Written evidence submitted
by Somerset County Council
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 As Lead Accountable Body for Somerset's Future
Jobs Fund project, Somerset County Council is submitting evidence
to the Work and Pensions Committee on Youth Unemployment and the
Future Jobs Fund.
1.2 This evidence includes commentary from key
colleagues, employers and employees with particular interest in
the outcomes of FJF for young people and the strengths and weaknesses
of the FJF Programme.
1.3 Somerset County Council considers: the provision
of information; engagement of young people with employers; and
the length of the programme to be key to securing long-term sustainability
of employment for young people.
1.4 Somerset County Council has made a number
of recommendations that we hope will be considered by the Select
Committee.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This submission to the Work and Pensions
Committee has been prepared by Helen Waring, Somerset FJF Officer
and Natalie House, Senior Policy Officer - Employment and Skills.
Officers and Members are committed to securing improved employment
and skills outcomes for Somerset and wish to share our experiences
of FJF to inform this inquiry.
2.2 SCC has a particular interest in this inquiry
as Lead Accountable Body (LAB) for a County-wide partnership project
awarded £377,000 from the FJF to create 58 jobs between February
2010 and 31 July 2010 and an additional £104,000 to create
16 jobs between July 2010 and January 2011.
2.3 This submission focuses specifically on the
"strengths and weaknesses of the FJF programme"
and touches on "the extent to which the FJF has succeeded
in matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed
people".
2.4 This submission has been compiled with evidence
provided by SCC, as LAB, with supporting evidence obtained from
employers and employees for the purpose of this inquiry.
3.0 STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES
OF THE
FJF PROGRAMME
3.1 Strengths
3.1.1 FJF acted as an enabler, and provided the
financial incentive for employers to create new employment opportunities
in a challenging economic climate. Local employer Somerset Film
cited the need for additional staff but had no bottom line to
recruit, whilst Victoria Park Community Centre commented on the
affordability of FJF recruitment for employers.
3.1.2 Jobs were ring-fenced so, despite high
numbers of eligible candidates, competition for jobs was reduced.
3.1.3 Furthermore, FJF provided an opportunity
to challenge the recruitment culture of local businesses, encouraging
them to invest in enthusiastic young people, perhaps without the
experience and qualifications usually sought in more competitive
recruitment processes and dispelling the misconceptions some employers
may have regarding the employment of young people. FJF has been
essential in giving young people a chance. One employee at Somerset
Film said it was "a chance to gain an amazing job that would
otherwise have been unavailable to me".
3.1.4 The support and development requirement
of FJF has ensured that employees develop the confidence and skills
to secure sustainable employment. In one case, these skills have
been developed to such an extent that the employee now has the
confidence to seek work in London. A number of employees have
reflected on FJF as a very positive experience: "a great
opportunity to work somewhere really inspiring…. should help
me get into the job market more easily". Their employer added
"in this industry [Creative] it is almost impossible to progress
without work experience and whilst we provide as many opportunities
as possible…. FJF allowed us to do this on a much larger
and more meaningful scale".
3.1.5 FJF provided the finance and flexibility,
for partners to capitalise on their local experience and knowledge,
tailoring aspects of local delivery to the needs of Somerset's
young jobseekers.
3.1.6 Working Neighbourhoods Fund was able to
add value to jobs created through FJF in West Somerset and demonstrated
the commitment of partners in linking funding streams and activities
to maximise the benefits of this programme, i.e. through an extension
of employment opportunities.
3.1.7 Employers have been equally committed to
extending employment opportunities where possible. Victoria Park
Community Centre has three FJF employees and, based on their performance,
have every intention of making them permanent employees. "We
have secured three very good candidates that I am sure will have
a future with us…. (this) of course depends on our finances….
I am however hopeful for the future". ViSTA and Mendip Care
and Repair have also made firm commitments to the future of their
FJF employees who will continue to be employed on apprenticeship
schemes. Employees are yet to reach their six months of employment
through FJF; we are therefore unable to confirm how many positions
will translate into sustainable employment until the end of March
2011 when our contract with DWP comes to an end.
3.1.8 Overall FJF has given a much needed boost
to the young people of Somerset who have finally experienced just
how rewarding, exciting and fulfilling a job can be. It is impossible
to measure the real benefit to their confidence, skills and their
CV in the short-term, but this experience will undoubtedly put
them in a much better position to secure sustainable employment
in an increasingly competitive jobs market.
3.2 Weaknesses
3.2.1 FJF was perhaps overly prescriptive in
determining who was supported and when, and did not allow local
partnerships to focus funding entirely on local need. On a couple
of occasions employers were proactive about filling their vacancies
and found an individual, who they thought would be perfect, only
to be told that they had not been claiming JSA long enough or
were just a few months too old. At least one vacancy was not filled
by the deadline and a more flexible approach to the eligibility
criteria during the last few weeks could have resulted in more
job starts.
3.2.2 It was apparent that not all individuals
referred to an FJF post were "job ready". We have had
a significant number of comments from our employers who have repeatedly
said that an application wasn't completed properly or the applicant
wasn't prepared for an interview. Victoria Park Community Centre
stated "98% of those I have interviewed certainly needed
interview preparation and interview skills training".
3.2.3 FJF highlighted approaches and practices
that neither supported the employer nor the employee. One such
example is in the quantity and quality of information a Jobcentre
Plus advisor received regarding a FJF vacancy. Detailed job descriptions
and person specifications were condensed to such an extent that
advisors and individuals were unclear what the vacancy was and
the nature of the employer.
3.2.4 Employees and employers have stated that
six months employment wasn't enough. One employee at Somerset
Film, who cannot be supported beyond six months, said "it's
just a shame I can't stay for longer as I have begun to develop
some good new systems for them and some good relationships with
other staff". It is also a great disappointment for the manager
at Somerset Film who also said "we are all quite devastated
that we cannot afford to keep any of our new recruits on, whilst
they have made themselves indispensable, they have not significantly
increased our income generating capacity. Things of course may
have been different were we not in a deep recession".
4.0 THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE FJF HAS
SUCCEEDED IN
MATCHING NEW
WORK EXPERIENCE
OPPORTUNITIES TO
YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
PEOPLE
4.1 As per 3.2.3, JCP advisors' limited knowledge
of FJF posts and the employers prevented them from "selling"
the jobs to prospective applicants in the Jobcentres.
4.2 Whilst FJF had a degree of success in facilitating
the creation of "new jobs" locally the matching of individuals
and employment opportunities was reliant on other local interventions,
for example meet the employer events. These proved most useful
in increasing understanding of the vacancies on offer and generating
more interest from jobseekers. Informal interviews and job offers
were made in a number of cases and many of our vacancies were
filled as a result of the events. We believe this is due to the
relaxed and informal atmosphere in which employers and potential
applicants could meet and the additional information made available
to both parties.
4.3 FJF did not help to address the local need
in terms of barriers to work. The rural nature of Somerset results
in an increased need to travel, both to and from work and often
as an integral part of a job role. The cost of travel and access
to public transport proved to be an issue for a number of employees
wishing to take up posts. Transport was therefore an added barrier
to successfully matching eligible candidates to their ideal jobs.
4.4 The pressure to create jobs "on profile"
compromised the quality of some job matches. In particular, in
respect of the time available to Jobcentre Plus Advisors to consider
an individual's job preferences, skills and availability of jobs.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 We accept the need for public expenditure
to be reduced, and welcome the Coalition government's deficit
reduction programme, which includes reducing expenditure on schemes
such as FJF. However, if additional funding could be found for
a scheme similar to FJF, we would recommend that any future programme
provides support for twelve months of employment, preferably through
a 50% employer subsidy rather than 100% funded.
- 5.1.1 For employers this will:
- Increase commitment to invest in the support
and development of their employees.
- Provide more time to explore opportunities to
finance the continuation of employment.
- Provide consistency of employment.
- 5.1.2 For employees this will:
- Give sufficient time to prove their value to
the employer.
- Provide greater chances of securing sustainable
employment as we expect the economy to enter a stronger phase
of recovery.
- Allow for six months of induction, familiarisation
and basic skills development with a further six months of "real"
application.
5.2 Use "Meet the Employer" events
within the Jobcentres to provide employees with more information
about local employers and their vacancies and an informal interview
opportunity for employers.
5.3 Continue with direct funding to local partnerships
to ensure that programmes can be tailored to meet local need and
respond to the needs of employers.
5.4 Regardless of what happens next it is important
that the experiences and learning from FJF is not lost. In particular
those elements of the programme that have done most for employees
in terms of their confidence and enhanced skills, and for employers,
in terms of their recruitment practices and commitment to young
people.
10 September 2010
| 
