AIC/17/07 Agenda item 10 28 February 2017 Vulnerable Groups update paper This paper provides an update on work to support vulnerable groups in accessing, participating and staying in further and higher education. This is part of a long-term piece of work to explore new or missing policy areas from our work. The paper identifies progress in terms of our initial consultation but also identifies limitations in relation to how we might evidence impact and success for some groups due to data limitations. It provides some more detailed policy background around some of the groups and notes our support for the recommendations outlined in the Scottish Veterans Commissioner Report relating to the promotion of support and articulation. Recommendations Agree to the use of the term at risk rather than vulnerable. Consider whether there are any groups missing from our list of groups we currently consider as at risk which require more intensive policy intervention or if there any groups on the list which we should remove at this stage. Agree our proposal to present on progress on at risk groups annually at our November evaluation session (agreed at the last AIC meeting). Consider and advise on the Equality and Human Rights Commission s recommendation for an integrated mental health support structure. Advise on how to evidence our impact in areas where a data flag may not work. Financial implications There are no financial implications in this paper.
Vulnerable Groups update paper Purpose 1. This paper provides an update on work to support vulnerable groups in accessing, participating and staying in further and higher education. This is part of a long-term piece of work to explore new or missing policy areas from our work. Background 2. As part of our AIC effectiveness review and processes, the SFC executive met with AIC members to discuss a forward agenda. During that process, Committee members, particularly those with an interest in college provision, requested that we look at vulnerable groups outwith our current access ambitions. 3. The Committee was first asked to consider how the SFC could best support vulnerable groups at its September 2016 meeting, with discussion centred around the scoping paper entitled Children s Panels and Vulnerable Groups (AIC/16/19). 4. That paper considered the following groups: young people who had gone through the children s panel system; estranged students; carers; offenders; those with mental health issues; children of military families; and asylum seekers. Definition of vulnerable groups 5. We propose to define the groups outlined in this paper as at risk as opposed to vulnerable. We feel this puts the focus on the system ie because they may be at risk of under-representation or under-performance in the sector. As part of that proposal we suggest that the Committee review our at risk groups during our annual evaluation session in November. This will enable the Committee to advise us on priorities, inclusions and exclusions. It will also enable us to provide the Committee with a progress report on each group covering work undertaken to better understand their representation in the sector and their outcomes. 6. The groups previously identified by the SFC as possibly being vulnerable or at risk and requiring more intensive SFC policy intervention were: Mental health Children of military families/veterans 1
Estranged students Asylum seekers/refugees Offenders Young people who have gone through the children s panel system Carers 7. Carers now have a policy of implemention in place, and are included in Outcome Agreements. This was also the reason we excluded care experience from the original list. That said, in both cases we still consider both of these groups to be at risk and in both cases we will report the impact of this policy implementation to the Committee. 8. The Committee is invited to agree to the use of the term at risk rather than vulnerable. 9. The Committee is also asked to consider whether there are any groups missing from our list of groups we currently consider as at risk which require more intensive policy intervention or if there any groups on the list which we should remove at this stage. 10. The Committee is asked to agree to our proposal to present on progress on at risk groups annually at our November evaluation session (agreed at the last AIC meeting). Update 11. Initial contact has been made with organisations and advocacy groups who provide support and information to children and young adults, such as Young Scot and the Scottish Childrens Services Coalition. We also hope to contact others such as Barnardos Scotland and the Children and Young People s Commissioner. As very few of the groups identified above have an umbrella organisation and there is often multiple organisations for us to engage with, information and advice gathering is likely to be a lengthy process. We feel that this process will be longer term but that the consultation is necessary to ensure our advice and next steps are fully informed. 12. One group which we know is both growing and has consistently significantly lower outcomes is around mental health. We are also aware that this is often an accompanying issue for many of the groups we are considering. This was also a focus for the Equality and Human Rights Committee recent report. http://www.parliament.scot/s5_equal_opps/reports/ehrics052017r01.pdf 2
A key recommendation in this report is: The Scottish Government must seek to put in place an integrated mental health support structure between universities, the NHS and individual GPs to ensure continuity of support. Strong consideration should be given to establishing a dedicated funding stream within the overall Scottish Funding Council allocation to universities, or between universities and NHS Scotland to assess and deliver this work. The AIC is asked to consider and advise on this recommendation for an integrated mental health support structure. 13. We have provided a policy update for some of the at risk groups identified in this paper in Annex A and would particularly ask the AIC to note the following: In relation to Veterans - We are supportive of the SFC related recommendations in the Scottish Veterans Commissioner Report which focus mainly on the promotion of support and articultion. We intend on taking this forward as outlined in the report and it is likely to feature in our Outcome Agreement guidance for 2018-19 onwards (we will seek Committee views on this in May). A key step in this work will be ensuring we have adequate data to enable us to measure our success, this is discussed in more detail in the next section. In relation to Estranged Students We are highly supportive of the work of Stand Alone who have fully engaged us in their efforts to promote their approach in Scotland. We are currently considering how we can further support this work through our outcome agreement process. We also intend to consider how we can better evidence the intake of estranged students through our student support processes and intend on engaging with SAAS to ascertain if we can work together in this area. Data collection 14. We currently collect data on some the groups identified above, and will begin to collect data on carers from 2016-17 in both sectors but we are not collecting information on: Young people who have gone through the children s panel system Estranged students Offenders 3
Children of military families/veterans 1 15. Given the recommendations of the Veterans Commission we feel that Children of Military Families and Veterans should be a priority for consideration. We also intend on discussing this and the other groups with SDS in relation to their datahub. We are hopeful that this might help us develop our advice to the Committee particularly in relation to young people who have gone through the children s panel system. 16. It might be possible to collect informaiton on estranged students through our FE student support datasets (although this would require an amendment from their current format). It may also be possible to work with SAAS on this area to provide evidence in relation to both sectors. This would obvioulsly only inform us the intake of estranted students receiving student support but it would be a start in identifying who the group are. 17. We feel that, with the exception of the veteran and the estranged student categories, it might not be possible to introduce new datafields for the other groups as it is something that students would be unlikely to be willling to disclose. These data limitations are problematic for us in terms of measuring our impact and success in this area. 18. The AIC is asked for their advice on how to evidence our impact in areas where a data flag may not work. Next steps 19. A possible avenue for development of this policy could be the eventual establishment of a national ambiton for at risk groups. The national ambition for care-experienced students was based on knowledge of outcomes of those students at college and university, and sought to improve those outcomes in order to match those of non-care experienced students. A key barrier in this is developing the data around these groups which therefore limits our evidence of success. 20. We propose to develop this work further and provide the Committee with an update on our work in relation to all groups we consider to be at risk in November as part of our evalation and forward planning session. This would include evidence of our impact wherever possible. 1 Until 2014-15, data was also collected in the college sector under the Service Veterans Scheme. However this scheme was removed from the collection as it appeared to have been replaced by the Veterans Employment Transition Support (VETS). The data from 2014-15 shows that 80 students were declared under the Service Veterans Scheme. 4
Risk assessment 21. There are no risks associated with this paper. Equality and diversity assessment 22. An Equality and Human Rights Impact assessment will be established to capture views from consultation throughout the development process. Financial implications 23. There are no financial implications in this paper. Recommendations 24. The Committee is invited to : Agree to the use of the term at risk rather than vulnerable. Consider whether there are any groups missing from our list of groups we currently consider as at risk which require more intensive policy intervention or if there any groups on the list which we should remove at this stage. Agree our proposal to present on progress on at risk groups annually at our November evaluation session (agreed at the last AIC meeting). Consider and advise on the Equality and Human Rights Commission s recommendation for an integrated mental health support structure. Advise on how to evidence our impact in areas where a data flag may not work. Publication 25. This paper will be published on the Council website. Further information 26. Contact: Anna Thomson, Senior Policy Officer, tel: 0131 313 6605, email: athomson@sfc.ac.uk. 5
Annex A: Policy update on at risk groups Children of Military Families and Veterans 1. In November 2016, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner Report published their third report The Veterans Community: Employability, Skills and Learning, which can be found here: http://www.gov.scot/resource/0050/00509806.pdf. The report includes a chapter on further and higher education with seven linked recommnedations, two of which are specific to SFC. Recommendation 14: Articulation The Scottish Funding Council, universities and colleges to specifically consider the veterans community as they embark on the expansion of articulation, as recommended by the Commission on Widening Access. Recommendation 15: Information about Colleges and Universities The Scottish Funding Council should work with relevant organisations including Universities Scotland, Colleges Scotland and Student Awards Agency Scotland to produce material designed specifically for the veterans community. This should include information about finance and the support available for those enrolling at college or university. Subsequently, this material should be made available widely amongst the serving and veterans communities, and those like Career Transition Partnership (CTP) and Skills Development Scotland (SDS) who support them. 2. Initial considerations of these recommendations are for articulation and the inclusion of veterans as a specific group a key step in this will be in relation to new data fields and perhaps in additional Outcome Agreement guidance. For the student support aspect, under the bursary scheme there is currently no special funding rate for veterans. However it likely that veterans would receive the full busary amount. As student support (both HE and FE) is currently under review, funding for vulnerable groups will be considered as part of this review and is likely to consider veterans. 3. Other recommendations focus on how colleges can engage with veterans more to promote benefits of and opportunities in studying at college; the promotion of Modern Apprenticeships to Early Service Leavers, veterans, and their spouses and partners; employer sponsorship of Service Leavers and veterans at college; universities to consider how access thresholds as recommended by the Commission on Widening Access (COWA) can be specifically applied to the veterans community; and the establishment of a veterans network of champions in colleges and universities. 1
4. The executive has been liasing with Scottish Government in response to these, and other recommendations related to Qualifications and Skills. We will also make contact with the Commissioner to ensure joined up work across the recommendations from COWA and his own report. A further area of exploration will be looking at the support offered by the Armed Forces for children of military families as well as veterans and early service leavers, and any links that institutions already have with this. Estranged Students 5. Stand Alone aims to support and raise awareness about adults that are estranged from their family or children. To date they have had 18 universities who have taken the Stand Alone pledge, with two in Scotland University of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde. In terms of numbers, it is not yet known how many students in the current system have identified as estranged, which makes it difficult to estimate the potential scale of upcoming students. 6. Stand Alone currently is looking at students aged between 18 and 25 years, who are entering higher education without parental or family support. This can includes care-experienced and estranged. SFC could lend support to this agenda by continuing to identify estranged students as a separate group that requires additional support and promoting the use of the pledge in our Outcome Agreement work. 7. At present, student support policies for further and higher education differ in terms of support provided to estranged students. As noted in the September 2016 paper on vulnerable groups, the SFC s 2016-17 national policy for bursaries provides a definition for estrangement for parents, and would consider students, who could provide evidence of this estrangement, as selfsupporting. However the 2016-17 funding guide for higher education from the Students Awards Agency for Scotland (SAAS) does not provide any form of detail on estrangement. An independent review of SAAS, conducted in 2013-14: http://www.saas.gov.uk/_forms/saas_independent_review_final.pdf found that vulnerable students, such as care leavers and those estranged from their families, required particular assistance, including adequate and compassionate support that does not place undue burdens of proof on them. The review found that processes that students were advised would take 21 or 30 days were frequently taking more than 60 days, generating anxiety and hardship. 8. SAAS and the SFC are bound by the regulations of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, whereby parents have a general obligation to support their children when they are over 18 and up to the age of 25, and undergoing further or higher education or training. However, like our student support policies do, we seek 2
to provide support to these students as independent students. 9. We intend, within the limits of the Student Support Review, to meet with SAAS to discuss how we can work together on supporting this group through our student support and Outcome Agreement processes. Asylum seekers 10. In December 2016 the Scottish Government issued a letter to all universities and colleges outlining amendments to the student support regulations for academic year 2017-18. This followed a case in the UK Supreme Court where they found that the decision to not award student support funding to a longterm resident in the UK but without indefinte leave to remain, was an unjustified breach of that student s right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights when read with the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14. 11. As a result, the Scottish Government has now amended its residency criteria for student support funds (for both further and higher education) and included a long residence rule. This change will be implemented from AY2017-18. This is a positive move in relation to encouraging more long term asylum seeking residents to consider college or university. 12. The executive is represented on the New Scots: Barriers to Education group, chaired by Education Scotland. This is a working group of the wider New Scots: integrating refugees in Scotland s Communities, which is now moving in to Phase Two of implementation. The first three years of the group focused on identifying the barriers for asylum seekers and refugees in accessing further and higher education in Scotland, with potential actions and solutions being put forward. Phase Two will seek to further implement these actions and address contiuing challenges. Offenders 13. Recruit with Conviction completed the report Studying with Conviction, which was funded through Impact for Access. The full report can be found here: http://recruitwithconviction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/study-withconviction-final-report-2016.pdf. It provides 15 recommendations, including three where the SFC has been specifically named, they are: Recommendation 1: Knowledge Base and Helpline The Scottish Funding Council should commission a central service for colleges and universities to provide a knowledge base and helpline facility for students and staff to provide accurate information. This will support 3
people to disclose effectively when they are required to do so and advise on conviction relevance relating to career and course choices, etc. This central body should also coordinate the developmetn of all the recommendations laid out in the study and report progress to the SFC. Recommendation 2: Available Data Methods of collecting and analsying relevant conviction data in relation to the student cycle should be explored by the Scottish Funding Council in partnership with Scottish criminology academics. Having a criminal conviction or the likelihood of getting one has significant statistical relevance to the widening access agenda, however the available data about students with convictions is either unavailable or lacked integrity and/or the required context to produce meaningful quantitative information about the successess of the sector in attracting people with convictions and supporting them to succeed. Setting a benchmark now would also permit comparisons over the long term. Recommendation 8:Awareness about conviction stigma The SFC should develop a strategy to improve awareness about conviction disclosure anxiety and the offender stereotype should be considered within existing or new unconscious bias training in further and higher education. The potential for disclosure outside the processes suggests that academic assessors should have some awareness training on subjects such as their employer s procedure for dealing with criminal history, unconscious bias training and conviction disclosure anxiety. A wider group of education staff should also know where to signpost individuals and where to find additional information. 14. This work has been helpful in identifying key issues to consider in developing this policy area. 15. An initial discussion with Jim King, who is the Head of Offender Learning for the Scottish Prison Service, looked at perception of the literacy levels of offenders, which can be thought to be very low but are often at SCQF Level 3 or 4. A follow-up meeting will be planned with Mr King to explore this further as well as looking at differences between genders in terms of educational ability and access. Anecdotal evidence suggests female offenders have far lower educational levels than male offenders. We will also seek to determine what institutions are providing educational support to current offenders as well as their policies on access and support for those with unspent or spent convictions. 4