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”.
“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 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+.
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