Review of Local Employment Initiatives in Middlesbrough

1. Review of Local Employment Initiatives in Middlesbrough Presentation of Shared Intelligence findings Mark Evershed 15 April 2005

2. Objectives of the research • assess current and future needs – supply and demand • scan current/future policy & delivery at national, regional & local level • identify ‘preferred model’ of provision for supporting access to the labour market • evaluate current provision & identify gaps/opportunities • develop strategy/action plan

3. Methodology • Stage 1: Assessment of need and overview of provision • Stage 2: Develop preferred approach • Stage 3: Develop strategy and action plan

4. Context • Shifting focus from unemployment to worklessness • Middlesbrough one of worst 6 concentrations in England • new DWP Strategy • changes to benefits regime • Increased flexibilities & freedoms for mainstream programmes

5. Background - key statistics • demographic change - 17-44 age group to decline by 11% to 2016 • educational attainment improving but still poor • 39% of pupils achieve 5 GCSEs A-C • poor literacy (29% of adults) & numeracy (31%) well above England average (24%) • widespread deprivation • Middlesbrough ranked 4th worst local authority in 2004 IMD (concentration of deprivation) • four SOAs in worst 100 (out of 32,382) in England (Middlehaven x2, Gresham, Clairville)

6. Background - key statistics • economic transition …. • modest growth since ‘97 • shift towards service sector employment & part-time jobs • skills shortages & hard to fill vacancies • employment rate (63.5% very low (cf GB 74.3%)

7. Worklessness • 22.4% of Mbro working age population on some form of benefit (GB 13.5%) • 16 of Middlesbrough’s 22 wards are in worst 20% for employment deprivation

8. Unemployment • JSA claimant count unemployment high – 4.6% Jan 05 (GB 2.4%) - but fell by 35% since January 2001 • 51.3% of claimants aged 25-50; just 12.8% are 17-19 • 45% have been claiming JSA for more than 26 weeks • wards with highest % unemployment are: • North Ormesby/Brambles Farm (11.2%) • Beckfield (8.1%)

9. Incapacity benefit/Income Support • 13% of Mbro working age population on sick/disabled benefits (GB 8.6%) • just over 20,000 residents on IB/IS – more than 5x no of JSA claimants • IB/IS claimant count has remained static since 2002 • 50% of IB claimants have been claiming >12 months

10. A view from the sharp end (1) • Qualitative research with 50 individuals to consider needs, barriers, effectiveness of current support: • young people • lone parents • BME residents • long-term unemployed • people with disabilities • reinforced perceptions of key barriers to work: • health • childcare • transport • postcode discrimination • Benefits System • skills levels • housing

11. A view from the sharp end (2) • …but also highlighted • impact of low self-esteem, confidence and aspirations • mismatch between career aspirations and available employment – poor quality of entry level jobs • constraints on JC+ resources; still perceived as ‘benefits police’ • complex progression routes - ‘customer journey’ is often unclear • limited recognition of overseas qualifications

12. Current provision – what’s working well? • more than 50 separate initiatives, ranging from national programmes/pilots to locally funded/targeted projects: • Employment Zone/WiN/Action Team – flexibilities & freedoms to tailor mainstream provision • projects engaging hard to reach groups (e.g. MiLE, Grange Rd) • Job brokerage – complements mainstream provision • Hemlington Works – holistic approach to service provision • sector-based approach – Building Bureau

13. Current provision: working less well? • some (limited) evidence of duplication of provision • often funding regimes do not promote progression • lack of in-work support/mentoring • not enough IAG advisors • stronger links required between Connexions and employers? • many neighbourhoods currently access extensive support – but some programmes/funding streams due to end in 2006

14. Learning from good practice • Research has examined a range of initiatives: • Full Employment Areas (Liverpool, Renfrewshire) • Streets Ahead (Liverpool) • New Futures Fund (Careers Scotland) • health projects (Compass Project, Healthy Working Lives, Starting Well) • Strive (Harlesden) – US model

15. Learning from good practice • freedoms and flexibilities – e.g. EZ/Action Teams – reduce barriers • strong focus on engaging the hard to reach • independent personal advisors/key workers who broker support and handhold • flexible provision – purchased when needed • deal with “person first “ • holistic approach (health, family, confidence)

16. Local Employment Strategy: Aim: ‘to achieve full employment in Middlesbrough by 2015

17. Local Employment Strategy • Full employment: • Everyone who wants to work can quickly find a job • No groups are excluded or disadvantaged in the labour market • There are real prospects for progression at work • Poverty in work is eradicated • defined as GB average JSA claimant count and employment rate of 80% • Achieving GB average today would require 8,600 more Middlesbrough residents in employment; local economy currently growing at 500 jobs p.a. • LES is focused on supply-side – recognise demand-side is critical • making mainstream

18. Objectives • build consensus on local needs & priorities and develop provision to address gaps • provide a framework to coordinate and target delivery • influence and add value to delivery of mainstream programmes

19. Partnership • a stronger, focused partnership involving JC+, Council, Network of Intermediaries and others; this would • clearly define delivery roles & responsibilities • work with other partners (social work, health etc) to strengthen referral routes and promote progression • align funding and resources; move towards joint commissioning and re-commissioning of projects • provide capacity building and support to local organisations • maintain overview of local needs/priorities - monitor, evaluate and update Local Employment Strategy

20. Local Strategic Partnership Integrate with community strategy • Economic Vitality Group • updating the LES • defining roles and responsibilities • Executive • Middlesbrough Works • aligning funding and resources • direct commissioning and performance management Delivery partners Project delivery Partnership

21. Proposals (1) • seek to influence delivery of mainstream programmes • more emphasis on engaging/supporting hardest to reach in the community – key worker approach • holistic view of client needs – ‘person first’; • stronger focus on in-work support • widen flexibilities/freedoms in most employment deprived wards, building on DWP strategy

22. Proposals (2) • extend EZ/Action Team flexibilities/freedoms to enhance mainstream support in 12 wards: • minimum eligibility criteria – unemployed or economically inactive • increased no of personal advisors to broker support • all individuals to benefit from full range of support offered • funding to follow the individual, rather than the provider • stop the clock' allowing individuals to address key barriers without penalty • in-work support for a minimum of 26 weeks built into all programmes • rewards for effective partnership working • enhanced travel subsidies and support with childcare costs

23. Proposals (3) • commission new local initiatives to plug gaps: • support for long-term IB/IS claimants (pre P2W) • strengthen role of public sector in providing apprenticeships, work placements etc • sector-specific customised training • sector-specific ILMs • enhanced employment support for 16-19 year olds • work-based ESOL

24. Group discussion: • is full employment the right aspiration for the strategy? • is the Partnership vehicle right? • views on proposals • Extending flexibilities and freedoms for mainstream provision in target wards • local projects to address gaps • what – if any – are the risks and barriers to delivery?