INSPIRING YOUNG LIVES

* APPROXIMATELY 10,000 YOUNG PEOPLE WILL TAKE PART THIS YEAR

RPA IMPACT ON TEAM

BACKGROUND ON RPA LEGISLATION From September 2013, year olds must stay in education or training, up to 18 th birthday by Sept FUNDING Mainstream education providers must meet Study Principles for EFA funding: English and Maths support (those without GCSEs A-C) Funding per learner for 600 hrs p.a. SFA funding has been protected for the next academic year Given the new environment how do we change the way we deliver our programme?

THREE POSSIBLE TEAM PROGRAMMES  Keep Team at 12 weeks (420 GLH) but increase Literacy and Numeracy support  A shorter 9-week Team programme (315 GLH)  A 15-week Team with embedded Literacy and Numeracy (600 GLH)

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE 12 WEEK Week 1  induction, planning and target setting 2  residential  community project  individual work placements 9  ‘next steps’ making choices post-team  Team challenge 12  programme review and final presentation

BENEFITS OF THE 12-WEEK TEAM  time to engage with young people  can embed literacy and numeracy  fits with existing FE progression opportunities  model works for both SFA and DWP

Strengths Weaknesses  retains all the key areas of Team – tried and tested over 20 years  does not leave many “spare” hours for colleges to provide other provision  right amount of time for each young person to develop  is not in line with EFA thinking on “substantial provision”  demonstrates to funders that The Prince’s Trust qualification is robust and good value for money  may not be enough time to significantly improve Literacy, Numeracy and Digital Literacy skills

Opportunities Threats  to embed literacy, numeracy and digital literacy into the programme  other programmes offer similar elements to Team but at a reduced cost  to review the entire programme and make improvements  16 to 18s will start to reduce from the programme as RPA develops  to enable more young people to retain on programme and progress into positive destinations  developments in Literacy and Numeracy will be limited in three months

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE 9 WEEK Week 1  Induction, planning and target setting 2  Residential  Community project 5  Individual work placements 6-7  Team Enterprise Challenge 8  Next steps 9  Programme review and final presentation

BENEFITS OF THE 9-WEEK TEAM  Engage with more young people, run 4 Teams a year  Young people can progress from Team into other FE provision within their 600 hours  Short, focussed programme including Enterprise elements  Potential for Delivery Partners to draw down increased funding

Strengths Weaknesses  More young people through the programme  May increase on Team Leader workload  Review and re-invigorate programme areas  May be difficult to recruit additional learners in some areas  Leaves FE providers with 285 GLH to equip learners with Maths and English, or for young people to progress  May incur increased costs to Delivery Partners to run additional Team programmes

Opportunities Threats  Strengthen links to Enterprise programme and increase employability skills  SFA have confirmed funding for Team at 420 GLH  Embed maths and literacy in Enterprise Challenge  9 weeks may not provide enough time to transform young people  DP potentially draw down increased income  Some completers may have longer to wait before starting FE courses

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE 15 WEEK Week 1  Induction/assessment 2  Planning and target setting 3  Residential 4-6  Community project 7  Preparation for work 8-10  Individual work placement 11  Next steps  Team challenge 14  Next steps progression week 15  Programme review and end of Team presentation

BENEFITS OF THE 15 WEEK TEAM  Embedded literacy and numeracy throughout programme  Better progression structure and opportunities for young people on the programme  Formalise current recruitment work to be included in core programme structure

Strengths Weaknesses  More progression support for young people on the programme  Asking Delivery Partner staff to do more work for the same amount of money  Embedded literacy and numeracy  Restricting the progress of young people  Formalised recruitment process  More staff are needed  Bespoke outcome work  This does not work if we do not get discrete provision  Programme attractive to Delivery Partners

Opportunities Threats  Explore if there is more staff funding available  Less young people attracted to the programme  Opportunities to work with corporate partners  More similar programmes at this length which are trying to achieve similar objectives  Identify local issues and work with these  Might impact more on smaller providers than on larger ones such as the Fire and Rescue Services  More flexibility with recruitment  Working with the Outreach team

* MORE THAN 70% OF UNEMPLOYED PARTICIPANTS GO ON TO JOBS, TRAINING OR EDUCATION WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF COMPLETION

QUESTIONS  Do you currently see Team as a viable programme to run for September 2013?  The DfE have granted protection for three years to colleges to make sure they can still run courses they have already planned. Do you intend to continue to fund Team using this protection for the next 1/2/3 years?  Do you see Team as a beneficial programme to help progress young people into FE routes?

THANK YOU