A joined-up approach in local government to tackle worklessness Kathy Melling and Nick Moon Kent County Council BASE Conference, September 2008

Menu An introduction to Kent County Council Kent’s priorities for worklessness An introduction to Supporting Independence (SIP) An introduction to Kent Supported Employment (KSE) How did we link up? What outcomes have we seen? What risks and failures have we come across? What are the benefits?

An introduction to Kent and KCC England’s largest county Population: 1.3 million A top performing 4-star council (CPA) Gateway to SE England and Europe 1 county and 12 districts (and one UA) 84 Councillors: 57 Con, 21 Lab, 6 LD Leader and 8 Cabinet Members KCC budget £2,200m, average spend of £1,600 per citizen per year A diverse county – traditional view of the Garden of England in parts, but pockets of complex and stubborn disadvantage, both rural and urban. An east/west split, with significant problems in coastal areas

Worklessness in Kent 78,000 working age out-of-work benefit claimants in Kent – 10% of the working age pop 62% of all claimants on incapacity benefits Three-quarters claiming for more than 2 years, over half for more than 5 years Some communities where over half the population are dependent on benefits – in the second percentile nationally These communities suffer from complex, multiple disadvantages

Reasons for claiming IB in Kent

Corporate targets around worklessness Vision for Kent: Economic success – Opportunities for all, and Improved health, care and well-being Active Lives: Ensure that people who want to work are supported in doing so National Indicators relating to employment of disadvantaged groups Kent Agreement 2 NI 152 – working-age people on out-of-work benefits

Supporting Independence Programme Support, co-ordinate and refocus the work of the county council and partners to increase the number of individuals leading independent lives Evidence-based approach Identify barriers to successful delivery and outcomes of service for end-users Ensure SIP integral to KCC policies and strategy e.g. Towards 2010, LAA2 Making the data REAL

SIP: breaking the spiral

SIP: who does what Government policy context Local policy context Towards 2010 targets KA 1 and 2 Preventative  14 – 24 Innovation Unit  Extension of vocational curriculum  Apprenticeship Programme  Kent Community Programme Responsive  Welfare Reform Agenda  Kent Employability Strategy  Kent NOW programme  KA2 outcomes

SIP: positive outcomes Living in a ward with a SIP focus significantly improves your chances of exiting benefit dependency than if you live in a disadvantaged ward without a SIP focus In wards like Cliftonville West, there’s a 29% higher chance of exiting benefit dependency than in other disadvantaged wards in the South East Oxford University Department of Social Policy and Social Work Research, 2007

Kent Supported Employment Market leader in supporting those furthest away from the labour market Gross spend of £1.3m Workforce of approximately 45 FTE Works with those referred through Care Management and CMHTs Work Prep, Workstep and Pathways to Work LSC funding – support to colleges Supports modernisation agenda for both LD and MH

How did we link up? Personality, flexibility, willingness to engage Corporate priority – SIP as strategy, KSE as delivery Expertise in KCC around welfare reform, programme delivery Need for a corporate strategy for employability Political support for joined-up working – cabinet portfolio holders providing cohesion at councillor level

How did we link up? Political support from KASS driven by will to provide improved services for disabled people Support from corporate centre driven by desire for improved services for all on out-of-work benefits, role of W2W in regeneration, savings to public purse, desire for devolved powers Kent Agreement pushing for more joined-up processes, LPSA programmes demanding partnership approaches

What outcomes have we seen? Collaborative working between SIP and KSE on Pathways to Work Better outcomes for more service users Evolution of a cross-directorate employability strategy Better public consultation practices Improved responsiveness to Govt consultations Pushing worklessness to the top of the political agenda in Kent

What outcomes have we seen? Less duplication of effort around this issue from various parts of the authority Less silo working Positive outcomes for our partners (e.g. KA2 targets on mental health) Increased partnership working outside of KCC – e.g. Local Employment Partnerships More people with a better understanding of their role in the greater agenda

What risks and failures have we seen? Risk of denuding power and coming across preciousness around people’s roles & responsibilities Engaging the right people, and encouraging engagement Governance issues – who takes ownership? Lack of clear “home” for the agenda Risk of political meddling, but also a benefit!

Benefits of collaborative working More flexible work practices Recognising and sharing of expertise Better VFM and improved outcomes for service users Builds consensus around the agenda Allows us to push for change at national level Brings about innovation in new programme development

Thank you for listening Kathy Melling, Group Manager, Supporting Employment   Nick Moon, Supporting Independence Programme   Click to Kent at: