A joined-up 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 • Kent’s 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 • England’s 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

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, there’s 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 people’s 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@kent.gov.uk Nick Moon, Supporting Independence Programme  01622 696932  nick.moon@kent.gov.uk Click to Kent at: www.kent.gov.uk