Cabinet Member – Councillor Cemlyn Williams
To consider a
report on the above.
*10-30am – 11.30am
Decision:
To accept the report, noting
the observations made - particularly in respect of the suitability of the
arrangements of the Framework, the need to offer full support for young people
who are at risk / disengaged from the field of education, training or
employment, ensuring that these elements are addressed
when reviewing our provisions in the future.
Consideration should be given to scrutinising
this field further, discussing the timetable for that at this committee's
Annual Workshop in May.
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Education and Cabinet
Member for Children and Young People, along with officials from the Education
Department and the Children and Supporting Families Department were welcomed to
the meeting.
Presented - the report of the Cabinet Member
for Education inviting the scrutiny committee to consider whether the Council's
arrangements and provisions are sufficient to support young people who are at
risk of disengaging from education or who have disengaged from education,
training or employment.
The two Cabinet Members set out the context
noting that:
·
The Youth Engagement and Development Framework,
introduced by the Welsh Government in 2013, was a cross-departmental
responsibility.
·
The views of the scrutinisers be sought on the
arrangements for meeting the requirements of the Framework following the
cessation of European Social Fund (ESF) funding for TRAC and ADTRAC projects.
·
Everyone needed to constantly remind themselves during
the discussion that this was a framework report, i.e. the framework for how the
Council supports children and young people not in employment, education or
training (NEET).
Members were given an opportunity to ask
questions and make observations. During
the discussion, the following observations were noted:
·
Going forward, it was important to understand the
successes and failures of the current provision.
·
It was felt that the committee was scrutinising this issue
too soon, or too late. The Framework
itself was eight years old. Although the
framework arrangements had been in place since then, some of the provisions
attached to it had changed. Some of the
provisions were under review. To date,
the Wavehill review of TRAC and ADTRAC had identified the need for this type of
support for young people, and their success was evident in the review up to a
certain point, but things had changed since then, especially as a result of the
pandemic context. There was also a
desire to continue with these provisions, but their funding was ceasing. ADTRAC funding ended next month, and TRAC
funding ended in a year. Discussions on
sources of funding beyond the current European Funds were being led by the
Westminster Government, but how could it proceed, unless there was a very
significant change of mind on the part of the powers who fund these things?
·
Collaboration was particularly important in the
current difficult situation as a result of the loss of ESF funding, and multi-agency
collaboration in Dyffryn Nantlle was cited as a good example of thinking
outside the box.
·
One of the biggest influences on young people is their
peers, and it was assumed that there were young people, who were once difficult
and vulnerable, but who had now turned a corner and moved on to further
education, training or employment, and who were willing to talk openly to
disaffected young people.
·
It should be asked whether there is evidence that the
decision to charge for transport to Coleg Meirion Dwyfor had been a barrier to
young people attending further education.
In response to the observations and
questions from members:
·
Details were provided of the collaboration between the
CAMHS mental health service within ADTRAC, and between the TRAC project and the
ALN and Inclusion Service and the School Counselling Service.
·
In terms of measuring how many young people were in
employment by the age of 25, it was explained that the Service measured the
outputs, or the journey of young people who engage with the programmes and
provisions. In terms of ADTRAC, an infographic was provided outlining how many
young people were receiving support, and had moved into education, training or
employment. Of the number of young people
receiving the support, 77% progressed to a successful outcome. The Service also captured the soft, more
positive outcomes that the young people received.
·
With regard to the lessons learnt in terms of which
interventions were successful or not, it was explained that the final
evaluation of ADTRAC and TRAC would outline the most successful interventions,
so that they could be incorporated into core services in the future, once
European funds had ceased.
·
It was explained that Covid had not affected the
tracking systems for young people, as the multi-agency collaboration had been
brought closer together as a result of Covid. However, it had impacted on the
ability to successfully engage with young people who were NEET, because
face-to-face work had to end during the lockdown periods.
·
In terms of establishing a mechanism for scrutinising
the success of past provision, it was noted that the Engagement Framework
Management Group, driving the local agenda under the Framework, would receive
and discuss the outcomes of the evaluations.
·
It was explained that engagement with a third of
referrals to ADTRAC had not been successful, and that the reasons for this were
complex, including the reluctance of some young people to engage with the
provision, a lack of time within project boundaries to nurture the relationship
and the engagement, and the developmental age of some of the young people. However, it was often seen that young people
who left school at the age of 16, without progressing into education, training
or employment, were ready to engage in employment provision within a year or
eighteen months.
·
It was noted that TRAC and ADTRAC coordinated
transition meetings on an annual basis, thereby identifying individuals who
were at risk of not progressing to training or employment, and keeping track of
them to some extent. As with ADTRAC,
referrals to TRAC were complex cases, with some of those children reluctant to
engage with the support. On a monthly
basis, up to 1000 pupils could become eligible for TRAC support. Obviously, not all of them could receive a
service. TRAC undertook mapping work to
identify those most in need. Tracking
pupils at College was undertaken by the College and Careers Wales.
·
In terms of numbers, it was explained that over the
last three years, 160 out of the 470 referrals to ADTRAC had not proceeded to
register with the project. Data was
available for comparison with other authorities, and this could be reported in
writing to the scrutinisers.
·
With regard to preventing Year 11 pupils from leaving
school without transitioning into further education, training or employment, it
was explained that Careers Wales was a full partner with Education, and that
employers, etc., could be approached so that the young people could experience
and see the options available to them.
·
In terms of ensuring the future continuity of the
service in the absence of European funding, it was noted that an evaluation of
TRAC was being undertaken regionally, together with an evaluation of the impact
of Covid. It was also intended to start
a local evaluation so that any gaps left by TRAC could be identified. Work was also underway to map TRAC's legacy,
but it would not be possible for any new model to be the same as the current
model. TRAC drew in £3m of European
funding over the six years (2016-2022).
Models were looked at so that the Education Department adopted elements
of TRAC within existing services, utilising services such as early
intervention, communication and interaction, which mainly worked in the primary
sector. The inclusion services could also
inherit some TRAC principles. For it to
work properly, the model would have to differ to what was already provided, and
be creative and flexible with regard to the needs of these individuals. It was acknowledged that there was work to be
done, and this would guide the TRAC Manager's work programme over the next 18
months, so that a model could be submitted to the Education Department, whether
the Council received funding for that or not.
With regard to ADTRAC, the Children Department had already remodelled
its provision in the Youth Service to ensure follow-up arrangements to address
some aspects of that project beyond the European funding period.
·
In terms of continuity of support, it was noted that
the evaluation looked at how TRAC blended in with the provision of some of the
Council's other services, such as the schools, the Youth Service and the ALN
and Inclusion Service, taking into account where the gaps were, where they
could be filled, and where the gaps would obviously remain.
·
It was noted that TRAC/ADTRAC worked with other
Council departments to offer opportunities for individuals on schemes such as
Kickstart to gain work experience with the Council.
·
It was explained, as noted in Appendix 6 to the
report, that the Framework was dependent on TRAC and ADTRAC in terms of the
ability to identify young people who were likely to drop out of education, or
who had dropped out of education, training or employment. The uncertainty as to when was the best time
to review the Framework was a cause for concern. The Council was driven by ESF funding to
review the provision and arrangements, but the whole Framework was dependent on
funding that ended at different times.
Parts of the post-16 provision had been reviewed, with the 11-16 element
still to be reviewed. The scrutinisers
were asked if they were comfortable that by being forced to review in the way
we currently do, we were going to address the needs of the Framework as a
whole, or whether they thought something was being missed by operating in this
way, while accepting, at the same time, that it was impossible to do all the
reviewing in one step. Although TRAC and
ADTRAC were two comparatively key projects for the Framework, these were not
the only resources to help the Council achieve its goal, and it was not clear
at this stage whether all the provision was now understood. There was also a need to understand the
relationship of the Framework to other economic and employability programmes,
such as Communities for Work and Gwaith Gwynedd. The purpose of the Framework was to ensure
that all young people were engaged in education, training, or employment, but
Covid, and experience of TRAC and ADTRAC as projects, had shown that work or
education interventions, in the sense of the education or learning curriculum,
were not what some young people needed. There were challenges around the
personal development and social circumstances of young people, and there may be
room to question whether the Framework itself was now fit for purpose, as it
sought to produce economic outputs and outcomes for all young people, although
mental health, well-being and personal development were seen to have been more
of a barrier to young people getting back into education, training or
employment over the last 12 months.
·
In terms of targeting disaffected young people,
drawing them into the Framework and supporting them, it was explained that TRAC
worked with young people mainly through the schools. As the service sat within the Education
Department, but was not a statutory service, it would be possible to be
creative and flexible in what could be offered to these individuals. As well as working on the employability
element, TRAC also worked on these young people's self-image and self-confidence,
working with individuals who had behavioural problems too. Obviously, it was not possible to work with
every individual, and they had to be on the TRAC radar, but the service worked
with the most vulnerable young people.
A member noted that the funding question was
far too complex for the scrutinisers to answer at present, and it was suggested
that the committee should scrutinise the field further, and discuss the
timetable for this at this committee's Annual Workshop in May. In response, it was noted that the officers
would be very happy to attend the workshop, and the following were mentioned as
matters requiring further attention:
·
The impact of further
evaluation on TRAC, and input into planning succession to TRAC.
·
How would whatever happened
after TRAC or ADTRAC fit into the wider provision if no funding was available.
·
How to respond to changes in provision that occurred
at different times, while continuing with transition and tracking arrangements,
and also understanding the real impact of the changes on the young people, and
their needs.
·
The impact of Covid on
the outcomes and experiences of pupils leaving the school system in July, not
only academically, but also in terms of wider support.
It was noted that officers had been open and
transparent in answering the scrutinisers' questions, and they were thanked for
their work with a very vulnerable group of young people, who had significant
challenges.
RESOLVED to accept the report, noting the
observations made - particularly in respect of the suitability of the
Framework's arrangements, the need to offer full support for young people who
are at risk of disengaging/are disengaged from the field of education, training
or employment, ensuring that these elements are addressed when reviewing our
provisions in the future. Consideration
should be given to scrutinising this field further, discussing the timetable
for that at this committee's Annual Workshop in May.
Supporting documents: