Written evidence submitted
by St Paul's Community Development Trust
SUMMARY.
The FJF programme is very effective. It has been
cancelled, before any viable alternative is available for the
main target groups.
This is likely to create a worrying situation. High
rates of youth unemployment will combine with lack of opportunity
in the "core cities" to cause a mounting sense of waste
and frustration.
BACKGROUND.
1. Our organisation is a Charitable Trust based
in inner-city Birmingham which works with children, young people,
families and community.
2. We made a successful bid for a Future Jobs
Fund contract, and started work on this in October 2009. By February
2010 we had provided 100 young people aged 18-24 with jobs, and
won a second contract for a further 100 jobs. We had made an application
to run a third scheme at the point where the programme for 2011
was cancelled.
3. The scheme continues to generate great enthusiasm
from both the young people and their supervisors in our own and
other voluntary agencies. At present we are employing about 140
young people in FJF jobs, which are generally filled as soon as
JCP advertise them.
4. Over thirty different agencies have taken
part in our scheme, providing supervised placements for the young
people. There is a considerable variety of jobs - about forty
different job descriptions.
5. Young people recruited reflect the diversity
of Birmingham's population, in ethnicity and gender, and are almost
equally divided between under and over 21 years of age. 5% have
significant disabilities.
6. Less than 10% have failed to complete their
period of employment. So far, of the leavers 37% have achieved
ongoing employment.
7. We have recently been audited by DWP and understand
they were satisfied with our management of the scheme.
COMMENTARY.
1. We were surprised and disappointed at the
cancellation of the FJF programme. It had, from our viewpoint,
a number of strengths which we hoped to build on. These can be
summarised:
- Voluntary agencies were able to create jobs which
they could not have otherwise afforded in a time of diminishing
grants and difficulty of access to contracts. This undoubtedly
increased the capacity of the agencies and benefited their clients.
- The scheme has clearly been effective in providing
work experience to young people who for the most part had not
previously been able to obtain any employment. (Many of these
were under-qualified, under-skilled and presented with negative
character references e.g. they were ex-offenders.)
- The eagerness of both agencies and young people
is demonstrated by the facts - 100 jobs created in five months
from a standing start, and a very low drop-out rate. The number
of agencies wishing to take part has risen steadily and still
rises although we have to turn them away. This is despite the
fact that BeBirmingham, the City's strategic partnership, ran
a much larger FJF project with a high proportion of voluntary
sector jobs.
- 37% went into continuing employment from the
first tranche of the scheme - a comparatively high rate relative
to WNF outcomes (average about 20-25%.)
2. We also want to suggest why the scheme is
successful. The following are important points:
- Voluntary agencies have substantial experience
of training and working with young people, including those from
disadvantaged groups. The agencies are highly motivated to help
those who face barriers to employment.
- FJF, while not over-priced, offered sufficient
funding for the young people to receive minimum wage, and for
staffing costs including on the job supervision, basic vocational
training, "job club" activities and necessary overhead
costs such as payroll and accounts.
- The scheme did offer quality in experience, and
this requirement had to be met by agencies as well as the young
people. Most young people have left the scheme, therefore, with
some additional vocational credits as well as references and new
skills.
- Within our scheme we were able to add value to
the specification in the contract by providing vocational training,
mentoring and specialist on the job supervision - all of which
are standard good practice in the larger voluntary agencies.
- The FJF programme also had a virtue which is
sadly quite rare - it not only encouraged the formation of a consortium
of 30-40 voluntary agencies (and some local schools), but it facilitated
partnership with JCP and BeBirmingham. Without JCP support we
could not have run the programme, and its success is a tribute
to the enthusiastic help we received. If BeBirmingham had not
included us in their discussions, we would have been less certain
of our direction.
- Thus, FJF began to create an approach which entailed
building on the strengths of those working to create the programme
through a new and more genuine partnership than is often the way.
3. Weaknesses in the FJF programme as we experienced
it, include:
- For the most disadvantaged young people, six
months is too short a time to take in the necessary induction
to work, learn the basic elements on the job, obtain some qualifications
and move into ongoing employment.
- As spelled out by recent reports, what is needed
is a foundation of vocational education and introductory work
experience, followed by an "apprenticeship" period,
leading to full employment.
- The changes which can bring about this integrated
system cannot be put in place immediately - although the government
intends to effect this transformation in due course.
- We had hoped FJF would continue until new apprenticeship
schemes, and developments in "technical" academies,
etc. were accomplished. Our intention was to use funds earned
by supervising FJF employees to establish more social enterprise
opportunities for the continuing employment of those unable to
progress within six months.
- This project of ours would have filled a gap
while waiting for new apprenticeship schemes. Instead, the sector
and the young people are facing a considerable period in which
opportunity is lacking.
4. Is the FJF programme too expensive? May we
argue for Birmingham and other places with similar problems:
- The Select Committee will be aware that Birmingham,
in July 2010 the claimant rate was 11.7%, while the UK average
was 5.3%.
- For young people the picture is even bleaker.
In April 2009 the number of 18-24 year olds in the City on JSA
was 11,550. In June 2010 it was 12,900. (City average thus 18-20%.)
- Birmingham has the highest rate of youth unemployment
among all the UK "core" cities.
- Some Wards in the City, including Sparkbrook
where we are based have male claimant rates approaching 30%. Those
Wards with high proportions of young people - three out of the
worst five - have correspondingly high rates of youth unemployment.
- Alarmingly, the statistics show that the NEET
rate among young people aged 16 and 17 is rising, even before
this year's leavers sign on in September. The evidence indicates
problems are worsening.
5. We would argue that rather than a general
cancellation of the FJF programme, the government might consider
a time-limited extension until alternatives are in place which
meet the government aim of providing enough support for even the
most disadvantaged to succeed.
6. The extension would not apply to all areas,
but to those which were defined as having intolerable levels of
youth unemployment.
THE ROLE
OF THE
VOLUNTARY SECTOR
IN EMPLOYMENT
TRAINING.
1. So far, it appears the voluntary sector will
have enormous difficulty in contributing to the new Work Programme.
While the detail of this is as yet unknown, the size and "backloading"
of payments for contracts seems prohibitive.
2. The sector understands the need for payment
by results systems. It is when this is combined with huge scale
and the need for new and untested forms of organisation that it
comes to seem impossible.
3. Given the virtues as outlined above of the
voluntary sector as a provider of vocational training, "apprenticeships",
and enterprise development experience, it would be a great loss
if it were excluded.
4. We are unsure as yet what the government's
proposed "technical academies" (or "service academies")
will involve. A proposal which may have merit, is that some of
these could be based around social enterprise, with apprenticeships
offered through a voluntary sector consortium. These apprenticeships
would have to be funded as an aspect of youth training, since
the sector has no surplus, typically, with which to part-fund
apprenticeships.
5. We believe that one or more pilot projects
for a scheme such as the above could be run in Birmingham.
17 August 2010
|
