SCRUTINY TOPIC ASSESSMENT FORM

TOPIC: / Support for school leavers and graduates in finding employment
DATE:

STAGE 1: ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Yes / No
1 /

Issue being examined elsewhere?

/ 
2 /

Issue examined within last two years?

3 /

New legislation/guidance anticipated?

/ 
4 /

Can Scrutiny make a difference/add value?

/ 
5 /

Can the Scrutiny meet any deadlines?

/ 
6 /

Is there a request for Scrutiny to consider the issue?

/ 
7 /

Does the issue represent a significant change to services (Health only)?

8 /

Is the issue reflected in the Council’s Corporate Priorities?

/ 

Proceed to Stage 2?

/ 
STAGE 2: RATIONALE/EVIDENCE/OUTCOME

RATIONALE

Why should there be a review on this topic?
Is it identified in the Council’s Forward Plan?
Examine support offered in conjunction with partners (Jobcentres, learning and skills council). Pre-recruitment training, regeneration.
EVIDENCE
What evidence is there to demonstrate the need for a scrutiny review of this topic?
Need to address support against needs
Parliamentary answer: Estimates derived from the Youth Cohort Study (YCS) are shown in the following table. The figures are based on the activity of young people in the third year following the completion of compulsory education holding a level 3 qualification (e.g. two or more A levels or equivalent) having been in full-time education in both the previous two years.
Activity at 18 for those holding level 3 qualifications having been in full-time education at 16 and 17
Percentage
1998 / 2000 / 2002 / 2004 / 2006
Full-time higher education / 56 / 56 / 55 / 59 / 60
Full-time further education / 14 / 13 / 11 / 10 / 10
Employment / 25 / 25 / 29 / 26 / 24
Unemployed / 3 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 3
Other / 2 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 3
Total / 100 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 100
Source:
Youth Cohort Study for England and Wales Cohorts 8 to 12

DESIRED OUTCOME

What is the proposed outcome of the review?
Is the desired outcome achievable via a scrutiny?
Recommendations on possible improvement
STAGE 3: PRIORITISATION

Strategic Significance

/ Timing
1 /

Some evidence that the topic is linked to Council objectives but only indirectly.

/

1

/ The topic is not urgent.
2 /

Good evidence that the topic is linked to Council objectives but not a strategic priority.

/

2

/ The topic is not pressing and could be dealt with at a later date i.e. not in the next 12months.
3 /

Good evidence that the topic is linked to Council strategic priorities.

/

3

/ The topic must be addressed within 12months if the proposed benefits are to be realised.
4 /

Strong evidence that the topic is linked to the most significant Council priorities.

/

4

/ The topic must be addressed imminently if the proposed benefits are to be realised.
..2.. /

Significance Score

/

..1..

/ Timing Score
TIMING / 4 / Would need to be done now if desired outcome is to be achieved but not of strategic importance / Immediate Strategic Priority
3
2 / Neither strategically important or urgent / Strategically Important but not necessary to undertake immediately
1
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
STRATEGIC SIGNIFICANCE
OUTCOME
Select / Reserve /  / Reject

1