Agenda item

Report of the Director of Economy and Infrastructure

6.1     The Committee received a report that provided an analysis of long-term unemployment in Westminster and the lessons learned from other programmes.

6.2     The report set out options for the City Council’s future role in reducing long term unemployment. The Committee’s views will help inform the business case for a new Westminster Employment Service which is a City for All Year 2 commitment.

6.3     The committee heard from witnesses Ellen Prue, Manager of Employment and Learning Services, Cardinal Hume Centre and Robert Spread Programme Director of Employment Services at Maximus who had been invited to the meeting to assist the committee with its deliberations.

6.4     Robert Spread addressed the committee. He started by providing some background information about Maximus and the work that it was delivering to reduce unemployment in Westminster.  He explained that Maximus was an American company that delivered employment services solutions to governments.  In the UK it delivered three work programmes one of which focusing on West London included Westminster.  Maximus provided jobseekers with a range of services to help them find and retain meaningful employment.  This ranged from pre-employment training such as help with CVs and interview preparation as well as in work support services.  Maximus delivered 40% of the services itself and subcontracted the other 60%.

6.5     In respect of performance for the West London programme, Mr Spread advised that 30% of jobseekers on the programme had been assisted back into work in all payment groups.  The performance figure dipped by 3-4% in Westminster which was affected by the particular challenges of those long-term unemployed in receipt of Employment Support Allowance, many of whom had health related issues.  The cohort that was performing best was young people in receipt of jobseekers allowance.  He outlined some of the barriers to employment for people on the programme.  These included the cost of housing and homelessness, skills gaps, drug and alcohol addiction, English not being a first language and significant competition from people living in outer London and beyond.

6.6     With regard to the four strategic options for a new Westminster Employment Service Mr Spread favoured a multi-agency integrator approach where the powers and influence of the authority can join up local services in  co-located sites around the individual.  He stated that given the high cost of property in London and for efficiency cohabitation, where feasible, made sense.  He considered that given the health issues affecting around 50% of those in long-term unemployment integration with health services was important. He stated that a multi-agency integrator option required effective co-ordination between services so that the long term unemployed person is properly triaged.  He commented that in some contracts not all services had shared in the rewards of success and he considered that there needed to be joint accountability for meeting targets as well as an equal distribution fof any rewards. He also stressed the importance of engaging employers and encouraging them to visit co- located services to provide training such as holding mock interviews. Employers would also benefit from being given an understanding of the issues facing those with mental health problems including dispelling common myths.

6.7     Ellen Prue addressed the committee and provided background information about the Cardinal Hume Centre and its work.  She explained that the organisation was a local charity based in Pimlico that helped people to obtain skills to overcome poverty.  It provided core services in four areas: housing, income, legal status and education based around a hub model.  It had 62 members of staff with additional support provided by volunteers.  30% of its funding was unrestricted which enabled the organisation to be flexible and agile so that it could respond to emerging needs.  Much of the unrestricted funding was used to assist claimants in receipt of Employment Support Allowance.

6.8     Ms Prue outlined the benefits of co-locating services in a hub environment.  She explained that the JSA advisers that work with the Centre’s employment and education team provide a different type of knowledge of the local environment.  She advised that a significant shift was required in dealing with the longer term unemployed in Westminster.  She explained that a key predictor of success was whether individuals had been in work in the last 5 years.  She stated that strategies needed to focus on building optimism and confidence and promoting self-advocacy so that individuals have self-belief to start the journey back into work.  She highlighted the importance of allowing individuals to take a break from looking for employment where they were not in a position to do so without being subject to sanctions.  She was of the opinion that in the past individuals had often been failed because their particular needs had not been identified.  Any service would need to provide a comprehensive needs assessment and triaging linked to identifying barriers on employment.  In terms of co-locating services she considered that addressing housing need was a priority and that joint partnership with housing providers was essential.  She further considered that more face-to-face work between different services was beneficial.

6.9     The Committee then considered the key matters set out in the report.  It noted that while no duty existed requiring local authorities to reduce unemployment local authorities were commonly putting in place employment support programmes.  Members explored whether the City Council was best placed to deliver and lead such services and how confident it could be that any structure chosen would make a difference in reducing long-term unemployment in the borough.

6.10    Tom Harding, Manager of Employment and Skills, explained that the Council already provided extensive employment support for residents within different cohorts through a variety of programmes both as an organisation and also through partnerships.  He explained that the purpose of designing a new service was to address the specific challenges for Westminster to deliver a critical mass with improved outcomes aligned to the City for All priority.

6.11    Greg Ward, Director of Economy and Infrastructure, informed the committee that although a number of organisations working in Westminster shared many similarities in providing employability support the City Council was in a unique position of being able to leverage its powers and assets, other services and partners to support improved employability.  This assertion was supported by Ms Prue who stated that the Council had a strategic role to play in bringing local services together to provide a joined up approach to help the individual.

6.12    The Committee considered the four strategic options for designing the service.  In response to questions regarding the differences, benefits and disadvantages of the different options officers informed the committee that the illustrative customer journeys (as set out in the agenda) revealed that a multiagency integrator approach was likely to work best.

6.13    Officers were referred to the fact that some Westminster residents are housed in temporary accommodation outside the borough although their children are still educated in Westminster.  The time required by these parents to drop off and collect their children from their schools impacted upon their available hours for work.  The committee commented that the particular challenges and barriers for these individuals needed to be taken into account when developing personalised action plans.

6.14    Mr Harding advised that the Council had funded a programme for those in temporary accommodation for the last 5 years which was run by Vital Regeneration.  The current model was being assessed to explore such issues.

6.15    Mr Ward stated that to meet the challenges of reducing long-term unemployment the new service would need to incorporate long-term and consistent relationships with employers.  This was supported by Ms Prue who commented that employers and particularly managers of those who had been long-term unemployed would also need support.  She hoped that such employers would come to see the individuals as being some of their best employees and not just of having provided a social benefit.

6.16    Officers were referred to the fact that Westminster has well-developed links to the construction and development sector through its role as a planning authority.  Members asked how many long-term unemployed individuals had the Council managed to broker jobs in this field.  Mr Harding explained that of 200 individuals that the Council supported into employment last year only a small handful went into construction.  He explained that it was unproductive to try and fit individuals into particular sectors and that it was important to tailor employment to people’s individual needs.  He stated that there may be an opportunity through section 106 obligations to obtain contributions towards a local employment fund which could commission dedicated employment services.  The possibilities were currently being discussed with planning policy colleagues.

6.17    The Committee also explored and discussed examples of best practice in other local authorities for helping the long-term unemployed. These were set out in a briefing note circulated to the committee prior to the meeting.

RESOLVED:

1.       The committee acknowledged that there is no statutory requirement for a local authority to reduce unemployment. However, having heard the evidence from invited witnesses it considered that the Council can make a difference and has a role to play in this matter.  The committee heard that the Council is in a unique position of not only having a significant supply chain but is able to pool resources, use its influence to leverage partners and new sources of funding and coordinate other organisations. Given the particular challenges facing those in long term unemployment the committee applauded the ambitions of the service.

2.       The committee noted witnesses’ observations regarding the benefits of co-locating services and the importance of addressing the health barriers that impact many of the people that have been unemployed longer than 2 years.  Members were of the opinion that whilst the Council has significant property holdings co-location does not have to be delivered exclusively through Council owned property.  For the service to succeed its design needs to incorporate links to the health sector.  The committee also agreed with witnesses about the importance of all organisations participating in the management and delivery of employability programmes sharing responsibility for delivery and successes or failures.

3.       Whilst the committee did not come to a view on which if any of the four strategic options was preferable to support the ambition it did request that any option chosen should incorporate an ability to assist those long-term unemployed residents living in temporary accommodation outside of the borough.

4.       The committee suggested that the Council should promote those businesses that work with partners to provide opportunities for the long-term unemployed.  Members also suggested that in designing the service the Council should incorporate the lessons learned from other local authorities and previous projects such as Family Recovery.  The committee also concluded that given the significant challenges affecting those who have been long-term unemployed providing in-depth targeted help to a smaller number of people would be more beneficial and productive than setting overambitious targets.