Supporting Young People to Achieve: Towards a New Deal for Skills
A Response from NIACE (National Institute of Adult Continuing Education)
Published: September 2004
NIACE is pleased to respond to this consultation document and welcomes
 |
the intention to simplify the financial support system for 16-19 year olds. |
|
the introduction of a national minimum wage for 16 to 18 year olds of £3 per hour from October 2004. |
|
the move towards a minimum pay level for apprentices which is aligned to their future work. |
|
more information and advice for young adults on financial support. |
|
the intention to amend the age 19 cut off for Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Income Support eligibility. |
|
continued financial support for young adults over 16 still in education. |
|
examining options on support for employers (time off for training). |
NIACE has the following concerns:
| the difference between national minimum wage at 16-19 and over 19s. This differential fails to recognise that some young adults are working to support themselves and their families |
| lack of participation in education post-16 is not only caused by lack of financial support. There has to be recognition that a new system of financial support may overlook other ways in which young adults can be re-engaged: through informal and non-formal activities, through community involvement, and through programmes such as “Getting Connected” (NIACE/NYA) |
| limited recognition of how high the quality of training has to be to
attract young adults. If there is to be an encouragement for young adults
to enter vocational (and other) training post 16, the Government must ensure
that there is a rigorous quality assurance scheme to guarantee that training
which is undertaken is of high quality, and also that potential training
providers do not create training programmes to meet increased demand without
the skills, knowledge and experience to underpin their delivery. This is of
particular concern since recent inspections (1) have raised the
issue that young learners are ‘being failed’ in their work based learning
provision. It seems vital that difficulties in existing provision are resolved
before new provision is created, and higher numbers of learners enrol; (1)'Literacy, numeracy and English for speakers of other languages: a survey of current practice in post 16 and adult provision’, Ofsted/ALI, September 2003 |
| there is a risk that some young adults may have limited financial education. The Government’s proposals would mean that, for thousands of young adults, they would be in receipt of either their first income in their own right, or an increased amount of pre-existing income. Although there is a requirement for young adults to have a bank account in order to be in receipt of these payments, there is no further financial education or awareness raising, leaving a portion of this cohort open to further problems related to a lack of financial literacy. An introduction to a range of financial products (without an adequate understanding of the risks involved) combined with independence from parents or carers (whether chosen or otherwise) may well result in experiences of financial difficulties. We need to see a financial education programme as part of these proposed changes; |
| the missed opportunity to encourage employers to support young adults through new legislation. The DfES survey (2.19) makes it clear that only half the number of employers were offering training towards formally recognised qualifications for 16-17 year olds not on modern apprenticeships. It is time the government considered a requirement on employers to foster learning for employees, particularly those who are most vulnerable to the labour market. |
In responding to the questions posed, NIACE has relied heavily on the Young Adult Learners Partnership (YALP), a joint enterprise between NIACE and the National Youth Agency (NYA). NIACE commends to HM Treasury the response from the NYA.
Question 1: The Government would be interested in views on whether to identify unwaged trainees by programme of learning or non-employed status
NIACE believes that unwaged trainees would be better identified by programme of learning rather than non-employed status. This would avoid young adults experiencing a period of ‘unemployment’ at a young age, and ensure that those young adults most likely to benefit from financial assistance will do so. However, as identified, there would be a burden on providers of new or local options to ensure their provision is registered. This approach may also result in young adults opting to remain in lower level training for longer (possibly as a result of pressure from parents and/or carers) in order to extend the period of Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit payments.
Identification of unwaged trainees by non-employed status may result in young adults opting to remain ‘non-employed’ in order to qualify for financial assistance, and could also affect any part time work undertaken.
Measures would need to be taken to ensure that programmes of learning are not selected by young adults on the basis of their status as waged or unwaged, rather their appropriateness to the individual.
Question 2: Are the criteria the Government is considering for extending eligibility for Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Income Support to the end of the course the right ones? If not, what else should the Government consider and why?
NIACE considers the criteria chosen by the Government are broadly right. Relying on an age-related cut off is inequitable. Young adults do not universally experience similar paths through learning and training. However, we would like to see further clarification on financial and other support for young adults after they have achieved their specified learning goal, in order to encourage progression to level 3, and to maintain the momentum.
Question 3: How could the Government recognise de facto independence without encouraging young people to leave the family home?
NIACE supports retaining the concept of being in full time employment and being a parent as indications of independence. We consider that further research in this area would be beneficial, in order to explore young adults’ views on independence, finances and support.
Question 4: Are there any other circumstances in which a young person should be recognized as independent?
NIACE proposes other areas where young adults could be recognised as independent: studying or training away from home on a full time basis, or reaching a level of personal income, for example, through employment.
Question 5: How should the proposed threshold on young person’s income operate?
NIACE considers that it is not equitable to base the proposed threshold on hours worked since there is not always equity in the wages paid to young adults. A young adult earning a lower hourly rate may feel compelled to work more hours per week in order to increase their income, thus compromising their learning activities.
Question 6: Would an income threshold define full time work, or would an hours rule be more appropriate?
NIACE would not wish to define work through an hours rule. We support an income threshold which could be gained in a number of ways, and would reflect young adults’ choices and routes in employment.
Question 7: Which activities should be eligible for support in addition to education and training?
We support the inclusion of volunteering in activities eligible for support, and recognise the strong contribution volunteering has made to young adults’ participation, democracy and community integration. Legislation making volunteering more accessible and/or credible to wider groups of young people and young adults is to be welcomed. We also recommend that young adults taking a year out before re-entry to full time education should be eligible for financial support. This would be dependent on involvement in volunteering or participation in other community based worthwhile activities, whether abroad or in the UK, or involvement in personal and social development programmes.
Question 8: Should there be any time limits for support for these other activities?
NIACE proposes a one-year time limit. This would allow for a reasonable period of time to undertake such activities and to benefit from the learning experiences implicit within them, but would not compromise young adults’ re-entry to education and/or training. Although, in principle, NIACE would support a two-year part time extension, we are particularly mindful of the Government’s proposal to support learners commencing a programme of learning before their 19th birthday. Young adults embarking on a period of voluntary or other activity for two years may find themselves outside the entitlement period of financial support when returning to learning.
Question 9: Which streams of financial support should be included in any single system of support specifically for 16 - 19 year olds and which should be left outside?
NIACE agrees, in principle, that Educational Maintenance Allowance is an effective initiative, especially for those young adults who would ordinarily be unable to take up learning post 16 due to financial pressures. We would support a simplified single system integrating all forms of financial support available to young adults, apart from those available beyond the 16 to 19 stage. We also agree with the introduction of a discretionary fund to sit alongside any new financial system, but perceive a need for clarity regarding entitlement, and would wish for fair and equitable criteria, to create a system less open to abuse.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NIACE welcomes the increased support for young adults to pursue learning and training, and supports the measures to widen access to learning for young adults who have been traditionally less able to take up learning opportunities post 16. We also strongly support a simplified system of advice and financial support, particularly the aim to appropriately train Advisers working with young people by 2006. However, we would question the assumption that young adults will work part time alongside courses of learning, and would warn against the exploitation of young adult workers, and the detrimental effects on their learning.
NIACE would be pleased to supply further information or contribute to the developments outlined in the discussion paper. Please contact Bethia McNeil bethia.mcneil@niace.org.uk or Peter Lavender, peter.lavender@niace.org.uk at NIACE.
| The original document is available at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/981DF/young_people_493.pdf (PDF file) |
