4.253,92 SUBCAPÍTULO 1.18 VARIOS

U

Summary

> Nearly two thirds believed New Deal was ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ useful while 30 per cent believedit was not. Thesefindings comparefavourably with the perceived helpfulness of

Jobcentre services by those of similar age taken from thecomparison group used ui the

U

Jobclub/J1G evaluation of 1994/95.

> NDYP was perceived as most useful by those with greater exposure to the programme, and positive perceptions of NDPAs and the help they offered Conversely, those who

thought New Deal ‘pushed people into things they didn’t want to do’, and those with

direct experience of benefit stops or reductions, were least likely to view NDYP as

useful.

U

> New Deal was viewed most positively where it was perceived as increasing employability — a third of those who said it had improved confidence, improved skills,

helped learn new skills, or acquire work experience, agreed New Deal had been ‘very

useful’ and a further half ‘fairly useful’. Those least likely to view the programme as useful were those who thought it had done little or nothing for their employability (see

Chapter Five). These included participants from the most disadvantaged groups, such as

I

the multiply disadvantaged, ex-offenders, and drug or alcohol abusers These findings raise concerns about NDYP’s ability to reach the most severely disadvantaged participants

U

U

Chapter Six focused on ways in which New Deal was addressing particIpants’

employability. This chapter considers respondents’ general, overall impression of the

U

New Deal by considering responses to the question: ‘Generally, how useful have you

found (did you find) the NewDeal?’

U

7.1 Comparison of NDYPwithJobclub and Job interview Guarantee (JIG) in 1994/5

U

Almost one-quarter (23 per cent) of respondents said they had found New Deal ~very

useful’, and another 38 per cent said they had foundit ‘fairly useful’ (Table 7.1) Nearly a third (30 per cent) had not foundit useful, half of who saidit was ‘not at all useful’ Without some benchmark, or point of comparison, it is not possible to judge from these figures whether New Deal is scoring well or poorly. Therefore, as a point of comparison,

Table 7.2 presents results from the evaluation of the Jobclub and JIG programmes

U

conducted in 1994/95 (for details see White, Lxssenburgh and Bryson, 1997). The

I

I

i72

U

U

U

Chapter Seven

• Jobclub/JIG survey asked how helpful the Jobcentre services had been This is a similar question to the ‘usefulness’ question asked of NIDYP participants

u

Table 7 1 Usefulness of NewDeal

U

_{Very useful 23}

—

I

Fairly useful_{Notveryuseful} 38₁₆

U

Notatall_Notsure useful ₂14

Do not recall New Deal 7

U

Weighted_{Unweighted base}base _{___6OlO}6010 Base all respondents

• Possibly the most sensible companson for NDYP is with the Jobclub/JIG comparison group, since the Jobclub and JIG participants are selected groups whereas the NDYP

I

sample is not2 Taking ‘very helpful’ and ‘fairly helpful’ together, there is no evidence of

any difference between NDYP (66 per cent)and the 1994/95 companson group (65 per • cent). However, NDYP comes out much higher on the ‘very helpful’ category and

considerably loweron the ‘fairly helpful’ category.

• Table 7 2 Comparisonof NDYP usefulnesswithhelpfulness of Jobccntreservices in 1994/95

I

Undcr-25s in

NOYP Jobclub HG Jobclub/J1G

comparison group-

Very helpful 25 13 25 9

• Fairly helpful_{Very or fairly 66}41 ₆₈55 52₇₇ 56₆₅

• helpful

a

Weighted base_{Base NDYP participants with recall of New}5599 198___{Deal Jobclub, JIG and}192 _{Jobclub/.flG companson}176 _{group taken}

I

_{figures based}from evaluation_{on question relating to}ofJobclub and JIG in_{‘usefulness’ of NDYP.}1994/95 Basesare confined_{while Jobclub/JIG figures based}to those ageduridcr-25 Note NDYP_{on responses}

to questionrelating to ‘helpfulness’ ofiobcentre services

I

However, the relevance of this companson is chiefly with respect to the Gateway in

NDYP, in that Jobclub andJIG werejob search support programmes Table 7.3 presents

I

perceptions of NDYP’s usefulness by participants’ current New Deal status It shows

.

that, although Gateway participants were less likely than other participants to say New Deal was ‘very useful’, the figure is more than double that for the Jobclub/JIG

• comparison group, and higher than thefigure for Jobclub participants in 1994195

U

Although similarquestionsare asked in other labour marketevaluations, Investigations indicated that they

U

contained too2Eventhe comparison groupfew youngpeopleis selected to match the Jobclub/IIG participants onto makecomparisons feasible age. gender, duration of

unemployment, and spatial location However, like the NDYP participants, the group is not self-selecting.

I

173

I

U

I

Chapter Seven

I

1

Table 7 3 Overall usefulness ofthe New Deal by current NewDeal status

1

Gateway Employment Vol sector ETF FT ed/tr Post- Left New

1

Option Option Option Option Deal

advice % Very useful 21 45 35 31 4.0 30 11

I

Fairly 46 38 42 42 44 42 30 useful

I

Notvery 19 11 14 15 10 18 18 useful

U

Not at all 12 5 8 11 6 8 21 useful

U

Notsure 2 1 * * 1 1 3 Norecall * 0 0 0 0 0 16 Weighted 1423 621 170 /27 776 418 2468 base Unweiglued 1485 173 /33 825 429 2353

1

base

Base all respondents

Nevertheless, Option participants viewed New Deal as more useful than Gateway

I

participants, with the ranking of Options reflecting levels of Option satisfaction (see

Table 4 17)

U

7.2 Lrnksbetween perceived usefulnessand current labour markerstatus

Perceptions of the New Deal’s overall usefulness also differed by labour market status at

the time of the survey interview (Table 7.4) Those in full-time education or training and

I

those on governmentprogrammes were most likely to viewit as ‘very useful’ (38 and 33

per centrespectively), followed by thosein a full-time job or self-employment (26 and 25 per cent respectively). Those who were unemployed and not claiming unemployment- related benefits were the least hkely to viewitas very useful (8 per cent).

I

Table 74 Overall usefulness oftheNewDealbycurrent labourmarketstatus

Very useful Fairly useful Nor very Nc’t at all Not surelNo Un weighted

useful useful recall base

U

~Tjob 26 36 14 12 12 1107 FT job 20 31 20 16 13 343 Self- 25 26 17 19 13 51 employed Govt prog 33 43 15 8 1 381

I

FTed/train 38 40 11 7 4 841 U,claiming 20 41 17 14 8 2519 U,noclaim 8 29 21 32 10 378 LTsick 11 36 24 17 13 237 Rome 17 28 14 IS 23 119 Other (18) (69) (1) (6) (6) (34)

I

17’.

I

1

U

Chapter Seven

U

Base all respondents Note i-ow percentages

U

73 Perceptions of New Deal usefulness by participants’ characteristics and New

U

Deal experiences

U

Table 7 5 shows the percentageof respondents saying New Deal had generally been ‘very

useful’, by their personal characteristics and household circumstances.

U

• The table gives cause for concern about NDYP’s ability to reach the most

U

disadvantaged groups of participants Respondents from some of the most • disadvantaged groups - namely ex-offenders, those with drug or alcohol problems,

and those with work-limiting long-term health problems, and those with all four

U

disadvantages in the multiple disadvantage index — weremuch less likely to say they

had found NDYP ‘very useful’. The gap was not apparent on all measures of

U

disadvantage there was no gap between those with and without basic skill problems,

— nor between those with and without housing problems.3 Moreover, the very Iong-

—

term unemployed actually found NDYP more useful than participants with shorter

U

unemployment durations did. Nevertheless, the general picture is one which suggests NDYP was viewed as less useful among those who might perhaps be the most

U

difficult to assist.

• Perceptions of usefulness did not differ markedly with household circumstances or

U

demographic characteristics, with the exception of ethnicity The white majonty

—

were a little more likely than the non-white mlnonty to view NDYP as very useful

— (24 per cent against 20 per cent), but differences within the non-white minonty were

U

more marked Bangladeshis and Pakistanis - the groups identified in previous

research as the most disadvantaged in the labour market (Jones, 1993) - werethe least

U

likely to view NDYP as ‘very useful’.

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

_______

Respondents wereidentified as having housing problems where they said having no permanent place to — livehadmadeitdifficult to find or keep work in the last year, or where at the surveyinterview they had no

I

fixed abode,lived in a hotel or bed andbreakfast accommodation,or were livingina hostel or institution

U

175

-

I

U

I

Chapter Seven

I

U

In document CAPÍTULO 01 PABELLON TIPO B SUBCAPÍTULO 1.01 MOVIMIENTO DE TIERRAS (página 25-38)