Careers Wales response (pan Wales)
Careers Wales will be submitting a pan Wales response which will basically be a
composite report derived from the feedback of the six regional companies. The notes
attached essentially represent the views of CWMGP and have been submitted to inform
the all Wales response. As such, I would like to point out that many of the issues are
generic to the whole of Wales and we are not seeking to direct comments at local
providers.
Welsh Assembly Government Consultation on Work Based Learning provision for
Vulnerable Young People
1. Have there been issues around the availability and quality of training and work based
placements suitable for vulnerable young people? Please provide details.
Inconsistency in the availability of training routes
In all areas, there is limited choice of providers and vocational routes. Different providers offer
different routes and on occasions this can mean that young people have to travel to other areas
to access the training they want. A degree of specialism has crept into Skill Build non-vocational
training i.e. providers tend to ‟specialise‟ in certain routes. This militates against the spirit of Skill
Build below level 1 which by its very definition is” non vocational”.
Restriction in choice in the home area can impact negatively on vulnerable young people who find
independent travel daunting and on those who are unable to access public transport. Across
some areas, public transport links are poor exacerbating the issue. In areas where there is very
limited provision, this could mean young people waiting a number of weeks before they can start.
The one size fits all model
The current programme is not flexible enough. This does not work for those young people with
the most complex needs. They need tailor-made provision to allow them to progress at their own
pace and to have support to address their issues. Flexibility in provision is required to allow
clients that have been NEET to re-engage, attending for short periods initially and progressing to
full time engagement at a pace appropriate to their needs.
Waiting times / Guarantee offer
In recent years, there has been an increase in the length of time that learners have to wait before
they can start WBL. This has been an issue not just at the peak school leaving time in the
summer, but even in January when our registers have been at their lowest.
Because of this trend, Careers Wales has had to introduce mid month monitoring of the
Guarantee to estimate the numbers who may not have their offer by their due date. For a couple
of years we were able to report this to Dcells and they could sometimes intervene with providers.
For over a year now, since they withdrew the post of the Guarantee Liaison Officer, we have not
had this support from Dcells.
Availability of work placements
The availability of work placements has also been a problem in certain sectors and in most
geographical areas. This pre dates the economic down turn.
The consequence of a lack of placements has meant that young people are kept in centre for
longer periods of time, which can lead to a drop in motivation, disruptive behaviour and
sometimes premature exit from the programme. Some providers on the other hand will not start a
learner until a placement is found.
Sometimes young people are „persuaded‟ to accept alternative rotes which if this is not what they
want can result in them leaving the programme prematurely.
Level of support provided
Often the level of support and understanding provided to a young person from a provider is
dependent on the individuals employed by the provider. This means that there are providers who
are supportive of vulnerable groups e.g. those with learning difficulties or social and behavioural
issues, and there are providers that offer little or no support for these groups.
Young people with learning / physical difficulties
The advisers working with clients with learning difficulties and / or disabilities (LDD) acknowledge
that they would not recommend work based learning to all young people. They would be least
likely to recommend it for young people with a significant learning disability or physical disability,
those on the autistic spectrum who require a level of structure and consistency and those with low
confidence or anxieties. The reasons for this are that:
 Clients based in centres often have a very flexible structure to the day
 Most providers put everyone together despite some young people being unable to cope
with the size or nature of the group
 Providers often have limited understanding of learning / physical disabilities
A lack of knowledge of an impairment or disability can often lead to providers making inaccurate
assumptions when dealing with a young person or providing information to a potential employer
placement. Often once a young person is placed with an employer there is no additional support
provided.
For young people with learning difficulties there is often a reliance on the voluntary sector to
provide placements e.g. a high proportion of those interested in retail are placed in charity shops.
Whilst this provides initial experience with support it is often difficult for young people to progress
onto other placements where there could be potential for employment.
There is a lack of alternatives and flexibility for those young people who may need time prior to
accessing an employer placement. Providers often only seem able to keep these young people
centre based working towards key skills, an activity that can be very off putting if young people
have struggled in school. In many routes, there are no simulated activities or development of
practical skills to build confidence in accessing the work place.
If a young person has received additional support whilst in school or has been on an alternative
programme that has been tailored to meet individual needs then they are likely to continue to
need support whilst in work based learning, at least during the initial phase.
There are still inconsistencies in providers‟ ability / willingness to make an application for funding
for additional support. We are still told by some providers that they cannot access any additional
funds and by others that the process takes too long. Some providers however are very proactive
in accessing this support fund and appear to do so within 2-3 weeks of making an application.
2. Have vulnerable young people been able to access WBL at an appropriate level? Is
there evidence that they have been able to progress to Level 1 or above, building on
skills and qualifications already achieved? If not, what are the reasons for the lack of
progression? What happened to the young people as a result?
Non-vocational Skill build training is the default progression for school leavers wishing to enter
WBL. In CWMGP in 2009/10:
87.3% entered Non Voc Skill build
5.7% entered level 1 SB
3.4% entered level 2 SB
0.3% entered FMA
Many young people access Skill build non voc because that is all that is available and not
because that is what they are capable of or want.
LDD clients
Nearly all young people with LDD are placed on skill build at the start of training despite their level
of qualification or skills on entry into work based learning. Many young people with LDD will
progress onto level 1 although a reasonable proportion of those with emotional, social or
behavioural difficulties drop out prior to progression. There are very limited examples of clients
with LDD progressing onto level 2 provision. Often young people with LDD have very good
practical skills but find achievement of the key skills – literacy and numeracy – a barrier. This is
given as a reason for the provider being unable to progress them.
Progression to level 1
Vulnerable young people have progressed within WBL to Level 1 but as the routes available are
so restricted, there have been occasions where there have been difficulties in progression. Lack
of employer support / paying placements can hinder progression to level 1. Examples of this are
a young person regularly attending a landscaping placement, enjoying the work but unable to
progress due to a lack of NVQ locally to cover the work he was carrying out. NVQ assessors
visited this placement in an attempt to „make it fit‟ a route available but were unable as there
wouldn‟t be enough evidence generated to meet routes on offer. Similarly, this has happened
with young people at motor body repair garages who have then had to move placement. This is
disruptive to learning, the progress already made in raising motivation and confidence,
particularly in those young people who have a history of disengagement, can be damaging and
often leads to them prematurely leaving.
Due to a general lack of provision, there are numerous examples of learners having to travel
outside their home area. More communication is needed between providers to facilitate
progression. We are trying to support this in local areas through forums, specific meetings etc.
If a young person cannot progress they may leave, re register and re enter non voc SB, find a job
with or without training or simply disappear.
3a. Financial issues (travel costs, impact on benefits, grants etc) have been identified as a
barrier that may either deter vulnerable young people from entering WBL, or make it
difficult for them to remain in training. Please provide some specific examples
Young people in care tend to have more money on benefits than they would receive if they were
in training. Therefore, there may be no incentive to enter WBL.
During the initial 2 weeks with a WBL provider, young people have to work a „week in hand‟
before receiving any monies. Therefore, they have to find money for their day to day living
expenses as their „benefits‟ stop on the day that they commence WBL.
Young people sometimes end up leaving home (or wherever else they are living) and end up on
the „streets‟. This then makes it difficult to attend any WBL.
Child benefit – if a young person is living at home the child benefit continues to be paid to the
family whilst the training allowance is paid to the young person. If they live with another adult that
person can claim child benefit, but if they live alone that entitlement to child benefit disappears.
LDD clients
Travel can be an issue but more in terms of the confidence and ability of young people to travel
independently rather than cost. A proportion of fares are reimbursed but young people often
need to pay the money initially before making a claim for reimbursement.
There are occasionally issues with benefits – one specific example was a client who lived with her
sister (who was a student). The fact that the client was accessing work based learning and
receiving the training allowance affected the income of the household and resulted in them losing
their housing benefit and council tax reduction – a significant overall reduction in income.
Young people on disability benefits are reluctant to access training as they fear that they will lose
their benefits. Whilst there is clear information for adults (i.e. those over 18) the information
provided to people under 18 in relation to work based learning and the impact on their benefits
can be inconsistent.
Young disabled people who may have had a taxi to school are often expected to travel to training
providers independently. Providers can apply to the additional support fund to cover the cost of
training but even for those providers that will do this the funding is often for a short initial period.
There is no travel training provided to enable the young person to become more independent
during that time.
A young person living independently or on hardship allowance would expect to receive £105
every fortnight. In training they would receive £50 per week minus up to £5 travel expenses
minus any extra expenses they may incur (refreshments etc). Young people on benefits should
be given an incentive to access training in line with adult WBL i.e. an increase of £10 per week.
The MTA to trainees has remained at £50 for some years with no increases in line with inflation
or the cost of living. It is easy to see why young people become disillusioned when they may be
doing a similar job to someone next to them on half their money.
3b. What impact do you think the current proposals for WBL from 2011 may have on some
vulnerable young people (those living independently etc)?
If the training allowance were reduced, it would make it extremely difficult for young people living
independently to support themselves and subsequently attend any WBL. Many of the young
people who are living independently have had chaotic lives over many years and have not
capitalised on education at school. They may have literacy and numeracy issues that need
addressing before they are able to progress in WBL.
The issue of a differentiated training allowance paying £30 to young people who access the
“Engagement” route will significantly impact on vulnerable young people. The majority of
vulnerable people are likely to fall into this category but are also more likely to come from low
income families or be living independently at 16/17. This will discourage them from entering
training and could result in a higher proportion of NEETS as colleges have also reduced lower
level courses. In addition, young people with learning disabilities are likely to remain within the
Engagement route for longer thus disadvantaging them financially because of their disability.
Vulnerable young people who need a higher income than £30 per week and are assessed as
NVQ 1 able may well choose any route just to receive £50 per week resulting in a higher drop out
rate.
If funding is reduced, it is likely that fewer young people will enter WBL. If they live
independently, there are issues as to whether this would be supplemented by income support.
This could be a significant problem to young people living at home in low income households.
Careers Wales has provided evidence on a number of occasions outlining why they would not
support the introduction of a form of the Education Maintenance Allowance into WBL.
4. What personal support do WBL providers give to vulnerable young people particularly
those who are care leavers? Is there evidence that WBL providers are liaising with other
agencies who are able to support these young people?
Youth Gateway Advisers support YP during their transition from statutory schooling into the
labour market and regularly review the progress of clients on WBL. Providers also may involve
YG if any issues arise with a client once they have entered training.
Again, there appears to be a level of inconsistency. One provider has an outreach youth worker
to support those who are having issues. Other providers do not offer this level of support.
Generally, we do not have enough evidence that WBL providers are proactive in liaising with
other agencies once young people enter training. This may be due to time constraints, lack of
information/training for training staff or simply dependent on the member of staff working with the
learner. There should be more flexibility in their programme to give learners time to access
support programmes and courses to build on their progression during their skill build programme.
There currently seems to be emphasis on funding for outcomes achieved with the training
provider. Consequently it appears training providers need to show evidence of outcomes for each
learner to gain funding and be able to keep learners on the programme. Ideally, learners should
have a learning plan designed to overcome barriers (e.g. attendance at a Turnaround programme
(a project for YP with drug dependency),
anger management; attendance at a weekly morning session at a local college to improve a
GCSE grade, etc) and enable them to move forward, whilst still being on the WBL programme
and receiving a training allowance.
There are some examples of good practice:
In Merthyr, there is evidence of providers helping vulnerable young people and liaising with other
agencies, for example, social services, Llamau etc. The level of support accessed via other
agencies tends to be more readily available in some cases than in others, for example, if a young
person has a social worker already assigned then the provider is more likely to involve that
service.
5. Have there been any examples of agency collaboration/partnership working to address
some of the issues listed above or to support vulnerable young people who may be
seeking work based learning?
Youth Gateway supports clients in WBL via a collaboration that also involves other outside
agencies.
6. The Committee is particularly interested in the views/comments of young people
themselves. If you have consulted with young people about any of these key issues,
please provide a summary of their views.
See attached details of Focus Groups run with young people about the EMA/MTA issue.
7. Any additional comments
The majority of young people comment on the lack of financial incentive to access training and
that some are actually financially worse off if they do.
Those who may be without a placement for a time comment on a lack of structure at their centre
and that they are often doing very little in centre other than being encouraged to find themselves
a placement.
Some young people, due to the induction experience, comment on training „being like school‟.
If young people are waiting for placements why can‟t they access other services while waiting –
sports / arts / music etc – maybe this will encourage them to stay plus it will free up the trainers to
concentrate on smaller groups instead of having to keep bigger numbers occupied.
There is a feeling amongst the LDD advisers that many providers don‟t implement the support
requirements identified in the Learning and Skills Plan or Skill Build endorsement forms where
these are related to behavioral issues and often young people with behavioral issues drop out of
training or are dismissed. This is a particular issue during the induction period as young people
are often nervous during this stage, which is when problems arise. Some issues may seem small
and insignificant to a provider but are very important to a young person.
Financial incentives, flexibility, staff training and more learner centered programmes would
improve the whole learning experience and lead to a higher take up of training and fewer
premature leavers. In addition, more variety of routes rather than many training providers offering
the same occupational routes, in a certain geographical area, would be ideal.
Linking in other community services may at least give young people something to do and make
them more satisfied – possibly even developing them as people.
In areas where there are a very limited number of WBL providers, it can be extremely difficult to
re-engage vulnerable young people who may have already been placed with local providers and
dropped out.
The eligibility criteria for Skill build provision has become so flexible that anyone, under 18, can
qualify. The programme no longer prioritises those young people it was established to help.” The
programme fails adequately to engage the hard to reach individuals at which it is targeted”.
(Review of Work Place Learning 2005)
Cathy Murphy 18.8.10