Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund

Written evidence submitted by The National Young Volunteers Service

1 v’s Future Job’s Fund programme is delivering 200 jobs with 57 local employer partners from our network of funded organisations. The job roles are mainly Youth Volunteering Assistants providing an administrative function which enhances the host organisation’s support for young volunteers

2. Summary

2.1. The FJF has been a success in matching valuable new work opportunities to unemployed young people. Despite FJF placements lasting only six months, young people employed by our network of partners reported feeling ‘better equipped’ to find future employment as they had often been turned away because of a lack of work experience.

2.2. As a national provider there have been a number of problems delivering the scheme locally. These problems are often due to the inconsistency of interactions with different local Jobcentres. The processes and procedures associated with the new programmes need to be better communicated from Jobcentre Plus at national level to local Jobcentre Plus staff to ensure that providers do not waste valuable time dealing with inconsistent practices across the country.

2.3. With high levels of youth unemployment, the government must ensure that there is no gap in provision for young unemployed people between FJF ending and the new Work Programme and apprenticeship opportunities coming on stream. High quality, accurate information advice and guidance for young unemployed people will be key to the success of ensuring a smooth transition.

2.4. The Work Programme and new apprenticeships must be funded and delivered in a way which enables voluntary sector organisations to offer placements. Many voluntary and community organisations have invaluable experience of supporting young unemployed people and people with multiple barriers to employment. Such organisations would also benefit from the extra capacity to deliver and enhance frontline services.

3. The extent to which the FJF has succeeded in matching new work experience opportunities to young unemployed people

3.1. v’s FJF Programme focuses on providing work experience to young people in a youth work setting. Primarily serving as administrative assistants, FJF employees are able to experience work to support young people within a voluntary organisation. v’s programme is still in its infancy but there is evidence from v’s employer partners with existing FJF employees that the programme has been positive, especially as the work environment is often geared around the cares, passions and interests of inspirational young volunteers.

3.2. We are currently experiencing recruitment challenges where jobs have been profiled by the Jobcentre as youth work rather than administration. As the jobs are primarily administrative in nature they do not necessarily appeal to individuals seeking placements delivering pure youth work, and also do not attract young people looking to develop their administrative skills and experience. Once correctly re-profiled we have witnessed an increase in applications.

4. 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

4.1. v’s experience is limited to the recruitment process as our FJF programme is in its infancy. v’s FJF employer partners have welcomed the programme as an opportunity, not only to develop young people which is often part of their core business, but also to meet critical business need. However, there are numerous challenges with the programme that cause problems in delivery, especially for a national provider supporting numerous local employers.

4.2. v led an FJF bid in order to ensure that the smaller voluntary and community sector partners across our funded network could benefit from the programme and access FJF employees. There were few organisations in our network that would have had the capacity to support the minimum number of 30 jobs needed for an independent bid.

4.3. A major problem is that the programme delivery does not fit with this model, primarily because advice and guidance provided at a national level does not necessarily reflect the actual delivery model being deployed locally by Jobcentres. This can lead to confusion and delay in the way in which young people are referred to the programme. Furthermore, the templates provided to employers to advertise opportunities, do not accurately reflect the fields used by Jobcentres, as for example there are word limits in place locally but no indication of these limits on the documentation.

4.4. Another significant challenge is the disconnect between the referral process and actual applications. Currently, the Jobcentre records it has referred an individual when they have suggested a vacancy but that does not necessarily lead to an application by the individual. In some instances Jobcentres play a much more proactive role in supporting the young person from referral through to application and v had been told by Jobcentre Plus nationally that applications would be supported. This type of engagement and follow through is an essential ingredient in the success of any programme to support unemployment people. Without this support we have noted that the system will reflect a significant number of referrals even if no-one has applied for the position. The Jobcentre needs to play a more supportive role encouraging young people to make applications and understanding the conversion rates between referral and application.

4.5. The seemingly small issues outlined above are magnified significantly, when as a national provider you are creating 200 jobs, across four regions, with 57 partners while needing to factor in local nuances of delivery.

4.6. Despite the challenges for v as a national provider, the programme has significant merits. Irrespective of opportunities for future sustainable employment, young people employed by our network of partners reported feeling ‘better equipped’ to find employment as they had often been turned away because of a ‘lack of work experience’.

4.7. If a similar programme is to be introduced in the future, more time should be spent on programme design and training Jobcentre Plus staff so that the delivery model is consistently delivered across the country.

5. The likely impact of the decision to end the FJF in March 2011 rather than March 2012

5.1. With high levels of youth unemployment there is a risk that there will be a gap in provision for young unemployed people to gain valuable work experience before the new Work Programme and apprenticeship opportunities come on board.

6. How the transition from FJF to the Work Programme will be managed, including the part to be played by the Government’s proposal to fund new apprenticeships.

6.1. The Government needs to ensure that there is not a gap in provision for young people to gain valuable work experience and employment opportunities. When the FJF comes to an end in March 2011 new opportunities have to be in place through the Work Programme and apprenticeships. Furthermore, the Government needs to ensure that Jobcentre Plus staff are have the knowledge and resources to manage the transition and to familiarise themselves with the processes and procedures of the new programme. This will ensure that young people are provided with the right information and advice, and will make it easier for organisations delivering the new programme to work with Jobcentres.

6.2. The focus of FJF on job opportunities in the public and voluntary sectors was important in enabling voluntary sector organisations to enhance and improve service delivery at a time when demands on their services are increasing. For example, one local employer reports that the FJF employee was dedicated to looking after their finance freeing up time for other staff to focus on services. The new Work Programme and funding for apprenticeships should sustain a level of investment in opportunities within voluntary sector organisations, especially given the Government’s commitment to voluntary organisations’ role in the Big Society.

6.3. Many voluntary sector organisations partners we are working with are well placed to support young people’s development in their FJF roles, particularly where their confidence, self-esteem and morale may have taken a hit from being unemployed for 6 months or more. Such organisations are equipped to ensure that employees get the most out of the experience because supporting and developing young people is their core business.

6.4. Apprenticeships could potentially offer a stronger alternative to FJF ensuring effective development of individuals, building their engagement and commitment for a longer period of time and culminating in a stronger skill and experience set at their conclusion. FJF employees are limited in terms of opportunities for personal development as the majority of accredited training courses take longer than six months to complete. It also makes more sense for the organisations who invest a significant amount of time and resource in developing individuals to do so over a longer period of time so that they begin to benefit from that investment.

6.5. There are opportunities for FJF employees to progress into apprenticeships but the drop in salary presents a challenge as apprentices are generally paid less. Young people would have to be convinced of the long-term benefits of taking a cut in income for better development opportunities and future employment prospects.

10 September 2010