Agenda item

Reduction in the Post-16 Support Service

Report by the Executive Director People Services and the Director of Education and Skills.

 

The County Council has been identifying potential savings options to assist in closing the budget gap following reductions in government grant.  In this respect an assessment has been carried out on the impact of reducing the level of support of, or completely withdrawing from, provision of the Post-16 Support service.

 

The Children and Young People’s Services Select Committee is asked to consider the attached draft Cabinet Member decision report and provide comment to the Cabinet Member for Education and Skillsprior to the formal decision being taken later in November 2019.

 

Minutes:

41.1   The Committee considered a report by the Executive Director People Services and Director of Education and Skills. The report was introduced by the Director of Education and Skills, Paul Wagstaff, who provided the following information to the Committee:

 

·       Local authorities have a statutory duty to track the destinations of 16 to 18-year-olds. WSCC currently go beyond this through one-to-one support, careers guidance and intervention for those not in education, employment or training (NEET).

·       WSCC has been identifying potential savings options following reductions in government grants. Post-16 support has been identified as a possible area for saving through reducing the level of support provided.

·       Two options have been identified; option 1 suggests reducing the level of support provided by the post-16 team by 50% from April 2021. Option 2 suggests complete withdrawal from the provision of post-16 support from April 2021.

 

41.2   The Committee considered the following points in discussion:

 

·       Members asked how the service tracked young people. The Head of Post-16 and Compliance, Danny Pell, advised that school data was provided to the county council which was followed up with the destinations to confirm if the young person had indeed transitioned to their further education, employment or training. The Head of Post-16 and Compliance advised there was a challenge for all local authorities in tracking those that don’t want to engage post school. Phone calls, email, social media and meetings were undertaken in order to re-engage and locate provision that meets their needs.

·       The Committee asked if either option would result in staff redundancies. The Director of Education and Skills advised the service was currently part funded by a European Social Investment Fund (ESIF). When the ESIF ends, some of the team who were employed on fixed term contracts would leave, and this would be the case regardless of any savings.

·       If the service was removed completely, the full team would be made redundant. If the 50% option was chosen, half the staffing budget would remain, staff would be consulted on what the future team would look like.

·       Members of the Committee asked if the service had the data on the proportional percentage of Children Looked After, Care Leavers and SEND who were NEET, and cautioned against the removal of the service from this vulnerable cohort. The Head of Post-16 and Compliance advised this data was available and tracked, and that grant funding had enabled a high level of support in these areas. To remove the service entirely would have a drastic impact on the most vulnerable.

·       The Chairman suggested at this point that option 2 (to completely withdraw from the provision of post-16 support) be removed from the proposal, the Committee agreed.

·       Members of the Committee further considered the potential consequences of option 1, and felt that even to reduce the service by half was not a sensible proposal in view of the local authority’s duty to look after the most vulnerable 16 to 18-year-olds.

·       The Committee asked how effective telephone and web-based interventions were and if there was evidence of this if option 1 was chosen. The Head of Post-16 and Compliance advised market research provided a mixed response but did not identify that one method (telephone or web) was markedly more or less successful.

·       The Committee considered if the service was able to apply for the ESIF grant again, or if there were other funding streams available. The Head of Post-16 and Compliance advised the ESIF fund came to an end in 2020, there was potential to look at other options, but that she was not aware of anything other than the EU grant. The Director of Education and Skills added that WSCC was one of three other local authorities to have received the ESIF, and that work to date had resulted in rewarding interactions which were valued by young people.

 

41.3   Resolved – that the Committee:

 

1.   Considers the draft Cabinet Member decision report and does not endorse the proposed decision to support either option 1 or option 2 to reduce or withdraw the provision of Post-16 support.

2.   Writes to the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills to formally record their opposition to any reduction in the Post-16 support service from April 2021 and urges the Cabinet Member to avoid making this saving decision.

3.   Requests officers consider how best the post-16 service is promoted more widely, including to all members.

 

 

Supporting documents: