DOCSLIB.ORG

Work Programme: Providers and Contracting Arrangements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Work Programme: Providers and Contracting Arrangements House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee Work Programme: providers and contracting arrangements Fourth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/workpencom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 27 April 2011 HC 718 Published on 8 May 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 The Work and Pensions Committee The Work and Pensions Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Work and Pensions and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dame Anne Begg MP (Labour, Aberdeen South) (Chair) Harriett Baldwin MP (Conservative, West Worcestershire) Andrew Bingham MP (Conservative, High Peak) Karen Bradley MP (Conservative, Staffordshire Moorlands) Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North) Kate Green MP (Labour, Stretford and Urmston) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Glenda Jackson MP (Labour, Hampstead and Kilburn) Brandon Lewis MP (Conservative, Great Yarmouth) Stephen Lloyd MP (Liberal Democrat, Eastbourne) Teresa Pearce MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Westminster North), Margaret Curran MP (Labour, Glasgow East), Richard Graham MP (Conservative, Gloucester), Sajid Javid MP (Conservative, Bromsgrove) and Shabana Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/workpencom The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Carol Oxborough (Clerk), Andrew Hudson (Second Clerk), Hanna Haas (Committee Specialist), Jessica Bridges- Palmer (Committee Media Adviser), James Clarke (Inquiry Manager), Sonia Draper (Senior Committee Assistant), Hannah Beattie (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Work and Pensions Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2839; the Committee's email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Announcement of the Work Programme 5 Background to this inquiry 6 2 Design of the Work Programme 8 Contracted employment programmes 8 Bringing together support into a single programme 8 Funding employment services from future benefit savings 9 Personalised support for Work Programme customers 11 3 The tendering process 14 The prime contractor model 14 Prime contractors’ relationship with voluntary organisations 17 Effectiveness of the procurement process 18 Competition within contract package areas 20 4 Differential payments 24 The outcome-based payment model 24 Incentives to support all customer groups 26 Regional variation 29 5 Managing performance of prime contractors 32 Minimum performance levels 32 Key performance indicators 34 Financial returns for prime contractors 35 Contract monitoring and variation 36 6 Managing the supply chain 38 The flow of funds to subcontractors 38 Managing relationships between prime contractors and subcontractors 39 7 Client flows 42 Eligibility for the Work Programme 42 Provision for former Incapacity Benefit claimants 43 Overall Work Programme client flows 45 Job availability 46 8 The role of Jobcentre Plus 48 Avoiding duplication between the supply chain and Jobcentre Plus 48 Support for jobseekers who are not eligible for the Work Programme 49 2 9 The transition to the Work Programme 51 Concerns about gaps in provision 51 Extension of previous employment programmes 52 Termination of programmes for disabled people 53 The application of TUPE regulations 54 10 Conclusion 56 List of conclusions and recommendations 57 Annex: The Committee’s visit programme in the United States 65 Formal Minutes 67 12 January and 2 February 2010 67 Witnesses 68 List of printed written evidence 68 List of additional written evidence 69 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 70 3 Summary In May 2010, the Coalition Government announced that it would establish a single welfare-to-work scheme, the Work Programme, to replace the range of contracted employment services for unemployed people. Although the Work Programme is of a larger scale, it maintains the same direction of travel as the Flexible New Deal, but the Coalition Government has dramatically accelerated the pace of change. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will implement the programme nationwide in June 2011. A key innovation is that the Work Programme will be funded through savings in future benefits payments as people move into work. Other design principles include delivery through large prime contractors, the overwhelming majority of whom will come from the private sector, using a payment-by-results model. Prime contractors are expected to subcontract service provision to specialist local organisations, including voluntary sector providers. Another important change is that a significant proportion of the funding will be paid to prime contractors as they achieve sustainable employment for participants over a two-year period. The contracts themselves last for up to seven years. The success of the programme will therefore be subject to the state of the labour market and sufficient vacancies becoming available that are suitable for Work Programme participants. Prime contractors will need to invest significantly in the programme and will be responsible for ensuring that the supply chain is sustainable under the outcome-based payment model. Evidence showed that providers will need to meet very demanding performance levels to make the programme financially viable for them. Under current economic conditions, if providers are very successful financially, we accept that this means that they will have delivered exceptional outcomes for jobseekers and significant savings in social security payments for the Government. The financial stakes are very high for all parties: for prime contractors, there is a risk that they will terminate their involvement in the programme if they cannot make a profit; smaller subcontractors are concerned that they may not receive sufficient upfront funding to operate; and the Government could incur significant costs if it needs to intervene should Work Programme provision collapse in a particular region, although having at least two prime contractors in each region and a pre-approval process as part of the framework should mitigate this risk. Previous contracted employment programmes have experienced “creaming and parking”, whereby providers focus their attention on the participants who are most likely to gain sustainable employment, at the expense of those who face greater challenges to finding work. The Work Programme attempts to incentivise prime contractors to provide support for all participants through the differential payments model, an approach recommended by our predecessor Committee. It is based on eight customer groups. Prime contractors will receive higher payments for participants in the customer groups assessed as more difficult to help, for example, former Incapacity Benefit claimants. However, there is a risk that creaming and parking may still take place under this model, since it remains open to 4 providers to continue to focus on the easier to help participants within each customer group. The Government must monitor this closely and may need to change the payment model to address failure to provide support for all clients, where necessary. The design of the differential payments model does not attempt to reflect regional and local variations arising from local labour market conditions and the different needs of local populations, relying instead on prime contractors reflecting this in their tender bids. There may therefore be insufficient incentives to ensure that prime contractors provide a consistent quality of support for all participants in their contract area. This may lead to disparities between the level of support in areas of entrenched unemployment and remote rural areas compared to areas where the labour market is buoyant. Again, the Government must monitor this and intervene to adapt contracts if it is found that participants in some areas are being neglected. The Programme will face a significant new challenge in providing services for potentially large numbers of former Incapacity Benefit claimants, some of whom may face significant barriers to finding work and require a level of support that has not been delivered under previous programmes. Initial findings from trials in Aberdeen and Burnley indicated that as many as a third of current Incapacity Benefit claimants might be found fit for work and another third might be able to work within a reasonable period if the right support was provided. The total number
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision Notice
    FS50441818 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice Date: 1 October 2012 Public Authority: Department for Work and Pensions Address: IGS Directorate The Adelphi 1-11 John Adam Street London WC2N 6HT Decision (including any steps ordered) 1. The complainant asked the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for the names of the organisations that JHP Group use when delivering Mandatory Work Activity in the Scotland Contract Package Area (CPA). 2. The Commissioner’s decision is that by withholding the information under sections 43(2) and 36(2)(c) the DWP did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the FOIA. 3. By failing to state or explain in its refusal notice that section 36(2)(c) was applicable to the requested information the department breached sections 17(1)(b) and (c) of the FOIA. 4. The Commissioner requires the department to disclose the information within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. 5. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. FS50441818 Request and response 6. On 11 January 2012 the complainant requested the following information: “Please could you provide me with the names and locations of organisations which are participating in the Work Programme in the Scotland Contract Package Area, by providing mandatory work placements through the DWP’s prime providers Ingeus, and Working Links, through JHP Group Ltd or any relevant sub-contractors.” 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment
    Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment Key Developments in the OECD September 4, 2011 Douglas J. Besharov Douglas M. Call In recent years, various OECD countries modified their financial assistance programs in an effort to “activate” those receiving unemployment, disability, and social assistance. These changes are both substantive (such as eligibility, and the terms, conditions, and amounts of assistance) and administrative (such as consolidating, decentralizing, and privatizing services). The countries that have been most active in these reforms are Australia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and, to a lesser extent, Italy and Norway. Key aspects of these changes are summarized below. Tightened eligibility rules. In an effort to improve the targeting of programs on the most deserving or needful, some countries have modified how they define and measure eligibility. United Kingdom. As part of broader reforms to unemployment, disability, and social assistance programs, in 2008, the UK replaced the disability assessment used since 1991 (the Personal Capability Assessment) with a new assessment (the Work Capability Assessment) that reduces the number of exemptions to work and assesses the extent to which the individual’s disability prevents them from working.1 1Child Action Poverty Group, “The Work Capability Assessment,” http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb204/wca.htm (accessed July 16, 2011); and Department of Work and Pensions, Work Capability Assessment: Internal Review (London: Department of Besharov and Call Labour Activation in a Time of High Unemployment New claimants have been subject to the Work Capability Assessment since its inception in 2008. In addition, the UK instituted a reassessment of claimants who began receiving disability benefits under the Personal Capability Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme
    Work Programme Standard Note: SN/EP/6340 Last updated: 26 September 2013 Author: Feargal McGuinness Section: Economic Policy and Statistics The Work Programme is the Government’s main welfare-to-work programme. Unemployed people are referred on to the programme from their local Jobcentre Plus after they have been receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for a minimum amount of time. Participants remain on the programme for up to two years. The scheme is run by providers who have the freedom to introduce and implement their own ideas and schemes to help unemployed participants find work – the ‘black box’ approach. These prime providers (who are mostly private companies) are able to subcontract delivery to smaller, more specialised suppliers if these are better equipped to help participants find work. Providers are awarded payment at various stages rather than upfront, in order to reward providers for placing and keeping individuals in work. The harder it is to help an individual into work, the higher the total payment a provider can receive. Between June 2011 (when it began) and June 2013, 1.31 million people were referred to the Work Programme in Great Britain. The total number of ‘job outcomes’ (participants who completed 13 or 26 weeks in employment, depending on their payment group) was 168,000. The proportion of claimants achieving a job outcome after 12 months on the programme increased from 8.5% of people referred in June 2011 to 13.0% of people referred in June 2012. In the first year of contracts, no provider met the minimum expected level of performance set by DWP; however some providers met or exceeded minimum performance levels for JSA claimants in the second year of contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme Supply Chains
    Work Programme Supply Chains The information contained in the table below reflects updates and changes to the Work Programme supply chains and is correct as at 30 September 2013. It is published in the interests of transparency. It is limited to those in supply chains delivering to prime providers as part of their tier 1 and 2 chains. Definitions of what these tiers incorporate vary from prime provider to prime provider. There are additional suppliers beyond these tiers who are largely to be called on to deliver one off, unique interventions in response to a particular participants needs and circumstances. The Department for Work and Pensions fully anticipate that supply chains will be dynamic, with scope to flex and evolve to reflect change within the labour market and participant needs. The Department intends to update this information at regular intervals (generally every 6 months) dependant on time and resources available. In addition to the Merlin standard, a robust process is in place for the Department to approve any supply chain changes and to ensure that the service on offer is not compromised or reduced. Comparison between the corrected March 2013 stock take and the September 2013 figures shows a net increase in the overall number of organisations in the supply chains across all sectors. The table below illustrates these changes Sector Number of organisations in the supply chain Private At 30 September 2013 - 367 compared to 351 at 31 March 2013 Public At 30 September 2013 - 128 compared to 124 at 30 March 2013 Voluntary or Community (VCS) At 30 September 2013 - 363 compared to 355 at 30 March 2013 Totals At 30 September 2013 - 858 organisations compared to 830 at March 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme: Background and Statistics
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 6340, 21 March 2016 Work Programme: By Aliyah Dar background and statistics Inside: 1. Who participates on the Work Programme? 2. Statistics 3. Payment model 4. Cost of the Work Programme 5. Work Programme best practice group 6. How the Work Programme works for unemployed people 7. Service delivery 8. ESA claimants and the Work Programme 9. Smaller suppliers and financial risk 10. Concerns over creaming and parking 11. After 2015 www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 6340, 21 March 2016 2 Contents Summary 3 1. Who participates on the Work Programme? 4 2. Statistics 5 2.1 Job outcomes 5 Analysis by monthly cohort (12 month job outcome measure) 5 2.2 Referrals 6 2.3 Sustainment payments 7 2.4 People completing the Work Programme 7 2.5 Variations by provider and geography 7 2.6 Comparison with minimum performance levels 8 3. Payment model 10 3.1 Minimum performance levels 11 3.2 Managing provider performance 12 Market Share Shift 12 Contract termination 12 4. Cost of the Work Programme 14 5. Work Programme best practice group 15 6. How the Work Programme works for unemployed people 16 6.1 Referral 16 6.2 Duration of Work Programme support 16 6.3 What happens when individuals leave the programme? 16 Help to Work 16 6.4 Complaints 17 6.5 Interaction with the Youth Contract: Wage Incentives 17 7. Service delivery 19 7.1 Prime providers and the ‘black box’ 19 7.2 How prime providers were selected 20 7.3 Supply chains and subcontractors 20 7.4 Merlin Standard 21 8.
    [Show full text]
  • The Work Programme: Factors Associated with Differences in the Relative Effectiveness of Prime Providers
    The Work Programme: factors associated with differences in the relative effectiveness of prime providers August 2016 The Work Programme: factors associated with differences in the relative effectiveness of prime providers DWP ad hoc research report no. 26 A report of research carried out by NIESR on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. © Crown copyright 2016. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU,or email: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/research-reports If you would like to know more about DWP research, please email: [email protected] First published 2016. ISBN 978-1-78425-617-3 Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department The Work Programme: factors associated with differences in the relative effectiveness of prime providers Summary The Work Programme is delivered by 18 private, public and voluntary sector organisations, working under contract to DWP. These organisations are known as prime providers, or "primes", and operate within a geographical Contract Package Area (CPA). Each CPA has either two or three primes and individuals entering the Work Programme are randomly assigned to one of these. Comparing the outcomes of individuals assigned to each prime within a CPA provides robust estimates of relative effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • A Helping Hand Enhancing the Role of Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Organisations in Employment Support Programmes in London October 2015 Appendix 1
    Appendix 1 Economy Committee A Helping Hand Enhancing the role of voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in employment support programmes in London October 2015 Appendix 1 Economy Committee Members Fiona Twycross (Chair) Labour Stephen Knight (Deputy Chair) Liberal Democrat Tony Arbour Conservative Jenny Jones Green Kit Malthouse MP Conservative Murad Qureshi Labour Dr Onkar Sahota Labour Committee contact Simon Shaw Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7983 6542 Media contact: Lisa Lam Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7983 4067 Appendix 1 Contents Chair’s foreword ................................................................................................. 1 Executive summary ............................................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 4 2. The challenges to VCSE organisations’ involvement in employment programmes........................................................................................................ 9 3. What can be done to address the challenges to VCSE organisations’ involvement? .................................................................................................... 14 4. Devolution of employment programmes ................................................. 21 Appendix 1 – Recommendations ...................................................................... 26 Appendix 2 – Major employment programmes ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme Evaluation: Findings from the First Phase of Qualitative
    Research report Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase of qualitative research on programme delivery by Becci Newton, Nigel Meager, Christine Bertram, Anne Corden, Anitha George, Mumtaz Lalani, Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Roy Sainsbury and Katharine Weston Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 821 Work Programme evaluation: Findings from the first phase of qualitative research on programme delivery Becci Newton, Nigel Meager, Christine Bertram, Anne Corden, Anitha George, Mumtaz Lalani, Hilary Metcalf, Heather Rolfe, Roy Sainsbury and Katharine Weston A report of research carried out by the Institute for Employment Studies, the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions © Crown copyright 2012. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrs-index.asp Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at: Central Analysis Division, Department for Work and Pensions, Upper Ground Floor, Steel City House, West Street, Sheffield, S1 2GQ First published 2012. ISBN 978 1 909532 01 4 Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Work Programme Evaluation: Operation of the Commissioning Model, Finance and Programme Delivery
    Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery December 2014 Research Report No 893 A report of research carried out by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Institute for Employment Studies and the Social Policy Research Unit at the University of York on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. © Crown copyright 2014. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-Government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about/ research#research-publications If you would like to know more about DWP research, please email: [email protected] First published 2014. ISBN 978 1 910219 66 9 Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other Government Department. Work Programme evaluation: Operation of the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery Summary This report brings together and summarises the main evidence from: • the 2013 and 2014 waves of the Work Programme evaluation about the commissioning model, finance and programme delivery; and • provider surveys from 2012, 2013 and 2014. The report explores the impact of the commissioning model on the provider market, the operation of the financial model and programme delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition Government Extends “Slave Labour” Welfare Policy
    Analysis Discipline and discontent: coalition government extends “slave labour” welfare policy Chris Jones Under the government’s Work Programme, unemployed people must work for free for private companies such as Tesco and Primark or face losing their benefit payments. These companies manage the programme “without prescription from government” and are given access to sensitive personal data. The government is determined to bolster the number of people involved in the scheme. Disabled people have been increasingly targeted for enrolment and the government’s Universal Credit welfare plan will see thousands of individuals become eligible for referral. Since the late 1990s, successive governments in the UK have introduced “work-for-your-benefit” policies through which the receipt of unemployment benefits is conditional upon the undertaking of certain activities – for example, filling in a minimum number of job applications every week. Following its formation in May 2010, the coalition government introduced the Work Programme which raised the number and intensity of activities required of those claiming benefits. It also increased the severity of sanctions that can be imposed should people not comply. The activities – which in many cases include unwaged work – are prescribed by private firms with government contracts. These firms exercise considerable power over the individuals involved. Upon referral to the Work Programme by a member of staff at a Jobcentre Plus, a letter is sent to the claimant. It states that the provider or one of their partners: “Will support you whilst on the Work Programme. They will discuss what help you need to find work, and draw up an action plan of things you’ll do to improve your chances of getting and keeping a job.
    [Show full text]
  • Fixing the Work Programme, Locally
    FIXING THE WORK PROGRAMME, LOCALLY REPORT Bill Davies and Luke Raikes June 2014 © IPPR North 2014 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT THE AUTHORS Bill Davies is a research fellow at IPPR North. Luke Raikes is a researcher at IPPR North. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the boroughs of Southwark, Lambeth, Lewisham and Islington and the councils of Sheffield and Hull for generously supporting our research. Particular thanks go to Stephen Gaskell for his thorough engagement during the life of the project. In addition, we would like to thank our colleagues Nick Pearce, Ed Cox, Graeme Cooke, and Graeme Henderson for their comments on the draft. ABOUT IPPR NORTH IPPR North is IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England. With bases in Newcastle and Manchester, IPPR North’s research, together with our stimulating and varied events programme, seeks to produce innovative policy ideas for fair, democratic and sustainable communities across the North of England. IPPR North specialises in regional economics, localism and community policy. Our approach is collaborative and we benefit from extensive sub-national networks, regional associates, and a strong track record of engaging with policymakers at regional, sub-regional and local levels. IPPR North 3rd Floor, 20 Collingwood Street Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 1JF T: +44 (0)191 233 9050 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org/north Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in June 2014. © 2014 The contents and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) only. SMART IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Executive summary ......................................................................................................2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................4 Methodology and structure .........................................................................................5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum
    REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM AGENDA Wednesday 22 February 2012 at 3.00 pm in Committee Room B, Civic Centre, Hartlepool REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM: Councillors Barclay, Cook, Cranney, Gibbon, Lawton, A Marshall, McKenna, Rogan and Turner Resident Representatives: Ted Jackson and John Maxwell 1. APOLOGI ES FOR A BS ENC E 2. TO RECEIV E ANY DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 3. M INUT ES 3.1 Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2012 (to follow) 4. RESP ONS ES F ROM T HE C OUNCIL , T HE EX EC UT IV E O R C OM M IT T EES O F T HE COUNCIL TO FINAL REPORTS OF THIS FORUM No ite ms 5. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR SCRUTINY REVIEWS REFERRED VIA SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE No ite ms 6. CONSIDERATION OF PROGRESS REPORTS / BUDGET AND POLICY FRAM EW ORK DOC UM ENTS No ite ms www.hartl epool.gov.uk/democraticser vices 7. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Investigation into ‘Employment and Training Opportunities for Young People Aged 19-25’ 7.1 Consideration of Draft Final Report - Chair of the Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum Six Monthly Monitoring of Scrutiny Actions 7.2 Six Monthly Monitoring of Agreed Regeneration and Planning Services Scrutiny Forum’s Recommendations - Scrutiny Support Officer 8. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FROM FORWARD PLAN 9. ANY OTHER ITEMS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS ARE URGENT ITEM S FOR I NFORM ATION Date of Next Meeting to be confirmed. www.hartl epool.gov.uk/democraticser vices Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Draft Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum – 22 February 2012 7.1 REGENERATION AND PLANNING SERVICES SCRUTINY FORUM 22 February 2012 Report of: Regeneration and Planning Scrutiny Forum Subject: DRAFT FINAL REPORT – EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AGED 19-25 1.
    [Show full text]