Agenda item

The committee is requested to consider the future options for the Choose Work Project as set out in sections 5 and 6  and to make recommendations to Cabinet about the future direction and funding of the project.

The committee considered this report (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr Oates and Ms Loaring from CDC and Gary Edwards from DWP attended  presented the report.  Mr Oates provided an update on inaccuracies in the report as follows:

·         Page 1, Exec Summary, the second sentence across lines 2, 3 and 4 should read: “This project was set up by Chichester in Partnership as part of its ‘Getting people into Work Strategy’ in 2012, and has delivered 187 work placements helping 94 local residents back into work, with an estimated saving to the public purse of £772,586.”

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 8 – delete 25% and replace with 47%

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 9 – delete 23 persons and replace with 44 persons

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 11 – delete £8,956 and replace with at least £8,219

·         Page 2, section 4.3, line 12– The final sentence should read: From 2013 to date, the project has cost in total £130,367.25. 189 work experience placements have been delivered and 94 persons are now in employment, Page 4, section 6.2.1, line 2 – delete £114,000 (£38,00pa) and replace with £120,000 (£40,000pa)

·         A corrected table at section 3.1 (page 4) of the Evaluation was circulated (copy attached to the official minutes).

The committee made the following comments:

·         Queried the reason for the lack of funding offered by partners – The housing associations referred to the project but hadn’t been around the partnership table, however they work on a wider basis now.

·         There has been an estimated saving of £777,000 on the public purse so unsure why the Department of Works & Pension (DWP) are not prepared to further fund this project.

·         Queried the meaning of ‘a more holistic and personal development approach’ – Some people need more ongoing support (training, coaching, confidence building, encouragement) and/or they may have low level mental health problems. Support does not cease and case workers are in continuous communication with work seekers using formal and informal contact.

·         Part of the scheme is engaging with employers to encourage them to offer placements

·         The project is a Chichester brand. It has no competitors. The council has started to create a market and is not limited as to who it can work with. Officers will approach the county council as there are links with the Think Family project. One other authority had approached us to use our brand but they were not going to deliver a sufficiently similar project so it was decided not to share it.

·         The project has helped mostly Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants however we are now being requested by DWP as part funders to help claimants on Employment Support Allowance (ESA) as well. These are people who may not be able to work due to illness or disability. The number of ESA claimants in the district is much higher than for JSA

·         Queried the cases coming forward, how long they had been unemployed, number of ex-offenders, etc – This was exclusively through the Job Centre initially but now a number of sources and agencies make referrals, including housing associations We don’t have statistics as to ex-offenders or the time they have been unemployed. Those with a disability may have been unemployed for a longer period. A breakdown of the type of cases would have been helpful.

·         Queried whether the New Homes Bonus (NHB) funding was appropriate for this project – The council has ring-fenced £250,000 NHB to parishes. The residual amount is in reserves and not ring fenced in any way.

·         The Big Lottery Funding is Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) funding. The result of the council’s bid will be known in the autumn; however the LEP is considering larger scale projects which cover the entire LEP area and this project might not fulfil their criteria.

Members were very supportive of the programme, however there were concerns that partners were not contributing to this project. The council commits its support to hosting the project and to part fund 30% of the costs. If the Lottery Fund bid is successful this would cover the costs of project for two years. The committee requested officers to seek the remainder of the funding from partners.

RECOMMENDED TO CABINET

1)      That the Choose Work Project be continued.

2)      That the change in focus of the Choose Work Project from Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants to Employment Support Allowance (ESA) claimants be acknowledged and supported. 

3)      That the council continues to support the project by hosting it and part funding it at 30% and, if in the event that there is a shortfall in funding, the council makes up that shortfall, but that further enhancements to the project should be sought.