Guidance Community Discussion Space

I am looking for theories of organisational change, can anybody help me?

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

Who should pay for what? Should it be the State, individuals, employers? What additional services might users pay for? Which users might pay and how much?

The summary of responses (total 55) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to who should pay for what:

More than half of respondents felt the State should pay for a free, universal IAG service.  Reasons given included: the benefits to the individual, society overall and the economy in particular; the risk of disadvantaging those least able to pay their way; and the need to avoid the current level of wastage of public money caused by individuals making the wrong course choices.  The need for an accurate assessment of the actual costs of IAG was stressed.  Some felt that employers (as the ultimate beneficiaries of guidance) should pay, or at least make a contribution, to costs.  Others felt that a graded system of payment by clients was fairest, based on some type of needs assessment and/or voucher scheme.  One suggestion for an alternative source of funding was the Trade Unions, who could offer IAG as an additional benefit of membership.  Another proposed model is that similar to private health care, whereby employers could offer an insurance policy for IAG as an employee benefit.  One respondent emphasised the way in which the current funding structure penalised Voluntary and Community Organisations, since contracts awarded did not cover real costs.  This acted as a disincentive to take on these contracts, which, in turn, disadvantaged the socially excluded clients with whom VSO work

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What are the current models? What do they cost and are they targeted effectively and appropriately?

The summary of responses  (45) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to current models:

As it is phrased, this question (which was question 3 on the IAG review) requires three distinct responses.  First, describing current models; second indicating cost; and third, considering effective and appropriate targeting of services.  Perhaps because of the complexity of the question structure, responses tended not to address the key questions directly.  Rather, they focused more on the adequacy of current provision.  

Within this context, the fragmented nature of services emerged as the focus of much concern.  In particular, the separation of services around different brands (e.g. nextstep, Connexions, learndirect Advice and JobCentre Plus, Regional agencies, local community organisations, etc.) attracted much critical comment, as it results in a fragmented, incoherent service offer that does not represent good ‘value for money’.  The core funding model for nextstep is highlighted as contributing to the under-development of key aspects of service (e.g. labour market information).  Concern is expressed about the impartiality of some services (e.g. JobCentre Plus) and the inability of many services to respond to all clients, because of targeting and funding restrictions.  The Level 2 eligibility criterion is regarded as discriminatory and detrimental to high quality service provision.  Additionally, the effectiveness of services delivered through partnership working is regarded as variable since it is too dependent on the personalities of individual managers. 

Other recurrent themes related to the negative impact on services of the use of unqualified, (and in some cases) inexperienced staff.  Developing a stronger interface between the learndirect helpline and face-to-face services provided by nextstep is seen as one way forward.  Another is to develop a ‘Career Development Service’, that delivers localised services through a national brand.  The model of guidance delivery currently underway in Sector Skills Councils, managed through a Sector Skills Development Agency contract, was also highlighted as a positive development.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What are we marketing, what should we be marketing, how and to whom?

The summary of responses (total 42) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006 suggest that, in relation to marketing of IAG services:

A recurrent concern expressed in many responses related to the challenge of marketing what are perceived as fragmented services effectively to particular target groups (e.g. nextstep enhanced guidance to pre Level 2 clients).  Many respondents felt it is crucial to change the service offer before effective marketing strategies could be devised.  That is, marketing a national, universal service as single brand would be a more feasible project than trying to devise low budget marketing campaigns that attempted to sell particular services to narrowly defined groups within specific regions.  The majority of respondents felt that an ambitious, coherent, properly resourced marketing strategy is sorely needed.  Related to this, one other recurrent theme related to the unfavourable comparison that can be drawn between the marketing strategy (and budget) evident in the approach adopted by learndirect, compared with nextstep.  This is felt to be unfair to nextstep organisations and also has the potential to be confusing to users.

Various media for marketing are identified (e.g. posters, television, local radio, local newspapers, word-of-mouth) together with organisations that could be used to market IAG services (e.g. Job Centres, libraries, public access places, local authority offices, colleges & universities).  The need to avoid jargon in marketing campaigns is highlighted.  ‘Information, Advice and Guidance’ should be replaced with language that was meaningful to the general public (e.g. Learning and Work Support Service).  Several comments emphasised the need to market the benefits of the service, rather than the service itself. (e.g. career development, achieving individual potential; economic benefits; social benefits; and lifestyle changes).  Simplifying the message would stimulate a market for guidance – but then the question is posed: how could increased demand be satisfied?

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What more might be done to deliver high-quality, up-to-date relevant LMI and course information to adults and young people?

The summary of responses (total 48) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to Labour Market Information:

All respondents accept the central importance of LMI for effective guidance.  Two strong themes emerged from responses: first, the need for local labour market information; and second the need for national LMI, centrally collected and maintained.  Two examples of good practice are provided.  Improvements suggested to current systems include: a contract requirement to collect and disseminate local LMI; dedicated specialist staff to perform this function; central collation of national LMI; standards (template) for presentation of all LMI; sector seminars for careers advisers; the involvement of Education Business Partnerships; and a ‘toolkit’ to support clients researching their own LMI.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website.

What is the present information, advice and guidance infrastructure and how can it be made more coherent across ages and providers?

The summary of responses (total 56) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006 suggest that, in relation to the present IAG infrastructure :

Opinion is divided, but with only a small number of respondents regarding the current infrastructure as adequate, with a few examples of good practice provided.  The majority of respondents identify problems.  These include: the confusion caused by the different branding of services (nextstep, Connexions, learndirect, Job Centre Plus, etc.); the lack of integration of current service provision; the discriminatory effects of resources based on the pre-level 2 criteria; top-heavy, hierarchical and bureaucratic requirements; inadequate marketing of services; the inconsistency of quality assurance requirements across providers (e.g. current exclusion of educational providers from minimum standard requirements); lack of clear service provision for 19 + year olds; out-dated terminology; the impact of stand-still and reduced, budgets; and the lack of profile given to Trade Union Learner Representatives.

An overwhelming majority of respondents identify the need for a universal, all age, integrated, comprehensive and free service.  Many emphasised the need for accredited and competent practitioners to deliver the service.  Finally, the strengthening of existing quality assurance systems is highlighted as necessary for building effective and efficient services.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What is ICT being used for and how might its use be extended?

The summary of responses (total 50) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to the use of Information Communications Technology:

A wide range of both the purposes for which ICT is currently used were identified (e.g. diagnostic testing, job search, skills inventories, screening, employment information, course information, booking appointments, assessment of interests and abilities), together with particular tools used (e.g. Adult Directions; Odyssey; Monster UK).  Disparate opinions are expressed about the use of ICT in IAG.  For example, the potential of ICT in IAG in the future as a positive development; reservations about the digital divide (i.e. ICT operating as a barrier that excludes many users); and the lack of ICT competence in the current IAG workforce.  Two examples of good practice are provided of the use of ICT in guidance: a system in Canada (un-named) and Careers Wales Online.  However, one strongly voiced opinion from a large number of respondents relates to how ICT can never be an effective substitute for face-to-face guidance. The value of local websites is emphasised and the impending introduction of video conferencing in some areas is highlighted.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

How can training and support arrangements and provision be improved?

The summary of responses (total 40) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to training and support provision:

This question, which was Question 4 of the review has been interpreted by some respondents as probing the need for training support for clients of IAG.  Others interpreted it as relating to training and support for IAG practitioners.

Focusing on the majority of respondents who interpreted the question as relating to training and support for IAG practitioners – there is general agreement around the need for increased, high quality training for practitioners, with clear progression routes, introduced as a statutory, minimum requirement.  An example of well-developed, highly structured nextstep training provision is cited, with a warning that what had already been achieved is at risk because of ‘standstill’ core budgets and reduced financing available from the European Social Fund (ESF).  The cost of high quality training is a matter of general concern.  Some strategies identified for encouraging more training included: grants for contractors with tight budgets; financial incentives to employers to provide work experience for NVQs; and long term investment in IAG, to give providers the confidence to commit resources to training.  Economies of scale are thought to be achievable if training for adult services and young people was merged, with specialisms (e.g. for adults and young people) available as additional to core elements of training.  Some doubt was expressed about: the efficacy of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) for guidance; the commissioning of expensive resources (e.g. NARIC) without the necessary user support; and the lack of learner-centred continuing professional development (since in-house training provision is thought to focus on employer, rather than practitioner, needs).  Particular suggestions for additional training included: using labour market information; interviewing skills; group work skills; and ICT skills.  A particular need for capacity building is identified for Trade Union Learning Reps (TULRs).

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What do people want from IAG services and what do people need?

The summary of responses (57 in total)  from the IAG website in relation to 'Wants and Needs' as of the 30 June 2006 suggest that:

Agreement exists regarding the need for one-to-one guidance support on an on-going basis that both responds to the particular circumstances of individual clients and is well marketed.  Ideally, this would be face-to-face, though the role for e-guidance with some clients is acknowledged.  Whatever the mode of delivery, guidance support should be available from competent practitioners who are both qualified and supported by a structured programme of continuing professional development.  The need for flexible delivery is emphasised, with face-to-face services available outside normal office hours.

Other key aspects of high quality service delivery that are identified include: labour market information (including local labour market information); financial assistance for education and training (including childcare); practical support for those wishing to start their own business; specialist support for those wishing to enter higher education; work placement schemes; and advisers who are representative of their local community.  Related to this is the need for multi-lingual services to be available.  The need for IAG to be better managed within Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) provision is highlighted.  A recurrent theme relates to the detrimental effect on service delivery of the current Level 2 eligibility criteria for services.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

Who should pay for what? Should it be the State, individuals, employers? What additional services might users pay for? Which users might pay and how much?

The summary of responses (total 55) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to who should pay for what:

More than half of respondents felt the State should pay for a free, universal IAG service.  Reasons given included: the benefits to the individual, society overall and the economy in particular; the risk of disadvantaging those least able to pay their way; and the need to avoid the current level of wastage of public money caused by individuals making the wrong course choices.  The need for an accurate assessment of the actual costs of IAG was stressed.  Some felt that employers (as the ultimate beneficiaries of guidance) should pay, or at least make a contribution, to costs.  Others felt that a graded system of payment by clients was fairest, based on some type of needs assessment and/or voucher scheme.  One suggestion for an alternative source of funding was the Trade Unions, who could offer IAG as an additional benefit of membership.  Another proposed model is that similar to private health care, whereby employers could offer an insurance policy for IAG as an employee benefit.  One respondent emphasised the way in which the current funding structure penalised Voluntary and Community Organisations, since contracts awarded did not cover real costs.  This acted as a disincentive to take on these contracts, which, in turn, disadvantaged the socially excluded clients with whom VSO work

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What are the current models? What do they cost and are they targeted effectively and appropriately?

The summary of responses  (45) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to current models:

As it is phrased, this question (which was question 3 on the IAG review) requires three distinct responses.  First, describing current models; second indicating cost; and third, considering effective and appropriate targeting of services.  Perhaps because of the complexity of the question structure, responses tended not to address the key questions directly.  Rather, they focused more on the adequacy of current provision.  

Within this context, the fragmented nature of services emerged as the focus of much concern.  In particular, the separation of services around different brands (e.g. nextstep, Connexions, learndirect Advice and JobCentre Plus, Regional agencies, local community organisations, etc.) attracted much critical comment, as it results in a fragmented, incoherent service offer that does not represent good ‘value for money’.  The core funding model for nextstep is highlighted as contributing to the under-development of key aspects of service (e.g. labour market information).  Concern is expressed about the impartiality of some services (e.g. JobCentre Plus) and the inability of many services to respond to all clients, because of targeting and funding restrictions.  The Level 2 eligibility criterion is regarded as discriminatory and detrimental to high quality service provision.  Additionally, the effectiveness of services delivered through partnership working is regarded as variable since it is too dependent on the personalities of individual managers. 

Other recurrent themes related to the negative impact on services of the use of unqualified, (and in some cases) inexperienced staff.  Developing a stronger interface between the learndirect helpline and face-to-face services provided by nextstep is seen as one way forward.  Another is to develop a ‘Career Development Service’, that delivers localised services through a national brand.  The model of guidance delivery currently underway in Sector Skills Councils, managed through a Sector Skills Development Agency contract, was also highlighted as a positive development.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website.

What is the present information, advice and guidance infrastructure and how can it be made more coherent across ages and providers?

The summary of responses (total 56) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006 suggest that, in relation to the present IAG infrastructure :

Opinion is divided, but with only a small number of respondents regarding the current infrastructure as adequate, with a few examples of good practice provided.  The majority of respondents identify problems.  These include: the confusion caused by the different branding of services (nextstep, Connexions, learndirect, Job Centre Plus, etc.); the lack of integration of current service provision; the discriminatory effects of resources based on the pre-level 2 criteria; top-heavy, hierarchical and bureaucratic requirements; inadequate marketing of services; the inconsistency of quality assurance requirements across providers (e.g. current exclusion of educational providers from minimum standard requirements); lack of clear service provision for 19 + year olds; out-dated terminology; the impact of stand-still and reduced, budgets; and the lack of profile given to Trade Union Learner Representatives.

An overwhelming majority of respondents identify the need for a universal, all age, integrated, comprehensive and free service.  Many emphasised the need for accredited and competent practitioners to deliver the service.  Finally, the strengthening of existing quality assurance systems is highlighted as necessary for building effective and efficient services.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What are we marketing, what should we be marketing, how and to whom?

The summary of responses (total 42) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006 suggest that, in relation to marketing of IAG services:

A recurrent concern expressed in many responses related to the challenge of marketing what are perceived as fragmented services effectively to particular target groups (e.g. nextstep enhanced guidance to pre Level 2 clients).  Many respondents felt it is crucial to change the service offer before effective marketing strategies could be devised.  That is, marketing a national, universal service as single brand would be a more feasible project than trying to devise low budget marketing campaigns that attempted to sell particular services to narrowly defined groups within specific regions.  The majority of respondents felt that an ambitious, coherent, properly resourced marketing strategy is sorely needed.  Related to this, one other recurrent theme related to the unfavourable comparison that can be drawn between the marketing strategy (and budget) evident in the approach adopted by learndirect, compared with nextstep.  This is felt to be unfair to nextstep organisations and also has the potential to be confusing to users.

Various media for marketing are identified (e.g. posters, television, local radio, local newspapers, word-of-mouth) together with organisations that could be used to market IAG services (e.g. Job Centres, libraries, public access places, local authority offices, colleges & universities).  The need to avoid jargon in marketing campaigns is highlighted.  ‘Information, Advice and Guidance’ should be replaced with language that was meaningful to the general public (e.g. Learning and Work Support Service).  Several comments emphasised the need to market the benefits of the service, rather than the service itself. (e.g. career development, achieving individual potential; economic benefits; social benefits; and lifestyle changes).  Simplifying the message would stimulate a market for guidance – but then the question is posed: how could increased demand be satisfied?

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What more might be done to deliver high-quality, up-to-date relevant LMI and course information to adults and young people?

The summary of responses (total 48) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to Labour Market Information:

All respondents accept the central importance of LMI for effective guidance.  Two strong themes emerged from responses: first, the need for local labour market information; and second the need for national LMI, centrally collected and maintained.  Two examples of good practice are provided.  Improvements suggested to current systems include: a contract requirement to collect and disseminate local LMI; dedicated specialist staff to perform this function; central collation of national LMI; standards (template) for presentation of all LMI; sector seminars for careers advisers; the involvement of Education Business Partnerships; and a ‘toolkit’ to support clients researching their own LMI.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What is ICT being used for and how might its use be extended?

The summary of responses (total 50) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to the use of Information Communications Technology:

A wide range of both the purposes for which ICT is currently used were identified (e.g. diagnostic testing, job search, skills inventories, screening, employment information, course information, booking appointments, assessment of interests and abilities), together with particular tools used (e.g. Adult Directions; Odyssey; Monster UK).  Disparate opinions are expressed about the use of ICT in IAG.  For example, the potential of ICT in IAG in the future as a positive development; reservations about the digital divide (i.e. ICT operating as a barrier that excludes many users); and the lack of ICT competence in the current IAG workforce.  Two examples of good practice are provided of the use of ICT in guidance: a system in Canada (un-named) and Careers Wales Online.  However, one strongly voiced opinion from a large number of respondents relates to how ICT can never be an effective substitute for face-to-face guidance. The value of local websites is emphasised and the impending introduction of video conferencing in some areas is highlighted.

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

How can training and support arrangements and provision be improved?

The summary of responses (total 40) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to training and support provision:

This question, which was Question 4 of the review has been interpreted by some respondents as probing the need for training support for clients of IAG.  Others interpreted it as relating to training and support for IAG practitioners.

Focusing on the majority of respondents who interpreted the question as relating to training and support for IAG practitioners – there is general agreement around the need for increased, high quality training for practitioners, with clear progression routes, introduced as a statutory, minimum requirement.  An example of well-developed, highly structured nextstep training provision is cited, with a warning that what had already been achieved is at risk because of ‘standstill’ core budgets and reduced financing available from the European Social Fund (ESF).  The cost of high quality training is a matter of general concern.  Some strategies identified for encouraging more training included: grants for contractors with tight budgets; financial incentives to employers to provide work experience for NVQs; and long term investment in IAG, to give providers the confidence to commit resources to training.  Economies of scale are thought to be achievable if training for adult services and young people was merged, with specialisms (e.g. for adults and young people) available as additional to core elements of training.  Some doubt was expressed about: the efficacy of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) for guidance; the commissioning of expensive resources (e.g. NARIC) without the necessary user support; and the lack of learner-centred continuing professional development (since in-house training provision is thought to focus on employer, rather than practitioner, needs).  Particular suggestions for additional training included: using labour market information; interviewing skills; group work skills; and ICT skills.  A particular need for capacity building is identified for Trade Union Learning Reps (TULRs).

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

What do people want from IAG services and what do people need?

The summary of responses (57 in total)  from the IAG website in relation to 'Wants and Needs' as of the 30 June 2006 suggest that:

Agreement exists regarding the need for one-to-one guidance support on an on-going basis that both responds to the particular circumstances of individual clients and is well marketed.  Ideally, this would be face-to-face, though the role for e-guidance with some clients is acknowledged.  Whatever the mode of delivery, guidance support should be available from competent practitioners who are both qualified and supported by a structured programme of continuing professional development.  The need for flexible delivery is emphasised, with face-to-face services available outside normal office hours.

Other key aspects of high quality service delivery that are identified include: labour market information (including local labour market information); financial assistance for education and training (including childcare); practical support for those wishing to start their own business; specialist support for those wishing to enter higher education; work placement schemes; and advisers who are representative of their local community.  Related to this is the need for multi-lingual services to be available.  The need for IAG to be better managed within Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) provision is highlighted.  A recurrent theme relates to the detrimental effect on service delivery of the current Level 2 eligibility criteria for services.

Currently undertaking an MA and interested in ethical research in adult guidance.

Is it possible to prevent researcher bias if interviewing previous known clients?

Are there are any references, articles or practitioners who have experienced this ethical dilemma? Is it a dilemma or is it just subjective to the researcher? Are there any practitioners with similar experiences or ideas on the topic?

The Institute of Career Guidance hosted a symposium, which brought together five of the six authors who contributed to the ‘Devolution & Diversification edition of the British Journal of Counselling & Guidance (2006, Volume 34, pp1-91).

The aim of the BJGC symposium edition was to review, critically, the different structures of career guidance that are evolving in England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland.  Expert observers in each of the four ‘home countries’ were commissioned to write a paper, which offers an analysis of key issues and of the challenges, which need to be addressed.

Overhead transparencies from each of the four presentations can be accessed from the main NGRF site 'what's going on where?' Devolution and Diversification.
Key challenges identified in discussions amongst participants included:

• Quality standards – there is a plethora of standards, most of which are thought to be too rigid for the realities to which they are applied.
• Universal & targeted services – the need to ration provision across age ranges requires the need for reliable measures to assess need (i.e. research & screening).
• On-line & e-guidance services – require new ways of working and the need for different methods to evaluate quality.
• Labour Market Information – there needs to be a clear specification for the collection and collation of LMI and practitioners need to understand better its use.
• Employability and Educational reforms underway mean that career guidance is in danger of getting caught in the middle.
• The impact of teacher training reforms – links required with CEG.
• Impartiality – need to safeguard this aspect of career guidance services.

The Equalities Review was set up to:

• provide an understanding of the long term and underlying causes of disadvantage that need to be addressed by public policy
• make practical recommendations on key policy priorities for: the Government and public sector; employers and trade unions; civic society and the voluntary sector
• inform both the modernisation of equality legislation, towards a Single Equality Act; and the development of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

The Equalities Review has its own website which contains quite a wealth of information on aspects of inequality.  You can access a range of presentations that consider issues such as measures of inequality, discrimination law and the nature of the review itself.  In addition, there has been some research commissioned by the Equalities Review, which includes a Literature scoping review on reducing inequalities: International Comparisons and a Sexual Orienation Research Review. 

I heard Trevor Phillips interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme earlier on today today in connection with the interim report which has just come out.  He seemed to be saying that one noticeable aspect of inequality is the extent to which it has become associated with very particular pockets of disadvantage.  So for example, it isn't necessarily helpful to talk in terms of race very broadly, but more useful to look at the specifics of under achieveing Caribbean boys.  He gave other examples, but sadly these weren't easy to find on the Review Website!  However, the website as a whole provides some fascinating insights into the nature of disadvantage, and struck me as being of great interest to those of us involved in careers guidance.