Agenda item

To include:

 

·         Jodi Pilling, Leaning and Skills Manager – ‘Careers Clusters’

·         Evidence from two local employers

·         Evidence from another local authority

(a)  Islington Schools/College Careers Cluster

 

The Committee received a presentation and noted a report from Jodi Pilling, Learning and Skills Manager, on the ‘Careers Cluster’ programme. 

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

 

·         Islington’s careers cluster was one of 12 pilots across London and was to be funded up to March 2018 by the European Social Investment Fund and the Skills Funding Agency.

·         Westminster Kingsway City and Islington College had won the contract for the careers cluster and had subcontracted a significant part of the contract to the council. The council had working relationships with all schools in the borough and this had helped in the implementation of the programme.

·         The programme was being delivered to 700 pupils and intended to bridge the gap between the academic and working lives of young people. In particular, the programme was to support young people in making better transitions, improve the relevance of intelligence and data which would help to embed more effective careers education in schools, and to support business and higher education engagement with schools and colleges.

·         The Committee considered the key performance indicators and outcomes as set out in the report. It was advised that the number of university applications would also be monitored, in particular the number of young people applying for university who were classified as ‘gifted and talented’ however who were considered by their schools to be less likely to apply to universities than their peers. Anecdotal evidence would also be considered when measuring the success of the pilot; including teacher confidence in providing support and advice. It was commented that increasing the confidence of teachers in providing careers advice could have a very positive impact on young people.

·         Some of the work to be carried out through the pilot was an extension of the work carried out through the iWork service; the pilot would provide more ‘Present Yourself’ days and more employment workshops for young people.

·         The pilot was engaging with more employers than required. The ESF funding stipulated that 18 employers must be engaged in the pilot; however the council had engaged 21 employers to ensure that a range of sectors were represented. It was commented that the employers were keen to work with young people.

·         Slaughter and May would be hosting a session on International Women’s Day for girls who had expressed an interest in law however did not have family connections in the city. The Institute of Physics was holding a session for students interested in a career in science. Assemblies were also being held for those interested in creative industries.

·         Industrial placements were being arranged for teachers to enable them to understand different industries.

·         Following a question, it was advised that the contribution to the programme from the European Social Investment Fund was not at risk from Brexit.

·         A member of the public asked how many young people were not in education, employment or training in the borough. In response, it was advised that the number had reduced significantly in recent years to around 100 young people aged 16-18, however it was emphasised that this was a transient group.

 

The Committee thanked Jodi Pilling for her attendance.

 

Mary Clement and Councillor Diner entered the meeting.

 

(b)  Evidence from local employers

 

Dorcas Morgan, Development Director at Park Theatre, advised the Committee of their work in supporting the development of young people.

 

·         Park Theatre was based in Finsbury and had been operating since 2013. They operated two theatres and produced 25 plays a year. The organisation also carried out a great deal of outreach and community work, managed a theatre café and bar, and welcomed 100,000 visitors a year.

·         Outreach work included providing volunteering opportunities, a young patron’s programme, work with local migrants, and the employment of local people in the café and bar. The theatre also provided subsidised classes for low income families.

·         The organisation had developed relationships with local organisations to provide opportunities in the arts to young people and other people facing disadvantage. Park Theatre had strong relationships with City and Islington College, The Bridge School, University of the Arts and Islington Arts and Media School. The organisation also worked closely with Children’s Services, the Employment Support team, NRPF, and JobCentre Plus. 

·         Park Theatre offered a creative apprenticeship programme for young people. It was crucial for Park Theatre to fundraise effectively to enable it to provide such opportunities. Islington Council had provided funding to the organisation, with the condition that opportunities were ring-fenced for Islington residents.

·         Apprentices were paid £10,000 p.a. and worked for 40 hours a week.

·         The Committee was surprised that only two applicants had been interviewed for the latest apprenticeship position; and only three applicants had been interviewed for the previous round. It was thought that there would be many young people in Islington interested in a career in the arts who would enthusiastically apply for such an opportunity. In response, it was advised that all applications were initially screened by Islington Council, and it was thought that the specific eligibility criteria and timing of the application period resulted in a low number of applications. The apprenticeships were only open to those who had not previously been in further education and who were currently claiming Jobseekers Allowance. These eligibility criteria were agreed with JobCentre Plus, which was contributing funding to the programme. It was advised that the timing of the applications process could be amended in future years to coincide with the further education application process. It was commented that some young people did not claim Jobseekers Allowance even if they were eligible.

·         It was suggested that further work was needed to raise awareness of apprenticeship programmes among hard to reach groups, including BME communities. The Committee suggested that promotion via social media and community centres could be useful.

·         Officers acknowledged that creative apprenticeships could be promoted better; whilst some schools were keen to identify pupils with a creative interest and promote such opportunities to them, others were not.

·         A member of the public commented that Park Theatre provided Level 2 apprenticeships and queried if Level 3 apprenticeships could be offered. In response it was advised that the organisation was currently funded to provide Level 2 apprenticeships and the organisation would need to look into accreditation and funding if making changes to its apprenticeship offer.

 

John Nugent of Green and Fortune advised the Committee of their work in supporting young people.

 

·         Green and Fortune was a local business in the bar, restaurant, catering and events industry. The company operated one venue at King’s Place which had 80 employees, and another on the South Bank with 70 employees.

·         Green and Fortune employed young people to carry out a range of roles. Opportunities were available in over 20 different roles, including sales and marketing and commercial development. It was commented that there was a great willingness among employers to engage with young people, however it had proved difficult to attract high quality candidates with the required skills.

·         Green and Fortune considered that council initiatives such as the Saturday Jobs Scheme had been a great success and thought that providing young people with five or six hours of employment a week was the best way to develop employability skills and experience. The company had employed two young people through the scheme, both of which had since been promoted, and as a result the company had recently employed two more young people.

·         The company had developed employment programmes with the council, JobCentre Plus, and Global Generation, a local charity. The company was willing to train young people and develop their employment skills, however it was commented that some young people did not have a strong work ethic and were challenging to work with. The company offered a six week programme to six young people, however by the end of the programme only one participant from the first cohort remained. It was noted that the programme had since been revised to increase the emphasis on work readiness.  

·         The Committee queried why some young people did not succeed at Green and Fortune, asking if the work was mundane, did not offer sufficient incentives, was on a ‘zero hours’ basis, or if staff were expected to work too long hours. In response, it was advised that some opportunities offered by the company were on a zero-hours basis, however most staff worked between 40 and 50 hours a week and earned the London Living Wage. It was also commented that the hospitality sector was known for identifying talent and promoting people quickly and therefore there was lots of opportunity within the sector, particularly given the amount of regeneration in the local area. It was thought that some young people struggled because they were not ready for employment and found it difficult to commit to routines. 

·         It was commented that some businesses used a very high number of agency staff, and it was thought that this should not be the case when there were so many young people looking for permanent work in London.

·         Anna Douglas, Principal of City and Islington College, advised that the college encouraged its students to seek employment and indicated that she would welcome the opportunity to discuss opportunities with Mr Nugent after the meeting.

·         The Committee welcomed that the employment opportunities available locally were of a high quality, however expressed concern that some young people seemed to lack the basic skills needed for employment. In response to a question, it was advised that the company had not identified if pupils lacking skills came from a particular school or background. It was commented that Green and Fortune would be working closer with schools as part of the Careers Cluster programme.

·         It was commented that social skills were needed in all jobs, not just in the hospitality sector, and it was suggested that customer service should be taught in schools.

·         It was remarked that employment support services for young people seemed well resourced however not all young people achieved positive outcomes. It was queried if more sector-specific targeted work would be beneficial to young people.

 

The Committee thanked Ms Morgan and Mr Nugent for their attendance.

 

(c)  Evidence from LB Hackney

 

The Committee received a presentation from Jo Margie, 14-19 Programme Manager at the Hackney Learning Trust, and Pauline Adams, Head of Service of Young Hackney, on the work to reduce the number of NEETs in Hackney.

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

 

·         Hackney was similar to Islington in many respects, however had a larger cohort of young people.

·         The Hackney Learning Trust was a not-for-profit, independent organisation appointed to manage and improve education services in Hackney. The Trust was established in 2002 and since then all schools in the borough had significantly improved.

·         Hackney had a 95% participation rate. Over 87% of young people known to the Youth Justice system were in EET.

·         Young Hackney was the borough’s early help service. The service provided integrated employment support, as well as other services such as mental health and behavioural support.

·         Hackney did not have an equivalent to Islington’s Progress Team, and instead commissioned an organisation called Prospectus to provide intensive employment support.

·         Hackney Council offered apprenticeships in a similar way to Islington Council. It was commented that 120 young people applied for six placements; with the best candidates having soft skills and the confidence to perform well at interview.

·         Early help was linked to all young people’s services in Hackney, including play services and schools. It was intended to provide a comprehensive service to young people focused to prevention, diversion, and health and wellbeing.

·         Young Hackney workers were located at several hubs across the borough, so that young people could present at various community facilities and receive integrated advice and support.

·         NEETs in Hackney tended to face barriers such as special education needs, disability, speech and language issues, or issues such as substance misuse, mental health, or domestic violence.

·         Hackney had worked to develop positive working relationships with local schools and colleges to increase referrals to youth services.

·         Hackney had developed a system for identifying pupils at risk of becoming NEET, the ‘Risk of NEET Index’. This evaluated various factors including attendance, KS2 performance and the number of times they had transferred school.

·         Most schools in Hackney employed a non-teaching careers officer to develop the school’s careers offer. Most schools carried out one-to-one interviews with their pupils to assess their employability skills and support needs.

·         Hackney strongly recommended the work of the Careers Cluster, commenting that schools received a lot of offers from employers and organisations wanting to work with young people, and the cluster helped to evaluate these opportunities and identify the best schemes for young people.

·         Some Hackney schools ran apprenticeship clubs in which young people were supported in completing their applications. Hackney schools tried to make the apprenticeship application process mirror the university application process as much as possible.

·         Hackney recognised that employers wanted employability skills, whilst schools were driven primarily by academic outcomes. As a result Hackney had developed a “Careers Collaborative” to help schools to develop careers programmes at little cost to the school. It was commented that the biggest challenge to implementing employability support programmes in school was finding time in the school curriculum. 

·         A number of extra-curricular activities were available in Hackney including coding clubs, holiday programmes, accredited activities such as the Duke of Edinburgh Award, volunteering opportunities and work experience.

·         Hackney had a number of cross-borough forums for schools and education professionals to consider EET data and other issues affecting young people.

·         Young Hackney encouraged its staff to take collective responsibility for the progress of young people and staff were expected to report back on the progress of the young people they had interacted with.

·         The Committee queried how Hackney Council had encouraged so many young people to apply for its apprenticeships. In response it was advised that opportunities were advertised through youth networks, including voluntary sector organisations working with young people. It was thought that schools were not the best route to promote apprenticeships as they tended to focus on university applications.

·         It was commented that Hackney’s youth hubs strongly promoted volunteering opportunities as this was considered to be the best way to develop the employability skills of young people.

·         The Committee asked what aspects of its work Hackney Council would recommend to other local authorities. In response, it was advised that the Careers Collaborative had encouraged schools to work closely together in providing careers educations and this had developed very effective and consistent services. It was also important to listen to schools and develop services in response to their specific needs. It was also commented that aligning early help services with universal services had normalised accessing early help services and had improved the reach of support services.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that Islington already had a youth website which advertised employment, apprenticeship, and volunteering opportunities. It was suggested that this could be made more user-friendly and could benefit from incentives to use the site, such as a prize draw. 

·         It was suggested that Children’s Services could recruit an apprentice to maintain the social media presence of youth services.

·         A member of the public questioned the success of Hackney’s Risk of NEET Index, querying how many young people were classified at risk of NEET for multiple factors. It was advised that this data was not available at the meeting, however the index was considered successful and was being rolled out to schools following a pilot. It was noted that the system required further development as it did not cover all risk factors, such as bereavement.

 

The Committee thanked Ms Margie and Ms Adams for their attendance.

 

Councillor Ngongo left the meeting.

 

(d)  Concluding Discussion

 

The Committee agreed to defer the concluding discussion to the next meeting.