Agenda item 2
West London WPCB
Growth, Jobs & Skills for WL
DRAFT
Notes of the Partnership Programme Board
19th November 2013
Present:
Board Members / delegates
Pat Hayes (LB Ealing)
Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (GLA /
LEP)
Stephen Bagley (SFA),
David Bowler (WLN)
Kevin Byrne (LB Hillingdon)
Liz Cierebiej (JCP)
Liz Meagher (LB Hounslow)
Stephen Bagley (SFA)
Kemi Saka (PSTN)
Caroline Bruce (LB Harrow)
Mark Gray (Middlesex University
Marjorie Semple (West Thames
College/West London College
Principals)
Pam Wharfe (LB Barnet) (Chair)
Ian Nichol (WLA)
Andy Donald (LB Brent)
Shomsia Ali (LB Brent)
Sally Spurr (LB Brent)
Mark Billington (LB Harrow)
Sophie Reece-Trapp (LB Barnet)
Work Stream Leads &
Observers
Judith Rutherford (on behalf of
LB Hounslow)
David Hennings (on behalf of LB
Ealing)
Victoria Butcher (JCP secondee
to WLA)
Cath Shaw (LB Barnet)
Notes
Marianne Downie (WLA)
Apologies:
Michael Lockwood, LB Harrow; Andrew Travers, LB Barnet; Joanne Fearn, PSTN; Andrew Ward, Brunel
University; Robert Pollock, PSTN; Frank Wingate, WLB; Matthew Jaffa (FSB); Dr Paul Plant, PHE; Brendon
Walsh, LB Hounslow
Actions
1.
Welcome & Introductions
Pam Wharfe chaired the meeting in the absence of both Michael Lockwood and Andrew
Travers, welcomed everyone and invited all present to introduce themselves
2.
Notes of the meeting on 19th September
No matters were raised and the notes were agreed
3.
Programme Overview
As a short progress report had been circulated previously, IN proposed not to speak to it,
but asked for questions. There were none and the report was agreed. IN then gave a
short introduction to the main item i.e. the five work stream presentations. He explained
that, given the timescale, it would be likely that the documents to be presented to the
1
Agenda item 2
PSTN on 20th December would not be full outline business cases, but rather well reasoned
and evidenced propositions for the transformation proposed, with full business case to be
developed during the next stage, which runs from December 2013 through February 2014
4.
Work stream progress
Paper copies of all five presentations were tabled and are attached to these notes. Key
points from the discussions are noted below.
(i)
Business Start-Ups (Mark Billington, LB Harrow)
MB outlined the work undertaken to date, which included baseline data gathering; a
literature review; engagement with FE Colleges, providers of workspace, enterprise clubs,
business support and enterprise agencies, banks, business membership bodies, work
programme providers, DWP, the six West London Boroughs, GLA and BIS; identification of
barriers and gaps; and a co-design workshop, culminating in the production of a first draft
business case (attached).
A proposal was put forward regarding what a co-designed model might look like. This
included the use of a robust and effective business diagnostic tool; tailoring provision to
need; channelling delivery through existing hubs; improving the diversity of business
mentors and advisers; access to one-to-one advice; and improving the promotion of what
was available.
Discussion focused on the need to show existing provision; the possibilities of bidding for
new funding; the challenge of bending existing budgets; the difference between boroughs
and comparison with other parts of London; whether the focus – business births, churn or
failures - required a different model / approach; would the proposal impact on / reduce
dependency on public sector agencies; intervention was useful with failed businesses as
these often succeed second time around; and was there a case to be made to influence
BIS to make the Business link service work better for West London businesses – promote
the service and influence what it was.
Agreed: That further work should be done to develop the proposal to a proposition for
the board’s next meeting
ii)
MB
Business Growth (Cath Shaw, LB Barnet)
CS outlined the principles governing the development of the proposal, which included no
displacement of private sector activity; avoiding duplication with other work streams,
notable business start-ups and survival; and supporting businesses with growth potential
(not lifestyle businesses). Work undertaken to date include a literature review / evidence
gathering; attending networking events; and a workshop with HEIs.
The hypothesis to test was that the biggest untapped opportunity lies in the synergies
between businesses and higher education. The emerging proposition is to develop a West
London Knowledge Transfer Partnership model with “lighter touch” entry criteria:
supporting liaison and greater cross referral between the six West London HEIs playing to
/ based on each university’s particular strengths; developing a specialist CPD offer; and
raising the profile of existing offers e.g. TSB.
Discussion followed around - was this the right problem to focus on and the right solution;
2
Agenda item 2
the potential to bid for ERDF funds; testing the fit with Business Start-ups and Skills work
streams; HEIs partnership building will take time; whether to include Fes in the discussion
/ scope; while a collaboration with the six HEIs could drive growth, businesses will decide
who they contact for input (i.e. could be other institutions entirely)
Agreed: That further work should be done to develop the proposal to a proposition for
the board’s next meeting
CS
iii) Skills Mismatch (Judith Rutherford – on behalf of LB Hounslow)
JR explained she had worked on Essex’s WPCB proposal. She outlined work undertaken to
date to produce an options appraisal (paper attached) and the proposed option. The aim
was to reduce the disparity between the skills available in the resident workforce and the
skills requirements of local jobs. The three initial propositions were to improve labour
market choices for people of all ages; help local people increase their skill levels to match
the requirements of local jobs; and help employers recruit and retain staff. Stakeholders
consulted included the SFA, DWP /Jobcentre Plus, GLA/LEP, London Councils, PSTN, the
boroughs, WLA, colleges, independent providers, National Careers Service, business
organisations, Heathrow, HEIs and the third sector. Analysis and scoring of the options
resulted in a recommended option, which focuses on progression for low income / low
skilled households. The aim would be to have a co-ordinated / wrap-around service
including money management, careers advice and guidance, housing and skills, with a
focus on those who want to improve their position. The next stage would involve refining
the proposal and setting up workshops and focus groups.
The discussion which followed included the need to avoid signposting – the service should
be around dealing with the customer at first point of contact; the role of the voluntary and
community sector; the need not to look only at local jobs but at wider opportunities within the wider “travel to work” area; the need to join up existing services including ESOL
and pre-entry ESOL; the need to explore the “better off” question, i.e. does moving from
level 2 to level 3 result in more money and if so how much (is it worth it); under-pricing of
jobs; what’s the scalability and target group size of the proposal; what about higher level
skills and future skills needs (reports indicate more level 4 skills are needed); short-term v
longer-term needs. The general view was that the proposed option was the right one and
that the scope should be level 3 and below.
Agreed: That further work should be done to develop the proposal to a proposition for
the board’s next meeting
LM
iv) Vulnerable Young People (David Hennings on behalf of LB Ealing)
DH outlined progress to date and described three sub-groups in the NEET (not in
education, employment or training) cohort – those who were open to learning; those who
were undecided; and those were sustained NEET. A number of agencies were involved on
the proposal development team including Rocket Science who were focusing on producing
the baseline and the Smith Institute who were doing work around housing. The “NEET”
problem varied across the six west London boroughs and was likely to get worse. Most of
the vulnerable young people lived in registered provider or local authority housing and the
proposal was to focus on these areas where intense work could bring about lasting change
in an area. The proposed approach would be intensive and expensive. Sources of funding
which could potentially be bent to this purpose included HRA money through the local
authorities and the “ask” from national government would be to match this. The key to
3
Agenda item 2
the approach included the identification of a person whom the young person could trust
who would work with them on an ongoing basis; and small caseloads.
There was general agreement around this approach and the ensuing discussion focused on
the need to use existing case officers / housing / agency workers more effectively to avoid
creating new caseworker jobs where possible; the need to explore combining existing
resources including joining up with JCP and existing programmes; and training existing
staff.
Agreed: That further work should be done to develop the proposal to a proposition for
the board’s next meeting
DH
v) Long-Term Unemployed (Shomsia Ali, LB Brent)
SA outlined progress to date, which included data gathering and analysis around long-term
unemployment and worklessness; stakeholder consultation with JCP, work programme
providers and the west London boroughs; mapping existing employment provision;
reviewing good practice and evaluation elsewhere; mapping the customer journey; and
exploring alignment and synergies with the young people and skills mismatch work
streams. Using Brent as an example, she outlined some key characteristics and issues.
While the trends were generally positive in terms of JSA and ESA claimant counts
reducing, there remained communities, wards and areas with entrenched unemployment
and worklessness and strong correlations between social housing, poor health, low skills
and ethnic minority communities. CESI had been recently commissioned to undertake
more detailed data analysis and while a recent workshop with “customers” had proved
insightful, numbers participating had been too low to be meaningful.
Next steps included further analysis; defining the target group; exploring interventions
and producing a long list of propositions by 26th November. The long-list would be
reduced to two or three for a co-design workshop being planned for 3rd December.
The ensuing discussion raised the following points: there were clear links between the last
three work streams; the need to address not only the issues of “today” but the vision for
tomorrow; the need to break the cycle of LTU; the need to look at responsive and
preventative solutions.
Agreed: That further work should be done to develop the proposal to a proposition for
the board’s next meeting
5.
SA
Public Health Services
IN advised the board that Dr Paul Plant had invited the West London partners to explore
working with the London Health Board to explore the links and synergies between work
streams concerned with worklessness and the NHS.
Dates of Future Meetings:
Wednesday 18th December 2013
Thursday 6th February 2014
Tuesday 25th March 2014
Wednesday 7th May 2014
4-6pm
4-6pm
4-6pm
4-6pm
4