Written evidence submitted
by Local Government Association
INTRODUCTION
1. In late 2008, the LGA was particularly concerned
about the impact of the recession on young people and made the
case to government for a temporary, locally led job creation programme,
with opportunities suited to local needs, for young unemployed
people.
2. We subsequently welcomed the announcement
of the Future Jobs Fund in the March 2009 Budget. We were pleased
that DWP departed from its central commissioning model of delivery
using either Job Centre Plus or large scale contracts with private
and voluntary sector providers, and looked to local government
and local partners for the solution. In May 2009 hosted an event
for over 100 councils at Local Government House to discuss the
design of the programme with DWP officials.
THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE FJF HAS
SUCCEEDED IN
MATCHING NEW
WORK EXPERIENCE
OPPORTUNITIES TO
YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
PEOPLE
3. Councils across England played a major role
leading and taking part in partnerships to provide Future Jobs
Fund opportunities. These opportunities were different from place
to place but offered young people the opportunity to provide sports
coaching, work in museums and libraries, on environmental programmes,
in social care and in a range of other settings where the work
provides community benefit.
4. In some cases, councils directly provided
opportunities, despite a tightening financial climate in the public
sector. In others they worked with public and voluntary sector
partners to identify opportunities.
5. The first opportunities were provided in October
2009 - six months after the programme was announced. The volume
of the opportunities on offer varied from place to place, depending
in part on the local variation in the number of young people in
the locality at risk of long term unemployment.
6. There were however concerns in some councils
about the programme's design features. For example:
- a. programme referrals were made exclusively
through Job Centre Plus;
- b. funding limited the opportunities to six
months;
- c. access to the programme initially required
a period of twelve months unemployment (subsequently reduced to
six); and
- d. the programme formed part of a wider guarantee
for young people which some found confusing.
7. Taken together, these factors tended to depress
demand for the places.
STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESSES OF
THE FJF PROGRAMME
FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF
PROVIDERS (INCLUDING
IN THE
THIRD SECTOR),
EMPLOYERS AND
YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
PEOPLE, AND
PARTICULARLY IN
RELATION TO
THE LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY OF
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
8. Sustainability is an issue with the FJF -
but the programme was intended as a short-term measure. To improve
the quality of the experience, a number of councils, using discretionary
area based grant, European and other funding added to the FJF
funding extended the time period of the programme and added in
a higher quality training component - making opportunities more
attractive, more rewarding for the young people participating
and more likely to lead to a sustainable job outcome.
9. Youth unemployment remains a problem. The
LGA has argued for a place based approach - bringing together
the totality of public investment in a place to engage young people
into a single budget, from which the local council strategically
commissions employment support provision to meet the needs of
local young people and local employers. Where there is a choice
based funding model, for example in training, the council is well
placed to ensure that local provision is high quality, meets local
strategic needs and where necessary integrates with other public
services.
10. At present there are too many public sector
agencies and too many funding streams seeking to re-engage young
people. This "crowd around the customer" is both inefficient
and confusing for young people. It also prevents the integration
of services needed to provide young people with the package of
support they need to get into work, training or other meaningful
productive activity. Providers, especially in the voluntary sector
who offer personalised services, have to navigate through different
funding streams to make a holistic service offer to disengaged
young people.
11. Evidence from the Total Place pilots, for
example in Worcestershire, has shown that a place based approach
to funding services for young people would lead to back office
and overhead savings and allow more effective services to be designed
around the needs of local young people.
THE LIKELY
IMPACT OF
THE DECISION
TO END
THE FJF IN
MARCH 2011 RATHER
THAN MARCH
2012
12. Youth unemployment remains a problem, with
particular concentrations in some places. A reduction in area
based grant from 2011 will also impact on the provision of locally
provided employment opportunities. A place based approach which
maximises the opportunities to drive down public sector overhead
and transactional costs and commission services strategically
will offer the best opportunity to minimise the impact of frontline
services.
HOW THE
TRANSITION FROM
FJF TO THE
WORK PROGRAMME
WILL BE
MANAGED, INCLUDING
THE PART
TO BE
PLAYED BY
THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROPOSAL TO
FUND NEW
APPRENTICESHIPS.
13. Some councils would like to take the responsibility
for commissioning employment support programmes, others would
like to co-commission and some would like greater involvement
in the commissioning process. There is a concern that DWP is centrally
commissioning the new Work Programme without properly involving
councils, and that there is a risk this could lead to a disconnect
with other public services, and a continuity gap with current
provision.
10 September 2010
| 
