Select Committee on Education and Employment Fifth Report


Delivering New Deal

The Gateway

  43. One particular feature of the New Deal programme, which we have commented on before, has been the commitment to continuing evaluation and continuous improvement.[81] The Gateway in particular has been adapted in response to experience and evaluation. For instance, the Minister estimated that around 40 per cent of those entering the Gateway had numeracy and literacy skills which affected their employability.[82] Feedback from employers indicates that, particularly in the early days of the programme, a number of the clients referred to them were unemployable as they did not have adequate basic skills.[83] A very significant gap between employer needs and what was available from the New Deal network was a problem that had to be addressed.[84] Many employers also criticised the level of bureaucratic paperwork required. NDYP participants are now required to a attend a two-week course, beginning in the fifth week of the programme, which aims to provide them with the skills required to present themselves to employers effectively. From July 1999, the fourth month of the Gateway was made more intensive for all participants who reached that stage of the programme. The 1999 Budget allocated funds for 12 Intensive Gateway pilots which started in August 1999 and which have since been extended nationwide.

44. The Minister told us that she wanted every New Deal participant to leave the programme numerate and literate.[85] The Employment Service accepts there is still room for improvement in its performance in terms of identifying those with a basic skills need.[86] The ES has introduced a range of measures designed to achieve this, such as the development of a 'client progress grid' which helps personal advisers identify those who are likely to have difficulty with reading, writing or arithmetic.[87] We welcome the range of additional measures that have been introduced to help personal advisers identify those NDYP participants with inadequate basic skills and to help participants reach higher standards of numeracy and literacy. The drive towards increasing the basic skills levels of job seekers will become more important as the hardest to help become an increasingly large proportion of the New Deal client group.

45. It is nevertheless important not to focus attention solely on basic skills levels. Professor Millar told the Sub-committee that "in the New Deal for Lone Parents, for example, some people were very frustrated when they came into the programme to find that they could not develop skills, that they were not able to take longer training programmes, that they were not able to go for higher education and higher skills".[88] New Deal participants should be equipped with the skills that will enable them to sustain long-term employment and career progression. Basic numeracy and literacy will not always suffice. The development of basic skills is important, but it should be matched by a recognition of the diversity of the New Deal client base and the need to develop higher skills which may be required for job retention and career progression.

The role of personal advisers

  46. There is widespread agreement that the introduction of personal advisers (PAs), providing tailored, individual advice, and the relationships that they develop with New Deal participants has one of the successes of New Deal.[89] There is however some evidence to suggest that performance can vary considerably. The Association of Colleges told the Sub-committee that it was aware of cases where personal advisers lacked an adequate understanding of the nature of training courses and qualifications;[90] the Black Training and Enterprise Group stated that PAs had inadequate training on racial equality;[91] and Tomorrow's People contested that too many lacked the skills and commitment required, which led to inappropriate referrals to New Deal providers.[92]

47. We also heard some concerns that personal advisers' effectiveness was reduced by heavy caseloads.[93] The caseload of personal advisers varies between 40 and 90 clients and the intensity of contact with each is dependent on the personal adviser's assessment of the client's needs. The Minister told us that there was no evidence that personal advisers' caseloads were increasing.[94] There has also been a high level of turnover among personal advisers.[95] The effects of high turnover rates have been compounded by the fact that, upon promotion within the Employment Service, PAs have ceased to undertake case work.

48. Towards the end of 2000, the ES introduced the post of Senior Adviser. Those promoted to the post of Senior Adviser will continue to undertake case work but will assume additional responsibilities including a mentoring role with other personal advisers. There are already 50 Senior Adviser posts in existence and it is planned that by the end of 2001 there will be nationwide coverage.[96] We welcome the introduction of the post of Senior Adviser, which should help the Employment Service to retain its best staff, train its junior personal advisers and minimise the effect of promotion on the relationships between personal advisers and their clients. The impact of Senior Advisers in these areas should be closely monitored and other measures to increase continuity should be brought forward if required.

49. The need for all personal advisers to be equipped with an appropriate range of skills and scope of understanding will be intensified as the proportion of clients with multiple and intractable problems increases. Nevertheless, the ES, and personal advisers in particular, should not and could not seek to provide the entire range of social or personal services that New Deal participants may require. Mr Paul Convery, the Director of The Unemployment Unit and Youthaid, drew an analogy between personal advisers and general medical practitioners, with personal advisers equipped with a range of diagnostic tools and skills and a thorough understanding of a wide range of external agencies and organisations to which clients with particular problems could be referred for specialist assistance.[97] Other witnesses stressed the importance of the ES making full use of external specialist organisations.[98] We believe that the model of general medical practitioners for personal advisers is a valuable one. We recommend that the Government should consider developing the role of personal advisers on this basis.

The ES and relations with employers

  50. A number of witnesses stressed the need for personal advisers to develop stronger relationships with employers if they were to increase the proportion of clients placed into sustained employment. Mr Convery told us that "a long-term account management or case managed approach to employers is essential".[99] This is in practice the approach which the ES is already developing. One of its four key commitments to employers is that, whenever they place a vacancy with the ES, they are given a named contact who will act as their point of contact until the vacancy is filled. Indeed at a national level the Employment Service has adopted an account management approach so that major employers have a single point of contact for all their national, regional and local recruitment needs. Mr Lewis acknowledged that performance across ES offices could vary and that the ES needs to ensure that best practice was applied universally. We welcome the Employment Service's determination to adopt an account management approach to its relationships with employers. This is consistent with an earlier recommendation we made that the Employment Service should continue its development into a demand-led service and strengthen the service it provides to employers.[100] We accept, as does the Employment Service, that it has not yet achieved its potential in terms of relations with employers.

Options: hierarchy

  51. At the end of November 2000, 33 per cent of NDYP participants were on one of the four options (the remainder were either in the Gateway (48 per cent) or in the follow through phase (19 per cent). Of those, 44 per cent were in Full-time Education or Training (FTET), 21 per cent were on the Voluntary Sector option, 19 per cent on the ETF and 16 per cent on the Employment option.[101]

52. In 1997 the then Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, Mr Andrew Smith MP, told the Sub-committee that it would be "wrong if any ... hierarchy emerged" between the options[102] and we stated at that time our belief that it was important that the Voluntary Sector and ETF options should not be perceived as inferior.[103] There is little doubt however that such a hierarchy has emerged. Professor Millar identified a "clear hierarchy of popularity".[104] She told the Sub-committee that "for young people, ... they want the jobs and they want the skills, ... so the employment option is the most popular. The Full-time Education and Training option is also a popular option. The environmental and voluntary are less popular and I think that is because they are less seen as imparting work skills that employers are going to want". Groundwork UK, one of the major providers of the ETF option, told the Sub-committee that "the ETF is seen by many people as the last resort, only to be considered when it becomes obvious that a job seeker cannot be placed with an employer or into further education or training".[105]

Referral to options

  53. The process for referral to one of the options for those who reach the end of the Gateway differs depending on whether or not the client has decided on a preferred option. During the Gateway, participants may join option tasters and have pre-referral interviews with option providers to explore the possibilities. For those who have not made a decision at the end of the four month period, their personal adviser will decide which option is most appropriate and make a compulsory referral. Professor Millar told the Sub-committee that referral to one of the options was one of the most problematic aspects and the point at which participants reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction because they failed to get a place on their preferred option, because they had been insufficiently involved in the decision-making process or because they felt that they had not had enough time to explore the choices.[106] Perhaps as a consequence, it is also the point at which dissatisfied participants were most likely to leave the programme. Little seems to be known about the practice and implications of mandatory referrals, other than that they are disproportionately used in relation to the ETF, although it is hard not to make connections between the profile of mandatory referrals, the high level of participants who leave NDYP at the end of the Gateway, and the emerging hierarchy of popularity between options. We recommend that the Government should thoroughly examine the impact of mandatory referrals on both the motivation and subsequent success of participants, and on the effectiveness of the options themselves.


  54. Benefit sanctions—the total withdrawal of the means to live for a short period—can be imposed on New Deal participants who do not meet their obligations or otherwise misbehave. In practice, however, only a small proportion of participants are sanctioned. The latest figures indicate that some 4,519 sanctions were imposed on young people in relation to New Deal options between July and September 2000, roughly 1,500 a month.[107] The proportion sanctioned in the ETF is almost twice as high as that in any other option. Three out of five of the sanctions imposed for the ETF are for people who have declined to enter the option; in contrast, 58 per cent of the sanctions imposed on participants in the FTET option resulted from voluntarily leaving the option or misbehaviour. This tends to confirm the suggestion the ETF is seen as the option of last resort. Only six per cent of those on the employment option incur sanctions. As New Deal succeeds in helping into employment those who are most job-ready and those who are hardest to help become an increasingly large proportion of New Deal participants, the application of sanctions will increase if the current criteria are maintained. Mr Adebowale said that this could undermine efforts to reach the hardest to help, particularly those already suspicious of Government schemes.[108] Although the benefit sanction is infrequently applied, it must be recognised as an important factor in encouraging unemployed people back into the employment market. We recommend that the Government should monitor closely the frequency with which sanctions are imposed and examine the consequences of the threat of sanctions.

55. The figures on the frequency of sanction imposition also reveal a wide geographical variation. In the West Midlands 18 per cent of option participants were sanctioned between July and September 2000 compared to only eight per cent in London. The Unemployment Unit and Youth Aid believe that these differences "have no relation to New Deal job entry rates or to other identifiable factors".[109] The implication therefore is that such variation is the result of different practices on the part of the Employment Service from region to region. This is not an acceptable basis on which to determine whether or not a New Deal participant should be sanctioned. We recommend that the Government should examine the reasons for the regional variation in the frequency of sanction imposition and should ensure that sanction criteria are applied uniformly by the Employment Service.

56. Mr Adebowale drew the Sub-committee's attention to cases where a sanction on income support had affected a recipient's housing benefit.[110] We note that the ES and the Department for Social Security have issued further guidance in this area but Mr Adebowale remained concerned that there would be further instances.[111] He also pointed out that lack of clarity between income support and housing benefit made NDYP too much of a risk for some young people.[112] The Government should ensure that there is not a single further instance income support sanctions affecting the receipt of housing benefit. Being made homeless is too strong a sanction for non-participation in New Deal.

Employment option: public sector participation

  57. With the creditworthy exception of the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), Government departments' record in employing NDYP participants has been disappointingly poor. By October 1999, only 675 NDYP participants had been employed in the Civil Service and over half—63 per cent—of the these had joined the DfEE.[113] Early in 2000 the Minister told the Sub-committee that some of the obstacles which departments faced in recruiting people from NDYP were being addressed and that performance would be kept under review. A development forum has now been established to improve the spread of best practice in Government Departments and the ES's Large Organisations Unit has worked with 20 Departments to improve the quality of management information available on unidentified unsubsidised job starts. There has been some improvement in performance: recent figures indicate that some 3,840 civil service job openings had been taken up by New Deal clients.[114]

58. In its response to our last Report on NDYP the Government stated that the proportion of all civil service opportunities filled by New Deal clients had increased from 1.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2000 to 1.3 per cent in the third quarter, but this is still some way from the Government's own target of two per cent.[115] The DfEE and the Employment Service itself continue to outstrip all other Departments. Of the 3,840 New Deal clients who entered the Civil Service up to October 2000, 2,182 joined the DfEE and the Employment Service. While we acknowledge the commitment of the DfEE and the Employment Service to the recruitment of New Deal candidates, we remain extremely disappointed that other Government Departments and agencies have remained so apparently unwilling to recruit New Deal candidates, despite the efforts of the DfEE to encourage them to do so. We recommend that the DfEE should bring forward proposals indicating how the Government intends to reach the two per cent target across the Civil Service.

Full-time education and training option

  59. Although robust data are not available, it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of the 90,000 young people who have entered the FTET option since NDYP was launched have been provided for in further education (FE) colleges, together with a smaller proportion of the 120,000 who have entered other options.[116] Even so, New Deal participants make up only a small proportion of the four million or so students that enter FE colleges each year. Inspections by the Training Standards Council indicate that the quality of FTET provision is generally lower than the average for other options, although as the Association of Colleges (AOC) pointed out, "it is not possible to isolate data on the quality of the college contribution given the multiplicity of providers for this option in most areas".[117] Fewer than 20 per cent of those entering the option achieve the qualification for which they were aiming, 45 per cent complete a course and obtain a qualification, and a lower proportion of leavers from the FTET option enter employment than those leaving from other options.[118] There are colleges where the success rates for those on New Deal are much higher than the national average, such as Lewisham College in South London which achieves 72 per cent retention and 40 per cent on the FTET option obtain NVQ level 2 qualifications.[119] This not only means that there must be colleges where performance is significantly lower than the national average but also that there is potential for huge improvement in some areas. There is a strong case for increasing the spread of best practice in the provision of the FTET option.

60. Certain aspects of the New Deal's design appear to be problematic for education and training providers. The Association of Colleges argued strongly for the need for greater flexibility in the provision of the FTET option, allowing learning programmes and time scales to be tailored to individual need: "if somebody was nearly there but the money or time ran out and we could negotiate an extra month, if somebody needed an extra month before they went into employment and that would help them have sustainable employment, then we ought to be able to try to negotiate that".[120] In addition, many providers are concerned by the quality of referrals to the FTET option. Research shows that clients entering the FTET option were too often unprepared and the option was experiencing high drop-out rates, with poor records of attendance.[121] Many New Deal participants also felt that they were given inappropriate placements, with insufficient workplace experience. There is a concern that the introduction of the core performance indicators in Autumn 1998 has resulted in a refocusing of attention on jobs.[122] Although the number and level of qualifications achieved by New Deal participants is a core performance measure it is swamped by the job-related performance measures. The Minister told us that she would like to see greater flexibility in the way in which courses are delivered.[123] We recommend that greater flexibility should be permitted with the FTET option, to allow colleges to tailor courses and learning programmes to individual student needs.

61. One particular aspect of New Deal that concerns FTET providers is the funding arrangements. New Deal providers were initially invited to propose prices as part of the bidding process for NDYP provision but, in the case of FTET providers, indicative price bands were determined in advance by the ES. These bands were based on the assumption that it would only be necessary for the ES to pay the marginal costs of provision, as those taking the FTET option would be occupying otherwise empty places on pre-existing courses, a practice known as in-filling. The AOC told the Sub-committee that in practice the actual costs accruing to the colleges have been much higher, partly because no account had been taken of the need to provide supervision for 30 hours a week (more than the requirement for most students attending FE colleges), the additional burden imposed by dealing with personal problems or the need to provide services at times when courses are otherwise closed.[124] It called for harmonisation of the prices paid by the ES and the Further Education Funding Council (or by the Learning and Skills Council when that takes over the FEFC's responsibilities). The need for this was acknowledged by the DfEE in Learning to Succeed: Post-16 Funding and Allocations, First and Second Technical Consultation Papers.[125] The Government has agreed to increase the funding available to FE colleges in respect of New Deal provision by 15.9 per cent over the next two years.[126] We welcome the Government's decision to increase the funding limits for FE colleges in respect of New Deal provision. We recommend that consideration should be given to funding New Deal participants on a par with those FE students supported by the Learning and Skills Council.

Voluntary sector option and environmental task force option

  62. Approximately a third of all leavers from the voluntary sector option and the ETF enter unsubsidised employment.[127] These options have been less popular with clients than either the employment or full-time education and training option. Many participants continue to look for work during their option.[128] We have previously called for the greater use of intermediate labour markets within the provision of the ETF in particular.[129] We welcome the Government's commitment to achieving this.[130] We also welcome the fact that, following the last contracting round, a proportion of the payments to providers will be dependent on ETF participants gaining employment. The impact of this measure on participants' job retention should be closely monitored and the concept should be extended if it proves successful.

Leavers to unknown destinations

  63. The destinations of some 30 per cent of the 470,000 thousand who had left NDYP up to end of November 2000 are unknown and the proportion of those leaving for unknown destinations has increased since the inception of the programme.[131] A survey commissioned by the Employment Service and published in January 2001 revealed that "56 per cent of participants entered employment on leaving the programme. This is identical to the figure for those leaving to known destinations in during May to October 1999". The Report on the survey concluded that "Therefore it appears that unknown destinations do not reflect a lack of success for New Deal in helping participants to find employment".[132] Similarly, an earlier study by the National Centre for Social Research suggested that the profile of New Deal leavers to unknown destinations was similar to that of other participants in the programme—it reported that 57 per cent of leavers to unknown destinations entered work.[133] The Minister said that "what the survey has shown is that we have almost certainly undercounted the number going into jobs by about 75,000".[134]

64. The fact that the destinations of almost a third of all leavers from NDYP is still unknown is regrettable as it not only undermines any evaluation of New Deal but also compromises the development of future policy. Sixty-five per cent of those responding to the survey said that they had told the Employment Service their reasons for leaving the programme. Mr Lewis, Chief Executive of the Employment Service, was asked whether this indicated a problem with the Employment Service's record keeping.[135] He accepted that there were occasions when it may be that the participant had told the Employment Service why there were leaving the programme, but that information systems had "simply not been good enough to capture the information", and indicated a range of measures that the ES were implementing to try to improve.[136] We welcome the Government's and the Employment Service's efforts to determine the profile of destinations of those who are recorded as leaving for unknown destinations.

Follow through

  65. Approximately a third of those leaving NDYP during the follow-through stage enter employment. Roughly ten per cent return to benefits.[137] We have highlighted in earlier Reports the weakness in the follow-through period, such as a lack of contact with personal advisers. Mr Convery said that "there is something about follow through which lacks the pace and purpose that really should be there. There is a feeling that it there for people who have somehow failed ... there is a remedial character to their period on follow-through".[138]

66. We are concerned by suggestions that there is a hard-core of NDYP participants who are 'recycled' through NDYP, especially when taking into account the effect that repeated re-entry to New Deal may have on a young person's motivation to succeed and confidence in the programme to deliver.[139] We are also aware that it would be a better use of resources to identify and resolve a clients difficulties at an earlier stage in the programme. We note that the focus of the Government's attention to date has been on developing and improving the Gateway and the options. The Minister told us that the Government had been "examining the effectiveness of the Follow-through and will ensure that examples of good practice are disseminated throughout the Employment Service. Improvements to the operation of the Follow-through will also be developed as part of our overall work to improve the New Deal".[140] We welcome the Government's intention to improve the effectiveness of the follow-through period. We recommend that this aspect of NDYP reform should be undertaken with some urgency.

Helping the most disadvantaged into work

  67. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Rt Hon. David Blunkett MP, has said that one of the five priority areas for the next phase of New Deal will be to provide help and support for those who remain far removed from the world of work.[141] This intention can be seen reflected in the expansion of New Deal for Disabled People and the restructuring of New Deal for the long-term unemployed, both announced in the Chancellors of the Exchequer's pre-budget statement in November 2000.[142] Several witnesses told the Sub-committee that a similar shift in emphasis would be required for NDYP.[143]

68. Early sections of this report demonstrate that NDYP has been effective in helping young unemployed people into work. It is inevitable, and thus no criticism of the programme, that in it's early days, this would be achieved by helping those nearest to employment into work. As a consequence, those who are hardest to help, and furthest removed from the world of work, will form an increasingly large proportion of the NDYP client group. As the New Deal Task Force acknowledged, "people do not fit into neat, tightly defined categories, so it is difficult to produce a precise definition" of who we mean by the hardest to help.[144] Typically they are either severely disadvantaged through homelessness, drug or alcohol dependency or mental health or behavioural problems for instance, or they face multiple barriers to employment.

69. Mr Victor Adebowale, Chief Executive of Centrepoint, told the Sub-committee that there was "evidence to suggest that New Deal has not quite reached" those in the NDYP client group who are the hardest to help.[145] Centrepoint's own research from 1999 led it to conclude that "New Deal has by-passed those who are homeless. In the first year, homeless people should have accounted for one in six of all the young people in New Deal. In practice, this has not happened. We believe that only ten to 20 per cent of the eligible homeless population have entered the programme.".[146] A more recent survey undertaken among Centrepoint's residents indicated that only 25 per cent of those claiming JSA were on New Deal and that of those who had been claiming JSA for six months or more (ie those for whom NDYP participation is compulsory), only 33 per cent were taking part.[147]

70. Mr Adebowale accepted that NDYP, and the New Deal Task Force in particular, had done much to raise awareness of the problems experienced by disadvantaged young people, but that this had not always been followed by the resources and structures necessary to make "the essential difference".[148]

71. Assisting the hardest to help, who present a wide range of severe and sometimes multiple problems, into work is an ambitious challenge. The Minister told the Sub-committee that the Employment Service could not "become a multi-purpose agency helping unemployed people".[149] This, however, puts more emphasis on the need for the Employment Service to increase its capacity to collaborate with those specialist organisations which can provide appropriate services, advice and guidance to young people. As Mr Adebowale told the Sub-committee, disadvantaged young people are more likely to be known to the voluntary sector than to the Employment Service but there had not been enough recognition of the valuable role that the voluntary sector could play. He told the Sub-committee that "There is a fear somehow that if you give credibility to focussing resources in the most disadvantaged, people will either not take the programme seriously or these feckless sorts will somehow spend the money on something else or the very organisations which actually see these young people somehow are not competent to deal with the problem".[150] Mr Butt, of the Black Enterprise and Training Group, agreed.[151] In Scotland, Scottish Enterprise runs a New Futures Fund, which facilitates the development of long-term, continuous relationships between the voluntary sector with Scottish Enterprise over their work with disadvantaged young people. This could provide a model for development.

72. The Sub-committee was also concerned to hear of cases where the effectiveness of the voluntary sector's contribution to New Deal appeared to be compromised by the NDYP rigidity. For example, the YMCA told the Sub-committee that in some instances, its branches needed more time to work with clients than was possible under NDYP.[152] Similarly the Association of Colleges told the Sub-committee that, for those with the greatest disadvantages on the FTET option, greater flexibility in the "length, content and scope of the programme" was required, together with a "greater emphasis on the development of attributes which will secure long-term employment".[153] NDYP should become flexible enough to be able to respond to the needs of a diverse client group.

73. The YMCA also highlighted problems with funding for NDYP clients referred to voluntary sector organisations. It said that "in some cases funding problems have arisen as a result of YMCAs receiving fewer than expected New Deal referrals, or receiving them only sporadically. In addition YMCAs often have to subsidise the New Deal in order to make it work for the young people with whom it works".[154] Voluntary sector organisations should not be required to subsidise New Deal in order to make it effective. Referral of NDYP clients from the Employment Service to voluntary sector organisations should always be followed by adequate funding.

74. We recommend that the future development of NDYP should take account of the fact that those who are hardest to help will form an increasingly large proportion of the programme's client group. In Local and Regional Economic Development: Renegotiating Power under Labour, Professor Robert Bennett and Dr Diane Payne argue that a high proportion of the 43 per cent of young people and the 67 per cent of 25 year olds and over who leave the Gateway without informing the Employment Service are the longest-term unemployed, indicating the challenge for New Deal. The Employment Service will need to pay increasing attention to this group of clients. It should seek to identify quickly the particular barriers which a participant faces and make appropriate referrals to specialist organisations, many of which will be in the voluntary sector. The Employment Service should build its capacity to recognise difficulties and make appropriate referrals and its capacity to collaborate with external organisations. It is not acceptable for young unemployed people in the NDYP client group to be overlooked.

Helping the economically inactive

  75. It is likely that, by the time of the next general election, there will be less than a million people claiming JSA. In contrast, there are three quarters of a million people claiming incapacity benefit and half a million lone parents on income support who wish to work.[155] In addition there are many people who are economically inactive—that is, not working and not claiming benefit—who may wish to work. At present, all these groups of people are beyond of the scope of New Deal: eligibility for the programme is triggered by a claim for JSA. The Minister said that the next phase of New Deal would put an emphasis on reaching out to those who are currently economically inactive.[156] We welcome this and look forward to the Government bringing appropriate proposals forward.


76. While it is right that the principal measure of success for New Deal should be an increase in employment, many New Deal participants, especially in those areas with particularly tight labour markets, are inevitably those who are furthest from being job-ready. The principal success indicator for New Deal has been crude job entry—Core Performance Measure A. For those participants with the greatest difficulty, alternative indicators of achievement are required to measure their progress towards employability and to measure New Deal's effectiveness in increasing that employability but the importance of unsubsidised and sustained job figures should not be underestimated. A clear distinction between measures and targets should be promulgated throughout the Employment Service and New Deal providers. New Deal has had a positive outcome on employment for its participants. Measuring the extent of New Deal's impact on participants is dependent on comparisons with hypothetical scenarios, but those comparisons which have been done suggest that its impact is significant.

77. Measuring the cost of New Deal is a complex area. We welcome the Government's commitment to achieving value for money from the programme. We look forward to the publication of the National Audit Office's Value for Money Study which is due in July 2001. We note that, as the hardest to help become an increasing proportion of participants, costs can be expected to rise.

78. More efforts, and a different approach, are required to broaden the reach of New Deal to those who face the greatest barriers to employment. There needs to be greater emphasis on the client assessment and the identification of their needs at the outset of their participation, together with more individually tailored paths through training and work experience. The Employment Service should develop the post of personal adviser so that clients can be appropriately referred to any one of a broad range of specialist organisations for assistance and support.

81  New Deal for Young People: Two Years On, para. 7. Back

82  Ev. p. 62. Back

83  Q. 208. Back

84  Financial Times, 12 June 2000, reporting a comment from a Government official overseeing the New Deal made at a Franco-British Council Meeting. Back

85  Q. 205. Back

86  Q. 207. Back

87  Q. 207. Back

88  Q. 11. Back

89  See, for example, QQ. 1, 43, 150, 155, 199; Ev. pp. 10, 102, 106, 109, 124. Back

90  Ev. p. 64. Back

91  Q. 158. Back

92  Ev. p. 107. Back

93  Q. 158; Ev. p. 109. Back

94  Q. 199. Back

95  Q. 158; Ev. p. 110. Back

96  Q. 199. Back

97  Q. 158. Back

98  Q. 159. Back

99  Q. 158. Back

100  Third Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 2000-01, Recruiting Unemployed People, HC 58, para 44. Back

101  Statistical First Release, (SFR 4/2001), January 2001. Back

102  The New Deal, Q. 111. Back

103  The New Deal, para 30 Back

104  Keeping Track of Welfare Reform, p. 23. Back

105  Ev. p. 87. Back

106  Keeping Track of Welfare Reform, p. 23. Back

107  Working Brief, February 2001, p. 17. Back

108  Q. 154. Back

109  Working Brief, January 2001, p. 17. Back

110  Q. 154. Back

111  Q, 154. Back

112  Q. 154. Back

113  HC Deb, vol. 339, 18 November 1999, col 11W. Back

114  Working Brief, February 2001, p. 6. Back

115  Eighth Special Report, Session 1999-2000, The Government's Response to the Eighth Report from the Committee, New Deal for Young People: Two Years On, HC 969, para 13. Back

116  Statistical First Release, (SFR 4/2001), January 2001, p. 1. Back

117  Ev. p. 8. Back

118  Ev. p. 8; Core Performance Measure H, period ending April 2000. Back

119  QQ. 34-6. Back

120  QQ. 32-8. Back

121  New Deal for Young Unemployed People: National Case Studies of Delivery and Impact, ESR 30, November 1999, p. 47-59. Back

122  Ev. p. 10. Back

123  Q. 215. Back

124  Ev. pp. 8-10. Back

125  January 2000, Back

126  Q. 52. Back

127  Statistical First Release, (SFR 4/2001), January 2001, table 11. Back

128  Keeping Track of Welfare Reform, p. 24. Back

129  New Deal for Young People: Two Years On, para 12. Back

130  Q. 210. Back

131  Statistical First Release, (SFR 4/2001), January 2001, table 11. Back

132  New Deal Survey of Leavers to Unknown Destinations, ORC International, January 2001, p. i. Back

133  New Deal for Young People: leavers to unknown destinations, ESR 21, June 1999. Back

134  Q. 194. Back

135  Q. 217. Back

136  Q. 217. Back

137  Statistical First Release, (SFR 4/2001), January 2001, Table 11. Back

138  Q. 164. Back

139  Ev. p. 121. Back

140  Eighth Special Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1999-2000, The Government's Response to the Eighth Report from the Committee, Session 1999-2000, New Deal for Young People: Two Years On, HC 969, para 11. Back

141  Working Brief, November 2000, p. 1. Back

142  HM Treasury, Pre-Budget Report: Building long-term prosperity for all, Cm 4917, November 2000, para 4.12-52. Back

143  See, for example, QQ. 1, 151, 153, 159; Ev. pp. 10, 111-115. Back

144  New Deal Task Force Working Group, Meeting the Needs of Disadvantaged Young People, November 1998, Executive Summary, p. 3. Back

145  Q. 151. Back

146  Centrepoint and Crisis Action Research, New Deal, Big Deal: The experience of homeless young people in the first year of the Government's New Deal, 1999, p. 1. Back

147  Q. 151; New Deal-Centrepoint snapshot survey (not printed). Back

148  Q. 178. Back

149  Q. 184. Back

150  Q. 178. Back

151  Q. 179. Back

152  Ev. p. 114. Back

153  Ev. p. 10. Back

154  Ev. p. 115. Back

155  Working Brief, November 2000, p. 1. Back

156  Q. 184. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 20 March 2001