LIVERPOOL CITY REGION COMBINED AUTHORITY – SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE (YUN0079)

Youth Unemployment Committee inquiry

Ethnic Minority Performance

And Progression into Higher Education

Background

Last month (8th June) the Metro Mayor for the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, attended the evidence session at the House of Lords Youth Unemployment Committee.

During the evidence session a couple of additional questions and areas of interest emerged. This narrative relates to the query and points made by Kenneth Baker, Baron Baker of Dorking who stated:

“Are you aware that in Liverpool there is a UTC on the borders of Toxteth? It teaches Bioscience and three years ago they took in 30 black students from Toxteth, If you were born in Toxteth your chance of going to university was less than 20%. Of those students 80% of those students went onto University. Are there any other schools in your area that transform the lives of minority students in that way?”

“Are there any other schools that transform the chances of black students from 20 to 80% in your area? I don’t think you’ll find any anywhere near it… perhaps you can send me a list of those that transform the lives of black students… I would love to see it.”

Introduction

By way of an introductory caveat, it is our ambition that young people from all of our constituent local authority areas that make up the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority area are supported to ensure that they maximise their talents and potential. The Liverpool UTC is an asset to the Liverpool City Region and, as Ofsted themselves recognise, has leaders who share our ambition for all students to maximise their potential.

Currently, the data does not identify where students were drawn from on entry which can be a significant issue and does not necessarily provide the finer and more granular information that allows more direct comparison and reporting. In terms of the example given by Lord Baker during the session, the current data sets would not enable us to obtain validated detail at scale across our local area.

Detailed within the narrative below therefore is a summary analysis of the data and an ask that, if met, would help address some of the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the outcomes for our local young people.

What does the data tell us?

Definitions:

• The data for those showing percentage from an ethnic minority background has been compiled performing a summary calculation of all those ethnicity categories listed, excluding the baseline White-British Heritage category. Therefore, white individuals who identify as being from an African background for example, as defined on their school census, are included under this definition as an ethnic minority. [EG: % of pupils classified as white and black African ethnic origin]

• What is defined as Higher Education Progression by DfE?

• “The proportion of 16-18 students that progressed to degrees, higher apprenticeships or other study at level 4 or above for at least 6 consecutive months in the 2 years after taking advanced level qualifications (level 3) at this school or college.”
• What defines disadvantaged progression?
• Although it does not state the definition for ‘Disadvantaged Students’ on the Compare Schools Site with this dataset – it is typically the case in most DfE publications to class those who are eligible for Pupil Premium Funding /Free School Meals as under this category.

Top ten schools which provide a post-16 route, which have the highest BME school cohorts:

Using this as a starting point, given we do not have access to any local data regarding the progression routes of ethnic minorities into Higher Education, we are left to make assumptions.

The problem is, we cannot categorically state that out of say, the 56.6% ethnic minority cohort at Liverpool UTC, that 81% of that 56.6% go onto HE. We just do not know using publicly available data. It could well be the case that the other 43.3% cohort are the ones which take the substantial routes into HE.

ASK: We need better access to granular level data on ethnicity and their HE progression routes.

Top 10 schools in LCR for HE Progression [Overall Cohort]

Top 10 Schools for Disadvantaged Pupils HE Progression:

Top 10 Schools for Pupils [All Backgrounds] going to a Russel Group HEI:

Evidence of Outcomes & Success in Youth Employment/Training Programmes

Introduction

Last month (8th June) the Metro Mayor for the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, attended the evidence session at the House of Lords Youth Unemployment Committee.

During the evidence session a couple of additional questions and areas of interest emerged. This narrative relates to the query and question posed by Lord Shipley, Baron Shipley OBE namely:

“One of the important things for the committee is evidence of outcomes and success, in writing to us Steve, we are keen to hear opinions from LCR about which Government Initiatives are actually working and which ones are working less well; it is one thing to have large number of initiatives it is another to develop the ones that work. Something in writing from you would be welcome.”

Rather than go into too much detail about the relative merits or otherwise of the many programmes that exist currently, it is perhaps an opportunity to highlight some general principles that we think (based on our experience) underpin successful programmes.

Example Employment Programme Principles

Local works

• Our experience is that programmes should be commissioned, procured and managed locally- based on a local understanding of the needs of the population and our understanding and informed interpretation of the quantitative and qualitative evidence;

• Programmes that are co-designed with partners is an important success determinant – local partners and networks help ensure successful engagement and delivery;

• Where programmes are determined nationally, engagement of local areas and local partners in local delivery and programme management will help secure better performance and outcomes;

• Local authorities often provide many of the additional support packages required by a young person; an LA based advocate or youth worker can engage with these teams quickly;

• To facilitate people into jobs and the promotion and awareness raising of Kickstarter opportunities, the LCR has been able to agree locally with DWP to establish a Kickstart Vacancy portal allowing DWP Work Coaches and clients to search for available opportunities, and find out more details.

• Delivered through our Youth Hub by BE MORE website, it is the only one of its type in England; other youth focussed services provided by multiple partners are also part of the site in one place. https://youthhub.be-more.info/kickstart/

Building relationships and Trust

• Initial outreach and engagement work by youth-focussed workers, and by organisations located on the ground knowing the barriers that young people face, is an important part of being able to move someone towards employment or that ‘next step’. Building relationships and trust, mentoring and coaching are all part of the person-centred approach; and

• Where multiple interventions are being delivered the relationships between the client and all the individuals and organisations with whom they engage is important.

Longer and flexible delivery- with sensible outcomes and alignment with other programmes:  Time and ‘space’ matters

• Those individuals who face multiple barriers to have to overcome before moving into employment need the time and appropriate support to overcome these barriers; individuals with significant and multiple barriers who stay on programmes long enough for support to be delivered are more likely to succeed;

• Provision should reflect those with multiple barriers and be driven by need- rather than an eligibility check-list approach;

• Programme outcomes need to be sensible – both in volume and their delivery period. Being able to align other programmes to the needs of an individual enables a package of support to be put in place- and an individual’s progress to employment may require a number of steps; and

• Programmes need time to build momentum and currency; nationally determined and managed programmes delivered locally often won’t have the delivery infrastructure and relationship advantage that locally commissioned, procured and managed programmes have.

Person-centred/ Personalised support (see examples below) -

• Programmes should offer personalised support tailored to the needs of each individual- and provide an appropriate range of options- options that may differ in scale or breadth- but are intended to secure the appropriate outcomes;

• Young people (as evidenced in our Youth Employment Gateway Initiative Programme) often require more support across the entire spectrum of support- e.g. advice about work; careers advice and guidance; financial advice but more does not/ should not necessarily mean longer: the longer an individual is unemployed the less work-ready they become. Our Households into Work Programme evaluation concludes that it is the intensity of the intervention, delivered with strong advocacy, that helps remove barriers inhibiting progression into employment; and

• Employment advisers on the Households into Work programme were able to access a budget to tackle specific financial barriers to clients being able to move towards work.

Kickstart and Restart.

As indicated in our wider response to the Committee, young people have always been more adversely affected by economic downturns and challenging labour market conditions. Competition for jobs often puts them at a disadvantage in the labour market due to their relative inexperience. The economic crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many people badly across the country and in Liverpool City Region – but especially young people.

When the Government’s Plan for Jobs was published, we were thankful that some of the interventions – such as Kickstart – focussed on providing opportunities for young people.

Whilst it may be too early to judge the wider macroeconomic impact of the programme as well as the impact on individual participants, there are a number of lessons that we can identify already which link back to the programme principles outlined earlier.

• The Government’s target for the programme was 250,000 job starts. At the time of writing 50,000 had been delivered. Programmes of this magnitude need time – design, implementation, delivery, etc. – and work best when this is done locally with local partners, including local DWP/ Jobcentre Plus teams. The programme is due to end on 31st December – just at the point at which the design teething troubles and delivery processes may have settled down and become smoother.

• Across the LCR we have an average of between 800-900 live opportunities each week – but the process takes too long from the vacancy approval to a candidate actually starting in the job role – often between 8 and 12 weeks. This is too long, but the consequence of a process that is too centralised.

• Locally we have young people who would be encouraged and motivated by an opportunity to be able to apply for the varied roles available on our local Kickstart vacancy portal but are instead excluded from the programme; at the early stages of programme implementation we thought that we had secured a ministerial commitment to extend the eligibility beyond 16-24 year olds on Universal Credit to include those identified as not in employment, education or training by the local Council - but this change did not materialise. In addition, young people who have been in the care system and those up to the age of 29 would benefit from the programme: it is an opportunity to help deliver a national programme successfully by embracing local knowledge of the local labour market need.

Programme Example 1- Ways to Work:

The ‘Ways to Work’ programme is designed to provide a range of services to residents across the Liverpool City Region to enhance their employability skills and to assist them in gaining employment.

Participants can access a range of services including high quality information, advice and guidance, transitional employment opportunities, and skills development.

The project is designed to assist unemployed people, people not in education, employment or training, aged 16 plus providing advice and guidance to individuals about jobs, education and training, including:

• Help with CV preparation
• On-going quality Information, Advice and Guidance
• Mentoring and Coaching
• Mock Interviews/interview skills
• Employability skills including confidence building
• Assistance with on-line recruitment
• Digital and IT skills training
• Basic Skills: literacy and numeracy
• Employer led pre-recruitment leading to guaranteed job interviews
• Work experience placements
• Intensive work search
• Transitional employment placements (ILMs)
• Access to Employability Fund (e.g. clothing, equipment, licenses, DBS checks; travel costs; personal presentation packs)

Programme Example 2 – Households into Work

Households into Work is not just a programme to help people find work, it’s about supporting people to get to a point where they start to think about work as a realistic option. Delivered by the Combined Authority, Households into Work provides up to 12 months of support to unemployed Liverpool City Region Residents aged 16 and over, who because of their current circumstances are unable to consider taking up or sustaining employment.

Households into Work employs a team of 25, comprising of 5 team leaders and 20 employment advocates working across all 6 of the Liverpool City Region’s local authorities, mostly on an outreach basis.

The programme can introduce people to one of our dedicated Employment Advocates who will provide 1-2-1 bespoke support which will not only help the participant to resolve the issues, but also develop the skills and resilience to help deal with them or deal with them better, should they arise again in the future. Crucially, people can either join with other members of their household like a partner, spouse, parents, children, grandparents or close friends (they do not all need to live at the same address) or individually. For example, people who are isolated but would like to be introduced to people who live in their community, and with whom they might form a supportive and sustainable relationship.

Funding is also available in the form of a household budget, which can be used to pay for goods and services which might help the client overcome some of their obstacles.

30th July 2021