nextstep Kent and Medway

Inspection date 11 April 2008 nextstep Kent and Medway Inspection number 321402

p.1

Contents

Background information ............................................................................................................... 3

p.3

Contents

Inspection judgements ....................................................................................................................... 3

p.3

Contents

Scope of the inspection ...................................................................................................................... 3

p.3

Contents

Description of the provider ........................................................................................................... 4

p.3

Contents

Subcontractors visited .................................................................................................................. 4

p.3

Contents

Summary of grades awarded ........................................................................................................ 6

p.3

Contents

Overall judgement ........................................................................................................................ 7

p.3

Contents

Effectiveness of provision .................................................................................................................. 7

p.3

Contents

Capacity to improve ........................................................................................................................ 7

p.3

Contents

Key strengths ............................................................................................................................... 8

p.3

Contents

Key areas for improvement .......................................................................................................... 8

p.3

Contents

Main findings ............................................................................................................................... 9

p.3

Contents

Quality of nextstep provision ............................................................................................................. 9

p.3

Contents

Leadership and management........................................................................................................... 12

p.3

Contents

Quality improvement .................................................................................................................... 12

p.3

Contents

Equality of opportunity ................................................................................................................. 12

p.3

Contents

What learners like ...................................................................................................................... 14

p.3

Contents

What learners think could improve ............................................................................................. 14

p.3

Contents

Learners’ achievements .............................................................................................................. 15

p.3

Inspection judgements

Inspectors use a four-point scale to summarise their judgements about achievement and standards, the quality of provision, and leadership and management, which includes a grade for equality of opportunity .

p.4

Key for inspection grades

Further information can be found on how inspection judgements are made on www.ofsted.gov.uk.

p.4

Scope of the inspection

In deciding the scope of the inspection, inspectors take account of the provider’s most recent self- assessment report and development plans, and comments from the local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) or other funding body. Where appropriate, inspectors also consider the previous inspection report ( www.ofsted.gov.uk ), reports from the inspectorates’ quality monitoring or annual assessment visits, and data on learners and their achievements over the period since the previous inspection.

p.4

Scope of the inspection

In addition to reporting on overall effectiveness of the organisation, its capacity to improve further, achievement and standards, quality of provision and leadership and management, this inspection focused on specialist provision in:

p.4

Scope of the inspection

 Adult information, advice and guidance

p.4

Description of the provider

1. nextstep Kent and Medway is managed by VT Careers Management Kent and Medway. A network of 13 subcontractors, comprising voluntary community groups, statutory providers, a private careers company and further education colleges, delivers 60% of the service, with the remainder being provided by advisers from the Careers Management team.

p.5

Description of the provider

2. The central management team responsible for nextstep Kent and Medway consists of an information, advice and guidance (IAG) manager, who has overall responsibility for the service, a quality and training manager and a contracts and management information manager. They are supported by two partnership administrators and a member of staff dedicated to client follow- up. The IAG manager in Kent and Medway is supported by VT Careers Management and its regional IAG manager for the South East.

p.5

Description of the provider

3. During the 2006/07 contract year, nextstep Kent and Medway provided information to 124,913 clients, advice sessions to 12,720 clients and intensive advice, plus support to 2,909 clients. Of those clients, 41% were from one of the most deprived areas in the country, 62% were unemployed and 16% are in minority ethnic groups.

p.5

Description of the provider

4. Kent and Medway between them have four relatively large urban areas: Thanet, Kent Thameside, Maidstone and Medway Towns. Employment rates vary from 3.6% in Thanet to 0.9% in Sevenoaks.

p.5

inspection

National Probation Service (Kent and Medway) *

p.6

Summary of grades awarded

Effectiveness of provision Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.7

Summary of grades awarded

Capacity to improve Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.7

Summary of grades awarded

Quality of nextstep provision Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.7

Summary of grades awarded

Leadership and management Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.7

Summary of grades awarded

Quality improvement Contributory grade: Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.7

Summary of grades awarded

Equality of opportunity Contributory grade: Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.7

Satisfactory: Grade 3

5. The overall effectiveness of the provision is satisfactory. The quality of the nextstep provision is satisfactory, as are leadership and management, quality improvement and equality of opportunity.

p.8

Satisfactory: Grade 3

6. nextstep Kent and Medway has demonstrated that it has a satisfactory capacity to improve the quality of its services. After a six-month vacancy, a new quality manager was appointed and an improved coherence towards quality improvement strategies and procedures has been introduced over the past year. These arrangements are beginning to show results, particularly in the successful identification and collection of data of clients going into learning. The provider has developed an extensive range of partners to benefit and support the work it carries out with clients. Some steps have been taken to raise the quality of clients’ action plans and advice sessions but further work is required. Insufficient visits are made to monitor subcontractors.

p.8

Satisfactory: Grade 3

7. Arrangements for self-assessment are satisfactory. The second self-assessment report of nextstep Kent and Medway was produced in December 2007. The process is well managed. All subcontractors contribute by producing their own report. Self-assessment also draws on the views of clients. The report is not sufficiently evaluative and does not identify some of the areas for improvement.

p.8

Key strengths

 Good progression rate of clients into learning

p.9

Key strengths

 Very flexible and well located information and advice provision

p.9

Key strengths

 Good measures to improve access for clients

p.9

Key strengths

 Good collection, analysis and use of data

p.9

Key areas for improvement

 Low progression rate of clients into employment

p.9

Key areas for improvement

 Insufficient monitoring of subcontractors

p.9

Key areas for improvement

 Insufficient identification of and engagement with clients with learning difficulties and/or disabilities

p.9

Achievement and standards

8. Achievement and standards are satisfactory. A high proportion of clients progress into learning. nextstep Kent and Medway has recently implemented a method of utilising LSC data to identify these clients. They have improved from a low follow-up contact rate of between three% and five% for clients attending their first advice session between August 2005 and January 2007, to a much improved rate of 24% for the period February to July 2007. During the latter period, of those clients successfully contacted, 1,279 clients completed, moved into or continued learning. This represents over 20% of the total number of clients receiving their first advice session during that period. A total of 89% positive outcomes were largely due to the new system identifying those in or achieving learning within colleges.

p.10

Achievement and standards

9. A low proportion of clients progress into employment. The proportion has been low throughout the period from August 2006 to July 2007. Of the 65% of clients who were unemployed during their first advice session in the period from February to July 2007, only 9% subsequently entered employment. This is recognised as a priority for action by the contractor.

p.10

Achievement and standards

10. Clients gain self-confidence and other relevant skills during advice sessions. Clients gain significantly in the better sessions. For example, clients from severely disadvantaged backgrounds are able to take responsibility for arranging their own referral interviews, and for writing letters to experts in their field of interest. In poorer sessions, clients take a less active part and gain little self-confidence and skills.

p.10

Quality of provision

11. The quality of advice is satisfactory. The better advice sessions are well structured. Clients are fully engaged in identifying and expressing their individual needs and aspirations. Advisers use effective questioning and listening skills and effectively summarise clients’ complex work histories. Some workshops are lively and highly relevant to clients’ needs. In poorer sessions, clients’ needs are not fully explored. For example clients are not fully engaged and they passively accept advisers’ suggestions. Not all potential options are explored sufficiently. Workshops are occasionally not relevant, and are uninspiring. The providers system of observation does not identify these weaknesses.

p.10

Quality of provision

12. Arrangements for additional support to improve clients’ literacy, language and numeracy are satisfactory. Where needs are identified, referrals are timely. Some advisers do not fully explore with their clients the benefits of improving these skills.

p.11

Quality of provision

13. Resources are satisfactory. Advisers are experienced and appropriately qualified. Dedicated centres are well equipped with a wide range of paper-based resources. They also offer access to computers for clients to produce their own curriculum vitae or to research internet resources. Advisers have good access to computer-based career-matching programmes. People with disabilities can access information through adaptive technologies, which are available and are used. However, in outreach centres there is not always access to computers.

p.11

Quality of provision

14. Most action plans are poorly completed. Some improvement has been made since training was provided, but it is acknowledged in the self-assessment report as an area for further improvement. Actions are not always time-bound and specific. Some plans are not drawn up during the sessions but are completed later and posted to the clients. Some clients have little involvement in identifying actions and these do not always reflect the discussion and the actions agreed during the session. Examples of well-completed action plans accurately reflect the outcomes agreed with clients. Some advisers are skilled in drawing up an action plan progressively so that the flow of the session is not interrupted.

p.11

Quality of provision

15. The very flexible and well-located information and advice provision meets the needs of clients effectively. Clients benefit greatly from the accessible locations in urban and rural areas, and often with providers they are familiar with through other programmes or activities. Clients from rural communities can attend sessions in Jobcentres, which reduces the need for them to make multiple journeys. Outreach sessions are available in community centres, further education and adult and community colleges and by sessions at their home. Many information and advice sessions are provided in venues which are close to training and learning centres, which allows for clients to be referred quickly and easily. nextstep Kent and Medway responds well to employers’ needs and supports redundancy programmes by visiting clients at the employers’ premises. Useful interactive advice is available through their website.

p.11

Quality of provision

16. Support for clients is satisfactory. Some advisers focus well on helping clients to identify barriers to progression in learning and employment, while others encourage volunteering opportunities as a step into employment . Advisers refer clients appropriately to specialist agencies.

p.12

Satisfactory: Grade 3

Quality improvement Contributory grade: Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

Equality of opportunity Contributory grade: Satisfactory: Grade 3

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

17. Leadership and management are satisfactory. Strategic planning is good. nextstep Kent and Medway plans its services for clients very well. Its range of subcontractors has been developed very effectively. The annual contracting process is thorough. Links with wider partners, including unions, employers and local organisations are extensive. Subcontractors are set clear targets for the number of advice sessions they will provide during the year, which can be flexible to meet clients’ needs as they arise during the contract year.

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

18. The monitoring of subcontractors is inadequate. There are insufficient formal visits to check subcontractors’ compliance of their contractual obligations. Performance against targets for the number of advice sessions is checked through the monthly returns, and through email and telephone contacts. Subcontractors only receive an annual risk assessment shortly before the end of the contract year. The records of visits are insufficiently detailed to be useful.

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

19. Communication within the network of providers is generally satisfactory. Regular opportunities take place for nextstep staff and subcontractors, as well as other partners, to attend a range of forums. The nextstep provision is promoted effectively through a range of well-planned activities, such as during employer fairs and through the provider’s comprehensive website.

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

20. Advisers are suitably qualified or are working towards appropriate qualifications. Staff development and training opportunities are well planned with satisfactory attendance by subcontractors’ staff.

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

21. Equality of opportunity is satisfactory. nextstep Kent and Medway has been effective in widening participation for clients who are particularly disadvantaged. Subcontractors with specialist expertise play an important role. They succeed in reaching clients from the most deprived areas of Kent and Medway. Targets for providing a service to those clients aged over 50 have been achieved. In 2007, 22% of all clients were aged over 50. The service is also successful in reaching adults from minority ethnic communities. The proportion of clients in these groups is 16%, compared with six% of the population in Kent and Medway. nextstep Kent and Medway has analysed the outcomes achieved by different groups. Clients from minority ethnic groups have a higher rate of progression than clients as a whole.

p.13

Satisfactory: Grade 3

22. There is insufficient identification of and engagement with clients with a learning difficulty and/or disability. During 2007, 12% of clients self-declared a disability, against a target of 15%. This is recognised as a priority for action by nextstep Kent and Medway.

p.14

Satisfactory: Grade 3

23. Equality of opportunity is satisfactory. nextstep Kent and Medway has an appropriate strategy and policy in place for this. For example satisfactory checks are carried out to ascertain that equality and diversity training for staff is up-to-date, and that materials and resources reflect good practice. Procedures for complaints, compliments and comments are in place. Venues are well dispersed across the area to facilitate access, and most premises are accessible to clients with mobility difficulties. Wider access to information and advice is available through an interactive facility on its website. Images on the website and in marketing materials are varied to support equality and diversity.

p.14

Satisfactory: Grade 3

24. Quality improvement is satisfactory. The collection of data, particularly relating to progression into learning, has been extensively improved. Managers collate and analyse a wide range of data very well, which is used effectively for the management of the provision and to make improvements to the service.

p.14

Satisfactory: Grade 3

25. An annual audit plan records quality monitoring activities. Audits of completed client action plans are regularly carried out. Those subcontractors which are not achieving satisfactory levels receive immediate notification of the need to improve. Observations of advice sessions are well established. Moderation meetings assist in standardising the process. Records of observations are clearly written, with actions for those advisers who require further development.

p.14

Satisfactory: Grade 3

26. The self-assessment process is inclusive and involves the views of subcontractors and clients. The most recent self-assessment report is the second developed by nextstep Kent and Medway. A quality improvement plan is regularly reviewed. A useful quality improvement log has been developed which clearly tracks developments and improvements made over the past three years. The report is not sufficiently evaluative and does not identify some of the areas for improvement.

p.14

:

 ‘I was really down before I went, and I left feeling really happy’

p.15

:

 ‘The useful information I was given on my specialist area’

p.15

:

 ‘Getting more useful information than I expected’

p.15

:

 ‘Good to talk to someone from outside’

p.15

:

 ‘I was scared before – I’m moving forward now’

p.15

:

 More advice on changing career areas Annex

p.15

:

This document may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial educational purposes, provided that the information quoted is reproduced without adaptation and the source and date of publication are stated.

p.16

Learners’ achievements

Table 1: for clients without a level 2 qualification when they first contacted nextstep

p.16

Learners’ achievements

Outcomes Date of first advice or enhanced services session

p.16

Learners’ achievements

A Number of clients who received their first advice or enhanced services session during the period 6,619 5,756 6,110 5,948

p.16

Learners’ achievements

B Of those in A the number of clients successfully contacted for the six month follow-up survey 1,529 23% 310 5% 241 4% 180 3%

p.16

Learners’ achievements

C Of those in B, the number of clients who have successfully completed a Learning programme since their advice session 772 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

p.16

Learners’ achievements

D Of those in B, the number of clients who have started, but not yet completed, a Learning programme since their advice session 490 32% 74 24% 51 21% 77 43%

p.16

Learners’ achievements

E Of those in B, the number of clients who have continued with, but not yet completed, a learning programme they were already on 17 1% 2 1% 4 2% 1 1%

p.16

Learners’ achievements

F Of those in B, the number of clients who were unemployed at the time of their advice session 997 65% 263 85% 170 71% 113 63%

p.16

Learners’ achievements

G Of those in F, the number of clients who are now in employment 92 9% 102 38% 62 36% 62 55%

p.16

Learners’ achievements

H Of those in B, the total number of clients to have achieved a positive outcome 1,360 89% 177 57% 117 49% 140 78% Annex

p.16

Learners’ achievements

This document may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial educational purposes, provided that the information quoted is reproduced without adaptation and the source and date of publication are stated. Table 2: for clients who already held a level 2 qualification when they first contacted nextstep

p.17

Learners’ achievements

Outcomes Date of first advice or enhanced services session

p.17

Learners’ achievements

A Number of clients who received their first advice or enhanced services session during the period 167 357 1,033 892

p.17

Learners’ achievements

B Of those in A the number of clients successfully contacted for the six month follow-up survey 38 23% 46 13% 27 3% 21 2%

p.17

Learners’ achievements

C Of those in B, the number of clients who have successfully completed a Learning programme since their advice session 20 53% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

p.17

Learners’ achievements

D Of those in B, the number of clients who have started, but not yet completed, a Learning programme since their advice session 9 24% 6 13% 2 7% 2 10%

p.17

Learners’ achievements

E Of those in B, the number of clients who have continued with, but not yet completed, a learning programme they were already on 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

p.17

Learners’ achievements

F Of those in B, the number of clients who were unemployed at the time of their advice session 27 71% 30 65% 17 63% 18 86%

p.17

Learners’ achievements

G Of those in F, the number of clients who are now in employment 5 19% 16 53% 10 59% 17 94%

p.17

Learners’ achievements

H Of those in B, the total number of clients to have achieved a positive outcome 33 87% 22 48% 12 44% 19 90%

p.17