Agenda item

Discussion covered the following points:

·       Measuring success with NEETs: Success on NEETS is defined by absolute reduction in number of NEETs (‘Not in Employment, Education or Training’) and increase in participation levels, as they are linked. There is a need to focus beyond simply numbers in absolute terms, and also focus on the economic and social impact and picture. There is a role for local government and the CA to be ‘system leaders’ and ‘enablers’ in reducing NEET levels.

·       Gender stereotyping and progress: Although there is more press and public attention on instances of gender-based discrimination and issues, the data shows that the picture is improving across the board thanks to various programmes. Attitudes around certain jobs and careers is still shaped by society, media and culture in both directions so it is necessary to target children at school with role models and examples so that they know any career is open to anyone. Even in areas of progress, there remain some discrepancies; there are many more women in surveying, but the trades are still male dominated. In some businesses different departments are still skewing towards particular demographics e.g. marketing is young, manufacturing was male, and textiles still female. There are also structural challenges, such as childcare duties falling disproportionately more on women and at-work creches benefiting all parents balance life and work.

·       FutureGoals participation rate: FutureGoals is aimed at all age groups and there has been a big increase in usage due to successful marketing campaigns, with digital channels emerging as one of the most successful ways of reaching those who could benefit most from the programme, and its increasing promotion by careers facilitators in partner sectors such as college/university advisors, prisons, rehab etc. Data does not capture the ages of the users, as that would require an additional ‘data capture wall’ (i.e. asking for more information) which is proven to turn people off, if they have to sign up – which is currently only done by the training providers etc.

·       Local university retention rates: The 23% rate referenced in paragraph 2.17-18 refers to those employed in the area they were educated in, as a retention rate, and not the wider post-university employment rate. The “Russell Group” universities’ retention rates tend to be lower, which is normal for that level of university, e.g. Harvard University’s retention rate is around 10% as most students do not stay in the immediate area. Retention is one of the areas that West Yorkshire performs better in than some other regions.

·       Type of study vs local job supply: The graph in 2.17 shows that the “STEM” subjects of sciences, technology, engineering and maths have relatively low retention rates.  This is largely due to the “Russell Group effect”, since the university of Leeds is the main provider in these subject areas.  It may also be due to fewer employers in those sectors in the region, compared to other regions, and also an inability of local firms to match the salaries offered in other areas – although students don’t go to London at as high levels as previously thought. It is harder to track the most recent trends affected by homeworking and new technology, as many people live in different places to their work and their location choices are motivated by personal reasons as much as economic reasons. It may take many years to track and analyse trends to understand people’s habits and decisions.

·       Graduates in non-graduate work: There is an issue with some graduates working in non-graduate jobs, especially since COVID where many took jobs in call centres, admin, and sales (from home) while waiting for other jobs. The data shows that graduates know how to apply for jobs in their sectors, but there are not enough jobs; it is a supply side issue. Current programmes aim to work with businesses to create those jobs. Although people in other regions applying for local jobs cannot be stopped, programmes can help ensure that local students and workers are sufficiently educated and skilled to compete for those jobs.

·       School engagement and link to ‘real life’: School engagement is pivotal in shaping future decisions and habits. Children are influenced by non-school matters and the more their education, and engagement at schools, addresses the external issues and make a link between their studies and the real-life application of studies to work and life, the more engaged they are in their studies and more prepared when entering work.

It was noted that some of the pie charts in the report did not have legends and some of the graphs were cut off, to the right. These will be corrected and reissued.