CAREERS ENGLAND – WRITTEN EVIDENCE (YUN0038)

Youth Unemployment Committee inquiry

Careers England is the trade association representing careers service providers in England. Our submission seeks to highlight the issues facing many young people aged 16-18 who struggle to maintain a positive education, training or employment destination. There are 3 main areas of focus summarised below. These are accompanied by a number of case studies as addendums to this submission, including a video case with a young person -  the video file may not transfer within this document, but can be made available on request.

1. The disproportionate impact of the pandemic on young people’s life chances has led to an increased focus on measures to tackle youth unemployment. However, NEET amongst young people has been a persistent problem in many areas of the country over many years and there has been less focus on the problem at a national level as employment rates increased across the population. There were 1 in 8 young people NEET at the age of 18, which equates to 25 young people every year from the average secondary school, before the pandemic.
   
   Studies have shown that England has lost track of over 150,000 young people aged 16-18; and over 50,000 of these are believed to be NEET, these are the ‘hidden NEET’. Local authorities have a statutory duty[1] to engage with and enable the participation of young people in learning and work. Some provide direct engagement services, others commission this service from outside experts. The belief is that there has been a reduction in the active tracking of young people in recent years, due in some part to a reduction of funding to support this activity.
   
   Local authority data can differ greatly depending on local priorities and standards. Some local authorities with higher levels and standards of tracking are shown to have higher NEET rates than where this is not the case, due to the numbers of young people they reach. There is therefore a perverse incentive not to actively track young people in terms of submission of data to the National Client Caseload Information System (NCCIS); verifiable tracking data can be questionable due to differences in the period in which young people were last contacted.
   
   Evidence from careers service companies contracted by local authorities to engage, track and assist in to Education, Training or Employment indicates a variance in the way some local authorities approach tracking. As local authorities control the data, the provider is dependent on who is referred through to them for help and there are often significant gaps from the numbers of young people who are known to be in need. Lower standards of tracking or limited tracking activity results in lower levels of NEET recorded in the national NCCIS database where comparisons can be made. Interestingly, in recent months it is known the there has been increases in youth unemployment (NEET) as a result of redundancy and apprenticeship and employment opportunities being limited due the pandemic, however in recently published 3 monthly NEET data the England average remains the same as the previous year. This goes against all the prevailing evidence from other sources, e.g. ERSA Labour Market Bulletin.
    
2. A further area of concern shows that the change in local authority responsibilities from recording 16-18 activity rates, inclusive of 18 year olds, to focusing on the status of 16/17 year olds has predictably reduced the scope of their work with young people as covered in their statutory duty. Statutory guidance to local authorities states: The law requires all young people in England to continue in education or training until at least their 18th birthday, although in practice the vast majority of young people continue until the end of the academic year in which they turn 18. The decision to focus the age group for which local authorities are expected to track misses young people who are aged 18 at a time when they are arguably most in need as they transition from DfE funded services to DWP services. This limits the scope for effecting a handover, the sharing of data on young people in need and the ability to keep them engaged. Where this no longer happens large numbers of young people lose touch with services that are there to help, and as a consequence are lost to the system. The task and cost of re-engaging these young people, many of who will later appear in unemployment statistics, is significant.
   
    
3. Many of the young people marginalised before the pandemic lack the personal, social and financial resources to make radical changes in their lifestyles and the recent Children’s Commissioner’s report on the impact of the pandemic on young people’s lives highlights the growing level of mental health problems experienced by many young people. Their choices are limited and where they remain outside the reach of Universal Credit and other welfare systems they are unlikely to engage or be engaged in the opportunities that are being made available via the Plan for Jobs.
   
   Before meaningful re-engagement is possible much work is needed to address these barriers. Evidence from Careers England member organisations indicates that their work with many NEET young people is initially as much about helping to stabilise chaotic lives as it is about enabling them to find work or training. Appended to this submission are individual case studies from careers service providers, which illustrate the types of work necessary to address barriers to engagement in learning and work. These provide examples where additional resources have enabled progress at a local level.
   
   The video case study provides an indication of the impact that NEET has on young people’s confidence and motivation. This is a local provider in the North East of England at the start of providing support during lockdown. As case studies show the umber of contacts and the intensity of support can vary and can be very demanding.
    

Summary

Careers England wishes to indicate that there are positive examples of work to engage and movement into learning and work up and down the country at a local level. Many of these programmes identify and address the need for intensive support for some individuals. The reality is that there is no consistency of provision across the country.

In the past decade there has been a significant disinvestment in tracking young people at a local level in the years leading to and beyond their transition from education to the adult and working world compared to previous years. Early tracking of first destinations from school contain the most reliable and verifiable data; as young people grow older the level of contact and quality of data lessens.

This has been compounded by the large cuts to local authority youth services budgets, since austerity measures were introduced. The reductions in local authority spending on meeting their statutory duty, as referred to above, has resulted in a diminution of services to young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET.

This has been compensated for in part by local authorities or their service providers being able to access alternative funding, such as ESIF, Big Lottery, etc. However, the nature of this funding, which is often short-term, results led (Payment by Results) has made it difficult for those working with disadvantaged young people to be able to guarantee the levels of service needed, which can be intensive, and to achieve the outcomes that trigger payment of funding. As EU funding winds down over the next couple of years it is imperative that the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund is targeted to ensure that the skills-base of organisations working productively with NEET young people is maintained and where possible strengthened. A national strategy to support young people who are NEET is required with consistency of funding and direction across localities.

Case Study 1

17-year-old girl had been studying a traineeship and was due to start an apprenticeship at a nursery in September. She declined assistance to help search for work over the summer. Therefore, I left it a few months and contacted her in October to see if she started her apprenticeship.

She explained that she’d been struggling with her mental health and no longer wanted to work in a nursery, as being responsible for children is too much pressure for her.

This particular YP has severe anxiety and finds travelling independently to be very challenging, especially when it’s a journey that she hasn’t done before. Her step- dad brought her to meet me in the first instance and we discussed her barriers. These main barriers were travel and fear of large crowds and college environments. We then agreed to meet weekly and explore different options available to her.

In order to encourage independence, I suggested that for our next appointment she should get the bus from home to town by herself. I would then meet her at the bus stop and walk to the office together. The following week I suggested that she make the whole journey by herself, which she did. This was very useful, as when she expressed fears about attending new things and meeting new people we could use travelling to the office as an example of how she can overcome fears with the right support.

I arranged a visit to the FE campus where we could both have a tour of the facilities and meet the head of foundation learning. This helped to put the YP at ease and enabled her to familiarise herself with the environment and teachers. We also looked at other ways in which she could meet new people and improve her self-confidence during the interim period of starting college.

Case study 2

Client’s situation before intervention/s:

         Angry outbursts during school time, particularly against teacher. At risk of exploitation within criminal activity (drugs).

          

Work undertaken by adviser (summary of interventions):

Behaviour: Spoke about the behavioural issues he has and the struggles it causes while at school; he was able to visually see his feelings on this via the FIS assessment, remarking “I didn’t realise that’s how I felt”.

Career: I got him to see his GCSEs as part of the process in getting him to becoming a Marine Biologist. Did this over a series of sessions by looking at University courses, apprenticeships, and work experience – all of which required GCSEs. He was then open to my suggestion of having private Science GCSE tutelage at his home since this is the key subject he’ll need to do well in.

Work Experience: we visited the Discovery Centre in Bracknell after I emailed them requesting he be placed there for a week to learn; they did not take up the request but MH was happy we tried at least.

Assessment tools used (e.g. Framework for Intensive Support)

FIS – (Framework for Intensive Support) – an in-house psychometric tool Adviza has created to support young people to self-assess themselves against 10 ‘dimensions’ in their life, which include confidence, self-esteem, education, employment and resilience.

Length of work with customer

Once a week for 24 weeks

Case Study 3

H is currently 16 (17 in May), female and was leaving school by the time I was able to fully engage her with YES support. First engagement via video link. She was feeling anxious about her GCSE results and had not had a positive year 11- and we spoke a lot about her lack of confidence and her feelings that she would not be able to access college or any work going forward.

H has some moderate learning difficulties but her main barrier to EET was around confidence and some bullying she encountered at school. After some initial contact on social media and lots of call attempts in 2020 (post year 11 appointment), Helen got in touch more regularly, and we have worked together to achieve some of the outcomes described below.

Activity with H since mid-2020 included-

1. 2 x CV refresher sessions, where we added education experience to Helen’s CV.
2. 2 x indeed.com sessions, where we registered Helen on the site, finessed her job searches and set up notifications for relevant roles.
3. A college “check-in” session, where Helen explained the work she was doing at college, so we could look at realistic times available to her for PT work.
4. 7 x interview practice sessions, where we spoke about everything from common interview questions, body language, delivering answers and breathing/confidence techniques.

Her specific outcomes were;

1. Maintaining her college place, despite genuine concerns she may not be able to handle the workload.
2. A renewed engagement with a service like ours, which Helen was dubious about from the time we first engaged.
3. Increased confidence in herself, which has helped her to explain her support needs to college tutors concisely.
4. A PT job in a kitchen, which Helen is over the moon about!
5.  

H has had a really positive year. She is managing her Lewes college workload and organising her work really well. She is about to finish year one Childcare/early years education and is looking forward to year two. She is in FT education and a PT job- which seemed almost impossible to her a year ago.

Case Study 4

10th May 2021