Invitees:

Cllr Huw David, Deputy Leader

Deborah McMillan, Corporate  Director – Education and Transformation

Nicola Echanis, Head of Strategy Commissioning and Partnerships

Mark Lewis, Partnership Manager Integrated Partnership Support Team

The Scrutiny Officer presented a report to Committee with an update on progress implementation of the Youth Engagement and Progression (YE&P) Framework and the Youth Service Review.  She explained that the YE&P Framework is key in reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).  As part of the Framework, Welsh Government requested each Local Authority to complete an action plan by the 14March 2014 outlining how they were going to take forward implantation of the Framework.  In Bridgend this was initially developed by a multi-agency task and finish group; however, responsibility for developing a more focussed implementation plan has come under the remit of the Engagement and Progression Coordinator (EPC) and members of a newly formed YE&P Framework steering group. 

Members asked if a Keeping in Touch Officer was still employed to support the Framework

The Family Support Services Manager stated that Integrated Working and Family Support now has six full time Lead Workers which are funded by the Education Improvement Grant that are allocated to each of the Authorities Secondary and Special Schools.  Their priorities were to identify young people with the greatest need through the Authority’s Early Identification tool which would then enable them to reduce the number of NEETS and also reduce a young person’s vulnerability towards becoming NEET. 

Members questioned how many hours of support from staff at the Authority was being offered to the Youth Council.

The Family Support Services Manager stated that three workers currently invest time in sub groups that had been set up with the Youth Council, he explained that they were still being developed so was unable to give the Committee specific number of hours at this time.

Members felt that that early intervention was key to the prevention of young people becoming NEET and suggested intervention earlier than Key Stage 3 & 4 to possibly Key Stage 2 & 3, especially in socially deprived areas where the vulnerability is higher. 

The Partnership Manager - Integrated Partnership Support Team stated that they were restricted by the Schools budget regulations that are set by Welsh Government on an annual basis.  Members asked for further clarification of the regulations to be shared with the Committee.

Members asked if the Youth Engagement and Progression Framework were being proactive to prevent Looked After Children (LAC) becoming NEET as they were identified through the Vulnerability Assessment Profile as a potential high risk at becoming NEET; and Members queried if the Authority could do more as a potential employer.

The Partnership Manager – Integrated Partnership Support Team stated that they work closely with Corporate HR internally and also with external bodies such as Careers Wales.  He stated they have a team of three Engagement and Transition workers to provide lead work support for post 16’s.  He added that they focus on potential apprenticeships and work opportunities for post 16 LAC in the Borough

Conclusions

Members requested further information in relation to how many hours of support from the Authority was being offered to the Youth Council.

Members asked that they receive the Outcome Report and Action Plan resulting from the Youth Review Consultation.

The Committee requested that they receive further information as to how the FE College were engaging and assisting schools regarding reducing the number of young people becoming NEET.

Members expressed concerns over the inability of schools to plan an alternative curriculum to enable them to intervene at Key Stage 2/3 with pupils who are potential future NEET, due to the constraints of a yearly budget instead of a Medium Term Financial Strategy.  Whilst Officers reported that this was due to regulations under the Budget Statement for schools, Members argued that the statement had flexibility that if a school could prove it had a robust plan for spending the money they would be allowed to keep it.  Members were concerned that this allowance was not being permitted and therefore requested further clarification of the subject and its regulations