Review of

Local Employment Initiatives

in Middlesbrough

Presentation of Shared Intelligence findings

Mark Evershed

15 April 2005

Objectives of the researchObjectives 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

MethodologyMethodology

• Stage 1: Assessment of need and overview of

provision

• Stage 2: Develop preferred approach

• Stage 3: Develop strategy and action plan

ContextContext• 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

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Unemployment benefits Incapacity benefits Lone parents

Background - key statisticsBackground - key statistics• demographic change - 17-44 age group demographic change - 17-44 age group

to decline by 11% to 2016to decline by 11% to 2016

• educational attainment improving but still pooreducational attainment improving but still poor• 39% of pupils achieve 5 GCSEs A-C 39% of pupils achieve 5 GCSEs A-C • poor literacy (29% of adults) & numeracy (31%) poor literacy (29% of adults) & numeracy (31%)

well above England average (24%)well above England average (24%)

• widespread deprivationwidespread deprivation• Middlesbrough ranked 4Middlesbrough ranked 4thth worst local authority in worst local authority in

2004 IMD (concentration of deprivation)2004 IMD (concentration of deprivation)• four SOAs in worst 100 (out of 32,382) in England four SOAs in worst 100 (out of 32,382) in England

(Middlehaven x2, Gresham, Clairville)(Middlehaven x2, Gresham, Clairville)

Background - key statisticsBackground - key statistics

• economic transitioneconomic transition …. ….• modest growth since ‘97 modest growth since ‘97 • shift towards service shift towards service

sector employment & sector employment & part-time jobspart-time jobs

• skills shortages & hard skills shortages & hard to fill vacanciesto fill vacancies

• employment rate employment rate (63.5% very low (cf GB (63.5% very low (cf GB 74.3%)74.3%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

MalesPart-Time

Males Full-Time

FemalesPart-Time

FemalesFull-Time

Middlesbrough

Tees Valley

North East

Great Britain

WorklessnessWorklessness• 22.4% of Mbro 22.4% of Mbro

working age working age population on some population on some form of benefit (GB form of benefit (GB 13.5%)13.5%)

• 16 of 16 of Middlesbrough’s 22 Middlesbrough’s 22 wards are in worst wards are in worst 20% for 20% for employment employment deprivationdeprivation

UnemploymentUnemployment

• JSA claimant count JSA claimant count unemployment high – 4.6% unemployment high – 4.6% Jan 05 (GB 2.4%) - but fell Jan 05 (GB 2.4%) - but fell by 35% since January 2001by 35% since January 2001

• 51.3% of claimants aged 25-51.3% of claimants aged 25-50; just 12.8% are 17-19 50; just 12.8% are 17-19

• 45% have been claiming JSA 45% have been claiming JSA for more than 26 weeksfor more than 26 weeks

• wards with highest % wards with highest % unemployment are:unemployment are:• North Ormesby/Brambles Farm North Ormesby/Brambles Farm

(11.2%)(11.2%)• Beckfield (8.1%)Beckfield (8.1%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

2001 2003 2005

Middlesbrough

Tees Valley

Great Britain

Incapacity benefit/Income Incapacity benefit/Income SupportSupport

• 13% of Mbro working age population 13% of Mbro working age population on sick/disabled benefits (GB 8.6%)on sick/disabled benefits (GB 8.6%)

• just over 20,000 residents on IB/IS – just over 20,000 residents on IB/IS – more than 5x no of JSA claimantsmore than 5x no of JSA claimants

• IB/IS claimant count has remained IB/IS claimant count has remained static since 2002static since 2002

• 50% of IB claimants have been 50% of IB claimants have been claiming >12 monthsclaiming >12 months

A view from the sharp end (1)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

A view from the sharp end (2)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

Current provision – Current provision – what’s working well?what’s working well?

• more than 50 separate initiatives, ranging from more than 50 separate initiatives, ranging from national programmes/pilots to locally national programmes/pilots to locally funded/targeted projects:funded/targeted projects:• Employment Zone/WiN/Action Team – flexibilities & Employment Zone/WiN/Action Team – flexibilities &

freedoms to tailor mainstream provisionfreedoms to tailor mainstream provision

• projects engaging hard to reach groups (e.g. MiLE, Grange projects engaging hard to reach groups (e.g. MiLE, Grange Rd)Rd)

• Job brokerage – complements mainstream provisionJob brokerage – complements mainstream provision

• Hemlington Works – holistic approach to service provisionHemlington Works – holistic approach to service provision

• sector-based approach – Building Bureausector-based approach – Building Bureau

Current provision: Current provision: working less well?working less well?

• some (limited) evidence of duplication of provisionsome (limited) evidence of duplication of provision

• often funding regimes do not promote progression often funding regimes do not promote progression

• lack of in-work support/mentoringlack of in-work support/mentoring

• not enough IAG advisorsnot enough IAG advisors

• stronger links required between Connexions and stronger links required between Connexions and employers?employers?

• many neighbourhoods currently access extensive many neighbourhoods currently access extensive support – but some programmes/funding streams support – but some programmes/funding streams due to end in 2006due to end in 2006

Learning from good practiceLearning from good practice • Research has examined a range of initiatives:Research has examined a range of initiatives:

• Full Employment Areas (Liverpool, Renfrewshire)Full Employment Areas (Liverpool, Renfrewshire)• Streets Ahead (Liverpool)Streets Ahead (Liverpool)• New Futures Fund (Careers Scotland)New Futures Fund (Careers Scotland)• health projects (Compass Project, Healthy Working health projects (Compass Project, Healthy Working

Lives, Starting Well)Lives, Starting Well)• Strive (Harlesden) – US modelStrive (Harlesden) – US model

Learning from good practiceLearning 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 “deal with “person first “

• holistic approach (health, family, confidence)holistic approach (health, family, confidence)

Local Employment Strategy:

Aim:

‘to achieve full employment in Middlesbrough by 2015

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

ObjectivesObjectives• 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

PartnershipPartnership• 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

PartnershipPartnershipLocal Strategic Partnership

Integrate with community strategy

Economic Vitality Group

updating the LES

defining roles and responsibilities

Delivery partners

Project delivery

Executive Middlesbrough Works

aligning funding and resources

direct commissioning and performance management

Proposals (1)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

Proposals (2)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

Proposals (3)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

Group discussion: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?