LGA written evidence to the Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee Get Britain Working - Reforming Jobcentres inquiry, submitted 1 March 2025

• The LGA welcomes the Government’s plans set out in the Get Britain Working (GBW) White Paper to integrate the Jobcentre Plus (JCP) network with the national careers service (NCS). We are also pleased that one of the five principles underpinning the reform is for it to be more locally responsive, embedded and engaged. This, the White Paper says, will require active engagement with local partners and providers of services, and align with mayoral authorities given their devolved skills function, test what works, and explore rebranding.
• This has been a long standing ask of the LGA and local government. Further, we believe JCP should be accountable to the areas in which they serve, as well as to DWP nationally. We look forward to local government – both councils and statutory authorities - having a seat at the table as the National Job Centre Service (NJCS) is designed.
• The LGA’s Work Local proposals aim to continually shape national policy around this agenda. Our most recent set of proposals, published last summer, suggests ways the Government can improve employment and skills services by working through local government. We remain committed to embedding these ideas as the Get Britain Working White paper reforms are designed and implemented.

1. Are the aims and purpose of Jobcentre Plus (JCP) sufficiently ambitious? How effectively is it meeting its aims?

2. Are there any groups that JCP should be supporting that it is not currently? If so, how should DWP engage with these groups?

3. To what extent does JCP have an “image problem”? How might this be addressed?

4. What should be the role of JCP in getting those who have been out of the workforce in the long-term ready to begin a journey into work?

JCP’s traditional role of supporting people into work and a focus on benefit off-flows has expanded in recent years to help people on very low incomes progress in-work. However, it has struggled to sufficiently support unemployed claimants who face multiple barriers to the jobs market. This can be for a number of reasons, including:

• if someone’s wider support needs are not known and therefore go unaddressed (health conditions, financial support, housing situation, caring responsibilities, skills levels, debt management, substance misuse etc);
• if they are required to take inappropriate jobs with inadequate training and little awareness of their aspirations; or
• no ongoing support, for those that need it, to retain their job once secured. 

This can lead to people that have been unemployed for short periods of time, cycling in and out of inappropriate or insecure work and unemployment. The result can be long-term unemployment or people disengaging entirely from the jobs market and benefit system, delaying access to more appropriate and/or specialist provision. For individuals, it risks damaging their confidence and prospects, household income, and health and wellbeing. It can also impact negatively on local communities.  

Alongside this, JCP provides no support for people out of work who are not in receipt of out of work benefits – people termed ‘economically inactive’ or the ‘hidden unemployed’ - locking them out of any employment support provided by DWP.

JCP is viewed as somewhere people ‘have’ to go to access benefits, rather than to access support to rejoin the labour market. One council told us that participants at a local job fair do not attend the jobcentre due to the stigma around claiming benefits, and some have also discouraged their working-age children not to use it either.  

This gap in people not being provided adequate support or advice by JCP is the reason why others step in. Councils we spoke to said customers in need of support preferred to turn to local government or to local Citizens Advice Bureaux. 

With 700 jobcentres across the UK, they have a clear local presence. However they are only accountable to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) nationally and not to the local areas in which they serve. There is no public facing local mapping, plan or strategy from JCP which sets out what provision is available, or whom it is being delivered by. This is a missed opportunity which fails to capitalise on the wealth of knowledge and capacity of JCP and its wider partners. 

We believe JCP’s current offer is insufficient. Support offered through local government – councils or devolved authorities – is either a discretionary or devolved service. Some examples are below:

• Bringing together provision across a place makes sense for residents and businesses through one stop shop models. ‘No Wrong Door’ between the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London Councils aims to coordinate and integrate the system so no matter which service someone accesses first, they will be connected to the right support to help them on their journey to good work. Bristol’s ‘One Front Door’, delivers a job matching service to help employers, individuals and support agencies match vacancies with jobseekers from Bristol’s most deprived communities.
• Cornwall Council’s People Hub established in 2020, provides a single “front door” for residents aged 16 years or over who seek employment and/or skills support, across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. This responds to feedback from residents and stakeholders that there is a need to reduce duplication of provision, related confusion and the time spent searching for employment and skills support that addresses individual needs. On contacting the Hub, they will be triaged so they can be offered the right support. Originally funded through European Social Fund, it has been extended more recently as a result of the Shared Prosperity Fund.
• Since 2019, West Yorkshire’s Employment Hub helped c.10,000 individuals and exceeded targets for participants who were unemployed, from ethnic minorities, disabled and without basic skills. Its Return on Investment (RoI) was £4.80 per £1 invested with a cost of £4,000 per participant entering employment / training. In contrast Kickstart’s RoI was £1.65 per £1 invested with a cost per participant entering a placement c. £7,000.
• Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s (GMCA) ‘Working Well’ suite of devolved and test-and-learn employment and health related programmes, which started in 2014, take a whole-population approach to health, skills and employment. To date, these programmes have supported more than 76,500 people, helping more than 27,500 into work - a success rate of 36 per cent. Of those with a health condition or disability, 32 per cent found work. Crucially provision also supports inactive groups. GMCA recognised from the start that to turn Greater Manchester into a ‘northern powerhouse’, it had to tackle the very high level of economic inactivity, and particularly health-related economic inactivity. It was also a key element of the health and social care devolution deal.
• Central London Forward’s (CLF) £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.
• Northumberland Council’s ‘North East mental health trailblazer’ on behalf of seven councils piloted integrated employment support and talking therapies to unemployed people with anxiety and/or depression, to improve their mental wellbeing and help them find work. Over 1,450 people were supported, with more than 270 moving into work, showing these services could work together, but funding ended, so the work discontinued.
• Hull City Council delivered Kickstart via its employment hub. As six month placements came to an end, businesses struggled to keep young people on due to additional employment costs. The council stepped in to bolt on apprenticeship and grant opportunities to employers that retained young people for three more months. 

Indeed, we have long advocated that support for people who face multiple barriers to the jobs market or who are economically inactive, including those with health conditions, should be co-ordinated by local government with devolved funds. This is because employment support is one, albeit important piece of the jigsaw that needs to be matched with other services people need. This can only be achieved locally by working with and through councils that directly deliver or commission these, building on the evidence above which shows what local government already does on this agenda.

We are pleased that Connect to Work (CtW), grant funded to (clusters of) local authorities, has been established to do just this, as well as a move away entirely from large contract package areas. As councils plan their CtW service, good assessment, referral and signposting arrangements in place between agencies is vital.

Ultimately JCP’s aim should be to: 

• help short-term unemployed claimants into sustained work,
• provide timely payments for those who cannot work, and
• early identify those in need of more intensive support and refer them to partners outside of JCP with appropriate skills and expertise.

It should be a safe, welcoming and knowledge-rich place where people are not afraid to go to for fearing of losing their benefits. Pivotal to helping people into sustained job outcomes means JCP providing more open and accessible careers advice, in partnership with local government. 

Everybody should have the chance to find work and improve their job prospects. With our jobs market rapidly evolving and automation requiring people with higher qualifications, the need to upskill or reskill to improve job prospects or change career, is a priority. A reformed JCP will need a national campaign to promote its services to both individuals and employers, but this should be done with local partners.

We are pleased to see the GBW white paper announce the development of local GBW plans, and that these will be led by local government across England. But for these to be robust and worthwhile exercises, all partners need to be involved in their development. We are keen to help DWP shape the purpose and scope of these plans. 

A multi-agency and early assessment process which puts customer needs first, rather than the delivery partner, is vital. 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 should have their needs assessed so that a decision can be made as to: 

• whether or not they require other support alongside employment support;
• what level of intensity of support is required; and
• 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:

• Jobcentre Plus work coaches
• Contracted out employment support
• Devolved, local discretionary and community support.

This should be joined up, adaptable and fluid to enable jobseekers to move from one support offer to another, irrespective of who delivers it and without having to repeat assessments 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. 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.

5. How effective is the support provided by Work Coaches, particularly to groups that experience disadvantages or particular challenges in the labour market (e.g. young people, disabled people, older workers)?

By establishing Youth Hubs after the pandemic, DWP acknowledged that the traditional JCP environment was not working for young jobseekers. It needed alternative places where they were more likely to go and access training and job opportunities, as well as a range of services to address wellbeing needs. 

It relied heavily on councils (and other partners such as colleges and charities) to develop these offers. Councils were asked at short notice to source premises and co-fund the hubs, with limited DWP funding and no assurance this would be a long-term policy solution.

• For instance, Derbyshire’s two Youth Hubs established in 2022, and based in Chesterfield and Ilkeston, use existing council adult education centres and a library, and aim to support 16 – 24 year olds who are NEET, economically inactive or unemployed. It relies on council funding and in-kind contributions with DWP’s Flexible Support Fund providing revenue funding on an annual basis. Hub Co-ordinators manage the service with other specialist support including co-located DWP Youth Coaches, council services, providers and others to provide a one stop shop for young people. To date, the hubs have engaged over 1700 16-24 year olds, progressed over 500 into employment or an apprenticeships and 640 into training. Elsewhere, four Youth Hubs were established in Torbay, Plymouth, Devon and North Devon, with councils as accountable bodies in three, providing 50 per cent match and property as part of this, with JCP providing the balance through Flexible Support Fund (FSF).  Liverpool used VCS access points with commissioned NEETs advisers across its five youth hubs. 

Youth Hubs offered a completely different conversation with young people than JCP could not do alone, because it included lots of different agencies. It is an example of DWP reaching out to bring in expertise, which is welcome. But earlier engagement, a clearer indication on DWP long term strategy, more co-design and local decision making would have been helpful. It will be important to learn lessons from this as the Youth Guarantee is established. 

At the start of 2024, 2.8m people were economically inactive due to long-term sickness. That is an 800,000 increase on pre-pandemic levels with most of the rise accounted for by mental health conditions. In 2023/24, people in contact with NHS-funded secondary mental health, learning disability or autism services in England was 24 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels. 

To address these growing numbers, it is right that successive governments have made the decision to use local partners with more appropriate reach and expertise, including councils and health partners. It will be vital that with more partners delivering support across a local area – such as Work Well and Connect to Work – that there is a coherent strategy to bring partners together as proposed through the local Get Britain Working plans. While the Government has pinpointed NHS services to support back to work efforts, equally important is prevention, and how we can make better use of public health interventions delivered by councils. This needs to be far more integral in Government policy.

6. How suitable is the JCP estate for achieving the Government’s aims, and meeting the needs of different claimants? What models could it look at to improve its facilities?

Jobseekers without digital skills will not fare well if asked to fill out forms online in the jobcentre. More effective partnerships between JCP and councils’ adult learning services (delivered in a range of community venues including libraries) are vital to help jobseekers improve their digital skills, as exemplified through Dorset Council's work. Councils told us that that while digital offers may be the preferred route for some claimants, many people want, or even rely on, face to face interactions, so closing some local offices has not been helpful. 

We believe that welcoming and accessible local hubs, where people can talk to a careers/job specialist, is the way forward. These should be jointly planned and funded with local government. This approach is more possible now that the majority of benefit administration is on-line. 

Costly or infrequent transport is too often a barrier to travelling to work, learn and seek employment support, including through the jobcentre. This is a challenge particularly in very rural areas, which is why outreach and digital support becomes important.

Where JCP services are co-located with other services such as district councils, it has the potential to join up the conversation and offer to better support residents, and foster trust across work coaches and the work councils do in this space. Due to the constraints of both JCP and local government estate, it can sometimes be challenging to create suitable areas for particular client groups to engage, however joint planning is more likely to create the best solutions locally.

One Public Estate continues to work with local leaders to identify public assets that could be used in a more collaborative way. The re-let of JCP estate contracts in 2028 presents an opportunity not to be missed to consider options to integrate JCP (NJCS) with other public assets, including health.

(N/A to Q7)

8. How well does JCP connect with external partners? For example, schools, further education, employment support organisations and the third sector? 

Most councils speak highly of the working relationships they have with their respective local JCPs and partnership teams. However, these relationships continue to be dependent on the goodwill of individual JCP staff and due to high staff turnover often results in them having to frequently re-establish links once JCP staff leave. 

In general, JCP is ill-equipped to have a positive and productive relationship with all local partners. Its investment in partnership working is under-staffed and too often operating as a ‘gatekeeper’ rather than fostering more effective business relationships.

This is why we need a more robust relationship. DWP should require JCP to engage with councils and empower them to make decisions with their partners. This should include designing referral routes, routinely sharing data and tracing claimants between all partners in an area, and co-commissioning Flexible Support Fund and Support contracts in line with local priorities. As a starting point, it could be used to map what provision is already available so that new support adds value rather that complicates the system further. 

Local GBW plans should require JCP and councils to clearly set out their respective responsibilities and their governance arrangements for the local partnership. DWP should set a timeline for making JCP boundaries co-terminus with strategic authorities so that services can be coordinated locally with constituent councils.

9. How could JCP improve the way that it works with those employers who already use its services?

10. How could JCP reach a greater number and diversity of employers in order to offer a wider range of opportunity? 

The labour market is now very transparent, and it is easier for jobseekers to see vacancies through online job portals. 

We also recognise DWP nationally has made considerable efforts to improve its links with employers that have more national coverage.

At a local level, engaging employers, most of whom are SMEs, requires a completely different relationship. JCP can do more to engage employers, across a range of sectors and sizes. Some councils felt JCP’s focus is on immediate vacancies, and that it could do more to increase the type, number and diversity of employers that use its services. For instance, engaging employers with vacancies further in the future to enable JCP to factor in training opportunities for jobseekers so they can compete for different types of jobs.

With so many different agencies vying for employers’ attention with employment and skills incentives, there must be a coordinated place-based approach to doing this. A good starting point would be for JCP to engage councils and mayoral authorities. Skills and economic expertise sit with them. They also have reach to local employers of all sectors and sizes so know workforce needs, provide business support, have economic development and inward investment strategies, hold relevant data, work with priority sectors and have recently become responsible for Growth Hubs (although more capacity is needed to support this). 

Local government is one of the largest local employers with 1.4 million employees in the sector, plus an additional half a million teachers, firefighters and other local authority personnel. It is also in the midst of a severe recruitment and retention crisis, with 94 per cent of councils reporting skills shortages at all levels, and high vacancy rates in council-commissioned services such as social care. Some of these hard-to-recruit roles may be able to be filled more quickly through closer working with job centres. 

We would welcome JCP engaging councils to promote local government job roles. Activities such as sector-based work academies can be adapted for local government as employers. Indeed, the LGA's local government recruitment campaign is already connecting with DWP nationally and has generated opportunities to engage directly with job centres across the country.

11. What change should a new jobs and careers service prioritise to move beyond the support currently offered by JC and the National Careers Service?

12. How can a new jobs and careers service support people to progress in their careers?

13. To what extent will the new jobs and careers service anticipate future skills gaps, and take action to address those gaps before they are realised?

The LGA welcomes the Government’s plans set out in the Get Britain Working White Paper to integrate the JCP network with the national careers service (NCS). We are also pleased that one of the five principles underpinning the reform is for it to be more locally responsive, embedded and engaged. This, the White Paper says, will require active engagement with local partners and providers of services, and align with mayoral authorities given their devolved skills function, test what works, and explore rebranding. 

It is vital that local government – both councils and mayoral authorities - has a seat at the table as these reforms are developed. Over the next few months, the LGA will work with councils and devolved authorities to explore how local government can have a more defined role in the NJCS reforms. 

All councils directly deliver or commission a range of services which are vital to NJCS customers. Ensuring there is a way to link these services into NJCS across every local area in England should be integral to the reform. This is vital to good public services across the country and key to drive inclusive growth. 

In addition, as mentioned earlier, all local government will start to deliver CtW through a phased approach, with some starting as early as April 2025. This requires jobcentres, councils, and health partners to be able to refer people to the most appropriate support. We therefore need to develop a more formal partnership between local government and the current JCP / future NJCS network. The LGA is keen to work with DWP to define what a partnership should look like, including for areas outside of devolution. 

Ultimately, reforms should see NJCS be part of the wider place-based public employment eco-system which recognises that employability services are increasingly delivered in different community locations and with clearer lines of who is responsible for what.

We have long advocated that the most effective way to support low-income households and lift them out of poverty is through an adequately resourced national safety net. In turn, councils need an adequately resourced and more sustainable local welfare support system including advice provision to address the underlying cost-of-living pressures, and to enable low-income households to have a secure, resilient foundation from which to progress in work.

Turning to the questions, the current NCS service is not visible to most people, and JCP provides very little schools careers provision. A reformed and localised service, if planned and delivered with councils, strategic authorities and other partners, could create a more visible, universal and comprehensive careers, information, advice and guidance service, ensuring a ‘no wrong door’ approach which also can provide advice on benefits, debt, housing and other issues.

The new jobs and careers service can support people to progress in their careers by working with the suite of local FE and HE community to define clear progression pathways articulating the skills and competencies needed, and again utilising local case studies. This needs to be articulated in GBW Plans and LSIPs.

We do not believe that the new jobs and careers service should lead work to anticipate future skills gaps. This should be the role of Skills England, LSIPs and local growth plans to identify need and future skills gaps and feed these through to the NJCS for them to highlight the opportunities to individuals.

The LGA’s Work Local proposals aim to continually shape national policy around this agenda. Our last set of proposals Work Local: our employment and skills offer to a new Government to boost inclusive growth (2024), published last summer, builds on previous Work Local iterations which built the case for reform, set out our long-term ambition for devolved and integrated employment and skills services, and developed a cost benefit analysis of the benefits for individuals, the local economy and the public purse. 

Our new proposals put forward practical steps a new Government could adopt, and which move us closer to the ambition. 

It recommends three interlinked offers bringing services together led by local government across England which are: 

• Youth Pathways to help those who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) or at risk into first job or career path;
• Working Futures so adults locked out of jobs can find work or better work; and
• Skills for All addressing employers/sectors’ workforce needs including by recruiting residents so growth is inclusive. 

These would be planned by three-year outcome-focused ‘local employment and skills agreements’ (LESAs). Mayoral areas and their constituent councils can deliver this first with other areas following via an ambitious devolution path. A range of measures are needed to make this happen, including establishing a Work Local Board chaired by a government minister, alongside a joint unit of officials to work though the detail.

We remain committed to embedding these ideas as the Get Britain Working White paper reforms are designed and implemented. 

14. Are there any international examples that the Department should draw on for the new jobs and careers service? 

As the LGA developed Work Local, we gained insight from Professor Dan Finn, Professor Emeritus, University of Portsmouth, specifically on the lessons for the new jobs and careers service. Professor Finn’s analysis focused in on the mandatory co-location of national and local government employment services across Germany, Netherlands and USA, and full devolution of delivery of employment services in Denmark, Finland and Canada. 

View Professor Emeritus Dan Finn's written evidence to a previous Work and Pensions inquiry