The Activating Employers project announces the completion of a commissioned report conducted by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES). The report provides a groundbreaking cross-national comparison of employment support services in the UK, the US and Australia, sets out existing models of best practice within each country and provides important next steps in terms of where national level policymaking focus in the future.
The report identifies several examples of employment initiatives which have been successful in creating good jobs. Held across 11 city areas in the US, the Bridges to Career Opportunities programme helped low-income workers develop occupation specific skills: leading to higher rates of job advancement.
In the UK, individuals that participated in the Universal Credit In-Work Progression were more likely to earn higher incomes if they had more frequent support (fortnightly meetings with work coaches). In Australia, the state of Victoria has led the way in the provision of comprehensive services, such as those offered through Work and Learning Centres, which emphasise career planning and training over “work first” principles.
What all successful initiatives have in common is that there is rarely a successful “one size fits all” model which provides positive outcomes for disadvantaged groups. While rates of pay and job entry remain common measures of programme success, few policymakers are looking at other good work principles in their monitoring. In addition, there is little evidence of employment programmes which factor specific employer needs into the provision employment support. One example of what the report describes as a “dual customer” approach could be found in the Glasgow In Work Progression pilot, which utilised business advisors to work with employers in the social care sector to identify specific staffing and training needs.
Taking these findings into account the report makes 6 key recommendations for UK policymakers, although we believe these recommendations have great value to policymakers in all countries seeking to maximise the effect of ALMPs:
These recommendations provide a roadmap for policymakers and providers of employment services to plan and execute more well-rounded strategies in the future. Of particular relevance to the Activating Employers project is the call for greater engagement with employers in strategizing and delivering employment support. The report describes the current approach to employer engagement as “fragmented”, although examples of good practice are visible in the UK, such as the Labour Market Partnerships model in Northern Ireland, Local Employability Partnerships in Scotland and employer charters in Manchester and London. Further research by the Activating Employers team has shown how such measures are being utilised to create a “behavioural” change in employers’ approach to good work.
Good work standards, for example payment of the real living wage and Trade Union representation, have become common clauses, often embedded by the employers themselves, in public contracting. A nationwide strategy which compliments localised initiatives to create good jobs could only help to strengthen labour standards throughout public contracting in the UK and beyond.
The Activating Employers team thanks Tony Wilson and Daniel Mason of the IES for their contribution to the project and excellent work on this report.
The UK Procurement Act 2023 is due to come into force in the latter half of 2024. It will introduce the largest shift in UK procurement objectives since the introduction of the Social Value Act (2012) and apply to most sectors in the UK.
Activating Employers team members Dr Anne Daguerre and Dr Sean Vincent, both of Brighton University, made the first public presentation of preliminary findings of the Activating Employers project at the Social Policy Association annual conference held at the University of Nottingham.
The University of Brighton School of Business and Law played host to the first advisory board meeting of the Activating Employers project this week. It was the first opportunity for the project team and the board members to meet face to face and discuss the future direction of the project.
