The impact of strategies in Workstep on increasing progressions to unsupported employment Presenters: Pat Higginbottom ADM June Cramman HMI

Add presentation title to master slide | 2 Background  DWP commissioned review  2 full-time HMI and 3 additional inspectors  Fieldwork from December 2008-March 2009  Inspection data used to identify relevant providers  21 Workstep providers visited  49 employers interviewed  80 participants interviewed  Interviews also held with DWP staff and BASE

Add presentation title to master slide | 3 Providers  Range of providers to broadly represent the sector:  4 large national organisations  12 local authorities/councils  The remainder charities or companies limited by guarantee  Sample taken from across the country

Add presentation title to master slide | 4 Methodolgy  Inspection reports used to identify successful providers or those who had identified strengths in increasing progressions/or with good management strategies  Team identified potential areas for investigation using CIF as basis  “Hypothesis” pro-forma created  Inspectors allocated case load mainly based on location  Inspectors contacted providers and followed up this phone call with a letter and a copy of the pro-forma  Providers completed the pro-forma prior to each one day visit

Add presentation title to master slide | 5 What worked: a change in emphasis  Those providers with successful strategies had usually changed their management focus significantly to reflect the nature of Workstep – as opposed to the original supported employment scheme  Most providers had formal contract agreements with participants. They set out their expectations of participants with clear and timely routes onto and out of the Workstep programme  They used very effective vocational profiling to develop specific, job-related goals recorded in development plans with regular, negotiated visits to encourage progress

Add presentation title to master slide | 6 What worked: employer engagement  Providers had very good relationships with employers enabling them to match the needs of the employer to that of the participants  Some providers used very good research to understand the demographics of the area – and how best to attract employers  Some larger companies have contracts with national employers and have become the “preferred recruitment agency”

Add presentation title to master slide | 7 What worked: employer engagement  Advisers were skilled at matching participants to employers. They identified participants’ individual preferences and requirements very effectively, placed them with supportive employers and made regular visits  Work placements were well managed with time bound lengths of stay and good monitoring of progress. In the more successful providers, placements with voluntary organisations or charities were managed well to increase the confidence of the individuals. However, some providers placed too much emphasis on maintaining placement activity, rather that challenging participants to take up paid work.

Add presentation title to master slide | 8 What worked: training and development  Personalised and genuinely individualised training, coaching and learning approaches developed personal, social and employability skills the most  Most training or coaching was given individually, but where some group work was used this worked very well  Detailed progress reviews were crucial in maintaining focus on progression into unsupported employment. Short term targets were used well to motivate and enthuse participants while ensuring that the long term aim of moving to unsupported employment was the main focus

Add presentation title to master slide | 9 What worked: management measures  Good partnerships with both training providers and wider support agencies  Good recruitment of teams with a range of backgrounds and abilities who support each other well  High emphasis on information, advice and guidance with most either having or working towards MATRIX

Add presentation title to master slide | 10 What worked: management measures  Good use of resources – both own and in partnership (Access to Work)  Very good partnerships with employers  Good quality improvement measures, including sharing of practice, peer review and improvement planning

Add presentation title to master slide | 11 What worked: longer term strategies  Providers are developing strategies to overcome historic barriers to unsupported employment, like the advantageous work and pension conditions of some inherited workshop schemes  Some now have good partnerships with unions and employers to make unsupported employment more attractive, while protecting the participants rights  They offer alternatives like “job-carving” or are developing social firms  One large provider has changed its focus completely, with attractive shop-front premises in accessible locations

Add presentation title to master slide | 12 What worked: longer term strategies  Where factories/workshops remain, providers are generally more focussed on giving good quality training to participants  Training is more job-related and increasingly challenging eg. Team leader training or project management  There is more emphasis on job rotation or on the possibility of promotion to challenge participants

Add presentation title to master slide | 13 What worked: longer term strategies  Key workers are encouraged to train in information, advice and guidance and are active in getting participants in the workshops to think more widely about their career aspirations  In the current economic climate many workshops have been forced to diversify which has led many workers to change their roles or take on new responsibilities

Add presentation title to master slide | 14 What is still not working:  Providers are still not using data well – particularly in monitoring participant progress or in using data to set staff meaningful targets, however in some providers this was used well and these providers had a clear management view on both progress of individuals and of progressions to unsupported employment on an ongoing basis. They were also able to begin looking at trends in their provision as a result and use this information for planning  The development of literacy, numeracy and language skills by providers is mostly less effective. Vocationally relevant skills for life training is offered in only a few providers and, at best, this is satisfactory provision.

Add presentation title to master slide | 15 What is still not working  Some providers do not celebrate success well enough. Participants’ small steps to unsupported employment are not sufficiently recognised and in some cases, employers are not sufficiently aware of the potential and capability of Workstep clients  In most local authorities, developing the awareness of Workstep across the breadth of the councils’ departments has been insufficiently developed  The providers interviewed also felt that the funding model itself limited the success of working with particularly vulnerable groups such as school leavers or those coming out of the forces

Add presentation title to master slide | 16 Summary  The survey found that Workstep is slowly becoming more successful in progressing participants to unsupported employment  Many providers have re-organised and re-focussed themselves to have a clear management focus on getting people into unsupported employment  Staff are focussed on progressions as their targets and conduct rigorous assessments with participants to match them well to jobs.  Reviews are frequent and highly concentrated on genuine progress

Add presentation title to master slide | 17 Summary  Links with employers are used well to gain sustainable jobs for participants  Good long term strategies are being put in place to challenge clients in factory or workshop provision to move to unsupported employment  Provision in factories and workshops is improving with increased training and challenge for those in employment there  There are still issues to address, particularly in tackling job- related literacy, numeracy or language problems

Add presentation title to master slide | 18 Contact details  