issue was covered in the literature review provided for the last

meeting so there is more detail provided in that briefing paper. However

the latest reports also emphasise the role of having a key or lead worker

who the young person sees as a first point of contact for their development

needs. This is seen to help reduce the confusion that a young person may

have with a plethora of agencies providing support and training etc. Indeed

greater emphasis is put on a key worker to help devise a training /

development / employment plan which the young people can agree to

which is tailored to their individual needs.

Carrot and stick approach

65. The literature also appears to emphasise the importance of giving young

people the right and expectation of having appropriate provisions for

training, development and employment. However there is also a

recognition that young people themselves have obligations and

responsibilities to engage and be pro active in the process. There is

therefore a suggestion that more funds should be made available to

provide appropriate support for young people, but also that those young

people who do not engage in the process should not be entitled to those

monies.

66. This approach is not only applied to young people. There are also

suggestions that employers should have the right to a workforce of

appropriately skilled young people. However the literature also emphasises

that employers should not be passive participants expecting the right

people to just arrive. Rather employers need to be involved in trying to

shape training and education and working with schools and further

education institutions to ensure young people are skilled in the right areas.

Furthermore there is an emphasis on employers to provide more

apprenticeships and development opportunities and even a suggestion of

a levy for those who don’t.

Partnership working

67. The importance of all agencies and organisations involved in the NEET

agenda working together is something which is paramount throughout all

of the literature. Due to the scale and the nature of the different issues

involved, all of the authors recognise the need for European, national and

local governments to work with education providers, the third sector,

employers, young people and other relevant groups and agencies to

address the issues. This is again an area which was highlighted in the

previous literature but was reinforced in these latest reports. Indeed the

issue of the right partners communicating effectively really stands out from

these reports. Effective communication is key, and the feeling that

employers, education providers and young people often operate in a

parallel universe, really needs to be addressed.

Opportunities and obligations

68. One of the key themes from the literature is that the NEETs issue is not the

responsibility of any one group or agency. People cannot just sit back and

expect someone else to solve the problem. Rather everyone has to take

responsibility and play a part in helping to solve this cross cutting issue. In

fact much of the literature emphasises that many partners have certain

opportunities in relation to the issue, but alongside these opportunities

come responsibilities and obligations. Some examples the potential

opportunities and obligations are listed below. It might be useful for the

Panel to consider if they agree with these and, if so, how they could be

developed in the Cardiff context. The Panel may also think of further

groups who need to be involved and what their opportunities and

obligations may be.

Employers

Should have the opportunity to have a skilled workforce who can meet

their needs.

Should be able to grow to provide jobs to young people.

Should be involved in identifying skills gaps in young people currently

trying to access work.

Could help shape provision of education and courses to meet skills gaps.

Could provide more apprenticeships / work placement opportunities.

Could commission skills providers if in charge of funds or guide provision

of skills if consulted.

Local government

Can provide information and figures on local provisions.

Can commission services to help meet skills gaps.

Should help coordinate the provision of services to young people.

Can help monitor and feedback.

National Government

Can expect the vast majority of young people to be earning or learning.

Can reform welfare payments for young people to provide a more

‘carrot and stick’ approach ie paying to provide appropriate support but

reducing payments to those who refuse support.

Can monitor national statistics and set national targets.

Can reduce bureaucracy and central control.

Can empower local organisations to deliver against national targets

Can try and change perceptions of vocational courses / training so they

are viewed in the same light as university.

Further Education providers

Can expect young people to have the relevant skills to access courses.

Should ensure they are providing courses which are relevant to

employers.

Can work with local employers to ensure they are providing the right

areas of skills that are required.

Careers service

Could be the lead worker for the majority of young people tailoring

appropriate development plans depending on individual needs.

Can expect young people to engage and want to know the employment

/ training opportunities available to them.

Can provide advice on local training and apprenticeship opportunities.

Can provide information on the types of skills / qualifications required

for certain jobs.

Can feed information on local employment opportunities into schools

and to young people directly.

Job Centre Plus

Can provide information on the current trends in employment.

Can monitor young people past the age of 18 and take on the lead

responsibility for a young person past that age.

Should be aware of all the training the employment opportunities

available for young people in an area.

Should provide appropriate individual support dependant on need.

Young People

Should have the expectation to be either earning or learning past the

age of 16.

Should not expect benefit payments without making efforts to be in

appropriate training or work.

Should be pro active and engaged in finding the skills and

requirements needed for work.

Should have the right to appropriate individual support depending on

circumstances.

Should be provided with relevant data about employment opportunities

in their area and beyond to help inform their career / development path.

The Third Sector

Should fill gaps in provision which have been identified by research or

through community knowledge.

Should provide high quality bespoke services which statutory agencies

either no longer supply or are now commissioning.

Should expect to be included in any strategic or commissioning

discussions around the NEET agenda.

Should expect to be suitably funded over a sustainable period to

provide stability to workers and young people alike.

Can look for external pots of funding to expand / improve service

delivery.

Can adapt and innovate to ensure young people are getting the best

possible provisions.

References

Cooke, G. (2013) - ‘No more NEETS’ – A Plan for all Young People to be

Earning or Learning – Institute of Public Policy Research -

http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/11516/no-more-neets-a-plan-for-all-young-

people-to-be-learning-or-earning

Hodgson, A; Spours, K. (2013) - Rebuilding and extending 14-19 partnership

working in London to improve participation, progression and transition for

young people - http://www.ioe.ac.uk/14-19_partnership_report_Final_22-5-

13.pdf

Mourshed, M; Patel, J; Suder; K. (2014) - Education to Employment: Getting

Europe’s Youth Back Into Work -

http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/Social_Sector/Converting_education_to_e

mployment_in_Europe?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1401

Welsh Government (2013) – Youth Engagement and Progression Framework

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/skillsandtraining/youthengageme

nt/?lang=en

Appendix A – Analytical Grid for mapping 14 – 19 partnership organisation activity

Partnership organization

Low Medium High

1. Partnership history/background

Weak partnership history – affected by increased competition

History of partnership but not developing in the new context

History of partnership & reshaped in the current policy context

2. Structure No main partnership, but some groups

14-19 partnership but undeveloped infrastructure

Developed 14-19 partnership with working groups

3. Leadership No designated 14-19 lead person

14-19 lead but with diverse responsibilities

Dedicated 14-19 lead & team

4. Seniority of membership

Senior managers not represented on 14-19 partnership

Limited senior management participation

Senior managers playing an active part in all aspects of partnership

5. Meetings, communication & decision-making

Infrequent meetings, information sharing

Regular scheduled meetings – primarily discussions

Calendar of meetings – info sharing, discussions and decision-making

6. Role of local authority LA taking hands off stance towards 14-19 with little support from institutions

LA supportive but having to scale back on 14-19 – varied institutional support

Proactive LA & actively supporting 14-19 agenda with institutional buy-in

7. Range & commitment of partners (e.g. schools, colleges, WBL providers, employers, HE, Connexions, LA, regeneration agencies)

Limited involvement from all partners

All education providers involved but not all wider stakeholders

All relevant partners involved

8. Mission and purposes

No clearly defined mission and purposes

Mission & purposes defined but not driving partnership actions

Mission & purposes regularly reviewed and guiding actions

9. Focus/breadth of collaboration

Limited focus (e.g. RPA, CEIAG, NEETs) linked to national agendas

Mainly focused on national policy, limited local agenda

Comprehensive focus linked to national and local agendas

10. Strategic planning and future direction

No systematic strategic planning

Strategic planning in some areas (e.g. NEETs)

Comprehensive short, medium and long-term planning

11. Working collaboratively beyond borough boundaries

Focus purely on borough agendas

Limited collaboration beyond borough boundaries

Extensive collaboration at sub-regional, regional and national levels

Partnership activity

Low Medium High

1. Information sharing forum

Irregular events around national policy priorities

Attempts to look at how national policy impact s on local practice

Regular updates and discussion re: national, local & regional agendas

2. Data sharing

No data sharing Data sharing without the use of institutional names or joint action

Extensive transparent institutional data sharing leading to decision-making

3. RPA Limited to discussion and strategies for NEET reduction

RPA regarded as important driver of 14-19 partnership and emerging broader RPA agenda

Expansive concept of RPA linked to improving provision, progression and transition for all groups

4. CEIAG No real discussion & outsourced

CEIAG discussion but varied practice

CEIAG network & agreement/joint work & guarantees for young people

5. Shared course information/prospectus

No shared course information or prospectus

Limited joint information used by some providers

Openly supported & promoted 14-19 course information & prospectus

6. NEETs

Limited to statutory requirements in this area

Local collaborative NEETs strategy emerging

Creative strategy for tackling NEETs improving provision, progression and transition for all groups

7. Shared 14-19 provision & curriculum development

No shared provision or joint curriculum development

Some shared provision in particular areas

Extensive 14-19 shared provision & associated curriculum development

8. LLDD/SEN/ looked after children/inclusion

Limited to statutory requirements in this area

Some joint in the inclusion area

Creative strategy for inclusion based on 14-19 collaborative working

9. Work experience/work related learning

No joint work-related activity - left to individual institutions

Work-related activity for some learners/progammes only

Work experience & work-related learning as entitlement for all 14-19 year olds

10. Vocational provision & Apprenticeships

No discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship

Discussion of vocational provision & apprenticeship but no joint action

Collaborative strategy for building vocational provision & apprenticeship

11. Progression to HE

Discussion of HE progression limited to individual providers

Limited number of partnership links with HE providers

Collaborative strategy for supporting progression to HE

12. Economic development & regeneration

No economic development agenda

Some economic information in connection with 14-19 agenda

Clear relationship between 14-19 provision and local economic development agenda and agencies

13. Introducing new providers

No discussion of introduction and role of new providers

Consideration of possible new providers in the local area

Active collaborative strategy for new providers as part of the partnership

14. Quality assurance & peer-to-peer support

Not considered part of 14-19 partnership working

Some quality assurance and peer-to-peer support around particular areas of need

An active and formal quality assurance system involving peer-to-peer support

15. CPD and staff development

No joint CPD/staff development activities

Some joint CPD activities

Joint 14-19 CPD programme

16. Shared resources (e.g. website)

No shared resources Shared resources in one or more areas

Shared resources in a number of areas (e.g. staffing, website & facilities)