What if any, are the barriers and enablers to lessening these differences?
In the context of the broad funding challenges that participants had previously noted, a range of barriers and enablers to lessening differences were highlighted.
Barriers
Fragmented Funding
Participants noted that the fragmented nature of funding (with varied size pots of money being made available at different times and for different purposes), could make it difficult to provide targeted or bespoke support programmes. There were associated challenges in keeping track of and reporting back on the use of this funding, and issues relating to duplication of activity.
Additional barriers included the fast turnaround times required in addition to specific government financial rubric which often meant that authorities failed to take advantage of available funding avenues. The resource required for councils to administer and manage bids for very small pots of funding could also make them not cost-effective to pursue. Longevity of funding would allow councils to have a more streamlined and longer-term approach.
Authorities in London and the South-East noted the following specific issues around funding:
- Overlapping funding systems: The funding system was felt to be geared towards larger adult training authorities familiar with the bidding process. Some authorities often have excellent community-based organisations but their access to regional funding schemes due to eligibility criteria, meant that the authority does not have a strong provider base. Greater autonomy is needed in order to make funding schemes more flexible and accessible.
- Changes in Adult Education Budget (AEB) funding: Changes in this funding were identified as problematic. Currently adult learning allows those who are economically inactive or not seeking employment, a more accessible route into non-accredited courses.
Data
All participants noted that there was a lack of availability, and access to, both local and national data. Where there is a reliance on national data, this is not broken down to local group level and an increased granularity of local data is needed in order to provide local-level insight. For example, one combined authority noted that they were heavily reliant on local intelligence around, for example, autism and neurodiversity amongst their local community, the quality of which was variable and as a result there was differential in terms of the success of supporting these groups and this did not seem a robust or consistent approach. A greater granularity of data was also needed to enable councils to drill down to identify hidden pockets of need and also to provide information to enable them to flex services around ever-changing priority areas in their locality. A lack of data sharing at a national level, and between organisations also limits council ability to cross-reference information and ensure that their offer is relevant.
Accessibility
The inability to access services was a barrier across rural and some urban authorities. Geographically, services were not always in the most accessible locations for target groups and travelling to them had cost implications. For example, one London authority reported that some wards are not well connected to the Transport for London (TFL) network and many services are located in the north of the area as there is less space available to house them in the south. Large rural authorities also described poor and expensive transport links to services, making access to them prohibitive to some target groups.
Local labour market
All participants noted that a lack of flexibility from local employers could create a barrier to work for those trying to return to the job market. A lack of flexibility around work hours (in order to accommodate childcare or other caring responsibilities) presented challenge and some employers had voiced concerns about the costs of making reasonable adjustments to recruit those with learning or other disabilities. For London authorities there was a reluctance amongst some employers to pay the London Living Wage making employment a less viable option for individuals.
Siloed working
Urban authorities noted that a siloed approach across council directorates could create a barrier to more effective working and that increased partnership within the council in addition to across the community and with key stakeholders was needed.
Lack of skills
For those authorities in London and the South-East, there were perceived to be particular issues for older people returning to the workforce due to the cost-of-living crisis. Low-level skills and also having had a gap in employment was making a return to work difficult.
Digital divide
Rural and coastal authorities identified a lack of digital connectivity which was a barrier to accessing online training and applying for jobs. Issues around access to hardware and the ability to use this were also noted.
Partnership working
Rural and coastal authorities suggested that although partnership working is positive, there needs to be recognition that this requires time and effort to work effectively. Partners can often be those who are used to being in direct competition with each other and this can present challenge.
Enablers
Increase in funding and flexibility of funding
Participants noted the need for increased funding and also greater flexibility around funding rules. This flexibility would allow them more control to ensure that providers deliver against their contracts at a local level and also to ensure that local-level employer needs are met. An increase in flexibility would provide authorities with the ability to better influence local priorities rather than responding to a broad DWP focus.
Data
As noted in the barriers section above, a greater availability of more granular data at both a national and local level was required. This would allow local resources to be targeted more effectively as intersectionality could be identified more easily allowing services to become more inclusive. Some relaxation of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to produce a top-down agreement to allow data sharing between organisations with commonality of purpose was also suggested.
Partnership working
In addition to working with statutory agencies, increased partnership working with local networks, for example Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE’s) would allow authorities to reach individuals who may not access services via the more formal agency routes. For these groups a ‘one size fits all’ approach is less likely to work.
Increased working with anchor institutions would enable these organisations to become drivers of local growth or support for communities. One authority noted that they had developed an EDI subgroup with local anchor institutions and had developed tools and training for local employers in order to tackle EDI issues around recruitment and employment.
Urban authorities also noted that more joint working and a less siloed approach across council directorates was needed to enable more effective and linked activity.
Local freedom/devolution
Participants noted that devolution and more local freedom would enable them to tackle more effectively some of the current challenges highlighted. The focus of job centres and creation of people hubs were noted as areas where authorities could have more control. Devolution was seen as an opportunity to bring more resources and partners together.
Joint approach
Urban authorities noted that a more joined up approach between DWP, job centres and local councils was needed was needed in order to allow them to take effective action at a local level. Furthermore, it was felt that local areas needed to be empowered and supported by a national infrastructure which would enable all parties to implement solutions and to plan effectively.
Local commissioning
Urban authorities noted that community grants programmes have achieved very positive results when small trusted local organisations are commissioned to deliver in areas where people are happy/comfortable attending, and more of this work has the potential to lead to impactful results at the local level.
London and South-East authorities said that when commissioning services, they had developed their social value requirements within contracts in order to influence best practice. For example, including a requirement for jobs to be advertised locally and for the employer to be paying the London living minimum wage.
Council workforce
Rural and coastal authorities noted the importance of ensuring that the council recruited extremely skilled staff who understand the needs of their local communities well and are able to support and empower them. Additionally, the importance of upskilling and training existing staff to enable them to acquire any new skills required was essential to make them more effectual in their role. This links back to the earlier discussions regarding the importance of councils employing from within their local resident communities.