Agenda item

To include:

a)    Mer-IT (voluntary organisation)

b)    Groundwork London (charity)

a)    Evidence from Mer-IT

The Committee received a presentation from Mercedes and Alex from Mer-IT, a small community organisation which provided training, work experience and workshops to young people and others.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         Mer-IT worked to develop the skills and experience of young people by providing free ICT training and other computer-based opportunities. The organisation also worked with unemployed people, older people and people with learning disabilities.

·         The organisation offered a five day course focused on repairing broken laptops. Participants were able to keep the repaired laptop on completion of the course. 

·         Mer-IT operated a community repair service, where young people working with the organisation offered free laptop repairs to the local community. It was commented that this supported community cohesion and helped young people to develop their interpersonal skills. 

·         All young people working with the organisation were offered one day of work experience at a refurbishment warehouse.

·         Mer-IT commented on how they worked with young people who were difficult to engage with. It was suggested that offering an incentive, such as a free laptop, encouraged these young people to participate in extra-curricular activities. It was also considered important to offer practical knowledge and experience which young people could apply in their daily lives.

·         It was commented that small community organisations faced barriers to providing their services. In particular, having insufficient time to complete funding applications and receiving income inconsistently meant that it was difficult to plan and implement long-term projects. As a result it was sometimes not possible to offer support consistently.

·         Mer-IT accepted 12 people per course and would work with between 50 and 60 young people over summer each year. The organisation had been running for three years and had a waiting list of around 100 people.

·         The Chair commented on the importance of small community organisations in supporting the development of young people and queried how the council could best support such organisations. In response, it was advised that community groups were able to engage with the council’s community and voluntary sector development officers, who could provide advice and guidance on funding and other aspects of running a community organisation.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that Mer-IT did not offer formally accredited courses.

·         Although Mer-IT did not work with schools on a regular basis, the organisation had worked with 12 pupils from Highbury Fields School who faced various challenges.

·         A member of the public queried if Mer-IT monitored the progress of young people who participated in their courses. It was advised that routine monitoring did not take place, however it was known that some young people had since taken up ICT-related employment. The organisation had received feedback from young people that they would like workshops to run on a more regular basis.

The Committee thanked Mercedes and Alex for their attendance.

b)    Evidence from Groundwork London

The Committee received a presentation from David Williams, NEET Achievement Coach Manager, on the work of Groundwork in supporting young people’s education, employment and training.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·         Groundwork London offered three programmes which supported young people’s education, employment and training; Pre-NEET, which worked in schools with young people at risk of becoming NEET; Targeted NEET, which worked with young people who had been excluded or had disengaged from education; and Aspire Higher, which worked with young people in pupil referral units and had an additional emphasis on diversion from gang-related activities.

·         The Pre-NEET programme was funded by the Skills Funding Agency and worked with 1,340 young people across London. The programme involved Groundwork developing personalised action plans in partnership with young people at risk of becoming NEET and monitoring progress against it in weekly coaching sessions for 17-20 weeks.

·         The Targeted NEET programme was funded by the Skills Funding Agency and the Youth Engagement Fund, and supported 200 young people aged 16 to 18 from across 10 London boroughs. The targeted programme consisted of more intense interventions, including one to one sessions in community settings and job-brokerage, with Young London Working providing ring-fenced job opportunities to participants. Groundwork worked in partnership with local authorities, colleges, housing associations and others to identify and support young people NEET.

·         Groundwork considered that it was important to offer industry-related courses to young people NEET, and offering employability skills was not sufficient to attract the most difficult to engage young people. Young people NEET typically did not enjoy education and needed clear progression pathways to see the value in education.

·         Aspire Higher had been developed in partnership with the Greater London Authority, Metropolitan Police, pupil referral units, and alternative education providers. The programme provided 18 months of support to 240 vulnerable young people across London. Groundwork expected 140 of these young people to move back into mainstream education, or progress into training or employment.

·         Young people on the Aspire Higher programme were taken on trips outside of their borough and outside of London. Some young people would not usually travel outside of their immediate local area and it was commented that this was detrimental to their wellbeing and employment prospects. The Executive Member commented that such initiatives helped to develop the confidence of young people and diverted young people from gang-related activities. It was known that gangs tended to operate on a postcode basis and some young people perceived that they would be unsafe if they travelled to other areas.

·         Following a question, it was advised that Groundwork had only recently started working in Islington and was supporting around 20 young people in the borough. It was commented that some of these young people had been referred through Peabody Housing Association.

·         It was noted that there were similarities between the support programmes offered by Groundwork and Islington Council and it was queried if there was potential for the organisations to develop a close partnership arrangement. In response, it was advised that the council did work with Groundwork and this was particularly helpful when engaging with employers, who were often keen to work with charities. 

The Committee thanked David Williams for his attendance.

c)     Responses to questions raised by the Committee at 21 November 2016 meeting

Noted.