Thursday 17 August 2017

Beyond (Un)employment - first thoughts

April 2017 
In the same week as the first session of Beyond (Un)employment the Greater Birmingham and Solihull ESIF subcommittee (European Funded programmes) issues a call for applications under Priority 1.1 Access to Employment for Jobseekers and Inactive People. https://www.gov.uk/european-structural-investment-funds/access-to-employment-for-jobseekers-and-inactive-people-in-greater-birmingham-solihull-oc12s17p0739 
In the outline of the call the specific objective of the priority is clarified as 
“focused on those who are long term unemployed and who are less likely to move back into work than people who have been unemployed for less time. The additional support from this investment priority will help long term unemployed people to tackle their barriers to work and move into sustainable employment. The main result target focuses on moving participants into employment (including self employment) on leaving. There will be a quantified result target set for this result indicator in each category of region”.
This definition is similar to the priorities for employment programme, Government and European funded, I have been involved with over the past 25 years. 
The priority in this programme, and the priorities in other programmes already commissioned, ignores the changes in employment practice over those 25 years.
It ignores the changes on at least three basic levels;  
  • the reduction of people engaged in work that is now mechanised or digitalised, 
  • the skill level of those in digitalised and mechanised employment
  • those in the ‘gig’ economy. 

Unemployment is clearly defined as not being in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment. Such projects and definitions deal with absolutes, you are in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment (over 16hrs per week) or you are not.
Funding programmes and delivery priorities are but conduits through which Governments and societies develop skills and provide access to the labour market. Their purpose focuses on removing an individual from state benefit rather than developing appropriate skills for an individual to choose how they participate in economic activity, activity that may have a social impact as well as a fiscal footprint.  
The thinking we did in our first session was crucial to how we can begin to challenge the entrenched view of ‘employment’ training. Long may it continue. 


While I quoted the current GBSLEP call the purpose of the piece was not to criticise activity in Birmingham, although some analysis of previous activity and impact would be interesting as part of the Beyond (un)employment sessions, I was emphasising the focus on a specific definition of employment. 
Irrespective of GBSLEP’s relationship to DWP, and any previous delivery, an examination of ESIF calls for employment related funding from a variety of ESIF areas will identify the same issue.
Coventry and Warwickshire, Leeds, Lancashire have had calls focusing on improving basic and lower skilled employees as well as market relevance of Education and Training provision.
Other core Cities, Sheffield, Greater Manchester, Liverpool focus on NEETS; intensive support to engage with and compete in the employment market, higher skills and workforce development.
Provision is designed around the funding available and the definition of employment within that funding.

My point remains
“Unemployment is clearly defined as not being in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment. Such projects and definitions deal with absolutes, you are in paid, ‘sustainable’, employment (over 16hrs per week) or you are not.
Funding programmes and delivery priorities are but conduits through which Governments and societies develop skills and provide access to the labour market. Their purpose focuses on removing an individual from state benefit rather than developing appropriate skills for an individual to choose how they participate in economic activity, activity that may have a social impact as well as a fiscal footprint.”

My hope for Beyond (un)employment sessions is that while we explore provision we begin to look at impact and not just output.

Impact on the individual – how they change how they adapt to the new economic world, what are the new basic skills they require.

An analyse of why, having spent millions on employment programmes in some areas, do individuals remain in poverty and unemployed.
How do we provide individual focused programmes, which encourage knowledge and skill development when the funding and measurement says JOB = 16hrs+.

No comments:

Post a Comment