Agenda item

To include:

·         Lorraine Blyth, Post-16 Participation Manager

·         Jodi Pilling, Learning and Skills Manager

·         Cherrylynn Jaffier, Post-16 Progression Advisor (Vocational Pathways)

a)    Employability Skills Support for Young People

Lorraine Blyth, Post-16 Participation Manager, and Hamish Mackay, Youth Employment and Apprenticeships Manager, introduced the report and made a presentation on the Council’s employability support offer.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         The Committee noted the work of the Progress Team and the implementation of the Progress Pledge; which was developed with young people and clearly set out the support young people could expect to receive.

·         The Progress Team offered independent and impartial advice on a one-to-one basis and could make referrals to other support services as necessary. It was important for information, advice and guidance to be provided in a clear and accessible way. Young people particularly valued support in applying for work experience and volunteering opportunities.

·         The Committee noted three case studies of young people who had received support from the Progress Team. It was emphasised that those seeking employment support often had complex issues and faced additional barriers to employment. Support from the Progress Team was tailored to their specific needs and ambitions.

·         The Committee noted the targeted employment support for 18 to 24 year olds, including the Council’s work in providing apprenticeships, bespoke traineeships, and supporting the provision of apprenticeships in the local economy. The Council provided one-to-one support to young people and ongoing support once they were in employment.

·         The Council led the Islington Youth Employment Network, which arranged opportunities for local employers to meet young people NEET through speed-networking sessions and TED style talks. It was noted that the last such event was attended by 60 young people and 17 employers; within a fortnight 14 of those young people were in employment.

·         It was explained that Saturday jobs traditionally helped young people to develop employability skills and transition into employment, however there was significant competition in the local labour market and such opportunities were increasingly rare for young people.

·         The Council’s apprenticeship schemes were targeted at borough residents aged 16-24, however anyone was able to apply. It was hoped that these opportunities would support young people, as well as the long term unemployed, those with disabilities which were a barrier to employment, care leavers, and others.

·         The application period for the Council’s repairs apprenticeship posts had been aligned to the academic year. It was intended for apprenticeships to be considered on par with academic pathways.

·         The Committee noted two case studies of 18 to 24 year olds who had accessed targeted employment support services and had successfully applied for apprenticeships.

·         The iWork service had supported 104 people into apprenticeships in 2015/16; it was noted that this included adults who had been out of work for six months or more.

·         It was commented that the information provided did not allow for effective scrutiny of the service. It was noted that statistical information had been provided to a previous meeting, however further information was requested on: the percentage of successful apprenticeship placements (i.e. after receiving support from the Council, how many people unexpectedly left before the end of their apprenticeship, and how many were offered a job); data on the penetration rate for targeted employment support, and how the service knew it was reaching all of the young people who needed support; performance against key performance indicators and targets; and a list of the apprenticeship providers the Council worked with.

·         Officers advised that it was difficult to provide statistics on the number of people aged 18 – 25 who would benefit from targeted employment support, as the claimant count was not an accurate measure of how many unemployed young people there were in the borough. People in this age group were hard to reach and tended not to seek support.

·         The performance of the service was monitored through external reviews and officers regularly reviewed the progress of young people after 13, 26, and 52 weeks. It was commented that it was sometimes difficult to contact people after a significant period of time, as their contact details may change, or they may feel that they no longer need to engage with employment services.

·         The Committee commented on the need to have high aspirations for young people NEET. Whilst officers agreed that the young people they worked with had many talents and it was hoped that they would go on to be very successful, it was recognised that many young people NEET had skills gaps and complex needs which they needed to overcome first.

·         Officers commented on the wide range of apprenticeship opportunities available locally and within the Council: these included tradesperson roles; office based roles in Legal, Finance and HR; ICT roles in Digital Services; and creative roles with organisations such as Sadler’s Wells Theatre.

·         Although there were a number of apprenticeship opportunities available, officers commented that some young people were not yet ready to apply for apprenticeships and more informal traineeships would be useful as a starting point to help young people into employment.

·         The Council was trying new methods of engaging hard to reach young people. Organisations had recently been commissioned to carry out peer to peer outreach work on a pilot basis; the results of this had not yet been received.

·         The Council’s apprentices were employed at the London Living Wage, which was much higher than the apprentice minimum wage of £3.40 an hour. The London Living Wage was also paid by organisations in the Council’s supply chain; however the Council did promote some apprenticeship opportunities to young people that did not pay this rate. It was commented that paying the London Living Wage to apprentices was difficult for some local businesses if their more senior staff were only paid the London Living Wage or lower. However, the Council was selective of which opportunities it promoted to young people, and only supported young people into opportunities with clear progression pathways. In general the Council did not support young people in taking up apprenticeships which paid below the equivalent minimum wage rate.

·         A member of the public queried the success of the Saturday Jobs Campaign, noting that only 15 jobs had been offered in 2015/16. In response it was advised that the service was intentionally providing intensive support to a low number of young people, however it was hoped to slightly increase this number in future.

·         It was confirmed that the youth employment support offer was regularly reviewed in consultation with young people. Feedback from young people was often focused on requests for financial support to purchase specific equipment or study materials.

The Committee thanked Lorraine Blyth and Hamish Mackay for their attendance.

b)    Vocational Pathways

Cherrylynn Jaffier, Post-16 Progression Advisor, made a presentation and introduced the report on support for young people seeking vocational pathways.

The following pain points were noted in the discussion:

·         Ms Jaffier worked with young people in Year 11 who were seeking vocational pathways.

·         Young people from all secondary schools in the borough were offered one to one support, however it was noted that schools utilised the Progress service differently, depending on the level of support already provided by the school. Group sessions were also held from time to time. 

·         It was commented that it was important to challenge young people’s misconceptions, as sometimes they had unrealistic expectations of how they could progress in vocational pathways.

·         Young people were provided with a personalised action plan to help them apply for vocational opportunities. This advised the young people what to do and when. Support with interview preparation was also available. 

·         The Progress Advisor role included monitoring the progression of pupils after they had left school. Advisors also maintained an up-to-date list of the apprenticeships, vocational college courses, and traineeships available locally.

·         It was thought that providing specialist vocational pathway support helped pupils to make balanced choices about their future, and informed them how best to access their chosen career path.

·         It was advised that the majority of pupils seeking vocational pathways progressed to college, however some moved into apprenticeships or work-based training.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that it was not possible to provide a demographic breakdown of the young people accessing support for vocational pathways, as this data was not routinely recorded. However, further demographic information, as well as an update on young people’s progress, would be known towards the end of January when the results of the annual activity survey were available.

·         It was advised that, in general, male pupils tended to enquire about construction or trade based pathways, and young females were interested in hair, beauty or childcare. However, it was commented that young people’s chosen pathways could change after learning about the reality of jobs in certain industries. 

·         The Committee commented that the work of a Progression Advisor seemed very varied and queried if anything would enhance the role or make it easier.  In response, it was advised that an increasing number of young people were interested in creative media, graphic design, web design, and similar pathways; however few opportunities in these fields were available. It was also commented that some young people needed sustained intensive support and at times the caseload was so great that it was not possible to support every young person in this way.

·         The Committee commented on the additional barriers faced by pupils with special educational needs and those who did not speak English as a first language. It was queried how such pupils could be best supported. In response it was explained that pupils who did not speak sufficient English were advised to improve their language skills, as they would otherwise almost certainly struggle in further education or employment.  

·         A member of the public asked for an update on the 34 students who were in the process of having their destinations confirmed, as set out at paragraph 3.4 of the report. In response, it was advised that these had progressed to various destinations and none were currently NEET.

The Committee thanked Cherrylynn Jaffier for her attendance.