Agenda item

(i)    Joint Report of the Assistant Chief Executive and the Corporate Director of Children and Adults Services.

(ii)   Presentation by the Strategic Lead, Progression and Learning, Children and Adults Services.

The Chairman introduced the Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning, Children and Adults Services, Linda Bailey who was in attendance to give an update as regards the Youth Employment Initiative (for copy see file of minutes).

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning explained that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) was created to tackle youth unemployment across EU member states.  It was added that County Durham was one of eleven areas eligible for funding and would effectively have, subject to fluctuations in exchange rates, around £17.87million, comprised of £6.7million YEI, £6.7million European Social Fund (ESF) and £4.47million of match funding.  Members were asked to recall that the Government’s Skills Funding Agency (SFA) had originally promised match funding, however, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the SFA decided not provide this funding.  It was added that consequently, Durham County Council (DCC) decided to lead a partnership bid to ensure that the YEI funding was not lost, the partnership being “DurhamWorks”.  It was noted that the final application had been submitted and the Council was awaiting the outcome.  The Committee noted that the YEI would focus on those aged 15 to 24 years of age, who were Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) and resident in County Durham, however, there was scope for flexibility and support those up to 29 years of age.

The Committee noted that the data used in terms of youth unemployment in County Durham came from 3 sources, namely: the Annual Population Survey; the Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) Claimant Count; and the NEET Data by Local Authority.  It was explained that while the number of those NEET aged 16-18 had fallen, the figure of 6.2% was too high, in the context of a national figure of just below 5%.   

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning explained that DurhamWorks had worked with the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) and the Wise Group in canvassing young people to obtain their views, and a snapshot of those views were  included for Members’ information, the full report available on request.  Councillors noted issues young people felt important included: 1 in 10 young people reporting they felt they had a lack of IT skills; 40% of young people having suffered from stress, anxiety or depression; and 46% of young people feeling that a lack of experience as a barrier to finding a job.  It was added that the information gathered would be used to lead more focused groups with young people, gathering more detail that would help develop the DurhamWorks programme.

Members learned that the DurhamWorks programme would follow a 3 strand approach:

·       Strand 1: Transition, Peer Mentor and Employment Support;

·       Strand 2: Engagement and Progression of Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Groups; and

·       Strand 3: YEI New Employment Zone.

It was explained that for Strand 1, there would be 18 external partners involved to be able to provide one-to-one support for each young person together with support for employers to help them recruit young people and ensure employment is sustained.

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning added that Strand 2 would have a wide range of targeted activities, programmes and projects to engage young people and support their progression into the labour market.  Members learned that young people furthest away from the labour market and with multiple barriers would be supported.  It was noted that the Strand 2 would involve many smaller organisations and sub-contracts via a procurement exercise, once funding is secured.     

The Committee noted that Strand 3 would involve substantial employer engagement and look to stimulate activities, including: supporting Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to encourage apprenticeships; supporting social entrepreneurs and self-employment; helping to create jobs and apprenticeships with voluntary sector organisations.

It was explained to Members that the DurhamWorks programme would have governance arrangements that included: DurhamWorks Strategic Partnership, involving key partners such as JobCentre Plus; the Children, Young People and Families Partnership and County Durham Economic Partnership, as part of the overall County Durham Partnership arrangements; and a Young People’s Reference Group.

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning explained that the next steps would be to await approval from the DWP as regards the partnership bid, and then to undertake a recruitment exercise in terms of the team to manage the delivery of DurhamWorks.  It was noted that delivery was due to commence in October/November 2015, to continue through to July 2018, with the programme looking to support approximately 5,500 young people who are unemployed into employment, education or training.  The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning concluded by noting that it would be difficult to fit the programme into 2½ years as opposed to the original 4 years that was envisaged, however all those involved were committed and once the decision of the DWP was known, press releases and launch events would take place. 

The Chairman thanked the Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning and asked Members for their questions on the presentation.

Councillor R Ormerod noted he was pleased that DCC was taking the issue of youth unemployment very seriously and were helping young people and highlighted the importance of making sure young people did not feel forgotten or marginalised.  Councillor R Ormerod noted that the NEETs figures included the age range 16-18, and asked whether those would be removed as changes in legislation would mean young people were to remain in education up to the age of 18.  The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning noted the age of participation being raised to 18, however, it was added that this was encouraged, though not enforceable on young people or employers.  It was added that NEETs figures would still be recognised by the Department for Education (DfE) and therefore DCC would continue to report NEET figures.  Members noted that raising the age of participation would likely have a very small impact on NEETs figures, with Government having previously stated that they would revisit the issue should there not be any impact upon figures.

Councillor R Ormerod noted the Government’s “Living Wage” would not apply to those 25 years of age or younger and added that several companies had stated they would therefore get around this by employing those under 25. 

Councillor R Ormerod noted while he did not support this practice by employers, was there perhaps a silver lining in respect of there being the potential for a number of jobs opening up  for young people under 25.

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning noted it was possible, however, this could simply shift the issue, though Members were reminded that there was flexibility within the programme to support those up to 29.  It was added colleagues within Regeneration and Economic Development would be asked to note this in terms of any modelling exercises undertaken.

Councillor E Adam stated he felt the idea of the programme was fantastic and that it was good that DCC had the foresight to invest in young people.  Councillor E Adam added he was disappointed that the match funding from the SFA was withdrawn leaving the Local Authority and partners to provide the rest especially in the context of cuts to funding for Local Authorities.  Councillor E Adam asked: whether there was an element of geographical targeting in terms of NEETs; whether particular skills were being targeted, those that employers required; what “innovative” activities were planned; and how performance targets would be set, monitored, and how longer-term success would be judged.

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning explained that indeed geographical “hotspots” in terms of NEETs would be targeted, with mentoring and the sub-contracting stage looking at addressing these issues.  It was added that rural areas would also be looked at, and while they may not have large volumes, there were other issues to consider and therefore it would be important to reach into those rural communities, again looked at during the sub-contracting phase.  Members noted that there would be events involving local organisations in due course to highlight the programme and to encourage them to come on board.

In terms of skills, the Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning added that there was work ongoing with colleagues from the Council’s Regeneration and Economic Development directorate, Business Durham and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) to help regarding a focus group working with employers to develop pathways to skills and then in turn jobs.  It was explained that several activities would help to “hook” young people and engage, such as involving sport, however, young people would be directed towards the skills relevant to employers and jobs.  Members noted that all those involved would be trained to Level 6 in Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) and there had been some engagement with the North East Chamber of Commerce.

The Committee noted that the target setting was awaiting the sign off between the Government and the EU regarding the Operational Programme (OP).  It was added that the 5,500 young people to be engaged with was an estimate, with the EU to set the actual figure.  Members noted that while it would be for DCC to track young people for 6 months, the Council would look to track beyond 6 months, for the 2½ years of the programme.

The Chairman noted the involvement of employers, and of the FSB, was encouraging and agreed that it was important to highlight to young people what jobs were actually available.

Councillor M Davinson asked: when the data that was used was gathered; were schools also involved, as they could provide early intervention; and whether there would be specific engagement with hard to reach families, working with those with generational worklessness for example.

The Strategic Manager, Progression and Learning explained that in terms of the data, the annual population survey was self-explanatory, representing the period April to March the following year, with the JSA and NEETs data being collated monthly.  It was added that schools were involved, and those “at risk of becoming NEET” were monitored, with indicators looking at Year 9 and 10 pupils, with those that were eligible were signed up automatically once old enough.  It was explained that changes to the scope from Government and the EU meant that preventative work was not possible under the programme, however, the One Point Service would help to prevent young people becoming NEET, with around 300-400 young people to be assisted via this route.  In terms of hard to reach families, it was noted the programme would link to the “Think Family” agenda and, via the One Point Service and delivery partners, it was hoped to get the right mix of organisations involved in local communities.

Mr T Batson noted that the work of DCC to help get young people into work was excellent and to be applauded, and added that it was the “culture” that needed to be tackled in terms of young people being “ready for work”.  Mr T Batson added that he felt it was important to help equip young people with the tools for them to be professional and flexible, enabling them to adapt and be resilient in a changing labour market and to be ready to move jobs, as necessary.  

The Chairman reiterated the Committee’s disappointment as regards the withdrawal of the offer of match funding from the SFA, and added that once funding was secured that there would be a good opportunity for the Council and partners to promote what the council and partners have achieved.

Resolved:   

(i)              That the report and presentation be noted.

(ii)             That the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive a further progress report on the development and delivery of the DurhamWorks programme at a future meeting of the Committee.

The Chair noted that, in order to best accommodate presenting Officers, it was perhaps preferable to take the Masterplan report as the next item. Members of the           Committee agreed.