Summary of Responses to the Consultation Paper
- Some 460 responses have been received, by post , email and fax. Many have used the pro-forma from the document, and others have produced more detailed responses.
- Umbrella organisations, representing particular sectors have tended to collect responses from their members and collate these into a group document, for the sector as a whole eg;
- Association of Colleges
- TEC National Council
- Careers Service National Association
- London TEC Council
- Association of Graduate Careers Services
- Responses from organisations such as the TUC, CBI, Library and Information Commission and OFSTED, who represent groups or member organisations, have responded as are not presented as the collective thoughts of those members.
- Most Careers Service Companies seem to have responded in their own right, in addition to contributing to the CSNA response. Forty six responses came from a combination of TECs, Business Links and CCTEs, with many more likely to have contributed to the TEC National Council's response.
- A number of Local Authorities, LEAs and Libraries are represented along with quite a few individuals, some saying that their organisation has responded, but on a personal level, they want to make quite different points. The largest group of responses, has been from colleges, including 6th form colleges, and Universities.
- All responses have been read and comments noted. What follows is not intended as a detailed analysis, more a quick distillation of some of the most frequently appearing points, listed against each question:
- Q1. Is the general approach to the provision of local information, advice and guidance services outlined in the paper the right one?
Many simply answer "yes" to this question, others asserting that services should be impartial and as comprehensive as possible.
- Q2. How might the level of service outlined in the document most effectively be specified in practice?
Attracted a very wide range of comment:
- it is less important to disaggregate Information, Advice and Guidance than to ensure individuals receive an appropriate seamless service
- services need to involve information and advice on work and employability issues, as well as learning opportunities
- services could include job vacancies and brokering, for a complete package
- do not include job vacancies or brokering - this would change the nature of the product
- the Department must clearly define what local services should deliver
- the Department should offer only a very general outline, giving local partnerships the flexibility to design local services according to local needs
- in order to address the widening participation agenda, we need to look at outreach particularly and not just concentrate on existing models of delivery
- Q3. Are there any specific groups of adults for whom there is a strong case that guidance should be supported out of public funds?
Most responses included reference to:
- the unemployed
- part-time and low paid worker (those on family credit)
- single parents
- people with special needs and disabilities
While others suggested targeting:
- people in rural areas, or areas with particularly bad transport problems
- volunteers
- people aged 50 and over
- those living in socially deprived areas
- inner city dwellers
- returners to the labour market
- 18 to 25 year olds
- any groups otherwise excluded from provision
- young men
There were several pleas that the full range of services should be provided free to anyone who requests it and Government should ensure adequate funding is made available.
- Q4. Is the suggested approach to funding the right one?
- Q5. What factors other than adult population should be taken into account in the formula for making funding allocations? and
- Q6. How should the funding methodology take account of existing investment in local IAG services by public and private agencies?
Collectively produced some passioned responses:
- all the money should be allocated through Careers Services
- don't give any money to Careers Services
- only local agencies can assess how to distribute funding
- don't allow TECs to cream off management fees for little effort
- take into account local unemployment levels
- use density of population figures to provide funding for outreach
- use forward projections of population
- consider deviations from average progress towards National lifelong Learning targets
- don't give extra funding to areas which have not already invested significantly in IAG services
- ensure those areas who have invested heavily are not penalised for doing so
- any distribution of funding must take account of current funding and not replace this
- it is not possible to take account of existing investment - this is mainly short term, developmental and likely to disappear
- Q7. Is the suggested approach to partnerships the right one?
Responses indicated broad agreement that partnerships are essential, with strong views about who should lead and which agencies should be involved:
- ensure that Careers Service companies take the lead in all partnerships
- ensure that Careers Service companies do not take the lead
- TECs are best placed to lead partnerships
- TECs are not appropriate lead partners
- lead partners should not be providers of learning opportunities
- lead partners should not be providers of IA and G
- partnerships should be on two levels, with CS, TECs, Colleges as strategic partners and smaller, voluntary and community sector agencies as 'junior partners'
- partnerships could work on a hierarchy basis, with larger organisations mentoring, offering training and support to smaller agencies to ensure comprehensive services are available , appropriate to local needs
- Q8. What more can be done to foster effective partnerships at local level?
Many responses left this question blank. Others felt:
- the Department should produce some criteria for effective partnerships
- promote factors from "Lessons form Disability services" published by Employment Service
- the Department should contract with a lead partner and leave the rest to local decisions
- Q9. What is the most appropriate geographical basis for the delivery of local IAG services?
We received overwhelming support for using lifelong learning partnership areas, or groups of these, where geographically very small. Many, however, saw this as their opportunity to concentrate on their own bit of the map and suggested specific:
- TEC areas
- Careers service areas
- LEAs
- London Boroughs
- shire counties
- RDA areas
- Q10. Is the suggested approach to quality assurance right?
All responses agreed that a robust quality assurance and accreditation mechanism will be essential. The majority agreed with the proposed approach, with others suggesting a variety of refinements:
- careers services should be exempt from accreditation because they will soon have preferred supplier status and are already covered by CSQ arrangements
- colleges should be exempt, but all other agencies should have to be assessed
- need a balance between desirability of a national standard and something realistic for smaller agencies, particularly in the voluntary and community sector
- a longer period should be allowed for smaller organisations to comply with the standards
- timescale for agencies to meet the standards is too short
- timescale allowed for is too long. Organisations should only be allowed to join local partnerships once they have achieved the standards.
- a two tier system should be introduced, with some partners allowed a, timebound, 'working towards the standards' period
- Guidance Council Standards are too demanding
- Guidance council Standards are not demanding enough
- all voluntary and community sector providers in our area are already working towards the standards
- none of the smaller providers in our area will reach the Guidance Council model
- Q11. What qualifications are appropriate for staff employed by local IAG services?
Responses to this question tended to vary according to the type of organisation:
- providers should have a range of qualifications, according to the service they offer. It is not appropriate to specify NVQ level 3 for everyone, as in the current Learning Direct contract, or level 4 as in ILA guidelines.
- appropriate units for information delivery, should include library units and customer service units from a variety of NVQs and other systems
- NVQ levels 2 or 3 in A and G are appropriate for advice, signposting and diagnostic services
- NVQ levels 3 or 4 or Dip C.G. are essential for delivery of guidance
|
