Agenda item

Debbie Scarborough (Adult and Community Learning Service Manager) introduced a report detailing the Council’s Adult Learning programme.

Members asked a number of questions, including:

What was the overall budget for adult learning, and how many used the service? Was the service providing value for money?

In total, funding was circa £1.9m, with the Council contribution at approximately £70K (of which 40k was being utilised), and all other funding coming from external sources such as the Greater London Authority (GLA), the City of London Corporation and the Education Funding Agency (EFA). This included £50k for adult learning loans and £20k for early years training (such as child minding). Anew project called ‘Talk English’, aimed at working with women with very poor English skills was budgeted at just over £42k. 2,236 Hillingdon residents were engaging with the service over the last academic year. This increased to circa 3,000 when including non-residents. It was felt that the services gave excellent value for money per head.

Local authority contribution was £70k, of which only about £40k was being utilised. Why?

The service aimed to break even, and so tried to use as little funds as possible while still delivering the required services. However, the actual utilisation of funds changed year on year, based on demand.

Were venues being reviewed for suitability, for instance, parking provision? Were new venues being sought?

Current venues were regularly checked for suitability. The vast majority of venues were felt to offer excellent facilities, transport links and parking provision. It was accepted that the Brookfield venue had issues with parking  provision, and everything possible was being done to allow attendees to park at the venue, it was accepted that parking was at a premium in that part of London. The service was not looking at new venues.

How did the service assess need across the Borough? It was noted that arts workshops were uncommon in the south of the Borough.

Firstly, the previous year’s data was reviewed, including a review of which courses were filled, and which were not. National, regional and local priorities and drivers were also key drivers for curriculum planning. This, together with feedback from learners and partners, helped to inform the services for the future year. In addition, approximately 30% of the work being carried out was ‘off brochure’ which allowed bespoke partnership agreements with schools and partners, etc., to meet specific needs identified. With regard to the south of the Borough, it was a reality that different areas had diffident needs or demand. The service attempted to tailor provision to the needs of different community groups or partners.

Was the service seeking to expand the number of residents it engaged with? Did the service work with groups such as the Workers Educational Association (WEA)?

The service did not work directly with the WEA or other groups, though did have small partnership agreements based on their own offerings, e.g. horticultural courses. With regard to expansion, against a background of declining numbers nationally, the service was struggling to meet demand for courses such as digital skills, English and mathematics. The services therefore aimed to reach people and guide them through the various stages of building skills to empower them to enter into employment, etc.

How was feedback obtained?

Feedback was obtained through surveys, Ofsted reports, open days, etc. In addition, there was a Learning Council (elected from learners themselves) who provided direct feedback and acted as ‘secret shoppers’. All feedback was reviewed and acted upon to improve services, where relevant.

What strategy was in place try and increase the percentage of learners that were coming from deprived backgrounds?

Primarily this was done as outreach work through partnerships with community groups. Additionally, A bid had been entered for an ‘Innovation Fund’ from the GLA which, if successful, would give another £150k for use via the outreach centres to reach more potential learners. The aim was to engage with more people who, in turn, would promote the service to their own community or groups.

What were the biggest obstacles remaining to the service?

It was accepted that funding was always the biggest obstacle remaining to the service, as this dictated the amount of staff available, and therefore the work that could be carried out. In addition, promotion and awareness of the service was an issue, and work was being undertaken with the Council’s corporate communications team to address this.          

It was agreed that the most recent annual service self-assessment report be shared with the Committee following the meeting.

The Committee also requested that a further report on the updated strategic plan for the adult learning service be brought to the Committee, once available.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the report be noted;

2.    That the most recent annual service self-assessment report be shared with the Committee; and

3.    That a report on the updated strategic plan for the service be considered for inclusion on the Committee’s work programme.