A joinedup approach in local government to tackle worklessness

1
A joined-up approach in local government to
tackle worklessness Kathy Melling and Nick
MoonKent County CouncilBASE Conference,
September 2008
2
Menu

• An introduction to Kent County Council
• Kents 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?

3
An introduction to Kent and KCC

• Englands 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

4
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

5
(No Transcript)
6
Reasons for claiming IB in Kent
7
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

8
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

9
SIP breaking the spiral
10
SIP who does what
Government policy contextLocal policy
contextTowards 2010 targetsKA 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
11
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, theres 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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
What risks and failures have we seen?

• Risk of denuding power and coming across
  preciousness around peoples 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!

18
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

19
Thank you for listening

• Kathy Melling, Group Manager, Supporting
  Employment
• ? 01474 544253
• ? kathryn.melling_at_kent.gov.uk
• Nick Moon, Supporting Independence Programme
• ? 01622 696932
• ? nick.moon_at_kent.gov.uk
• Click to Kent at www.kent.gov.uk