The LGA is correct in calling for a greater role for councils in tackling youth unemployment. But why stop there? Town halls should make the case for assuming responsibility for the increasingly discredited Work Programme
The Local Government Association (LGA) claims that if local authorities were to take responsibility for tackling youth unemployment there would be savings of over £1.25bn annually and a £15bn economic stimulus within ten years. More significantly, young people seeking employment would be supported through better co-ordinated and personalised services. It’s an interesting claim that deserves to be seriously considered.
Their research report, Hidden Talents II, makes the case for personalised approaches being more effective than both national schemes and national inflexible funding driven by Whitehall. Various local authorities have sought to demonstrate (and compelling evidence is contained within this report) how local schemes can be more effective than nationally centralised programmes.
They make the case that councils understand their communities and local employers far better than a national organisation parachuted into a locality. Relationships with local employers and the local and voluntary sector – critical to successful employment initiatives – should already be established. Councils are also best placed to involve local schools, including academies, free schools and further education colleges, in early interventions that can identify young people with the highest potential to become Neets ( not in education, employment or training).
Above all, as democratically accountable community leaders, the proposition is that local authorities are naturally motivated by the desire to do their best for young residents. They should have a holistic concern that will hopefully link youth employment programmes to education, health (especially mental health), housing, planning, leisure, transport, and crime and community safety services and programmes.
In other words, ‘Hidden Talents II’ describes local authorities being able to reach those systems that others from outside their areas will find much more difficult. Indeed, local authorities should already have well-established relations with other agencies that can and should contribute because doing so will lead to long-term savings and enhanced community well-being. They also understand their local labour markets.
It is self-evident that local authorities have a clear opportunity to work through their Local Enterprise Partnerships and with other authorities in their city-region or sub-region to develop and implement strategies to address growth, employment and, in particular, youth unemployment.
However, they also have to develop their relations with Jobcentre Plus and with local Work Programme providers. Regrettably, in my experience, these relationships are often not as effective as they need to be, not least because of a lack of sufficient encouragement from the Department for Work and Pensions.
This has to change. Under the current arrangements the only way to deliver desired outcomes in tackling youth unemployment is that JCP and Work Programme providers work in partnership with local authorities and other local organisations.
Local authorities can harness their powers and resources, even in these times of austerity and cuts, to introduce important initiatives. Examples include: the London Borough of Bromley’s apprenticeship and young person’s employment initiative, which has many similarities to the former Labour government’s ‘Future Jobs Fund; Westminster City Council’s creation of the London Apprenticeship Company; the London Tri-borough project with its specific White City scheme; the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s Skills Audit and youth employment initiatives; or Worcestershire County Council’s Total Place Neets’ project.
Worcestershire’s Total Place project identified a myriad of agencies that are involved, often in an uncoordinated manner in addressing the needs of local Neets. It demonstrated decisively that better coordination and a redesign to focus on the young person (rather than the providers and other agencies) can improve the experience and opportunities for young people and employers whilst at the same time saving public money. A real win-win-win arrangement, initiated and led by a local authority.
Councils can also take direct action to offer apprenticeships and adopt recruitment strategies aimed at local young people, including those out of work. They can partner with colleges and schools to provide quality work experience opportunities. In addition, local authorities can use their procurement and purchasing power to require that all suppliers of services and goods play their part too.
Support can be offered to local voluntary and community organisations so that they can take on apprentices and employ local people who are currently unemployed. Authorities can contract specialist providers particularly to support people with special needs and those requiring much support to enable them to gain the skills and behaviours to enter the labour markets.
The key motivation for local authorities to get engaged in tackling youth unemployment and building opportunities for all young people is driven by their community leadership role. This means fostering ambitious expectations for local young people, and targeting everybody from the business, public, and voluntary and community sectors with a responsibility and a potential contribution to make to this cause. It means encouraging social and business entrepreneurship across localities and in communities. And above all, it means championing young people.
The LGA is to be congratulated on producing ‘Hidden Talents II’ and proposing a greater role for local government in tackling the social sore of youth unemployment, which has more than doubled since 2008. Individual local authorities, with their various interventions and programmes, are also to be congratulated. Central Government should seriously consider agreeing to transfer responsibility and resources (one without the other would be a cruel missed opportunity) to local authorities for this most urgent policy agenda.
However, why stop at youth unemployment programmes? Local government should consider making a strong and related case for assuming responsibility for what is now the increasingly discredited national Work Programme and other aspects of unemployment services. They should argue for the transfer of adequate resources, and not simply powers and responsibilities. Moreover, they should commit to working with local voluntary and community sector organisations, businesses and LEPs as well as the wider public sector to deliver programmes designed to support young people to be work ready, to place young people in apprenticeships, training programmes and permanent employment.
And, in time, if the government is truly committed to localism, other nationally managed and organised services could surely be transferred to local government. Meanwhile, local government and localists must campaign for such local empowerment, but at the same time, act as confident community leaders to influence those with the current responsibilities.
Raising aspirations, meeting needs, addressing inequality and inequity, and ensuring that all human talent can maximise its contribution has to be the ambition for every local authority and every council leader. There are hidden talents in every community and these must be released and nurtured. Local government has its own hidden talents and these must be deployed to assist and realise the potential of all unemployed people.
