Written evidence submitted
by Third Sector Consortium Management Sector LLP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. 3SC holds the largest combined award under
Future Jobs Fund of any national provider, and is recognised by
DWP and Jobcentre Plus as being the top performing national provider
on Future Jobs Fund.
2. 3SC is a management organisation offering
a unique approach to delivering contracts for the public sector.
Whilst civil society and local organisations often have the knowledge
and skills to deliver employment and welfare services at a local
level, they lack the opportunity to secure those contracts, because
individually they cannot deliver on the scale that is required.
3SC therefore champions a partnership approach, adding value with
efficiency to a contracting process and subsequent delivery, by
bidding for large contracts and managing delivery by civil society
organisations.
3. Every 3SC provider responding to this question
commented that FJF has been very successful in matching new work
experience opportunities to the needs of young unemployed people.
4. FJF has been effective in matching work with
the needs of young people from those leaving education with no
or few skills and qualifications (including NEET young people)
through to graduates who have been unable to secure jobs after
leaving university.
5. Strengths of FJF were that the participants
gained very valuable skills because the opportunities were in
real jobs, and not on training programmes or placements. Many
jobs have been sustained because the FJF employee has benefitted
the organisation and enabled it to generate sufficient income
to support and sustain the job. Our delivery organisations report
that it's a strength of civil society organisations that the work
is typically sustained afterwards, either in the same job or in
another one in the sector.
6. Employing organisations have benefited, particularly
during the economic downturn, by being able to afford to take
on additional staff as a result of the funding for FJF.
7. Many young people have been able to progress
into other jobs as a direct result of their participation in FJF.
8. Employers and young people have however consistently
suggested that 26 weeks was not a sufficiently long duration for
the funding. An apprenticeship could not be completed fully by
an FJF employee in this time, and many providers found it hard
to complete NVQ2 in 26 weeks.
9. Jobcentre Plus were not seen as sufficiently
resourced to fully support the delivery of this scheme either
for employers or potential FJF employees.
10. The lack of equivalent alternative or transition
arrangements for young people previously eligible for FJF is preventing
a cohort of young people from benefiting from this scheme.
11. In some cases, the cessation of the programme
will mean that the managing staff in some delivery organisations
will have to be laid off where there is insufficient work for
them.
12. The civil society sector will not thrive
as much as it was able to do when FJF was in place, with many
organisations unable to deliver critical services without FJF
employees.
13. Deprived communities, particularly with extensive
generational unemployment, will lose the opportunity for their
young people to gain valuable experience and real opportunities
to find sustainable work.
INTRODUCTION TO
3SC
14. 3SC is an organisation providing management
services, formed in response to an express need by civil society
organisations for a co-ordinated, effective and quality response
to the changing requirements of public sector commissioning.
15. 3SC offers an opportunity for commissioners
to procure high quality services delivered by civil society organisations.
It is unique in that it combines national reach gained from its
founding partners with local delivery by a network of civil society
organisations. It is a sustainable model which can be replicated
across diverse commissioning areas including criminal justice,
health and social care and welfare to work.
16. 3SC is structured to enable all civil society
organisations, whatever their scale, to participate in collaboration
with other members in delivering large public service contracts.
At present, 1000 civil society organisations have registered their
interest in playing a part in consortia managed by 3SC. Since
a number of these members are regional consortia it is estimated
that in excess of 3,000 organisations are therefore represented;
it is anticipated that this number will grow significantly as
3SC expands its operations.
17. 3SC acts as a prime contractor, bidding to
manage contracts on both a national and a regional basis and enabling
delivery by a network of member organisations. In short, 3SC bids
for and manages contracts; the network of civil society organisations
are sub-contractors in a supply chain made up of 3SC member organisations.
18. 3SC operates as a social enterprise and is
a limited liability partnership, incorporating the appropriate
restrictions on income distribution and an asset lock. Ten leading
organisations across the civil society arena have committed to
invest and manage 3SC. These organisations are recognised civil
society providers in criminal justice, education & training,
health & social care, social housing and welfare to work.
These founding partners are: CLINKS, Eastside Consulting, Eden
Trust, London Learning Consortium, National Housing Federation,
National Youth Agency, QED, Sadeh Lok Housing Group, The Social
Investment Business and Well UK.
19. 3SC's priorities are:
- To increase the percentage of public service
contracts won by civil society organisations.
- To utilise the local understanding and connections
across the civil society sector.
- To improve the lives and well being of individuals
and local communities.
20. 3SC recognises that civil society organisations
can deliver greater impact through creating partnerships and gaining
access to larger public sector contracts. This benefits individuals
seeking quality employment and welfare services, as these are
best served by strong civil society organisations in local communities
who understand their needs. Whilst civil society and local organisations
have the knowledge and skills to deliver employment and welfare
services, they lack the opportunity to secure those contracts,
because individually they cannot deliver on the scale that is
required.
21. 3SC was therefore created in order to bid
for large scale public sector contracts. It was awarded its first
delivery contract from the DWP's Future Jobs Fund not long after
inception. A considerable achievement in its own right, this was
also a vote of confidence in the model as a viable solution to
secure a wider supplier base whilst recognising the resource pressure
on DWP and Jobcentre Plus in engaging with delivery by a wide
range of new, innovative and often small providers.
22. 3SC has managed over 150 lead organisations
in the delivery of Future Jobs Fund to date, representing nearly
1000 different employers. At the end of August 2010, 3SC's performance
was 100% of the initial Round 1 award of 2,932 jobs and 100% of
the Round 1 extension grant for a further 1,000 jobs. These jobs
have been created by 3SC members to provide opportunities for
long term and young unemployed people who had faced significant
disadvantage in the labour market. A final Round 7 grant for a
further 1,610 jobs is due to be delivered by the end of March
2011.
23. 3SC holds the largest combined award under
Future Jobs Fund of any national provider, and is recognised by
DWP and Jobcentre Plus as being the top performing national provider
on Future Jobs Fund.
3SC SUBMISSION
To what extent do you feel that the FJF has succeeded
in matching new work experience opportunities to the needs of
young unemployed people?
24. Every provider for 3SC responding to this
question commented that FJF has been very successful in matching
new work experience opportunities to the needs of young unemployed
people.
25. Some providers worked with young people who
had never previously worked, and said that for them, FJF gave
them the opportunity to prove to themselves what they could contribute
and achieve.
26. 3SC providers typically offered opportunities
with civil society organisations, and this appears to have been
a major factor in the success of the programme. Civil society
providers understand the needs of potential employees and give
support with the barriers this client group faces.
27. Civil society organisations feel that their
employment opportunities are often overlooked by young people
who don't recognise the job titles or the environment in which
they would be working, and that FJF has enabled such organisations
and employees to meet and match.
28. The benefits of FJF on employability of young
people are not just related to the time the young person is employed
through FJF. Young people have said that they find it easier to
get another job when they are already in a job. Others have increased
in confidence and desire to enquire about training and academic
qualifications that will enable them to progress further in the
workforce in the future.
29. "Soft skills" including time-keeping,
teamwork, demonstrating and taking initiative, telephone techniques
etc have been improved for many young people as a result of participation
in FJF. Many providers report that this has given young people
the opportunity to demonstrate that they are an asset in the workplace
and can meet the expectations that employers have of their employees.
This is not just relevant to those young people who have limited
academic or vocational experience - graduates who have participated
in FJF have been able to gain skills beyond their academic qualifications
and demonstrate their worth to future employers.
STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESSES OF
THE FJF PROGRAMME
FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF
PROVIDERS (INCLUDING
IN THE
THIRD SECTOR),
EMPLOYERS AND
YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
PEOPLE, AND
PARTICULARLY IN
RELATION TO
THE LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY OF
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
30. Two specific strengths of the FJF programme
that are consistently identified are that this offered paid employment,
which was seen as beneficial by the FJF employees who had a purpose
to participate and could see the possibility of real progression
into work after participating, and that often small employers
were able to increase their capacity through the process of recruiting
and employing FJF employees.
31. Other strengths identified included a benefit
for employing organisations that were able to select the participants
using their own recruitment and selection criteria and that the
participants were not on a mandatory programme (which is often
seen as demotivating for the participants).
32. Civil society organisations trying to identify
additional sources of funding during the economic downturn have
consistently praised the FJF because they could use FJF employees
to undertake work that could not be afforded otherwise, and even
in some cases, has created additional funding opportunities because
fundraising research and activities have been undertaken by FJF
employees, or new business opportunities have been developed by
FJF employees.
33. Two specific weaknesses have also been consistently
identified. Firstly, that the programme was only 26 weeks long
was seen as too short for many young people, as they had often
only just started to develop their technical, academic and softer
skills. An NVQ2 typically takes at least six months to complete,
so have been hard to complete alongside an FJF job, and apprenticeships
take 12 months and so could not be completed fully alongside an
FJF job.
34. Secondly, the funding for 25 hours meant
that some young people entered the benefit trap by participating
in FJF, as the income they received meant that they had a reduction
in the other benefits they were previously entitled to, which
often left them worse off financially. It would have been better
if the scheme had paid for 30 hours work at least, as then young
people would have been able to access tax credits.
35. Furthermore, another disadvantage that has
been identified by some organisations was the role of Jobcentre
Plus. The standard of applications sent to employers was generally
seen as poor, and didn't always fulfil the requirements of the
employers. Many FJF employers have said that they employed FJF
employees in spite of, rather than because of, the standard of
their applications. It was felt that Jobcentre Plus should have
supported the applicants more specifically in order to raise the
quality of the applications being made for FJF jobs.
What do you think is the likely impact (if any)
of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March
2012 (for you as a delivery organisation, young unemployed people,
or your local area or sector)?
36. There is a consistent agreement that the
decision to end the FJF in March 2011 is detrimental to the beneficiaries,
delivery organisations and the local areas and sectors. This is
underpinned by concern that there may not be transition arrangements
in place from 1 April 2011 that will replace the specific benefits
gained by the FJF cohort.
37. Delivery organisations had put in a lot of
work to ensure that the FJF programme began successfully, particularly
given a lot of delays in the first few months of the programme
where Jobcentre Plus offices in particular were not equipped to
rollout and manage FJF.
38. A large number of delivery organisations
have had to reduce their own staff levels as a result of this
decision, having often recruited new staff to deliver this programme.
39. Many young people are disappointed that they
have missed out on excellent FJF job opportunities, particularly
where many of these jobs were interesting and relevant to the
needs of young people in the FJF cohort.
40. A lot of FJF opportunities delivered by 3SC
providers have been offered in areas of high unemployment, particularly
as 3SC has responded to requests from Jobcentre Plus to deliver
job opportunities in areas of very high unemployment or limited
supply of work opportunities. This response of 3SC to delivery
of this scheme meant that many of the most deprived communities
and individuals were able to experience the benefits of employment.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
41. Future welfare to work interventions should
fund real employment opportunities, not programmes.
42. Eligibility criteria should not be limited
to JSA claimants, but broadened to include ESA claimants.
43. Eligibility should not be based on age, but
on relative experience in the workplace. Anyone without recent
employment experience should be able to participate in real work.
44. There must be synergy between interventions
to ensure that there are no inherent disincentives to participation
(such as a loss of other benefits leading to financial disadvantage),
such as 30 hours of wage funding to allow tax credits to be accessed
simultaneously.
45. Welfare to work interventions need to be
available for at least 12 months, and in some cases potentially
even longer, for individuals needing such support. Interventions
should be flexible and be able to last of a shorter duration if
this is the right solution for the individual concerned.
46. Delivery organisations and prime contractors
should be rewarded based on overall achievement and also an assessment
of the quality of interventions and the results achieved for the
target customer groups.
47. Civil society organisations should be specifically
targeted to offer welfare-to-work interventions.
48. Civil society organisations should be funded
to provide careers advice and employment support instead of Jobcentre
Plus. Jobcentre Plus offices should focus solely on benefit claims
and identify eligibility of customers to access schemes and programme.
27 September 2010
| 
