Page | 1

The Career Development Institute came into being on 1 April 2013 and is the only UK wide forum for practitioners in the careers development sector. Within the first month of operation, we can already boast a strong membership in excess of 3,000, a figure that is growing daily; good governance structures; a Code of Ethics for practitioners; effective engagement with members and a strong CPD support offer. The CDI is an awarding body and is exploring avenues to offer effective quality assurance for practitioners and services alike.

The CDI is and will remain:

  • independent of government and employers
  • independent of commercial bodies
  • committed to a Code of Ethics that ensures the independence and impartiality of career development services provided to clients by its members
  • committed to recognising the distinctive features of career development work in the four Home Nations

The purpose of the CDI is to improve and assure the quality and availability of career development opportunities for all through the promotion of public understanding of Career Development; the development and maintenance of standards of professional practice in Career Development; and the provision of advice on Career Development to policymakers, practitioners and other interested parties. We have prioritised the development of a Career Sector Progression Pathway and promotion of the national Register for Career Development Professionals.

We know that the National Careers Council is committed to good quality career development services that change lives and create both social and economic impact. The CDI promotes services that inspire, inform and support individuals to plan and achieve; add value to investment in lifelong learning, vocational education; improve results for individuals, employers, communities and society by raising participation and achievement rates, improving motivation and productivity. Whilst our work remains partial only to the needs of our clients this is in the context of developing good employability skills through strong education/employer links;effective labour market intelligence; and an understanding of the skills gaps and growth areas in the economy. We believe that good guidance offers a powerful brokerage role with and for employers directly and effectively. We know that our position is supported by the Heseltine report (No Stone Unturned).

It is our view that the provision of excellent services for all should be a clear policy driver for any government and we are delighted that the vision in England includes high quality standards for career development professionals. In this regard, therefore, we have been pleased to note the National Careers Service (NCS) commitment to see 50% of the workforce achieving Level 6 and have observed many Prime Contractors investing in their delivery workforce to make this happen.

The CDI believe that the current NCS should expect and require its delivery workforce to not only achieve the Level 6 standard, but also be registered professionals. It is our view that this registered status not only assures the appropriate level of competence, but also demonstrates an ongoing commitment to CPD and governs behaviours through the sign up to a Code of Ethics. It is the CDI’s assertion that there is no other effective measure of competence and behaviours that the NCS can use to demonstrate effective public investment, provide reassurance to the public and that government, through the SFA and NCS, can lead the way in this otherwise unregulated market by benchmarking standards of delivery that exceed those currently in place. This position would reflect the views ofa wide spectrum of sectors calling for an improvement in the sufficiency and consistency of high quality Careers Guidance. This extensiverange of powerful views hasbeen summarised in a recent Careers England publication, Media and Political coverage of CEIAG issues 2012/13.

The CDI has noted with interest the debate relating to the extension of the NCS brief to cover schools. We recognise andchampion the potential to move the role of the NCS towards being a truly all age service and wholeheartedly support John Hayes’ original 2012 vision for theNCS, outlined in National Careers Service: The Right Advice At The Right Time where he stated he believed “strongly in the power of advice and guidance to transform lives. To be given the self-belief and determination to find and seize opportunities is a gift indeed” and naturally we welcome the opportunity to help shape that vision into the provision thatthe UK deserves. However,the CDI cannot support any suggestion that the existing NCSprime and delivery contracts are sufficient in terms of monetary value,or staff resource, to provide a world class all-age service. It is our view that access to career development services on an all-age, needs-driven basis requires investment such that the current NCSprovision for adults is not undermined. We appreciate that public spending is limited but assert that the investment made to date in the NCS will be wasted if resources are expected to stretch further than they were originally intended to do.

In line with the Council’s stated intention to “join the dots”, the CDI is concerned that the current statutory guidance does not effectively ensure schools and colleges procure from an independent quality assured guidance provider, nor will school provision be appropriately inspected (though we note the recent holding position in the government’s response to the Select Committee in this regard). NCS Prime Contractors may be a provider or broker of services but they are not, and should not be a regulator of them and so it is our view that if such a requirement is not overtly stated and provision properly inspected, independent from provision, then the overall role of the NCS risks being undermined.

Similarly, we believe that the statutory guidance for schools should clearly state a requirement that providers of independent services to schools and colleges, when delivering face to face careers guidance, must be registered practitioners. Ideally, we would wish to see this extended to at least encourage Careers Co-ordinators (or similar) in schools and collegesto alsobe registered, demonstrating that they are professional careers educators, able to support the delivery not only of an effective curriculum but also in choosing and arranging provision which best meets student needs. Again, it is our view that this ensures that the investment schools and colleges make in the provision of these services is to the highest standard available to them. Since membership and registration are the responsibility of the practitioner this requirement does not add cost to schools or colleges only value since careers information, advice and guidance services are at their most impactful when coupled with effective provision of careers education and work related activities.

We are sure that the Council is aware of the recent Work and Pensions Committee Report 114 which found that the “National Careers Service offer of online and telephone advice to younger students is not an adequate alternative to face-to-face careers guidance”. We would want to have clarity in assuring thecareer development sector that the Council is committed not only to extending the remit of the NCS, but to emphasise the importance of face to face guidance for those who need it. Identification of client need does at present vary from school to school and region to region providing something of a post code lottery for learners when it comes to the availability of career development services.

We acknowledge that these views have been stated as part of their evidence to the Education Select Committee by a range of partners, including those who, as individuals are part of or affiliated to the National Careers Council. It is the CDI’s view that the government’sresponse tothe Committee’s findings and recommendations is at best lacklustre and theNational Careers Council, as a body independent of government must comment publicly onthe response the Committee received from government.

The CDI anticipates that our members, many of whom are already active in a school or college context, will welcome the opportunity to become engaged in operating within a nationally recognised brand if, as is desired, this brand represents the highest quality of provision across the multi-channel access points. It is our view that partnership based mechanisms must be in placeto ensure schools retain the flexibility to choose the provider of services that best meets their needs; this is with the clear and crucial proviso that these individuals/organisations delivering services demonstrate the registered status and matrix accreditation that the NCS should require from all NCS badged providers.

Similarly, it is our view that where good practice exists, this should be maintained and contracting procedures should not undermine this provision. Therefore, it is for the NCS Prime Contractor only to ensure the school’s provider of choice meets the required standards for quality careers guidance whilst the school is likewise encouragedto evidence quality by the holding of a Quality in Careers Standard kite mark.

We understand that the NCS is managed and delivered on a commercially contracted, target driven (qualitative and quantitative) basis. This inevitably and rightly leads to differing provision across England, with some areas being servedby a complementary mix of providers reflecting the local area. For example, the co-location agenda has increased the numbers of colleges, training providers, voluntary sector organisations, former Connexions companies and other private sector providersthat are engaged in delivery.

We note and agree with the National Careers Council’s own statement, in its response to the Heseltine Review, that “the National Careers Service offers significant potential to reach into communities and make an impact”. We also note and endorsethe Heseltine Report’s comments which state that the“National Careers Service is suitable for providing a high level national perspective and information relating to sectors. However, a centralised system like this is not a substitute for good on the ground advice with sound local knowledge.” We therefore wish to highlight that a significant proportion of our members deliver locally embeddedservices as sole traders, micro businesses or employees of current NCS sub contractors and we are pleased to note that 8 of the 12 Prime Contractors have already signed up their staff as members of the CDI.

The current model enables Prime Contractors to manage delivery and choose how much, where and which type of delivery they wish to contract for or deliver themselves. The CDI would welcome some further consideration as to how a more consistent, measurable approach to ensuring a varied provider market can be developed. It is our view that this should accommodate the wide range of excellent sole traders and micro businesses that wish to engage with the NCS on an equal footing withlarger employers. It is our view that this would ensure that the size of the provider is not correlated with quality and would strengthen the important strategic role for the Prime Contractor. We feel there would be value in ensuring clarity of expectation that echoes the approach in the Health Sector regarding the role of Prime Contractors; a clarity that will help to recognise and manage potential “provider/commissioner” tensions.

Finally, as the only voice of the career development sector workforce, the CDI iswell placed to offer authoritative contributions to the National Careers Council. We thereforerequest the same associate member status of the National Careers Council held by the ASCL and the Education and Employers Taskforce.

We trust this response is deemed helpful and information for the Council’s considerations and we look forward to reviewing the report as soon as it is made available.

Ends

Career Development Institute 2013 submission to the National Careers Council for England