Local government schemes to help people back into work can prove more effective than those run by Whitehall. There are lessons to be learned to improve all back-to-work schemes.
When we think of welfare to work schemes we picture job centres, the Work Programme, and providers such as A4E and Ingeus. National debate is focused on whether this flagship scheme is working, and whether private providers assist the long-term unemployed or are incentivised to help only the work-ready, 'parking' the others in the long-stay unemployment car park.
More quietly, but sometimes more consistently than national schemes, local authorities are running their own skills and employment programmes. Much of their effort and impact goes unnoticed and under-appreciated by policy makers, but is often targeted at the hardest to help, such as those with multiple barriers to work such as health, housing and criminal record, and at young people without experience of work or job-ready skills.
Importantly, council programmes aim to reach the growing number of unemployed people who do not sign on, who currently account for more than half of those who are looking for work. While free of the compulsory activity requirements of benefit claimants, this means they are also likely to receive little help in getting into work.
NIESR has just published the findings of independent research for the Local Government Association on employment and skills programmes run by nine local authorities from North Tyneside to Southampton. The programmes were developed to support local people into work through a range of interventions, including advice and guidance, training, coaching and mentoring, work placements and apprenticeships. Each was intended to identify and fill gaps in provision and to work alongside existing services rather than duplicate their work.
Programmes went beyond immediate preparation for training and employment by taking account of the wider needs of individuals and recognising the ways in which health, housing and other issues can restrict progress into work. Some were focused on particular wards or localities with inter-generational worklessness and high levels of deprivation – areas where national schemes have made few connections and little impact.
Despite the challenges inherent in helping the long-term unemployed, these initiatives achieved good results in engaging clients and getting them into jobs or training. Authorities didn't always fully review their impact, preferring to spend resources on delivery, but a number of the schemes showed good employment outcomes and value for money. Most importantly, the local authorities were able to provide qualitative evidence on the factors which they believe get people into work or on the way there.
Our report found there were three main features that local authorities said accounted for their successful development and delivery of local back to work programmes: economic and political leadership, local knowledge, and the expertise in skills and employment.
Councils' position within their communities enabled them to forge partnerships, map provision, identify local needs and gaps and to build referral networks. Rather than set up services in competition, they brought them together, providing a one-stop-shop and referral point for coordinated services. Individuals' multiple needs could then be identified and addressed through referral to the widest possible range of appropriate services.
Local authorities involved a range of national and local partners. Links forged with Jobcentre Plus enabled services to be joined up for individuals outside of the Work Programme and, importantly, not claiming out of work benefits. Employers were brought on board through links with town halls' wider economic development and skills work.
The programmes allocated each individual their own caseworker to help ensure they were given personalised and continuous help where needed. Caseloads were sufficiently small to allow for the kind of intensive support, which is reported to be sometimes lacking in the Work Programme, Participation in the programmes was voluntary, no-one stood to lose their benefits by not taking part, which also encouraged local people to be involved.
It was also recognised that, for many of the longer-term unemployed, movement into work is not a realistic prospect. For these individuals, the aim was to build the foundations for future employment. Progress was measured through intermediate outcomes, such as training, work placements and volunteering. This particularly applied for projects targeting young people, in Bury and Surrey, who needed help to become 'work ready'.
Overall, there were five main lessons from the nine local authority case studies for the design and delivery of future back to work schemes:
1. Any new services must link with existing provision, rather than to duplicate it.
2. Councils have a particular role in helping the growing number of individuals who are not claiming out of work benefits and who are likely to be without support.
3. Services must address wider barriers to work, including health and housing, given the obstacles that these present to employment.
4. To engage the long-term unemployed and people with significant barriers to work, services need to be accessible, attractive, useful and flexible, providing one to one support.
5. Provision should take full account of the needs of local employers and councils' plans for strategic growth to ensure that training matches jobs in the local area.
Local councils are clearly filling a gap, reaching parts of the unemployed population that national provision has failed to engage. But quality provision for unemployed people is resource-intensive and requires funding. Whether more councils can follow the example of those in the report, and whether existing local provision can continue, is clearly dependent on their future finances, and unallocated funds may be increasingly currently hard to find.
