Youth Unemployment and the Future Jobs Fund

Written evidence submitted by Suffolk County Council

SUMMARY

The experience of delivering the Future Jobs Fund programme as a Lead Accountable Body (LAB) has been a rollercoaster ride of frustration to understanding to successful delivery and back to frustration again. The speed of the programmes roll out was done too rapidly and both the Job Centre, DWP and LAB’s were not ready to run the programme. The time required to bed down processes and understand the needs and requirements of both the DWP and the managing agents from JC+ was not built into the programme. This consequently had a knock on impact in terms of meeting outputs in the initial stages. The programme from a delivery perspective once we had bottomed out the process and had given more resources (outside the funding from DWP) to the programme the successes started to flow. The frustration ultimately lies in the fact that a programme which in real terms has been successful has been removed before it really had a chance to consolidate the good practice and relationships it had developed.

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

There was little or no real matching of people to opportunities by JC+.  We had many reports from both employers and candidates that the candidates didn’t know anything about the jobs they were applying for and quite a number consequently didn’t bother to turn up for their interviews.  We know the JC+ advisors had only a few minutes to spend with their jobseekers and only a couple of lines about the jobs to discuss/match on even though there was a lot more information on the job templates provided by the LAB.  The successes have been more due to hard work by the Brokers working for the LAB, some luck and positive/supportive employers than ‘matching’ and several people who left early for other jobs went into a different type of work.  We have experienced a drop out rate currently running at approximately 13% following job offer, including not starting at all or failing to attend after starting. We also found alternative placements for a further 3% before they either dropped out or were dismissed.  In most JC+ employment programmes the provider would do a comprehensive assessment on their clients to enable proper job matching and assistance with applications, CVs and interview skills prior to placing them.  We think it was a mistake not to incorporate this into FJF – if it had been part of the programme from the beginning it would have improved:

· the number and quality of applications submitted;

· attendance at interview;

· number of candidates offered opportunities following interview;

It would also have reduced the number of drop outs following job offer/start and made everyone more positive about the programme.  Instead it had a very negative impact on providers, candidates and employers alike.

2. 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

STRENGTHS

The fact that the programme was based around paid work experience gave it a positive image to participants. For those who made it onto the programme and managed to stick with it, it gave

· a real experience of current expectations of the workplace and for some of earning a wage for the first time

· improved the chances of getting a further job by being able to include recent paid work and new training/qualifications in CV’s and on application forms

· ongoing, paid employment for a number of candidates;

· job search help for those who wouldn’t otherwise have sought  help to look for work

· provided all the positive benefits to individuals we already know work brings, e.g.: increased confidence and self esteem, feeling of independence and inclusion etc

WEAKNESSES

Omission of proper time and capacity to undertake job matching (see 1st paragraph)

Most participants were not prepared for the programme because of capacity issues within JC+. Many would have benefited from an induction into/refresher on work ethics/expectations, help with job search skills and more information about the jobs available. Because the programme was for 25hrs per week it prevented many people taking up opportunities due to the cost of travel and caused others to drop out. Funding was not sufficient to support the number of people for whom travel was an issue. The pre-requisite of using a percentage of community based organizations - many of which rely on charitable, public or other ‘funding’ made it less likely that they would be able to offer ongoing paid work opportunities. Also making it a numbers based exercise instead of providing a quality programme that boosts positivity in job seekers and employers made it a missed opportunity to improve on the many successes which have been achieved within the programme.

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

With the recession impacting deeper on the jobs market than was originally thought meant that the numbers of young people out of work for 6 months or more increased therefore making the premature ending of the FJF programme a missed opportunity. The programme has in our view had a better outcome level than its predecessors and there are no other programmes that focus on work based learning whilst in paid employment. The early closure has meant that the learning from developing a new programme from scratch means that in the intervening time between the closure of FJF and the new Work Programme may be lost. The FJF programme was developing a good momentum with local employers and young people with a high level of learning and employment opportunities had been identified but may be lost in the subsequent welfare to work void. However we are taking steps to ensure wherever possible that this learning is captured, disseminated and used in other areas of our work.

4. 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.

Apprenticeships are important for young unemployed people but less are available due to the current work climate. The transition from FJF to the Work Programme is unclear at present. However we believe that the FJF programme was in real terms a shortened or fast tracked form of the apprenticeship programme and therefore transition may not be an issue.

10 September 2010