16-19 Participation in education

Written Evidence Submitted by The Foyer Federation

About the Foyer Federation

1. For over a decade, the Foyer Federation has helped turn young people’s experiences of disadvantage into solutions that support their transition into adult independence.  We develop transformational programmes and campaigns that fill gaps in community services and inspire policy and decision makers to make a more effective investment in young people.  The direct experience of vulnerable young people and those working with them helps inform our understanding of the barriers facing young people and develop new approaches to overcome them. Until now, our work has largely been channelled through integrated learning and accommodation centres, known as Foyers. Foyers now operate in over 130 urban and rural communities across the UK, providing safe, quality assured environments, where experts reconnect vulnerable young people with personal development opportunities.

1.1 Evidence from across our network shows that the needs of young people are becoming ever more complex; crime and anti-social behaviour, poor health and well-being, low educational achievement, fears of worklessness and declining social mobility are as much a concern for young people now as street homelessness was in the 1990s. The challenge this poses for vulnerable young people is made even more acute by the present recession and, we believe, this demands a broader range of interventions to provide fairer access to the skills, resources, and opportunities that all young people are entitled to. It also requires a fundamental shift in policies and institutions to recognise the different stages of social development that cut across traditional markers of age and identity.

1.2 At the heart of everything we do is a belief that young people will only achieve their full potential when there is a fair exchange between their responsibilities to contribute and engage and society’s obligation to tailor services to their needs. For Foyers, this often means picking up the threads of a young person’s education, developing their skills for independence and encouraging greater resilience, and often includes rebuilding relationships, overcoming mental health issues and developing stronger confidence and self-belief.

Response

What impact the Education Maintenance Allowance has had on the participation, attendance, achievement and welfare of young people and how effective will be the Discretionary Learner Support Fund in replacing it]

2. The essence of the Foyer service does not lie in the range of provisions but in the concept of conditionality. With conditionality, there is a ‘something for something’ deal in which participation is paramount. It is the young person’s full participation in exchange for an integrated support package that helps to ensure a smooth transition from adolescence to independent adulthood. However, the extent to which a young person can fully engage in the ‘something for something’ deal in order to achieve transformational outcomes is heavily dependent upon the enabling resources available, such as the Education Maintenance Allowance [EMA].

2.1. There are a number of factors that must be taken into account as the EMA has frequently proven a critical life line for most vulnerable young people. The most important factor would be that the EMA support provides a financial incentive to attend learning and helps achieve the positive outcomes that are very much needed in order to reduce the social exclusion rate and enhance social mobility.

2.2. Case study from the UK Foyer Network 1: A young 17 year old residing at a YMCA in the North East is engaged in further education full time course. He is currently in receipt of £30 under the EMA which he is required to pay a weekly rent of £10.19, purchase food, electricity and pay for travelling expenses. Estranged from his family, the young person does not receive any other financial support and because he is under 18 years and studying full time, he is not entitled to claim Jobseekers Allowance nor Income Support.

2.3. Case Study from the UK Foyer Network 2: A 21 bed Foyer in the South East currently has 99% of their young people engaged in education, training and employment. Four current residents and one former resident furthered their aspirations by continuing to learn in higher education by attending university. One resident who had been involved in the criminal justice system since the age of 14 secured a youth volunteer placement through Oxfordshire County Council and is currently employed with the Foyer as a trainee Support Worker and a Project Worker elsewhere. The Foyer firmly believes that these young people would not have been able to achieve these positive outcomes without the support of the EMA provision.

2.4. Case Study from the UK Foyer Network 3: A Foyer in Yorkshire and Humberside provides an integrated support package for 26 young people, 13 of whom are current recipients of the EMA. Generally, young people living in the Foyer have £51 per week of which factors such as £10 rent contribution, £3 electricity, which leaves £38 for basics such as food, clothing, medicines, toiletries, cleaning products and sundries. The £30 EMA would generally cover the weekly £10 bus fare to college, supplies and food whilst in attendance at college. Providing an integrated support package involves Foyer staff focusing their efforts to help young people overcome their anger issues which can also act as a barrier to non participation in learning. So there is a high risk that young people who already lack the emotional resilience and face barriers to learning will not be committed to walk the 6 miles to attend college, should the EMA be withdrawn

2.5. One of our member housing associations who replied to our call for submissions states that it currently provides integrated supported lodgings for 90 young people throughout Hampshire including rural areas, and so the level of dependency on public transport is very high. Thus public transport is key for young people’s entry, and ability to sustain, education enabling entry into employment and training thereafter.

2.6. It is important to recognise the impact that the withdrawal of the EMA provision will have on service providers. The housing association who responded to our call for case studies is quite clear that some of their supported lodgings will only provide an integrated support service for those young people who are actively doing something to help themselves. Therefore there is a high risk that this housing association may see a decline in host families offering supported lodgings, and hence have fewer options to offer young people. EMA support also provides a financial incentive to engage and re-engage vulnerable young people as part of a family intervention scheme. Once the young people are engaged, aspirations are increased which in turn helps smooth the transition into independent adulthood. They also expressed concern that the demand for supported lodgings will increase as a result of a rise in the number of young people being evicted from their family home as their living costs become a burden on families.

2.7. The aforementioned points clearly demonstrate the important role of the EMA support in that it provides the basic means for young people to achieve their aspirations. We can only reiterate the simple but crucial argument that the EMA provision does not only provide a financial incentive, but more importantly, young people are often dependent upon this provision to support themselves, particular for those under the age of 18 who are living in supported accommodation and not recipients of other benefit streams.

2.8. There are concerns around the practical implementation of the Discretionary Learner Support Fund (DLSF) in that it may be offered as a loan and the learners living in Foyers already facing financial hardship would not be able to pay back a loan. This also raises the issue, particularly for vulnerable young people in supported accommodation, on whether they would have the confidence to make this application and to disclose their financial business as they may lack confidence to do so. The final point raised about Discretionary Learner Support is that the current application process means that payments are made in a lump sum, at a time some way into a learner’s college course. This means that the funds are not available at the crucial time when it is needed (for example, at the start of the course). Young people who are estranged from their families do not tend to have access to the necessary financial credit to make such an arrangement viable.

2.9. In short, the Foyer Federation strongly urges the Government to reconsider the withdrawal of the EMA provision for the following reasons:

· It provides a financial incentive to those marginalised and disaffected learners to engage or re-engage in mainstream learning

· It has a positive impact on learner self-esteem and motivation to achieve

· It contributes towards travel costs for those living in rural areas which is a significant factor in improving learner retention and achievement contributes

· It contributes towards essential living expenses for learners whoa re estranged from their families and living in supported accommodation

· There is a risk of youth homelessness increasing as a result of the loss of income for households with 16-18 year old learners, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

What preparations are necessary, for providers and local authorities, for the gradual raising of the participation age to 18 years and what is their current state of readiness

3. It is important for local authorities to take into consideration how the provision of learning for the 5, 10 or 15% of disengaged learners in any given area, for whom neither school nor the workplace will be a suitable environment for learning. Learning providers, particularly from the voluntary and community sector are well placed to provide innovative and personalised learning programmes for those who would otherwise be disengaged with mainstream learning provision. We would encourage local authorities to work in partnership with local providers, identifying both the needs of the local area and the level of resource and capacity building that would be required to ensure the successful delivery of the RPA offer for marginalised 16-18 year olds. It is crucial, therefore, for local authorities to open a dialogue with local providers and develop agreements on how the expertise and innovation of the learning providers is fully utilised in order to ensure transformational outcomes.

3.1. Local authorities must also take into account the existing barriers that face young people in accessing and retaining learning opportunities. Providers must identify what works best for particular groups as the formal setting of a classroom does not always ensure positive outcomes for everyone. Therefore it is important that the relationship between local authority, provider and commissioner is based on joint partnership working.

3.2. The Foyer Federation was a key partner in the Homeless Sector Pilot, a national project managed by the Learning Skills Council. The LSC had developed and delivered a ‘learning and skills’ offer that met the needs of the homelessness sector. The Foyer Federation’s involvement ensured that the qualification, the ‘Learning Power Award’ that was developed was also fit for purpose, for delivery in Foyers. The positive impact of such a programme is that Foyers, to this date continue to use the Award as the conduit for their learning and skills offer.

What impact raising the participation age will have on areas such as academic achievement, access to vocational education and training, student attendance and behaviour, and alternative provision.

4. We would advocate for a ‘two way deal’ between the provider and learner to ensure positive outcomes in that the learner has an opportunity to participate in the shaping of services. It would be extremely valuable for commissioners to take this into consideration when drawing up the specifications for raising the participation age provision which sits outside the mainstream of academic qualifications, diplomas and apprenticeships. The Foyer Federation has developed a large evidence base around what qualities and attributes ‘alternative provision’ should have in order to be successful.

4.1. The following example demonstrates how raising the participation age through informal learning can help ensure positive outcomes.

4.2. The Foyer Federation developed an online informal learning programme, MyNav that helped empower young people with the digital skills to help navigate their transition through shared learning experiences. This initiative brings together new media technology and informal learning opportunities to deliver a personalised package of support to young people.  With initial funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and expert support from the University of London, the Foyer Federation worked with Foyers across England to develop an online portal offering users tailored learning opportunities, a reflective social networking space, and an online personal learning plan.  Among a pilot group of 200 young people, the portal recorded 145 active learners per day, generated 100 learning plans in which individuals tracked and achieved education and employment goals, enabled users to share experiences of disadvantage focused on learning from each other’s solutions, and provided an environment in which over 75% of users improved their emotional wellbeing through the development of positive social networks.  One of the project ambassadors started to use MyNav on release from custody. After 9 years spent in and out of the justice system, he identified MyNav as the solution which helped him to ‘stay out of trouble and out of prison ... by encouraging me to record the good things I’m involved in’. 

4.3. Young Person’s Case study: In the past I was at boarding school for children with behavioural problems; I was a bit of a rogue when I was younger! I have been in and out of prison from the age of 16. At 17 I was admitted to a mental health unit due to amphetamine and temazepam abuse. I became a parent at 19 and up until 6 months ago I had only had short periods of time out of prison. Since I have been at the Foyer I’ve received support, I have started to realise that I need to something better with my life and grow up for my children and myself. My goals for the next year: make sure that I stay of out of prison indefinitely, sort things out with my children and regain contact. I intend to do this by sticking to all my appointments, both court and social services, not getting involved in any fights, trouble or drug abuse. I am to do this by sorting out my education at the local college, attending probation, finishing my order and interacting positively.

Positive activities help me to deal with different challenges, personalities and social situations where before I would have failed due to flying off the handle. By taking part in activities that inspire me I have found that I concentrate more on what I am doing and the activity rather than other people’s behaviour or negative distractions. This is very important to set a good example towards my children, social services and people who have no confidence in me to change my life. By sharing my experiences I hope that I can help other people to make positive steps to change their lives as I am trying to change my own".

Appendix 1

We have been asked to submit the following letter on behalf of managers of supported housing projects in Oxfordshire.

We, the managers of supported housing projects for young people aged 16 to 25 in Oxfordshire, are writing to express our concern about the coalition governments’ plans to scrap the EMA in April this year.

Our objective as providers of these services is to equip these young people for independent living. A key part of this is to ensure that the young people we support are able to achieve their potential by accessing relevant training to enable them to gain employment.

These young adults come to us from difficult backgrounds: some are looked after children others are estranged from their parents; many come with a history of drug and alcohol abuse; many suffer from mental health problems; many have been prosecuted for criminal offences; and many have been excluded from school.

We have seen first-hand how important EMA is for these people. Obviously, it helps them to meet the costs of independent living, but it also incentivizes them to take up (and commit to) further education and training - those who miss a class or training session forfeit their EMA for the week. We have found that this has greatly improved the commitment of our young people. Should EMA be cut we would be worried that this would have a negative impact on the number of residents who would be able to commit to further education and training.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies stated that the cost of EMA is ‘completely offset by its benefits’. This we would argue is especially true of the young people we support. The cost of EMA payment based on full attendance amounts to £960 per year. This seems a small price to pay to keep someone out of prison or out of hospital or off long term benefits.

Employment is already difficult to find in Oxfordshire and our young people are already severely disadvantaged and without further education and training their prospects of full time employment are very low.

Although rent and most of their service charges is met through housing benefit, young people in supported housing projects still have to either pay the ineligible service charge or their own utility bills (which can amount to up to £20 per week). Scrapping EMA would leave the worst off amongst them with just £31.85, giving them under £5.00 a day for food, toiletries, clothes, travel and socialising.

We understand that the government intends to replace EMA with something ‘better targeted’ but they seem to have disregarded the anxiety that their failure to publish the details of these plans is causing the young people who will be badly affected by this change and the people who support them. 25th March 2011