1 / 22

Structure of the presentation

Employability and Disadvantaged Parents: the Case of Working for Families Ronald McQuaid, Vanesa Fuertes, Sue Bond Employment Research Institute, Napier University, Edinburgh UK Paper presented at the ERSA Conference, Liverpool August - September 2008. Structure of the presentation.

chenoa
Télécharger la présentation

Structure of the presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Employability and Disadvantaged Parents: the Case of Working for FamiliesRonald McQuaid, Vanesa Fuertes, Sue BondEmployment Research Institute, Napier University, Edinburgh UK Paper presented at the ERSA Conference, Liverpool August - September 2008

  2. Structure of the presentation Background of Working for Families Fund (WFF) Aims of WFF Delivery Model Methodology for the evaluation Results Conclusions

  3. Background - policy issues “Closing the Opportunity Gap” – eliminating child poverty by 2020 23% of Scottish children in poor households (UK ranked 22nd of EU25 on child poverty in 2005) Link between worklessness and poverty (lone parents especially vulnerable to worklessness) UK: aim of 70% lone parents in work (57% in 2005); high levels of general employment (72% in 2005) 1998 – National Childcare Strategy Childcare: access and cost key barriers to work Childcare Subsidy

  4. ‘Holistic’ approaches to employability Scottish Government definition of employability: “The combination of factors and processes which enable people to progress towards employment, stay in employment, and ‘move on’ in the workplace”. McQuaid and Lindsay (2005): Employability defined by: Individual factors – literacy, health, skills, confidence Personal circumstances – caring roles, household circumstances (‘chaotic lifestyle’), debt, social capital External factors – jobs, transport, benefits, services

  5. Approach of WFF Key worker model – a single worker contact to engage and support parents through providing and signposting mentoring, advice, counselling, etc. Help both inactive and those in work (breaking the low pay-no pay cycle) In rural areas, support also provided to combat the barriers created by poor transport, limited services and the lack of a critical mass of clients Referral by various means: Public Employment Service and other agencies, informal reputation-building and ‘word of mouth’

  6. Numbers of New Clients Registered by Month to 31 December 2008 Total: 25,508 clients

  7. Type of Qualification of Clients Registered to 31 March 2008 (%) compared to Scotland (Census 2001)

  8. Barriers to Progression for sustained contact WFF Clients to 31 March 07 8

  9. ‘Hard’ Outcomes (Key Transition) Outcomes Intermediate Activities ‘Soft’ Outcomes Employability Measures TYPES OF OUTCOMES

  10. Type of Latest KEY Transitions to 31 December 07 47% 31% Total Number of Transitions = 13,095 by March 2008

  11. Intermediate Activity Outcomes (w/o Key Transition) to 31 March 07 Total IA outcomes without Key Transition = 850

  12. Distance travelled: Change on Employability Measures – Change in Average Score between Registration and at Six-Month Review

  13. All Client Outcomes to 31 March 2007 to 31 March 2008 No significant Outcome 28% (7,202) Key transition 51% (13,095) Registered in previous 6 month (no outcome expected) 7% (1,666) Valid Six Month monitoring Intermediate Activity 4% (906) Outcome 10% (2,576)

  14. Progress for unemployed Unemployed at registration who had a transition → 33% (1103) FT employment and 36% (1223) PT (>16 hrs) employment Sick/disabled at registration who had a transition → 27% (94) FT employment and 28% (97) PT (>16 hrs) employment 14

  15. Logistic regression model: transition Probability of achieving transition given range of independent variables/factors (individual, personal circumstances, external) 15

  16. Logistic regression model: More likely to move into work, major training or education if: the person has qualifications (SVQ level 2 or above). being in either part time or full time education having English as their first language, being a lone parent 16

  17. Logistic regression model: Less likely to move into work, etc. if: pregnant, having more than two children; being over 45 years old; being unemployed over 2 months; having other forms of stress (such as drug dependency); living in accommodation that is not owner occupied (especially if in hostel or supported care).

  18. Conclusions Major initiative that reached targets ‘Holistic’ model works well Reached the relatively disadvantaged But within this ‘group’ the less disadvantaged had greatest progression Range of employability factors that are important is large, and need to consider motivations etc.

  19. Thank you for listening r.mcquaid@napier.ac.uk www2.napier.ac.uk/depts/eri/home.htm

  20. END

  21. Hard Outcomes entered full-time employment; entered part-time employment; entered self-employment; being able to take up a job offer; moved into different employment (changed jobs, moved to a better paid job, etc.); improved current employment (gain promotion, change hours or pay, etc.); sustained activity (employment, education or training); entered or completed education or training course of at least Six-Months duration; entered voluntary work of 16 hours or more a week.

  22. ‘Soft’ Outcomes Intermediate Activity Outcomes Employability Measures: Distance Travelled

More Related