EMA, the 16-19 Bursary Fund and the anecdotes to justify them all!

There have been some decisions made by the coalition government that have frustrated me over the past few years but none so much as the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). Having been on the receiving end of EMA during a very difficult time in college, I have experience of the good that can come from having an extra bit of money to help you along through your studies.
 
I was fortunate enough to have a part-time job while at college, but there is now more pressure on young people to be able to provide an income for the family home, especially for those whose parents may have recently lost their jobs. Therefore the need for young people to have an income or at least some form of financial assistance is imperative. However, when this need is accompanied by huge youth unemployment figures, meaning jobs are reasonably scarce at present, providing a young person with money to get to college or 6th form doesn't sound like to much to ask.
 
I went to a college an hour away from my home and travelled on the bus every day, this meant that my EMA money was mainly used to cover the cost of travel getting into college. That was almost eight years ago and although it has been a while since I have jumped on the 373 to Romford, I can only imagine how much a return would cost for a young person today. As in my time at college, the issue of transport is still a huge barrier for young people as shown by the UK Youth Parliament, which last year emphasised this by putting its priority issue as affordable transport for young people.
 
So, when Barnardo's published its Staying the Course report last week, it did not shock me at all to read that its findings had heavily criticised the loss of EMA and its replacement the 16-19 Bursary Fund for England. I have been a champion of EMA for a long time and actively campaigned to stop it from being scrapped as both chair of the British Youth Council (BYC) and as NEC member with the National Union of Students (NUS) because it was clear to see that EMA was a progressive measure that helped improve social mobility for young people and especially those who were more disadvantaged.
 
There are many flaws with the 16-19 Bursary Fund but one of the biggest reasons why I was against the proposed move was because it put the emphasis on the college's administration to distribute the new funding. As the Barnardo's report suggests, this has ‘led to delays and inconsistent payments' which are all deterrents when it comes to the most disadvantaged young people staying on in education. Young people will often choose to drop out of college when things become too much for them, and when those dealing with difficult circumstances face further problems due to internal administrative errors it can often compound their problems and become too difficult to stay engaged with education.
 
Those aged 16 to 19 are the age group we should be trying to engage in education the most and EMA was an excellent example of where this worked in practice. We have all heard examples of when some people don't always use it for its intended purpose but it doesn't mean that you scrap it for everyone. The replacement funds don't cut it when it comes to helping those young people who need it most. The government has already shown its commitment to wanting young people to stay in education for longer by increasing the age at which they can leave full-time education or training to 18, from 2015.  So why now when young people are being failed by the current system are they doing nothing to address this?
 
I understand that there are no perfect systems and I am not suggesting that EMA wasn't without its flaws but its replacement is not up to scratch when it comes to keeping young people in education. Too many times I have spoken to MPs who give feeble anecdotes of when they have met a young person who misused EMA and it frustrates me immensely. As with much of what the coalition has done, it has rushed through a decision without doing giving it the adequate research it deserved and has instead relied on anecdotes when creating, reviewing or removing policies.
 
The 16-19 Bursary Fund doesn't go far enough to support young people who want to stay on in education. The Barnardo's report clearly highlights the fund's failings, but the question now is whether the government will listen to what has been documented or whether it will just role out another anecdote to support its own policy?