ESCENA VIII. 43

I

U

Chapter Five

U

I

• Participants with children or partners were less likely to say they New Deal had

U

_{. Consortium delivery areas were the least likely to have helped}helped improve theiremployability _{withemployability.}

U

• Table 5 23 Percentage of New Deal participants andex-Ncw Deal unemployed sayingNew Deal had been helpful in increasing confidence, improving skills, icarning skills, getting work experience or looking for

• work • ~ 1 .

U

~ ~6T~ Age • 18-20 years 76 2027 21-22 years 74 1279

U

23+ years 71 1337

U

~. -

I

- Il — Children 67 432

—

NochiidreTl 75 - 4217

U

- Mamedlliving asroamed 68 608

U

Single divorced, or ed 75 4041

U

-

1

I

Reading, writing ornumer~yproblem since age 16 16 1110 No reading, writing or numeracy problems 73 3539

I

E,~.offenders 62 424

I

Not ex-offenders 75 4225

U

Job search problemin last year 73 3264

• No jobsearch mblems 77 1385

U

Work-limiting long-tern health problem 74 538

Long-terra health problem, not work limiting 79 259

U

No lon -term health roblem 74 3852

• ~.-

U

U

— . -~ ... ..

U

U

137

U

U

I

Chapter Five

I

__ __

U

~ ~

I

Number of social disadvantages

0 72 902 73 1739 2 78 (30? 3 74 585 4 _____ 64

________________

73 Region Scotland 77 560 North east 79 443

1

Northwest 79 707

Yorkshire andHumberside 75 773

I

Wales 73 204

West Midlands 76 313

East Midlands and East Anglia 71 499

South west 80 65

London and south east 67 1086

U

Base NewDealparticipantsandex-NewDealunemployedat time of survey interview

Respondents’ New Deal status at the time of the survey interview was strongly associated with what they viewed as helpful in New Deal (Table 5.24) Those participating in the

voluntary and ETF Options viewed New Deal as being most helpful in getting work

U

expenence, while those on (he full-time education and training Option thought it most

helpful in learning new skills Participants on Gateway and post-Option advice were

U

most likely to cite looking for work as the way in which New Deal had helped them.

Perhaps surprisingly, this was also the case for participants on the employment Option,

U

although work experience was cited second most frequently. Fifty-five per cent of the

ex-New Deal unemployed said New Deal had not been helpful to them in any of these

ways Among participants, this figure was roughly one-in-ten, but it rose to 27 per cent

U

among Gateway participants, perhaps because they were at a relatively early stage in their

programme participation.

U

TabLe5 24 HelpfuLness ofNewDealamongparticipants at survey interview andex-New Deal unemployed

U

Gateway ~ V~Qp ETF FT ed/sr0p Post-Op advice Er-NDu.nemp

NDhelpfidin % % Increasing 39 54 69 62 54 48 20 confidence

U

improvmgskills 22 57 64 54 71 46 15 Learning new 18 58 64 6! 75 47 13

U

skills Getting work II 66 74 69 37 40 12 experience Looking for 64 72 56 57 47 68 36 work Noneofthese 27 8 9 9 12 12 55 Weighted base 1423 621 170 127 776 418 1107 Un-weighted 1485 606 173 133 825 429 1070 base

Base New Deal participants andex-NewDealunemployed attuneofsurveyinterview

U

U

120

U

I

I

• Chapter Six

6

New Deal Leavers

U

Summary -

> Forty-one per cent of respondents had left New Deal by the time of the survey interview,_{roughly six months after they began the programme. These early Jeavers are unlikely to be}

U

representative of all leavers in their characteristics or destinations

I

> Thirty-eight per cent of leavers were in paid work by the time of the Interview, 30 per cent were claiming unemployment benefits, 14 per cent were unemployed but not claiming

—

unemployment benefIts, and 8 per cent described themselves as long-term sick or disabled • Most of the remaining 10 per cent were looking after the home or in education or training • > Half the }eave,-s were leavers from Gateway, a fifth were Option leavers, and the remainder

recalled little or nothing of New Deal. Option leavers had lower employment rates than • Gateway leavers and those recalling little or nothing of New Deal. By wave two, Option

U

completers will be counted among Option leavers, and_{destinations will be different} it is likely that their post-programme

U

> A relatively small minority of leavers (8 per cent) cited problems with claiming or

U

dissatisfaction with New Deal as reasons for stopping New Deal However, 87 per cent ofthis

group were unemployed at the time of the survey interview

U

> Employment rates were highest among those viewing New_{among those viewingit as ‘not at all useful’ and those who were unsure}Deal as ‘very useful’, and lowest_{Employment rates}

U

were positively associated with getting along with NDPAs and satisfaction with NDPA help.

Employment rates were also high among participants viewing careers guidance under New • Deal as helpful. They wereparticularly low among participants who found work expenence or

U

basic skill assistance most helpful, suggesting that these participants did not necessarily expect_{the help to lead directly to ajob}

I

-

> Womenwere more likely than men to have left New Deal early, and to have entered part-time

U

employment. Men were more likely than women to leave for full-time employment or

I

unemployment.

U

> Non-white ethnic minority participants were more likely than whiles to have left New Deal,

and were more likely to recall little or nothing of the programme. Differences across non-white • minority groups were greater than the difference between non-whites and whites. Respondents from the Indian sub-continent were more likely than any other group to have left New Deal,

U

while Black Canbbeans were more likely to be stayers than any other group, including whites. Although white leavers had higher employment rates than non-whites, differences ui labour

U

market destinations were greater among non-white ethnic minorities than they were between the white majonty and non-white minorities Black Caribbeans had the lowest employment

rateand highest unemployment rate.

U

U

U

139

U

U

I

Chapter Six

U

U

UI

‘-U

Summary(cont)

> Having longer unemployment spells and no job before the programme were associated with lower chances of leaving New Deal early and leaving for paid work. Employment rates were particularly high among those who had been in a full-time job before the unemployment spell

U

leading to NDYP eligibility However, having a part-time job before entering unemployment did not improve subsequent employment prospects There was evidence of ‘churning’ or

I

‘cycling~through unemployment among those on government programmes before entering their qualifying spell of unemployment their rate of claimant unemployment on leaving NDYP was higher than for any other group

U

> Work-limiting health problems were associated with an increased likelihood of leaving New

U

Deal, and with leaving with no job to go to.

> The most highly qualified were three times more likely to be in paid work at the time of the survey interview than leavers with no qualifications Given the NDYP’s objective of improving employability, it is of concern that a quarter of those leaving the programme in the first six

I

months had left with no qualifications, and that 80 per cent of this group had left without ajob to

goto

U

> Having basic skill problems was associated with staying on the progranurne, and with lower

U

employment rates on leaving NDYP. It may be that participants with basic skill problems were

persevering with New Deal participation in the hope that the programme would improve their

labour market prospects

U

> Participants with working partners were more likely than others to leave the programme, and

U

more likely to enter jobs on leaving Those with unemployed partners were no more likely than single people to have left the programme, or to have entered paid work on leaving Those with children were more likely than those without to have left NDYP, but relatively few had entered jobs, perhaps raising questions about young people’s ability to maintain participation in New Deal when they had care responsibilities

> Employment rates fell and unemployment and inactivity rates rose with the number of social

U

disadvantages leavers faced.

U

U

I

U

U

U

141)

U

U

U

U

U

Chapter Six

U

Four in ten respondents had left New Deal by the time of the survey interview. This

U

chapter focuses on this group of participants and tackles three issues: reasons for leaving the programme, who left, and where they went. It is important to bear in mind that little • can be learned about the effectiveness of the programme from a descnptive analysis of

leavers’destinations six months into the programme. This is for two reasons.

U

First, those who left within the first six months had done so relatively early in their

1

programme participation. They are not representative of all those who will eventually • leave the programme Because they are a select group, it is not possible to extrapolate from their experiences to generalise about the likely impact of programme participation • for particIpants in general

U

Secondly,without constructinga counter-factual as to where leavers may have gone in the

U

absence of New Deal, we have no information with which_{destinations. The second wave analysis dunng 2000 will construct counterfactual}to compare leavers’

U

scenarios using multivariate analyses which take account of selection into various parts of the programme. This is not possible at this stage because this selection process is

U

incomplete, since many are still at a relatively early stage in their New Deal participation

U

Nevertheless, the descriptive analysis presented here is valuable in shedding light on who

U

leaves early on, and where they go. Itserves as a foundation on which to build for the second stage of the research

The first section of the chapter analyses the reasons respondents gave for leaving New

U

Deal In fact,many citing reasons for leaving were on New Deal at the time of interview,

indicating that some were refemng to short interruptions to their programme

U

participation, so these data are not analysed in detail. The second section identifies the

—

first

destinations of New Deal leavers based on the work history information collected in — the survey The more detailed analysis of leavers is contained in the third and fourth

U

sections of the chapter, which focus on those who had left the programme by the time of the survey interview. The third section compares the charactenstics of leavers and those

I

remaining on the programme (‘stayers’) to establish whether there is anything distinctive

U

about_{stage the participants had reached in the programme before leaving The fourth section}those who left the progranimne early. Some comparisons are made according to the

U

focuses on the destinations of leavers and the characteristics of those leaving to different labourmarketstates.

U

6.1 Reasonsfor leavingNew Deal

U

Respondents recalling time in New Deal activities were asked: ‘Since the time you_{started any of these New Deal activities in (a date is then given to cue them) have you}

U

stopped taking part in New Deal for any of the reasons shown on this card”

Respondents were able toidentify as many reasons as they liked, and reasons that did not

U

appear on the showcard were recorded and have subsequently been added to the coding frame In fact, around four in ten (38 per cent) reported reasons why they had left New

U

Deal, including 2 per cent citing more than one reason

U

U

141

I

U

U

Chapter Six

U

U

One-third (32 per cent) of those reporting reasons for leaving New Deal were actually on

U

the programme at the time they were interviewed, indicating that many were reporting

U

reasons for a temporary interruption to their programme participation.

U

In document LOS COBRADORES DEL BANCO. (página 43-63)