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:
- 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, 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.