LGA response to the Commission on the Future of Employment Support

A Commission on the Future of Employment Support is looking at ways in which employment support and services could more effectively help people who want to, to move into, and progress in work and help employers find, recruit and retain the right people across the UK. The Institute for Employment Studies is providing the secretariat for the Commission. This is the LGA’s submission to it.

1. How can employment support better help people who want jobs to find the jobs that want people?

Answer. We need a radical shift in the way we match people with jobs.

• DWP is not the only game in town. It should acknowledge that it is part of a wider local jobs and skills ecosystem, through which it can engage others including the wide-ranging role, knowledge and expertise of local government - councils and devolved authorities - in supporting residents and employers. For instance, 
  • During the pandemic, local government –- was trusted to deliver advice and grants to businesses, a hardship fund to the most vulnerable, help unemployed people while jobcentres dealt with universal credit claims, kept residents learning and set up recovery / redundancy taskforces to coordinate action. Effective partnership are needed at all times, not just at times of crisis; 
  • DWP and local government – councils and devolved authorities - often support the same people through their own services yet data to enable better outcomes for that person is seldom shared with local government; 
  • jobseekers that have unsuccessful employment outcomes through JCP or its providers often turn to devolved or local discretionary employability programmes or services;
  • local government’s extensive relationship with employers, and therefore the jobs available locally; and 
  • Local support to match people with employers including Employment Hubs in West Yorkshire, One Front Door in Bristol, Tees Valley’s Skills Academy training local residents to benefit from the Teesworks site; and Essex County Council’s work to future proof local employers’ skills needs with electric vehicle training.  

We need a joined-up and place-based way to better coordinate support for residents and local employers. This is covered by Work Local in the governance section below.

• Employment support should be available to everyone that wants support. Not all people who want to work are being supported. The Government’s employment support priorities are for DWP to help people on out-of-work benefits into work, the first point of contact being Jobcentre Plus, with claimants requiring more support then referred to DWP’s contracted out employment service. This misses out people. The Government should adapt its priorities to new labour market issues as the biggest challenge we face today is how to address high vacancy rates while unemployment remains relatively low. This means addressing economic inactivity.
• A more systematic approach to engaging employers. DWP is seeking to engage more employers nationally and locally, but not all will advertise their vacancies in JCP, be linked into DWP nationally or engage with national programmes like Kickstart or Restart. To create a fuller picture of current and pipeline job vacancies:
  • Nationally DWP could focus on developing a workforce / labour market strategy working across Government departments to join up national policy and funding and capitalise on the links individual departments have with sectors and industries e.g. BEIS (net zero sectors), DHSC (health and social care), DCMS (creative industries and digital), DLUHC (local government). This should also read across and be cognisant of what is being done locally to address these issues.
  • Locally, DWP could tap into far more employers from micro to multinationals, and across public, private and third sector if it worked through local government. It supports existing local employers, regularly attracts new ones and creates jobs through their ‘lead authority’ role over growth funds, economic development, and inward investment. They also lead local employment and skills boards (or similar), Growth Hubs (often on behalf of LEPs) and work with all business representative bodies across a place. There is strong evidence that local support works best in linking up SMEs with communities, education, training, employment and business support. For example South Bristol Talent Pathway which supports inclusive recruitment and workforce development across businesses based in disadvantaged areas.
  • Nationally and locally, we need a far better strategic handle on how national employment and skills funding is being used. Analysis by the LGA (April 2021) reveals that across England, around £20 billion is spent on at least 49 nationally contracted or delivered employment and skills related schemes or services managed by nine Whitehall departments and agencies, multiple providers and over different geographies. There is no Government strategy sets out how schemes like Levelling Up and Towns Funds, Help to Grow, Restart, Bootcamps, National Careers Service etc should work together, and no single organisation is responsible for coordinating these nationally or locally, with no accountability over how the totality are improving local outcomes. This makes it difficult to plan, target and join up provision and leads to gaps / duplicated provision and is complicated to navigate for both individuals and businesses. We cover this in the Work Local below.

2. Should public funds be used to provide employment support to people who are not on benefits? If so, do you feel that this support should be different in any ways, and if so how?

Answer. Yes. As started in Q1, the Government’s employment support priorities mean that people not claiming out of work benefits but who want to work (‘economically inactive’) are not receiving any national employment support. Rethinking this policy could bring significant gains. For instance, increasing the number of people in work would not only increase an individual’s health and wellbeing, social integration, personal finances and spending power but also increase tax revenue into the economy.  

There were missed opportunities to do this last year. As the scale of economic inactivity became clear, DWP’s £2.9 billion nationally contracted Restart scheme to help long term unemployed (LTU) people – those out of work for 12 months or over - underspent by £1.2 billion due in part to lower-than-expected unemployment despite loosening eligibility to recruit claimants earlier from JCP. DWP did not think outside its direct remit and pivot Restart underspends to support this group.  

The Autumn Statement (2022) announced DWP will review workforce participation by early 2023. This should result in an open appraisal of the drivers of economic inactivity and concerted cross-Government action to address them. For instance, given the link to ill-health, it should include a greater focus on prevention and good health, tackling NHS waiting lists, investing in and improving access to social care, mental health services and affordable childcare, and addressing social determinants of poor health e.g. housing. 

The review should also explore what can be done locally. Local government is already doing a lot to engage economically inactive people (and unemployed people) through their own devolved and discretionary employability programmes / services but the scale of these will be affected by the end of European Social Fund (2023). Local ‘lead authorities’ are being encouraged by Government to use the smaller replacement UKSPF people and skills fund on economic inactivity but this funding is limited, and lasts for 2024/25 only. Local government could achieve a lot more with devolved funding and responsibility to design, commission and deliver this support. 

The Government should work strategically with partners locally and nationally to plan what is needed and who is best placed to identify and engage these groups. Councils are well-placed to identify and engage these cohorts, as they come into contact with them through their own services (such as housing services, family services, debt advice etc) as do their partners such as housing associations, the third sector and health leaders, so they should be part of the Government’s strategy to address this. 

3. Some groups are disadvantaged in the labour market. This includes disabled people and those with health conditions; ethnic minority groups; older workers and younger people; single parents; refugees and migrants; and those with low qualifications. What needs to be done to improve labour market outcomes for these groups?  

Answer. As the IES report right points out, some groups of unemployed people face multiple disadvantages in securing jobs and so are likely to fare less well from pure employment support. The groups by default will rely on and need access to a range of local services alongside employment support - health, housing, childcare support, skills, English language, debt management etc – to support them being work ready. Without this join up, support will always be sub-optimal, and outcomes unsustainable. 

• Jobcentre Plus should do more to help these groups by reaching out to local partners including local government, the third sector and housing associations etc who will know how to access further support they need. 
• For people that are unemployed for long periods, DWP’s preferred model is to nationally contract provision over large spatial areas, giving responsibility for one provider for an entire area. This means one Restart provider is responsible for planning delivery spanning Swindon to St Ives which has a 230 mile radius. This will always result in capacity issues and gaps in provision. Providers often do not have local knowledge of a vast spatial area like that, so post-contract have to work with councils or sub-contract to draw in local providers. This is not the right way round. Contract Package Areas are a barrier to joining up support for these groups. 
  • By contrast where contracts can be help regionally or sub-regionally, local government has more flexibility to work hand in hand with providers from the outset, there are positive outcomes. Central London Forward’s £51 million devolved ‘Work and Health’ programme, ‘Central London Works’, aims to support 21,000 residents with health conditions and disabilities and the long-term unemployed into work. Not only do CLF and Ingeus, the provider, work closely to assess referral numbers, job starts, and the quality of jobs and support, they work with the boroughs to integrate borough-led and JCP provision including through ‘super centres’ in Hackney, Lambeth and Islington, which also helps to support employers’ recruitment needs. 

We recommend a multi-agency and early assessment process putting participants needs first, rather than the delivery partner. An agreed set of criteria should drive referrals to the most appropriate provision, be it local or national, which all partners should adhere to. All unemployed people to have their needs assessed so that a decision can be made as to: 

1. whether or not they require other support alongside employment support; 
2. what level of intensity of support is required; and 
3. who is best placed to support them. 

This assessment should be done at the outset and on an ongoing basis recognising peoples’ needs may not be immediately apparent and circumstances change. This should be shared as part of a local employability ecosystem which includes:

1. Jobcentre Plus work coaches 
2. contracted out employment support 
3. devolved, local discretionary and community support.

This should be joined up, adaptable and fluid, enabling jobseekers to move from one support offer to another irrespective of who delivers it and without having to repeat assessment from scratch. This wards against inappropriate referrals that prioritise national provision over others, or where support needs are not being met which can risk people falling into long(er) term unemployment. 

• Blackpool Council’s ESF provision has a local, cross-referral mechanism built in, so if on assessment, a person is not ready for ‘medium’ intensity programme, they are referred 'down' to other provision for those who are less work ready. They also use a robust assessment at point of entry so if provision is not suitable, they would be referred on to other local provision. Other examples of how this has worked well include DWP Tees Valley Innovation Pilot which was carried out by an independent key worker, and the New Deal ‘Gateway’ model. DWP should commit to work with local government to develop a joint assessment and referral process that aims to match participants with the best provision regardless of who delivers it..
• Right now, JCP should be empowered to work with local government to co-design and co-commission support for those out of work for short periods, co-commission JCP’s Flexible Support Fund and co-locate where possible to give the best chance of it working for local areas. Moving forward, it should embrace ‘one stop shop’ models that bring together the expertise of local partners and / or rethink the role of jobcentres moving from a claimant employment service to a public employment service to help all people looking for work involving different partners including local government. Bristol’s one-stop-shop ‘Launchpad’ for jobs, training and enterprise in the city centre is open to all residents and is supported by the local authority, DWP, National Careers Service and the local FE college. It includes hot desking space for community providers supporting people into employment and skills.  
• Support for those with multiple barriers to the jobs market and long-term unemployed people should be fully devolved / localised, with local government trusted to design, commission and manage it. That’s because these groups often require, bespoke, intensive and wrap-around support. With responsibility for design and delivery, local government could create a more integrated support offer, building in wrap-around support from other services and agencies, such as public health (smoking cessation, drug and alcohol addiction etc), housing, health, skills training and debt management. Support for some economically inactive cohorts could also be delivered in a similar way dependent on their circumstances.  

4. How well does the current system incentivise work and help remove barriers to work? / 5. Does the current system disincentivise people to work, and if so, how?

Answer. Whitehall needs to strengthen policy coordination across its departments and local government to remove the existing barriers people face to move into, or progress in work. For instance, at present, the welfare system can hold people back from entering training or education because they will lose out on benefits. This is despite evidence that the lowest qualified people are at the highest risk of unemployment, insecure work and poverty. By way of example the Government should reform eligibility rules to enable claimants to continue accessing benefits, including the UC childcare element which should be paid in advance, while undertaking work-related training.  We note that the DWP is considering this as part of its workforce participation review which is a positive development.

6. What role should employment support play in tackling low pay and job insecurity, and supporting progression at work?

Answer. In-work progression is an important element of the employment support landscape. Local government was already in the space of providing this through local Employment, Youth and Growth Hubs alongside delivering upskilling grants which offer 50 percent of training costs etc. DWP’s recent introduction of an in-work progression offer for UC claimants is in addition to these. Mapping local support (what is available, who is delivering it and who is it targeted at) is vital to identifying gaps and duplication within the system, and referring people to the right provision. For instance, the West of England’s Future Bright fills a key gap by supporting low income in-work residents to explore career progression, up-skilling, re-skilling and ultimately opportunities to increase their income. Devolving national employment support contracts would allow it to better join up programmes such as Future Bright with other employment support provision.  

7. How can employment services best support skills development and career management? What works well within the current system and what needs to change?

Answer There needs to be a cross Whitehall approach to employment and skills as there is a lack of join up between DWP and other departments. For example, DWP’s Ways to Work scheme aimed to address high vacancy levels by helping claimants to look for jobs outside of their previous sector. This would need to help people build skills or qualifications to increase their chances of securing quality work. However the scheme was announced two days after DfE’s skills bootcamp expansion but neither of these interventions appear to be linked. We need a more holistic approach to training, skills and economic growth, than is currently being delivered through the patchwork of national interventions.

8. How well do you feel that people understand the support and services that may be available to them? What if anything could be done to improve awareness and understanding?

Answer. People might be aware of Jobcentre Plus, but less about the various programmes that can be accessed at it. As noted earlier in section 1, there is a dizzying array of nationally contracted or directly delivered support that is delivered locally but which no one is responsible for coordinating. This makes it difficult to plan, target and join up provision and leads to gaps / duplicated provision. Ultimately residents want to know that services are being joined up without having to see the wiring or having to join it up themselves. Moving towards ‘place based one-stop shops’ is vital.  

National and local media campaigns working in partnership would be helpful as was recently attempted when rolling out Multiply adult numeracy programme so that people know what support was available and how to access it locally or online.  

9. How well does the current system work with employers? / 10. How well do you feel that employers understand the support and services that may be available to them? What if anything could be done to improve awareness and understanding?

Answer. The employment and skills system is complicated for employers, who are encouraged to engage with a range of support such as skills provision - sector based work academies, bootcamps, apprenticeships, T levels, traineeships as well as employment support programmes. All are time-limited and have their own eligibility and incentives, which can dissuade businesses, especially smaller ones with no or limited HR functions, from engaging. In our survey, 93 per cent of councils felt that employers would value a one-stop shop service for local skills and employment. 

11. What support do employers want and need, and how should this be delivered? How could services work better across sectors, and/ or within places?

Answer. Local government has reach to employers of all sizes and sectors across a ‘place’. The Government should recognise and enable local support with sufficient funding which can in turn help them with practical support to engage with a more coordinated local employment and skills offer.  

A Building Bristol partnership changed planning rules so all major developments are required to produce robust employment and skills plans at construction and end use phase. A board brings together key stakeholders – developers, education, training, construction, employment support to provide a powerful strategic vehicle to develop a clear pipeline of jobs and skills opportunities and targeted support so that these are accessible to those often left behind.  

12. What examples of good employer practice are there in relation to recruitment, retention, job quality, design and progression?

• Answer. The LGA commissioned Institute for Employment Studies to look into good work and how local government can work with employers to enable them to be more connected with the communities. It found that increasing levels of good work have the potential to support improved health and wellbeing, to provide decent pay and security, a good employee/employer relationship, continual learning, and help build more inclusive communities. Some examples:
• The North of Tyne Combined Authority’s Good Work Pledge with businesses and other stakeholders has five pillars of good practice: valuing and rewarding workers, promoting health and wellbeing, effective communication and representation, developing a balanced workforce, and social responsibility and has 56 business signatories at all stages of growth. 
• The Greater Manchester Good Employment Charter has seven categories of good work. It has two tiers of commitment – Supporters (making a commitment) and Members (with a rigorous assessment). Currently there are 400 Supporters and 50 Members, covering almost 300,000 workers. From 2023, all new Greater Manchester public service contracts will stipulate that the contractor must support the Charter, offer the Real Living Wage and make a commitment towards achieving net zero.

13. Is there a role for employment services in supporting employer investment in skills? What would good practice look like?

Answer – N/A

14. Some publicly funded employment services are ‘contracted out’ to providers (both for-profit and not-for-profit). How effective is the current role, structure and composition of the ‘contracted out’ market? Should there be any changes?

Answer. As stated elsewhere, ‘contracted out’ provision like Restart is delivered over such large spatial areas, so providers are unable to join their job support up for long-term unemployed people with other services they rely on. Local government understands their support needs, has more direct responsibility over these services, so is best suited to join these services up with employment support for those furthest from the labour market and should be trusted to design, commission and manage it. The added value of a devolve and fully localised approach is that councils and devolved authorities, as well as being democratic leaders of place and trusted convenors of partners, would be able to:

• Identify and refer in those that have most to gain from support (councils come into contact with people through their frontline service and VSC partners and can utilise local data such as through administering housing benefit) and pinpoint how long-term unemployed support can be used to greatest effect through local targeting that too often get missed through larger contracts. 
• Increase the size and scope of the offer by bringing in additional local skills provision (adult community education, adult education budget, Multiply, training providers), and expertise of other organisations (housing associations and VSC partners. This is hard to do with a standalone nationally contracted programme.
• Join up services locally to provide wrap-around support. This includes public health (smoking cessation, drug and alcohol addiction etc), health provision (physical and mental health and learning difficulties), housing services, advice agencies including managing finances, other specialist services, recruitment agencies, Employment and Youth Hubs etc. 
• Add local democratic (to national) accountability working with the grain of what is on the ground locally, reducing the risk of duplication.
• Align skills and employment support provision with local growth investments and economic development (such as through the Levelling Up and UK Shared Prosperity Funds). 
• Engage local employers and leveraging inward investment to expand job, placement and apprenticeship opportunities for residents and using social value clauses through procurement. 

Support for some economically inactive cohorts could also be delivered in a similar way dependent on their circumstances.  

15.    Within the current system, how well-coordinated are employment support, skills and training, careers information and guidance, and other public services?

Answer: They are not well connected. As already stated, LGA analysis conducted in April 2021 reveals that across England, around £20 billion is spent on at least 49 nationally contracted or delivered employment and skills related schemes or services, managed by nine Whitehall departments and agencies, and delivered by multiple providers and over different geographies. Funding is too short-term and no single organisation is responsible for coordinating these programmes nationally or locally, meaning there is no accountability over how the totality of provision is improving local outcomes. This makes it difficult for local areas to plan, target and join-up provision, leading to gaps in provision or duplication. As a result, the system is highly complicated to navigate for both individuals and businesses. This resource could be far better spent if planned in a more joined up way locally and nationally.

16. How should employment services and support be organised – at what levels and in what parts of government should responsibility for funding, policy and delivery sit?

Answer: As stated elsewhere, both national and local government have an important role to play in making our employment services fit for purpose.

• DWP should be an enabler. Local government has knowledge and expertise in how best to support residents and businesses. So it follows there should be a partnership between DWP and local government both nationally and locally so they support is more effectively coordinated, whoever is delivering it. Nationally DWP should focus on developing a workforce / labour market strategy working across Government departments to join up national policy and funding, and work with us to ensure it is cognisant of what is being done locally to address issues.
• Right now, JCP should be empowered to work with local government to co-design and co-commission support for those out of work for short periods, co-commission JCP’s Flexible Support Fund and co-locate where possible to give the best chance of it working for local areas. Moving forward, it should embrace ‘one stop shop’ models that bring together the expertise of local partners and / or rethink the role of jobcentres moving from a claimant employment service to a public employment service to help all people looking for work involving different partners including local government.
• Support for people with multiple barriers to the jobs market and the long-term unemployed should be fully devolved / localised, with local government trusted to design, commission and manage it. That’s because these groups often require, bespoke, intensive and wrap-around support. With responsibility for design and delivery, local government could create a more integrated support offer, building in wrap-around support from other services and agencies, such as public health (smoking cessation, drug and alcohol addiction etc), housing, health, skills training and debt management. Support for some economically inactive cohorts could also be delivered in a similar way dependent on their circumstances.  

Work Local 

• The Government’s Levelling Up White Paper commits to devolution deals for all areas that want one by 2030, which is a positive step. This includes a devolution menu to influence Local Skills Improvement Plans, co-commission employment support, and devolved adult skills budget. However, 2030 is some way off and the devolution menu is limited. More areas should be able to benefit from devolution, those already with one should be able to extend their remit, and areas without a deal deserve a more joined up system. 
• Work Local is the LGA’s model for achieving this. The Government should give local leaders a single pot of funding to work with local partners, to design, commission and have oversight of a local skills and employment offer, bringing together careers’ advice and guidance, employment support, skills training and apprenticeships, as well as business support services around the needs of a place in effect creating ‘one stop’ all-age local skills and employment services, connected to wider services, partners and support.
• There should be enabled through a national framework / strategy, underpinned by multi-year devolved employment and skills agreements (DESAs) and outcome agreements between government and local areas, covering local objectives, budgets and actions.
• Work Local partnerships would then take a whole systems approach to join up decisions on infrastructure and capital investment with learning, skills and employment to maximise opportunities for residents, businesses and the wider local community. 
• It would ensure strong and responsive local leadership providing local and national democratic accountability for outcomes – working with national government, employers (public, private and third sector), education, training and employment providers and institutions, the VCS and unions - to create an offer that is led by local needs, challenges and opportunities. 
• A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) shows a place-based, Work Local approach has the potential to increase by 15 per cent the number of people improving their skills or finding work at lower cost, just by using existing investment more effectively – devolved adult skills, contracted employment support and UKSPF, and more influence on apprenticeships and 16-19 funding. Based on analysis that £20 billion is spent on employment and skills related provision in England, devolving a small proportion would make a big difference to communities. NB we also believe Jobcentre Plus (JCP) employment support and National Careers Service (NCS) should also be part of a Work Local approach however there was limited data, budgets and outcomes about them so it could not be included in our CBA.  
• For a typical medium-sized combined authority (a city region with a working age population of 960,000), more effective use of around £270 million investment per year – which represents 1.35 per cent of spend in England – would mean an extra 2,260 people improving their skills each year and an additional 1,650 people moving into work.
• To achieve this vision, we want Government to accelerate devolution by fully trialling Work Local (with robust evaluation behind it so Government can act on its findings) and rolling out more place partnerships sooner than 2030.  
• We also need Government to simplify the devolution process and offer areas better support: it should co-design with us a specific framework for employment and skills devolution which brings in learning from existing devolution areas. This could include a prospectus for devolution that specifies a ‘menu’ of services that could be locally delivered (for example, employment support and careers advice and guidance); provide a single set of readiness criteria for all employment and skills activity, and a clear pathway of the steps areas need to take to become devolved. 
• However, devolution deals won’t be agreed overnight. So, in the meantime, local and national government need to work together to ensure we’re getting the basics right everywhere and improve the system now. This means Government:
  • working with local government to co-design all new support and repurpose existing provision so that it lands well on the ground. 
  • immediately share employment and skills data with councils and combined authorities to enable effective planning and delivery of services with providers mandated to support integration. o    working with us to progressively align employment and skills boundaries -including contract package areas, JCP districts, ESFA regions, LEP areas and new Local Skills Improvement Plan footprints - to functional economic areas (FEAs)
• To drive this forward, we propose establishing a new national and local government partnership (a Work Local Board) made up of politicians and officials from local government and across national Government (DWP, DfE, DLUHC and BEIS) with independent advice from businesses and wider partners to oversee these transformation programmes.  

17. Should employment support and benefits administration continue to be delivered by the same organisation? If not, what would an alternative look like and how would any risks be managed?

Answer: No, it should be decoupled, but with that must come far more effective partnership working like we describe in Work Local. Employment support should be localised and devolved, with a view to rolling out our Work Local model. The mainstream benefits system should remain nationally delivered and be the principal form of support for low-income households. It should provide enough money for people to meet their living costs and be in a position to live in dignity and / or progress in work and not create additional barriers to people accessing support, training or employment. 

18. What role should Jobcentre Plus (and other employment support) play in monitoring compliance with benefit conditions? If this was not done by Jobcentre Plus, how should it be organised and managed? How should the performance and success of public employment support be measured?

Answer: This should be subject to the DESA / outcome agreements detailed above, and be subject to local and national accountability mechanisms.

19. How do we ensure that our approach to employment support can meet the needs of the 21st century – and in particular changes brought about by technology, home and hybrid working, population ageing, changing migration patterns and the transition to Net Zero?

Answer. There needs to be much better join up and earlier conversations to bring together policy for economic growth, employment support and training. For instance, LGA analysis shows that there could be as many as 700,000 local green jobs by 2030 rising to 1.1 million by 2050, arising from the low-carbon and renewable energy economy. Councils know where and in what sectors these jobs will be. While this angle was missing in the national Green Skills Taskforce, it is now being considered through the BEIS-led Green Jobs Delivery Group, of which DWP is a part. This includes live discussions on how we deliver local retrofit efforts bringing together local government, energy industry, education, training and employment specialists especially with opportunities to make use of Sector Based Work Academies and other programmes.

DWP should develop a workforce / labour market strategy working across Government departments to join up national policy and funding and ensure it is proofed with Work Local partnerships. This should capitalise on the links various departments have with sectors and industries, but also develop a strategy to address labour market issues. This could include dealing with current sector and place based skills shortages, managing our response to new arrivals and opportunities to work, automation, capitalising on new technologies like digital, green, trade opportunities, ageing populations. 

Councils are leading the way to drive investment for net zero transition through joined up approaches such as UK Cities Climate Investment Commission. These have ambitious proposals for developing local employment and skills opportunities through net zero infrastructure investment. Government must ensure it supports local areas to attract investment and remove barriers to enabling SMEs to be involved in project delivery.

20. What are the opportunities for the UK to make more and better use of digital channels and technology to improve employment services and support?

Answer. N/A