Employment

When five becomes four – does a shorter working week benefit rural areas? 

When five becomes four – does a shorter working week benefit rural areas? 

Back in 2018 Autonomy, a research organisation, began working with charities, businesses and public organisations to deliver working time reduction pilots. Over the last five years, for many the prospect of a four-day week has been enticing. In 2022 4 Day Week Global published the results from a pilot with 33 companies across the United States and Ireland. Meanwhile, the results of the world’s biggest ever four-day working week pilot which took place in the UK were published in February 2023. People in the UK work some of the longest hours in Europe and yet our productivity lags behind. With the four-day week gaining traction, what does it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates.   ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The five-day working week has been the norm in the United Kingdom (UK) since the first half of the twentieth century. While the Government introduced legislation to reduce working hours in factories and prescribed regular breaks; it was the result of a number of campaigns (by trade unions, employees, employers, religious bodies) from the 1840s onwards that created a groundswell for a more formalised break from the working week. Initially, this saw a shift from ‘Saint Monday’, where skilled artisan workers worked Tuesday-Saturday, to ‘rational recreation’, with people encouraged to undertake leisure activities on a Saturday afternoon (e.g. going to football matches, for countryside walks). With the adoption of the weekend left to individual employers, it took a further 50-years for it to gain widespread traction. By the end of the 19th century there was a concerted effort to marking out Saturday afternoon and Sunday as the weekend – and this subsequently led to all-day Saturday and Sunday becoming a break for many employed workers. Much more recently, the introduction of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (in England, Scotland and Wales), means that an employee cannot work more than 48 hours a week on average – normally averaged over 17 weeks – unless they opt out or work in an area with exceptions (e.g. armed forces, emergency services).

Since then COVID-19 has led to significant changes to the way some people work, leading researchers at the New Economics Foundation and other commentators to call for shorter working time to be at the heart of post-pandemic recovery. Other drivers include artificial intelligence (AI) – with a study by Autonomy suggesting a four-day week (32 hours as full-time equivalent) could be achieved by 2033 for 8.8 million workers (28% of the workforce in Great Britain) – and climate change, with one study showing that a 10% reduction in hours is associated with an 8.6% fall in carbon footprint. What is a four-day week, and what does it mean for rural areas?   

What is the four-day week? There is no one-size-fits-all approach to the four-day week. Models include a ‘condensed work week’ where organisations continue with their current 40-hour week and spread this over four-days with a 10-hour shift per day; or a ‘reduced work week’ where organisations reduce the week to 32 hours comprising 8 hour shifts per day over four-days. 4 Day Week Global, for example, calls for a ‘100-80-100’ model where workers receive 100% of their current pay, work 80% of their existing hours, and maintain 100% of their current productivity. Some organisations implement a ‘universal day off’ where the entire business suspends operations, while others have a ‘distributed day off’ where employees stagger their additional work day off. The four-day week is different from flexible working which is a way of working that suits an employee’s needs (e.g. having flexible start and finish times, or working from home).  

There have been a number of reduced work week pilots running across the world in recent years – with 17 countries participating including Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, United States and here in the UK. In addition to Government sponsored tests, many companies or municipalities have undertaken pilots of their own. These pilots are all at different stages, with some at the planning stage, some underway, and others being made permanent. What are some of the benefits and disadvantages of introducing a four-day week? 

What are the benefits? Iceland was one of the first countries to trial a four-day week back in 2015. Participants included Reykjavík City Council and the national government (more than 2,500 workers, equating to 1% of Iceland’s working population); as well as preschools, offices, social service providers, and hospitals. Employees moved from a 40 hour week to a 35 or 36 hour week. Between 2015 and 2019 data shows that productivity remained the same or improved. Since then 86% of Iceland’s workforce have either moved to shorter hours for the same pay, or will gain the right to do so. 

Back in July 2019 in Japan, Microsoft announced a four-day week trial. Staff were encouraged to work more efficiently in shorter hours by (i) reducing their standard meetings to 30 minutes; (ii) reducing the number of participants in a meeting to a maximum of 5 people; and/or (iii) using Microsoft Teams for collaboration in the first instance. While employees productivity increased by 40% it is unclear if the company will replicate the trial in other locations. 

Between December 2020 and June 2022 New Zealand trialled a four-day week. This saw 80 employees at Unilever participate in a 100:80:100 model. Absenteeism dropped by 34%, employee stress levels reduced by 33% and work life conflict fell by 67%. In November 2023 Unilever announced it would be continuing the experiment in New Zealand and extending the trial to Australia. In Australia, a larger pilot involving 20 companies began in August 2022 and lasted six months. Employees worked 80% of their usual hours with no pay reduction. 64% of employees experienced reductions in burnout and 38% felt less stressed with the four-day week. Time spent commuting reduced by 36 minutes per person during the trial.

In February 2023 the results of the UK pilot were published. This involved 61 companies and 2,900 workers trialling a four-day working week between June and December 2022. The companies included those in the marketing/advertising sector (18%), followed by professional services (16%) and charities/not-for-profits (11%). Companies applied one of five models: (1) fifth day stoppage – where the company shut down operations for one additional day a week; (2) Staggered – where staff take alternating days off; (3) decentralised – where different departments operate different work patterns; (4) annualised – where staff work a 32-hour average working week calculated on the scale of a year; or (5) conditional – staff entitlement to the four-day week is tied to ongoing performance monitoring. 

The findings of the UK pilot include:  

  • 71% of employees participating reported lower levels of burnout, and 39% said they were less stressed, compared to at the start of the trial. Levels of anxiety, fatigue and sleep issues decreased, and mental and physical health improved. 
  • When employees were asked how they used their additional time off, the most popular response was ‘life admin’ (i.e., tasks such as shopping or household chores). Employees described how this allowed them to have a proper break for leisure activities on Saturdays and Sundays. Some parents with young children highlighted a reduction in childcare expenses. All reported being able to do more of the activities they enjoyed during the pilot – with some developing new hobbies and interests.      
  • 54% of employees said they felt increasingly able to combine paid work with caring responsibilities, and 62% reported it easier to combine work with social life. 
  • Researchers found a 65% reduction in sick days, and a 57% drop in the number of staff leaving when comparing the trial period with the same period in the previous year. 
  • Company revenue barely changed – and increased by an average of 1.4% for the 23 organisations able to provide data. 
  • 15% of employees said that no amount of money would induce them to accept a five-day schedule over a four-day week. 
  • 56 of the 61 companies said they intended to continue the four-day working week, with 18 companies confirming they had made the change permanent. 

In Canada researchers looked at data from July 2022 to June 2023 for 30 companies employing 3,500 workers. Each company applied a four-day 32-hour work week, or a 40-hour work week over four-days, and workers did not get a pay reduction under either model. 90% of workers said their productivity had either increased or stayed the same, and 93% wanted to continue with their shortened and compressed work schedules indefinitely.  

In May 2023, Ireland commenced its second four-day week pilot, based on the 100-80-100 model. It follows an initial pilot with 12 companies in 2022 none of whom returned to a five-day working week. 

Across all these countries, 4-Day Week Global have highlighted some of the overarching benefits of a four-day week for employees and employers: 

  • Employees involved in pilots report a reduction in burnout. 
  • Employees report an increase in work ability. 
  • Employers find it easier to recruit staff. 
  • Employee resignations decline.  
  • Some companies see an increase in revenue compared to the same period before the pilot began. 

What are the costs? Not every employee or employer has embraced a four-day week, citing concerns around how it is: 

  • Too rigid an approach when greater flexibility is required in the workplace.
  • Not suitable for all workers in all sectors (e.g. some roles in health, care, defence, banking or criminal justice).   
  • Exacerbating some of the challenges employees who are already stretched with their existing workload face. 
  • Leaving companies with less time to work on organisational development or strategic planning as they focus on day-to-day operations.   

Some of this is borne out of evidence in the UK. The four-day week trial did not work for every business – with some firms exiting the trial early and others yet to move all their operations to the format full-time. For example, Allcap, an engineering and industrial supplies company, participated in the pilot because they wanted to give 40 employees across 5 sites extra rest days. A full order book and reduced headcount meant all employees were offered one work day off every fortnight instead of a four-day week. Allcap found employees experienced 9 extreme days as opposed to 10 normal workdays and finding cover for employees on rest days was also a struggle. This led Allcap to suspend the trial at 3 of its 5 sites 2-months early. Similarly, Waterwise found staff experienced more stress trying to fit work into fewer days in order to have a longer weekend, and the charity had to focus on doing daily tasks rather than longer-term projects or strategic work. Citizens Advice Gateshead appointed the equivalent of 3 additional full-time employees so 45 contact centre staff could participate in a trial. As the busiest days at the contact centre tend to be Mondays and Fridays it only left staff with three week days to take their day off. While the pilot exceeded expectations in terms of its benefit to other staff at Citizens Advice Gateshead, if the four-day week cannot work across the whole charity, including the contact centre team, it is unlikely to become permanent and the trial is being extended in the meantime before a permanent decision is made.

More recently, the supermarket chain Morrisons made changes to its four-day week for head office staff. Originally implemented in 2020, staff were scheduled to work 13 Saturdays per year (one Saturday every 4-weeks) but following feedback from staff the supermarket will spread their 37.5 hours over four-and-a-half days a week, dropping the weekend working.  

Legally, most employment legislation is concentrated around a five-day working week. While employers involved in pilots have made operational changes to staff terms and conditions, not all have made changes to employee contracts. This not only has implications for employees terms and conditions, but also to their pension arrangements and the accrual of leave. 

In October 2023 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published guidance for Local Authorities in England to consider in adopting a four-day week where staff have their working hours reduced by 20% but retain 100% of their pay. While the Government supports an individual’s right to request flexible working, it does not support a four-day working week in Local Authorities because it does not believe that it delivers local taxpayers’ value-for-money.         

What does it mean for rural communities? There is no evidence base documenting how widespread the four-day week is in rural areas in England. There are examples of rural organisations piloting a four-day week. For example, South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) has been trialling a four-day week since January 2023 to help them attract and keep colleagues, to fill vacant posts rather than relying on more expensive agency staff, and to reduce costs. The Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge independently reviewed the trial after 3-months. Researchers looked at different service areas such as planning, housing, corporate services and finance. They found 9 out of the 16 service areas showed substantial improvement, and the remaining 7 areas were either at similar levels or saw a slight decline. 

There are calls from other sectors to implement a four-day week to boost workforce recruitment and retention, particularly in rural areas (e.g. health, hospitality and catering, logistics). Indeed Agricultural Recruitment Specialists have looked at whether the four-day week is beneficial for the farming industry. While noting that farming is different from corporate jobs (e.g. dependency on nature/weather, livestock and crops need looking after 365 days a year), technological advancements, automation and drones are reducing the amount of manual labour needed on farms. With many farmers working an average of 65 hours a week, and 40% of farmers surveyed by Farmers Weekly wanting to know how to improve their work-life balance, Agricultural Recruitment Specialists suggest the four-day week could be an asset to the farming world. 

Information from other countries suggests the four-day week is being adopted in rural municipalities. In Canada for example, Ontario municipalities that have permanently moved to a ‘compressed’ work week (10 hour days four-days a week to recruit and retain staff) include Aylmer, Zorra, Springwater and French River. Four-day work week trials have also taken place in Merritt (British Columbia), Saint John (New Brunswick) and in the District of Guysborough in Nova Scotia. 

In the United States 2,100 rural schools in 26 states are taking Mondays or Fridays off to help recruit more teachers, save money and boost pupil attendance. Some schools have reported that teacher applications have increased four-fold and overhead costs decreased since the four-day week began while others are monitoring what impact this is having on pupil attainment – with some studies indicating that high achievers are more affected by changing school schedules than lower-achieving pupils; and other studies suggesting that a four-day week is not compromising academic performance. Research has also shown that parents with younger school age children, with children who are receiving special educational needs provision or free school meals were less supportive of a four-day week compared to other cohorts of parents/carers.      

Back in the UK, in December 2023 civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), with support from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), submitted a petition calling for a four-day week pilot scheme for 21,000 employees. In response, and echoing guidance issued by DLUHC, a Government spokesperson confirmed how “there are no plans for this. Value-for-money should be provided to the taxpayer”.  

Where next? In February 2022 the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales published a report on the four-day week from Autonomy. This considered the arguments for and against a shorter working week, the potential barriers the Welsh Government might face and an implementation strategy. There are calls for a pilot to be developed in the devolved public sector and the Welsh Government is working with the Workforce Partnership Council (WPC) and trade unions to look at the issue in more detail. In Scotland the Government formally launched its 4-day week pilot in January 2024 – with around 140 staff at South of Scotland enterprise doing a 32-hour week without loss of pay. In Northern Ireland a study by Hays found 43% of employers would be more likely to consider offering a four-day week if staff spent all of their work days in the office rather than on a hybrid basis. 

The key question is whether people who move to a four-day week can achieve what they were doing over five-days with fewer hours and less time? The results of the pilots are in and they suggest a four-day week is coming (in Wales), starting (in Scotland) and here to stay (in England). Are four-day weeks a good or a bad thing? And how doable are they in rural areas? The evidence so far suggests it may work well for some and never work for others. Watch this space…  

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

AI

What does AI mean for rural communities? 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a relatively new but rapidly growing technological field, and it is increasingly shaping the way we interact with the world. How is AI benefitting rural communities, and what more could it do? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

AI technologies can be found in a wide range of everyday applications – from virtual assistants and navigation software, through to online banking and facial recognition. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being deployed across many sectors to assist in tasks such as decision making and improving productivity. What is AI, and how can it be deployed to benefit rural communities? 

What is Artificial Intelligence? There is no universally agreed upon definition of artificial intelligence (AI) or AI technologies. Academics Haroon Sheikh, Corien Prins and Erik Schrijvers describe how it can be defined according to algorithms; by the imitation by computers of the intelligence inherent in humans; as a technology that enables machines to imitate various ‘complex human skills’; or an imitation or stimulation of something we do not yet fully understand ourselves: human intelligence! In seeking to define AI, research by psychologists, behavioural scientists and neurologists amongst others have opened up discussions around autonomy, human intelligence and innovation. All of this has led Haroon Sheikh and colleagues to adopt an open definition of AI where it applies to ‘systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions – with some degree of autonomy – to achieve specific goals’.  The Alan Turing Institute defines AI as ‘intelligence, such as reasoning, making decisions, learning from mistakes, communicating, solving problems, and moving around the physical world’. 

Back in March 2023 the Government published the UK Science and Technology Framework. This set out the Government’s strategic vision for AI as one of 5 critical technologies. The Framework described AI as ‘machines that perform tasks normally performed by human intelligence, especially when machines learn from data how to do those tasks’. The Framework reinforced the Government’s commitment to delivering the National AI Strategy published back in September 2021, which was focused around the UK being an AI superpower, supporting the transition to an AI-enabled economy, and ensuring the governance of AI technologies is right.   

The Office for Artificial Intelligence (Office for AI), part of the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT), defines AI as ‘the use of digital technology to create systems capable of performing tasks commonly thought to require intelligence’. As a research field it spans philosophy, logic, statistics, computer science, mathematics, neuroscience, linguistics, cognitive psychology and economics. While the field is constantly evolving, it has two distinct characteristics: (i) it involves machines using statistics to find patterns in large amounts of data; and (ii) it involves the ability to perform repetitive tasks with data without the need for constant human guidance.   

In August 2023, the Office for AI published a policy paper on AI regulation. This further described AI systems, or AI technologies, as ‘products and services that are adaptable and autonomous’. The paper sets out how the Government intends to support innovation while providing a framework to ensure risks are identified and addressed. In October 2023 the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology committee opened an inquiry into the governance of AI. 

More recently, in November 2023, the Prime Minister hosted a global summit on AI safety. This resulted in 28 countries agreeing to the Bletchley Declaration on AI safety. The UK and United States Governments also announced new National AI Safety Institutes. 

Why is AI capable of, and what is driving its use? AI is being used for linguistic tasks, computer tasks, and to improve the performance of robots. Some examples include:

  • Natural language processing (NLP): AI is being used for speech-to-text converters, online tools that summarise text, for chatbots, and for speech recognition and translation. 
  • Programming computer systems: AI is being used on computer systems to assist in the interpretation of images and videos (e.g. facial recognition, medical imaging, video surveillance) and to develop driverless vehicles. 
  • Robotics: AI is being used on machines to carry out actions (e.g. medical robots performing surgery, self-navigating drones).  

These AI developments are possible because of advances in data, computing power and investment. Machine learning (ML) systems are training on larger data sets. For example, ChatGPT 3.5 was trained using 300 billion words obtained from internet text. The amount of computing power used to train ML models has increased – a Foundation Model released in 2020 used 600,000 times more computing power than a comparable Model in 2012. In March 2023 the Government announced a £900 million investment towards a new supercomputer, known as Isambard-AI, and hosted at the University of Bristol. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) also announced a £10 million investment to a group of universities (including Bristol) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and a £30 million award to the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s laboratory in Cheshire. 

While these advances already are (and will be) impressive, of greater significance is their uptake by society. Discussion has moved on from digital transformation to generative AI whereby our everyday lives are increasingly being shaped algorithmically.  And while some citizens are excited by the possibility of AI saving time and handling mundane or difficult tasks, others worry about the loss of human jobs and fear AI will become so powerful it will outsmart people. 

There are also concerns around the concentration of Large Language Models in the hands of a few technology companies; privacy and data protection around the use of data to train AI models (data mining or harvesting at a mass scale); the ability of AI models to generate false information; and a lack of skills in the current UK workforce to develop AI.    

How are rural communities using AI – and what do they have to gain? 

McKinsey has estimated that generative AI technologies have the potential to add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy. AI is already found across a wide range of sectors and services. Some examples of how AI is being developed or deployed in a rural context include: 

  • Agriculture: choosing optimum crops for weather conditions, monitoring crops, improving resource efficiency, monitoring livestock and detecting the early signs of disease, employing automated workers or tasks (e.g. robotic fertilisers). 
  • Transport: monitoring deliveries or traffic status, self-driving or autonomous vehicles, or ‘pay with your face’ to use public transport. 
  • Education: for adaptive tutoring or instructional assistants that explain difficult concepts to students; to undertake automated routine tasks around lesson planning; and drafting communications with parents/carers and the local community.  
  • Healthcare: medical imaging, patient monitoring, or identifying patients at higher risk of developing certain conditions. 
  • Policing: gathering intelligence, predicting crime and facial recognition tools.
  • Weather: to generate scenarios or develop algorithms that mine social media posts to learn from the language used and the pictures shared to deduce whether a weather event is happening and to what extent. 

While many of the issues rural communities face may be shared by their urban counterparts (e.g. access to services, economic development, climate change), how they are experienced and the solutions that are needed are different in a rural context. While much of the focus to date has been on the deployment of AI in agriculture, there are opportunities for rural communities to engage AI in other new and novel ways – with examples ranging from building weather/climate resilience through to reducing the impact of social isolation.  

Is there an (emerging) urban-rural AI gap? Some researchers suggest data is more likely to be harvested from rural residents than their urban counterparts. For example, a study by Douglas Leith on data being harvested by smart phones revealed Android phones give Google 20 times more data that iPhones send to Apple. On the one hand, this suggests that where android phones are more dominant in rural areas the user’s data is more likely to be harvested. But on the other hand, this potentially exposes rural users to some technological downsides regarding data privacy, protection and ownership. 

Similarly, once gathered, some evidence suggests data is more likely to be used to develop initiatives that benefit urban areas. For example, a scoping review by Jose Guerra and colleagues found that public health AI projects primarily used community based surveillance data collected from rural areas, with the harvested data often used to design public health initiatives of benefit to urban areas. 

Closing this rural AI gap is part of a much broader discussion around digital infrastructure and connectivity, rural proofing within policy-making and investment decision-making, and skills and expertise.  

Data analysis by Ofcom shows that while there has been an increase in gigabit-capable coverage in both urban and rural areas across the UK, there has been a greater increase in urban areas. This is because some providers tend to focus their roll-out on urban areas. Similarly, while the majority of homes and businesses have access to at least decent broadband on a fixed line connection, around half a million premises, mainly in rural areas, currently do not. While Ofcom is seeing small improvements in 4G coverage (partly as a result of initiatives such as the Shared Rural Network), the lack of reliable digital infrastructure and connectivity in some rural areas continues to hamper the ability of communities and businesses to benefit from AI.

Back in October 2022 the White House published a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights to make automated systems work for the American people. This recommended that systems be made and audited with ‘consultation from diverse communities’, including communities in rural areas which have traditionally been underserved. The blueprint therefore gives rural communities are opportunities to shape the trajectory of these technologies. Back in the UK, while the Government and devolved administrations have published a range of documents and announced investments in AI, alongside a much wider range of parliamentary interest and activity, to what extent is rural proofing taking place? Defra, for example, has developed an AI Community of Interest for colleagues in Defra who are interested in building and sharing knowledge about AI.

There appears to be little consistency in the terminology used to describe the knowledge, skills and roles of AI. While research from Accenture found that 34% of UK organisations had scaled up AI technologies in response to COVID-19, only 27% of UK business leaders described their non-technical workforce as being well-prepared to leverage new technology. The Alan Turing Institute has highlighted the AI skills gap – running from early years through to senior positions in academia and industry. Without consistency in terminology or data collection, it is currently difficult to understand the skills gaps being experienced across the UK. It would be good to recruit and retain AI workers in rural areas – having more AI expertise in rural communities could help to both increase its benefits and take-up but also lead to greater understanding of its challenges.    

Where next? The big shift taking place here is not only around data, models, and tools or their capabilities; but their uptake and the profound ways in which they are impacting society. While many of us are starting to think about AI and its implications, if we don’t keep pace with developments, and indeed shape the agenda, AI is going to create its own vision of rural communities.  …………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a service that supports older people to maintain their independence; and reviewing neighbourhood based initiatives (NBI). Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting  rural communities across Cambridgeshire. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

What does the future public service workforce look like?

What does the future public service workforce look like?

Back in July 2022 the House of Lords Public Services Committee published its report ‘Fit for the future? Rethinking the public services workforce’. This identified how public sector staffing was “facing a crisis” due to a “vicious circle” of increasing demand, staff shortages, low morale and recruitment issues. What does this crisis mean for rural areas, and what can be done to secure a public services workforce for the future? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

How many people work in the public sector? 

According to the Institute for Government (IfG), the public sector ‘consists of all workers employed by the state – whether UK Government departments, devolved Governments, Local Authorities or other Government agencies and public bodies’. The Census collects data on public sector personnel. This comprises people employed in central and local government, and public corporations, including people with second jobs in the public sector. The House of Lords Select Committee on Public Services, however, considers public services in a broader sense – including the role of community-level initiatives and private, voluntary and charitable sectors. All of these definitions exclude organisations such as museums or universities – which despite receiving taxpayer funding in some instances – are defined as private sector organisations. Indeed, some private sector bodies have found themselves reclassified as public sector bodies and vice versa. For example: Royal Bank of Scotland (included as a public sector body since Q4 2008), further education and sixth form college corporations (private sector since Q1 2012); Royal Mail (private since Q3 2013) and English Housing Associations (private since Q4 2017). 

A statistical bulletin published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in December 2022 estimated that there 5.77 million employees were working in the public sector in September 2022 – 28,000 (or 0.5%) more than in June 2022 and 73,000 (1.3%) more compared to September 2021. It attributes the increase to the impact of COVID-19 on the NHS and Civil Service, and to Local Authority schools becoming academies:  

  • Employment in Central Government was estimated at 3.57 million in September 2022, a rise of 22,000 (0.6%) compared with June 2022, and 74,000 (2.1%) compared with September 2021.   
  • The NHS employed an estimated 1.90 million people in September 2022, an increase of 12,000 (0.6%) compared with June 2022 and an increase of 47,000 (2.5%) compared with September 2021. 
  • Employment in Local Government was estimated at 2.00 million in September 2022, an increase of 3,000 (0.2%) since June 2022, but a decrease of 3,000 (0.1%) since September 2021. 
  • There were 513,000 employees in the Civil Service in September 2022, up 1,000 (0.2%) compared with June 2022, and up 8,000 (1.6%) compared with September 2021.
  • Private sector employment was at estimated at 27.00 million in September 2022, slightly lower than for June 2022 (by 1,000) but higher than in September 2021 (by 117,000).

According to its definition, the IfG estimates 5.6 million people were employed by the public sector in Q1 2022. While the number of people employed by the public sector reduced between 2009 and 2016, the impact of Brexit and COVID-19 have seen numbers increase – there are now just 1% fewer employees in 2022 compared to 2009. It is estimated that the public sector now makes up 17.5% of total employment. 

What skills do we need (now and in the future) in the public sector? 

In 2021, the OECD published its report on the future of public services. This looked at the factors affecting the work of civil service leaders from OECD countries, and the employment policies needed to support their work. The report highlights how: ‘in the short to medium term, public servants will be called upon not only to help manage the health, social and economic impacts of the [COVID-19] crisis, but to also find innovative solutions to help rebalance budget deficits in the immediate aftermath of recessions. The opportunity and policy challenge is to find a way to use budgetary pressure and high expectations from citizens to spark transformation in the public sector rather than making short-term cuts that freeze renewal and stunt progress, as was often the experience resulting from the 2008 financial crisis’. Leaders participating in the study generally agreed that: 

  • The promise of new technology to improve government service delivery will only be achieved with a commensurate investment in the capabilities of civil servants.
  • Change is not new but is happening at a pace that requires constant reconsideration of what civil servants know, and how they learn and acquire new knowledge.
  • Civil services need to become more flexible, agile and responsive in the way they organise, reward and employ.
  • There are important new possibilities to focus people management on the experience of work, public service values, mission and the public good to attract and retain diverse employees.

In reflecting on the public service workforce that is needed to deliver post-pandemic policies today, and into the future to respond to the next set of crises, three overarching reflections were offered: 

  1. A forward-looking public service is one that is able to identify the emerging technical skills and competencies needed to ensure resilience in an increasingly uncertain future. This will require workforce planning methods that recognise uncertainty and prepare for the next shock.
  2. A flexible public service in the future will be one where different kinds of people work from more locations at different times, contributing their skills and experience to projects, across multi-disciplinary teams, and learning as they go. This will require flexibility, a culture of learning, better risk management and experimentation.
  3. The public service of the future will attract, retain and optimise the use of the skills it needs by providing fulfilling work experience to an increasingly diverse range of employees. This will require improved job design to increase autonomy and recognise employees as individuals.

In January 2022, the House of Lords Public Services Committee launched an inquiry on designing a public services workforce fit for the future. The Committee published its report in July 2022. This set out how the public services workforce was ‘facing a crisis’ and that employers were ‘not doing enough to make public service careers attractive to prospective staff’ leading to recruitment difficulties: 

‘The inescapable demographic fact is that demand for services will rise far faster than the working-age population. The proportion of the population with multiple and complex needs will rise further, even as the labour market available will be smaller. The challenge is substantial: the public sector will have to deliver the same or better outcomes with less labour available’ (page 3). 

The report contained five key findings: 

  1. Many public service workers face “intense pressure” and “suffering”, as well as unacceptable levels of discrimination. 
  2. The potential of many staff to deliver services is largely untapped, with a need to think imaginatively about how and where they could be better deployed.
  3. There are simple ways to enhance the “offer” of public service careers that should be taken.
  4. Traditional routes into public service careers are limiting and action must be taken to make them more accessible.
  5. The public sector needs to “train to retain” and must rethink its training and development offer to allow staff to meet their full potential. 

The Committee used the report to develop to develop an action strategy. The strategy includes taking steps to: 

  • Understand the problem by collecting and sharing workforce data. 
  • Get the most out of the workforce by empowering them and thinking imaginatively about where they could be deployed. 
  • Make services work for users through meaningful consultation. 
  • Use technology in the most productive and informative ways. 
  • Prioritise preventative services. 
  • End the culture problems driving people to leave. 
  • Make the offer of public service careers more attractive by fixing pensions and offering flexible working. 
  • Fix the broken brand of public service careers, and get an appealing message out. 
  • Create new and accessible entry routes, and properly use those that already exist. 
  • Train to retain: rethink development so that skills can be recognised and used more effectively across broad careers. 

In May 2022, the Local Government Association (LGA) published the Local Government Workforce Survey 2022. All heads of human resources [or in an equivalent position] in England were asked to complete an online survey between March and May 2022. Of the119 Councils that responded: 

  • 94% said they were experiencing recruitment and retention difficulties. In response to these difficulties, 81% said they provided market supplements for some posts – with 48% providing market supplements for children’s social workers, just over 25% for planning officers, and 18% for building control officers. 
  • Of those undertaking actions to help with recruitment and retention, over a quarter said they considered flexible working to be the most effective one. 
  • 62% said they were considering increasing apprenticeships in 2022-2023. 

In July 2022, the Government Skills and Curriculum Unit and Leadership College for Government published research looking at the future issues facing public service leaders. This identified future pressures around: (1) moving public services online; (2) the changing role of the state; (3) rising complexity; and (4) new expectations of leaders. There was agreement on the central importance of collaboration – including the need for a holistic systems approach that reaches across traditional sectors of public services. 

In November 2022 the Government responded to the House of Lords Public Services Committee’s report. It cited several areas where positive progress had been made. These include: the introduction of a public sector apprenticeship target to boost starts across the public sector; a commitment of £500 million to improve the recruitment, retention, progression and staff wellbeing of the adult social care workforce; issuing digital and data guidance setting out the required capabilities for all senior civil servants; and running a supporting families programme.  

In terms of horizon scanning, Deloitte describes the Government worker of 2035: 

‘The government workforce will likely consist of technologically advanced generations with different employment expectations. These new workers may be less attached to “career tenure” and will expect to work on short-term, specialized projects where they can apply their innovative technology skills. Future public service workers will likely be interested in performing meaningful work with tangible evidence of social responsibility and impact, and leaders should be prepared to respond’. 

In a context of increased uncertainty and disruption; how can we ensure we have a good grasp of the current workforce (and gaps), and that we can attract, retain and develop the public sector employees we need for the future?  

Navigating the transition 

To make public sector careers attractive and ensure there is a sustainable workforce for the future, the House of Lords Public Services Committee identified how action is needed around:

  • Workforce experience: a need to end the culture problems driving people to leave and ensuring the experiences of staff are broadly positive. 
  • Workforce development: a need to get the most out of staff by empowering them to think about where they could be deployed. 
  • Workforce recruitment: a need to fix the broken brand of public service careers by looking at the ‘offer’, including fixing pensions and offering flexible working. 
  • Routes into careers: a need to create new and accessible entry routes, including apprenticeships and local talent pools – including those who may not be able to afford to do a degree. 
  • Training: public sector employers must train to retrain and rethink development so that their skills can be used and recognised across broad careers. 

The Committee Chair, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top said: “We need to reshape – and rebrand – public services to make then an attractive career choice. We can do that by empowering people, and providing innovative training with personal and professional development, so they feel valued and want to remain in these important careers. In addition, consultation with service users and those with lived experience will allow their input to be a real part of redesigning services to deliver exactly what is needed, when it is needed”. 

 Deloitte also highlighted mitigation strategies to support the transition to a sustainable workforce: 

  • Prepare an inventory of the regulatory changes needed to accommodate a largely “non-career” employee model. 
  • Conduct annual public service planning exercises using a more forward-looking approach comprised of employee predictive scenarios, and labour markets and technology trends as a way of mitigating a radical, disruptive shift to a new workforce model.
  • Rethink current staff performance management practices to enhance the focus on individual accountability for results and career mobility.
  • Collect and review success stories of interagency collaboration and public innovation projects.
  • Increase virtual collaboration and use of digital technologies.
  • Conduct periodic workforce studies and employee surveys to understand and map the expectations and preferences of a younger workforce.

More workers are economically inactivity now than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Labour market data has shown that older workers and those without a higher education continue to drive the increase in inactivity. However, increased retirement is a more important reason for their increase in movements from employment to inactivity rather than necessarily increases in ill health. At the same time, the number of people moving into low-paying occupations from inactivity has also fallen. Evidence also shows as inactivity has risen, existing recruitment difficulties have been exacerbated. The Government is currently exploring a range of options and reforms to encourage people back into the workforce – from changes to sickness and disability benefit legislation to a bigger tax allowance for people aged over 50. Alongside the Government’s approach to employment support, such as DWP’s network of 50PLUS champions, the Centre for Ageing Better is calling for a national programme aimed at those aged 50 plus, and bringing forward by a year the People and Skills element of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to deliver place-based and responsive support. In a rural context, for example, limited access to affordable and accessible transport and/or childcare prevents some employees from taking on additional hours or accessing the wider labour market. 

What more can be done to support workers to return to fill labour and skills shortages in the public sector short term – and will the actions and mitigations outlined above encourage others to enter it?   

How many public sector employees work in rural? 

While data is available on people employed in central and local government, including regional and diversity analyses, it is not possible to determine how many employees are involved in supporting rural communities. For example, as of September 2022, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had a headcount of 12,790 employees, comprising 10,630 full-time staff and 2,160 part-time staff (table 8). While Defra provides a breakdown of resources allocated to different priority outcomes in its delivery plan, it is not possible to determine how many employees have rural communities as all or part of their remit. Indeed, Defra works with colleagues in other Government departments to ensure that the needs and opportunities presented by rural communities and businesses are reflected in Government priorities.  

In terms of sectors, staffing is a make or break issue for the NHS in England. Workforce recruitment and retention difficulties have a direct impact on patient care and staff experience. The Parliamentary Inquiry into Rural Health and Care and numerous other reports have all highlighted the unmet and growing health and care needs of people living in rural areas alongside growing staff shortages. In a rural context, the Parliamentary Inquiry identified how: 

  • There are workforce challenges due to high demand but low supply, with overall fewer NHS staff per head in rural areas compared to urban areas. 
  • High employment rates and lower rates of economic inactivity means rural labour markets are relatively tight. 
  • Individuals often develop their clinical career where they train and there is a need to enhance training and development opportunities in rural areas.  
  • There is a need to create more specialist generalists and other fluid and adaptable workforce positions in rural areas. 
  • The variety of roles and career development opportunities available in rural areas needs to be better promoted.  

The National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) has looked at the complex and varied demands on police officers and budgets in rural areas. Research commissioned from the University of Plymouth found: 

  • Fixed, non-staff costs are higher amongst rural forces which cannot benefit from economies of scale due to the need to serve more dispersed, low density populations. For example, this equates to £32.1 million across the 10 smallest forces (by population), the equivalent of over 600 officers. Given that rural forces generally have smaller workforces than urban forces, this has implications for service delivery.
  • Significantly higher round-trip distances are found in forces serving low-density populations, increasing costs. As rural forces have lower officer numbers, the burden per officer is also higher by up to 65%.
  • All forces experience seasonal variations, but the minimum-relative-to-maximum variation, especially for daily crime and Anti-Social Behaviour is far greater in rural forces, especially those with National Parks and coastal areas attracting holiday-makers.

While workforce issues are everywhere, these examples illustrate how they can be more pronounced in rural areas. Rural residents often have different (and greater) needs, are spatially dispersed, and require services from staff with different skillsets. This is not always reflected in Government funding support or in workforce planning and development.     

If we are to address rural workforce challenges now and into the future, there are three important questions we need to respond to: (1) how can we reduce demand? (2) How can we deliver services in a way that means we have a more sustainable workforce? (3) How can we ensure the current and future workforce are in tune with rural needs, circumstances and opportunities? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services; and a Warm Hubs scheme. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Home Working

Is remote and flexible working the ‘new normal’?

Coronavirus lockdowns in 2020 and 2021 saw many employees compelled to work from home. While employers have had different perspectives on employees returning to their offices and places of work since then, the pandemic has accelerated discussion around more flexible working. What do these new and emerging work patterns mean for the future of work in rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is flexible working? Flexible working refers to any type of working pattern that is different from the usual one. It is intended to give employees a degree of flexibility over where, when and how they work. There are different types of flexible working – from working from home, through to a combination of office-remote (hybrid) arrangements, or having flexible start and finishing times. 

Who can request to work flexibly? Under existing UK legislation, employees do not have a statutory right to flexible working, only to make a request. Part 8A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that employees can only request to work flexibly after 26 weeks of employment with the same employer, with a limit of one request every 12-months. Under sections 47E and 104C employees are protected from suffering a detriment or from being dismissed if they have made a flexible working request. The legal right to request flexible working initially only applied to limited categories of employees with parental or caring responsibilities until it was extended to all employees under Part 9 of the Children and Families Act 2014. Under current regulations, any employee has the legal right to request flexible working through making a statutory application.  

In 2018 the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) established a Flexible Working Taskforce. Co-chaired by BEIS officials and the CIPD, the Taskforce was established to clarify the benefits of flexible working, investigate the barriers that prevent employers from offering (or employees taking up) flexible working, and to increase the number of flexible working opportunities available. 

While flexible working has been of policy interest for a number of years, the COVID-19 pandemic brought it to the fore of public attention. The pandemic led the Government to introduce statutory guidance instructing people to ‘work from home’ where and when possible. This was supplemented by a range of COVID-19 guidance covering the workplace that was updated by the Government as its response to COVID-19 evolved. 

During the first national lockdown (March to June 2020), all non-essential high street businesses were required to close and people were ordered to stay at home, and permitted only to leave for essential purposes such as buying food or for medical appointments. Although most lockdown restrictions were lifted on 4 July 2020, the Government recommended people avoided gatherings larger than six. 

On 14 September 2020, tighter restrictions came into force in England with the rule of six applying indoors and outdoors; and from 25 September bars, pubs and restaurants were ordered to shut between 10.00pm and 6.00am. On 14 October 2020, the Government introduced a ‘three tier system’ with most areas placed in the least restrictive tier one. On 5 November 2020, national restrictions were reintroduced in England. Under this second national lockdown non-essential high street businesses were required to close once again and people were prohibited from meeting those not in their ‘support bubble’ inside. 

On 2 December 2020, the Government reintroduced the tier system – with a fourth tier added on 19 December following concerns about a new variant of COVID-19 circulating. On 4 January 2021 the third national lockdown began. Similar to the rules in place during the first lockdown, people were once again told to stay at home. 

On 8 March 2021, England began a phased exit from lockdown – with the whole country moving through a roadmap.  On 15 September 2021, Parliament approved the revocation amendments meaning there are no lockdown laws currently in force in England. 

During national lockdown periods people needed a reasonable excuse to leave their home and were prevented from travelling outside their local area and/or from travelling between areas with different restrictions in place. Certain businesses were required to close, and others were required to operate restricted opening hours. 

In February 2021, BEIS reconvened the Flexible Working Taskforce to understand emerging ways of working resulting from the pandemic. In December 2021, the Taskforce published guidance on effective hybrid working. The guidance included information on how organisations should: 

  • Provide training to managers on how to manage and support hybrid teams. 
  • Review HR processes and procedures – enabling inclusion and wellbeing. 
  • Undertake a listening activity with employees, managers and employee representatives to understand whether hybrid working is delivering benefits. 
  • Keep hybrid working policies and principles under ongoing review – addressing any negative or unintended outcomes. 

In April 2021, the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) published an article on remote and flexible working arrangements. This described the benefits of flexible working around increased wellbeing and productivity, but highlighted how these benefits are not equally distributed throughout the working population leading to increasing inequality. 

In September 2021, the Government published a consultation document setting out proposals to make the right to work flexibly an entitlement from day one, for all employees. The document outlined the Government’s intentions to reform the Flexible Working Regulations 2014 as well as wider proposals to encourage and support flexible working – in sum, this would make flexible working the default position. The Government also launched a ‘call for evidence’ looking at the need for ‘ad hoc’ and informal flexibility and how this can be supported in the workplace. 

What are the trends in flexible working? The Office for National Statistics (ONS) uses data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and Annual Population Survey (APS) to estimate homeworking. Between January and December 2019, of 32.6 million people in employment, 4 million people (around 12% of the total workforce) had worked at home at some point in the week prior to being interviewed. Approximately 1.7 million people (5% of the total workforce) reported working mainly from home – an increase from 4.3% compared to January to December 2015. Data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) found in January-February 2020, approximately 27% of people worked from home at least some of the time, and 6% worked wholly from home.

As expected, all of these figures increased during COVID-19 lockdown periods. The UKHLS COVID-19 dataset includes workers in paid employment and excludes those who are self-employed or were furloughed. The figures reveal, in April 2020 [the first lockdown period], 55% of people in employment worked at home ‘sometimes’ and 40% worked solely at home. In March 2021 [during the third national lockdown], 49% of people worked at home ‘sometimes’ and 31% solely at home. 

The ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPS) covers all workers, including people who are self-employed and/or were furloughed. OPS figures indicate that home working peaked in June 2020 when 38% of people worked from home exclusively and 11% of the workforce worked at home at least one day a week. 

UKHLS COVID-19 data suggests the majority of workers in paid employment in January 2021 (88%) wanted to work from home at least some of the time once lockdown restrictions were lifted. In February 2022, ONS OPN found 84% of workers that had to work from home during the pandemic planned to carry on with a mix of home and office working. The proportion of workers planning to return to their place of work full-time declined too – from 11% in April 2021 to 8% in February 2022. 

  • UKHLS data from January-February 2020 found working remotely was higher for employees in the information and communication sector, the professional and scientific sector and the financial and insurance sector; and lower in the wholesale and retail sector, agriculture and manufacturing, and human health and social work. During the pandemic this trend became more pronounced, with the UKHLS COVID-19 study showing that in January 2021, more than 70% of people working in information and communication, professional and scientific and financial and insurance sectors were working at home compared to 39% in health and social care and 30% in manufacturing sectors. 
  • People with more responsibility and seniority were more likely to work from home. In January-February 2020, the UKHLS found 46% of managers worked from home in some capacity in comparison to 19% of non-managers. In January 2021, 52% of managers were likely to work from home compared to 30% of non-managers. Similarly, people with no qualifications were more likely to be at their place of work compared to graduates (with 86% of people without qualifications at their place of work in June 2020 compared to 21% of people with a degree). 
  • People with higher earnings tend to be in jobs with scope for home working – with UKHLS COVID-19 data revealing how employees working from home ‘sometimes’ reported higher annual earnings than those who ‘never’ work from home. 
  • People who are self-employed tend to work from home compared to employees. The UKHLS COVID-19 data found in January-February 2020, 24% of self-employed workers reported ‘always’ working from home compared to 3% of employees. 
  • In January 2021, UKHLS COVID-19 data showed 58% of employees with children worked at home ‘sometimes’ compared to 48% of people without children. 
  • LFS data on homeworking in January-March 2022 found the regions with the highest percentage of homeworkers were London (37% in January-March 2022), the South East (36.9%) and East of England (31.1%). Regions with a lower proportion of homeworkers included the North East (22.4%) and Yorkshire & Humber (26.2%).   

OPN data in September 2022 found 22% of the workforce working from home at least one day a week and 13% working from home exclusively.  

Data from the Business Insights and Conditions Survey (BICS) indicates how, in June 2021, 24% of businesses said they intended to use increased homeworking as a permanent business model going forward, while 28% were not sure. However, in June 2022 the CIPD undertook a survey of 2,000 employers. 63% of those surveyed said they planned to introduce or expand the use of hybrid working. 

To date, academic research on flexible working during the pandemic has found both benefits and disadvantages, depending on the circumstances of employers and employees. In April 2022 the Pissarides Review was launched. A collaboration between the Institute for the Future of Work, Imperial College London and Warwick Business School, is researching the impacts of automation on work and wellbeing and how they are differently distributed between socio-demographic groups and geographical communities in the UK. The review is supported by an expert Steering Group, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, and expected to run until 2024. 

While there are variations in the trends in flexible working by sector, occupation, qualifications, earnings and geography; what the datasets clearly highlight is how all forms of flexible working increased during COVID-19 and how many employees and employers want flexible working to continue in some form. 

What does flexible working mean for rural areas? According to the Statistical Digest of Rural England, in 2020 there were 1,166,000 home workers in rural areas, accounting for 25% of all workers living in rural areas. This compares to 3,712,000 home workers in urban areas (16% of all workers living in urban areas). While the rate of home working increased across all areas between 2006 and 2020, the highest increase was in rural hamlets and dispersed areas (at 6.1%) and the lowest increase in urban areas (at 5.2%). There are some sectoral differences – with rural areas having higher proportions of home workers in agriculture, forestry and fishing (7.3% difference in favour of rural areas). What factors influence an employees or employers ability to work flexibly in rural areas? I offer two points. 

Firstly, connectivity. According to the Statistical Digest, in 2020 the average broadband speeds in rural areas was 54 Mbit/s compared with 81 Mbit/s in predominantly urban areas. This variation is because there is less superfast broadband in rural areas and because rural businesses are typically further away from cabinets, with long copper line connections, leading to slower performance. In 2020, 0.9% of premises in predominantly rural areas were not able to access a broadband service with a download speed of 10 Mbit/s and upload speed of at least 1 Mbit/s compared to 0.3% of premises in predominantly urban areas. Superfast broadband is available for 92% of premises in predominantly rural areas compared to 97% in predominantly urban areas.

Ofcom found the demand for data continues to grow – with average monthly data volumes across fixed and mobile connections increasing in 2021. The average consumption per data user on mobile increased by 24% to 5.6GB per month. While mobile phone take up is close to universal [with 98% of homes reporting having one or more mobile phone devices], 61.8% of premises in mainly rural areas had indoor 4G coverage from all operators, while 2.4% had no coverage. The Government has set two targets for increasing mobile coverage by 2030: that 4G mobile coverage is available nationwide, and that the majority of the public has access to a 5G signal. The Shared Rural Network (SRN) is an agreement between Government and the mobile industry to improve rural mobile coverage to 2025 – with a focus on filling ‘partial not spots’ and investing in new masts in ‘total not spots’.     

A study in the United States found that spreading broadband to rural counties encouraged the formation of new local businesses—but only for the least remote areas. Proximity to a city was still a vital driver of company formation, even where new technology to facilitate remote working was present. Similarly, a UK study found that broadband did more to stimulate urban economies than rural ones, when all other factors were accounted for — leading researchers to suggest that digital contacts do not fully replace real-life ones. More positively, there is evidence that expanding broadband into a location has a positive impact on women’s participation in the labour market. And crucially, there is evidence from some studies that providing broadband to a local area might encourage suitably skilled people to move to it. 

While the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the Rural Powerhouse continues to caution how slow broadband connectivity and poor 4G and 5G mobile infrastructure is holding rural areas back; and despite various public and community initiatives underway to connect more rural communities; delivering digital connectivity is vital for people living in rural areas to work flexibly.     

Secondly, distance. According to the Statistical Digest, the distance travelled by car decreased by 5% (or 462 miles)  per person, per year, in rural villages, hamlets and isolated dwellings between 2010/2011 and 2018/2019. This was followed by a further decrease of 3,265 miles per person per year in 2020. There have also been decreases in the average trip length for all areas between 2010/2011 and 2020: rural village, hamlet and isolated dwelling saw a 27% decrease (from 10.1 miles to 7.9 miles); while rural town and fringe saw a 29% decrease (from 8.5 miles to 6.6 miles). This compares to a 17% decrease in urban with city and town (from 6.8 miles to 5.8 miles). In 2020 those living in rural areas travelled more miles for all purposes compared to their urban counterparts. However, the differences in commuting between rural and urban areas appeared minor: with 19% of travel attributed to commuting in urban areas and 18% in rural areas. In 2019, for people living in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting, average minimum car journey times to places with 5,000 or more jobs was 50 minutes and some rural residents did not have access to centres of employment with over 5,000 jobs within an hour’s travel by car.

More recently, road traffic estimates published by the Department for Transport suggest traffic in 2021 was 12.1% lower compared to 2019 pre-pandemic levels. However, 297.6 billion vehicle miles were driven on Great Britain’s roads in 2021, an increase of 11.9% compared to 2020. Between 2019 and 2021 the reduction in road traffic for rural roads was higher than for urban roads (-12.9% reduction in rural areas compared to -10.9% in urban areas). The growth in road traffic in 2020-2021 has also been higher in rural areas compared to urban areas – with 184.5 billion vehicle miles on rural roads in 2021 (an increase of 12.8%) compared to 113.0% (or 10.5%) on urban roads. 

It is clear that some employees want the ability to work flexibly going forward – and one that allows them to spend part of their week working remotely and part in the office. Academic studies have found that people working from home in rural areas, on average, accept 5% longer commuting times; and that for every additional 8 hours of working from home there is a 3.5% increase in commuting time. 

Other researchers have found residents living in a village with more accessible markets, higher roads, and higher building density travel a shorter distance and emit less CO2. Meanwhile, residents living in the village with centralised living style and higher transit and destination accessibility travel less frequently but emit more CO2. According to transport and environment statistics from the DfT, CO2 emissions from transport are unevenly distributed throughout the UK. While average transport emissions for a UK local authority in 2020 were 281 kilotonnnes of CO2, high levels of emissions from transport were seen in urban areas such as Leeds and Birmingham (similar to pre-pandemic trends, despite 17% and 18% declines in transport emissions respectively), as well as rural areas like Cornwall.  

 A report on the spatial implications of remote working in Wales recommended that in locations where the density of remote workers is low, and the distance to workspaces longer, ‘pop up coworking and information coworking groups could be a means to support the development of a community of professional coworkers’. However, a European study on rural coworking spaces has suggested they are mainly used for networking, socialising and education and less for traditional distance work to avoid commuting. More recently, an economic impact study by IWG and Arup highlighted how rural and suburban areas in the UK could benefits from some £327 million a year as a result of investment in flexible office and coworking spaces for hybrid workers. They also estimate that 4,000 new jobs could be created for people to run these rural workspaces. In the United States, research suggests rural areas with a good mix of amenities and low cost of living, even if far from an urban area, stand to benefit from the spread of remote and hybrid work arrangements.  

For flexible workers in rural areas, we need to ensure travel is practical, affordable and sustainable – alongside greater consideration of work spaces and the creation of rural-rural and rural-urban connections.  

Since COVID-19 there has been a debate around whether the rapid rise in flexible working would affect where people live. Some argued that these effects would be temporary and localised, while others that these work patterns would have significant long-term effects. While some indicators show that demand for flexible working remains high, there is also emerging evidence on the vulnerability of flexible and hybrid workers amid an economic downturn and recession. For example, in the United States, Lyft (a ride-sharing app) made 13% of its workforce (some 683 people) redundant. 298 of these workers volunteered their working patterns to Layoffs – 138 listed remote working and 135 listed hybrid working as their preferred way of working. Will we see a reversal in the trend of flexible working and people returning to the workplace? However, at the current time, with a series of strikes and industrial action affecting multiple sectors of the economy continuing, the CIPD has listed alternative arrangements for employees unable to travel into the workplace – including homeworking, hybrid working and flexible working. If the ‘right to have’ flexible working becomes the default position in the UK, what future opportunities and challenges does this present for rural areas? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services, a Warm Hubs scheme and the creation of a new community orchard. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

justice

What does the unification of probation services mean for rural areas? 

More than 200,000 are people under the supervision of probation services at any one time. Back in 2019 the Secretary of State for Justice announced a new model for probation services in England and Wales. Since June 2021, all sentence management for low, medium and high-risk offenders has been carried out by a national Probation Service. Where does this model come from, and what does it mean for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is the Probation Service? The origins of the Probation Service can be traced back to Frederic Rainer, a volunteer with the Church of England Temperance Society (CETS) whom, in the late nineteenth century, wrote to the Society of his concerns about the lack of help for those who came before the courts. He sent a donation of five shillings towards a fund for practical rescue work in the police courts. In response, the CETS appointed two missionaries to work from Southwark Court with the initial aim of reclaiming drunkards. This funding informed the development of the London Police Courts Mission (LPCM) whose missionaries worked with magistrates to develop a system of releasing offenders on the condition that they kept in touch with a missionary and accepted guidance from them. 

While the Probation of First Time Offenders Act, passed in 1886, allowed courts around the country to follow the LPCM model; it was the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 that gave these missionaries the status of ‘officers of the court’ and latterly probation officers. Under the 1907 Act Magistrates Courts were able to appoint probation officers, paid for by Local Authorities. Probation officers were given a duty to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ offenders whom the courts did not believe fitted imprisonment on account of their age, character or antecedents. 

In 1909 the Departmental Committee of the Home Office reviewed the probation system created by the Act. The Committee described how the new system was dependent upon the person and character of the probation officer: ‘It is clear that personality is everything. The probation officer must be a picked man or woman, endowed not only with intelligence and zeal, but in a high degree, with sympathy, tact and firmness…Probation is what the officer makes it’ (paragraph 28). 

A Departmental Committee looking at the conditions of service of probation officers in 1922 highlighted the prominent role some probation officers were playing in the court system in some areas, and how other areas had taken no such steps to appoint probation officers. This led to the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which retained a local basis to probation but also allowed for the formation of larger units of administration known as Combined Probation Areas.

During the First World War juvenile crime increased and the Home Office decided that probation work should move from philanthropic bodies and local magistrates to the state. Indeed, a Departmental Committee report in 1936 indicated how the Probation Service was rapidly developing and called for the Home office to accept greater responsibility for the general administration, supervision and direction of the probation service. A further Departmental Committee [known as the Morison Committee] looked at the recruitment and training, organisation, administration, and the duties of probation officers as well as their pay and conditions of service. On the one hand, the Committee recognised the professional standing of the probation service and the consolidation of probation areas that had taken place. On the other hand, the Committee highlighted the rapid growth in the size of the probation service and the need to ensure minimum standards and training for all entrants. 

In 1938 the Home Office officially assumed control of the Probation Service and sought about reforming probation work. Since then, the Probation Service has undergone numerous reforms. The Criminal Justice and Court Services 2000 Act renamed the probation service as the ‘National Probation Service for England and Wales’ and saw the Home Office provide all of the funding for the Service and the creation of 42 Local Probation Boards.  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defined the purposes of sentencing as being around punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation and protection of the public. The publication of Reducing Crime – Changing Lives led to the establishment of the National Offender Management Service and the introduction of more commissioning and competition in the provision of probation services. 

A new model for probation services? Back in 2010 the Government said it would introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending’. This led to a series of reforms under ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ which invited providers from the private and voluntary and community sectors to bid to deliver rehabilitation services. In 2014, these reforms led the National Probation Service to be divided into two: (1) The National Probation Service – which dealt with the most serious offenders and provided advice to the courts across 7 geographic areas; and (2) twenty-one Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) run by private, voluntary or community sector organisations that were contracted to deliver community sentences for lower risk offenders. CRCs operated under a Payment by Results (PbR) scheme which meant their payments were determined by the reductions in reoffending they achieved. CRCs had to provide ‘Through the Gate’ services, providing offenders with continuous support from custody into the community. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) produced five reports evaluating the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation. Overall, inspectors found CRCs were performing below expectations, with particular concerns raised around joint working between the NPS and CRCs; court work, staff training and morale; probation services for women; poor decision making in relation to community orders, suspended sentence supervision orders and post-sentence supervision; and how some CRCs were monitoring offenders by telephone. In 2018, the Justice Committee’s report into Transforming Rehabilitation concluded that it was “unconvinced that the TR model can ever deliver an effective or viable probation service”.  This was followed by reports from the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee in 2019 which flagged the rushed implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation and how it lacked value for money.    

In July 2018, the Government announced that probation contracts with CRCs would end 14-months early. It also released a consultation document on the future model of probation services. The Government published its response to the consultation in May 2019, which included an announcement that the supervision of all offenders would come back under a national probation service. The response also proposed the creation of an ‘Innovation Partner’ from the private or voluntary sector that would be responsible for the provision of unpaid work and accredited programmes. Provision was also made for voluntary sector organisations to be able to compete to deliver resettlement and rehabilitation interventions.

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) published a Draft Target Operating Model for Probation in March 2020. This confirmed that all responsibility for sentence management would move to the national probation service, which would be divided into 11 regions across England each with its own Regional Probation Director. The Innovation Partner component was removed from the model, with these services instead to be led by the national probation service. 

Known as the unification of probation services, the transition to this new operating model wherein 21 different models and ways of working were transferred into a national probation service has taken place amid COVID-19. HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMI Probation) carried out a thematic review in May 2021. This confirmed the unification was well underway but flagged the length of time it would take trainee probation officers to complete their training and reach full capacity; and how attracting suppliers for some services and regions was difficult with a risk that some specialist services would not be in place in time. 

In February 2021, the Ministry of Justice published the final version of the Target Operating Model and a set of National Standards to support the transition to a unified model. A Dynamic Framework will be used by the national probation service to commission services for individuals on community orders and those supervised on licence in the community. These services cover areas such as accommodation, education, employment, finance and wellbeing. In May 2021, the Government announced it had made an initial investment of £195 million to 26 organisations across England and Wales to provide support services. The Ministry of Justice also announced the replacement of Through the Gate (TTG) resettlement delivered by CRCs with an Enhanced TTG model (ETTG). The new resettlement model is intended to reduce the number of people who become involved in a prisoner’s journey and sees the introduction of prison based probation teams that specialise in short sentences.   

The unification approach was broadly welcomed by stakeholders – including HMI Probation which found enthusiasm and buy-in to the new delivery model from probation staff at all grades.  

The Probation Service we have today was created on 26 June 2021 and is part of HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS), part of the Ministry of Justice. The Probation Service is a statutory criminal justice service that supervises offenders released into the community, while protecting the public. The Probation Service is responsible for sentence management in England and Wales, along with Accredited Programmes, Unpaid Work, and Structured Interventions. It has an overall priority ‘to protect the public by the effective rehabilitation of offenders, by reducing the causes which contribute to offending and enabling offenders to turn their lives around’. The Probation Service is organised under a regional structure, with 12 regions in England and Wales each overseen by a Regional Probation Director. 

What does this model mean for rural communities? Prior to unificationHMI Probation drew attention to a ‘two-tier and fragmented’ service under Transforming Rehabilitation: ‘Most CRCs are struggling…Delivering probation services is more difficult than first appears, particularly in prisons and rural areas. There have been serious setbacks…[In a rural area] the new CRC aimed to adopt a more decentralised model, to better engage those under supervision, but it quickly proved unaffordable…[with] services were being delivered from cavernous but sparsely-occupied offices’. 

The new Target Operating Model for probation services includes ‘an aspiration that travel time for supervised individuals to attend a contact meeting should not exceed 60 minutes each way. Research has shown that individuals are more likely to attend and comply when their journey time is reasonable and not costly…It is recognised that 60 minutes will be challenging in some rural areas and that achievement of this ambition is unlikely for all’ (page 64).  

HMI Probation collects data on caseloads, workloads and staffing levels in probation services. The 2021-2022 research & analysis bulletin highlighted probation staff abilities to manage caseloads, including when ‘covering large rural areas’ (page 22). 

Reducing Reoffending Plans describe the public facing activities that HMPPS is prioritising to reduce reoffending. For the period 2022-2025, while the South West, West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humber all describe having a mix of urban and rural communities, it is only the  East of England Plan that highlights ‘opportunities to invest further in meeting the specific needs of its probation cohort’, including ‘supporting those in rural locations’ (page14). 

In policy terms, it is clear that rural probation work has received little attention. There is also limited academic literature. One study highlighted the autonomy and responsibility that probation staff enjoy in rural work, how there are more opportunities to get involved in community organisations but also a lack of anonymity with probation staff often find themselves working alone. In Northern Ireland, a study looking at how COVID-19 impacted upon probation practice, highlighted how offenders in rural areas reported difficulties in accessing local services and in some cases the only contact they received on any given day was from probation. Probation officers further reported having the added responsibility of trying to ensure that vulnerable service users had basic necessities during the immediacy of the pandemic. 

Probation services should be accessible to all – regardless of whether someone lives in a rural or an urban area. While the accessibility of services in rural areas has featured heavily in some public policy areas (e.g. health, economy); in the context of probation services, rurality has often been overlooked. The Target Operating Model indicates how parity of accessibility in rural areas is ambitious, while at a regional level rural provision can be deemed unaffordable. The reality is that offenders in rural areas may receive less face-to-face support, and that opportunities to enhance public protection in rural communities can be lost. Accessibility is not just about geography, but also factors such as quality, availability and choice. It is also linked to wider policy arenas such as digital connectivity, public transport, housing, training and skills and health. 

As far back as 1909 the pivotal role of probation officers in supervising offenders and supporting communities was recognised. Today, many probation staff working in rural areas go above and beyond.  How can the unification of services and interventions better meet the needs of offenders in rural places and better protect rural communities?  

Where next? In April 2022 a radio 4 documentary revealed how, since 2014, more than 500 serious further offences have been committed by a person subject to probation supervision. While many of the harrowing examples shared during the programme took place under Transforming Rehabilitation, it has reignited a debate about ensuring the Probation Service has the capacity to protect the public. Indeed,    Napo, the trade union and professional association representing workers in the Probation Service and Family Courts, has been calling for proper investment in the Probation Service; addressing staff shortages, excessive workloads and paying its staff a proper rate for the work they undertake to keep the public safe. This is part of wider calls not only for the probation system to be properly funded, but for unification to remain in place for decades rather than being subjected to reform every few months or years.  

And yet, at his Lord Chancellor swearing-in speech on 29 September 2022, Brandon Lewis MP said “I also want to explore options for reforming the Probation Service, which is vital in steering prison leavers towards better futures. And I am determined to make public protection the overriding factor in parole decisions…I look forward to working with you all as we each play our part in the justice system – to cherish and protect the ideals on which it was built and to carry on building it around the people who are using it every day”.  What does this mean for the unification of probation services and current operating model in rural areas? Watch this space. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently evaluating a support programme for patients waiting to receive NHS and local government services; and a Warm Hubs scheme. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

From survival to revival: how can we regenerate our high streets?

From survival to revival: how can we regenerate our high streets?

Pre COVID-19 some high streets were already struggling with 1 in 10 units vacant and declining footfall. As part of measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19, many non-essential shops were closed for long periods. Alongside this, changes in consumer behaviour resulting from reduced socialising and travel have had a big impact on our high streets and retailers. This is all prompting a wide-ranging and difficult rethink about what the purpose of our towns will be in the future. What might this mean for rural settlements? Jessica Sellick investigates.   

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The future of town centres and high streets has long been a matter of concern. This briefing highlights some of the key trends and challenges they face, how Government policy and investment has been supporting them, some suggestions from think-tanks about how to revive them, and what this all means for rural settlements going forward. 

What are the trends and challenges facing our high streets?  

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2018 there were 4.4 million people employed on high streets, representing 14% of all employment: with 22% employed in retail, 15% in accommodation and food services, 13% in health, education and public administration, and ‘other industries’ accounting for the remaining 49%. Using figures compiled before the pandemic, the Grimsey Review 2020 found: 

  • Retail accounted for 5% of GDP.
  • 18% of retail businesses had negative balance sheets with a shortfall of £2.2 billion. 107 had failed since the start of 2018, affecting some 126,000 jobs and 5,700 shop premises. 
  • Pubs and restaurants accounted for 5% of GDP but employed 3.2 million workers. 59% of operators were at risk of significant failure and 27% had negative balance sheets with a combined shortfall of £2 billion. 
  • There was a 42% drop in retail property investment between 2014 and 2018. Retail property investment totalled £200 million in the first half of 2019. There was a 78% decline in shopping centre investment between 2014 and 2018. 

In 2019, ONS and Ordnance Survey (OS) collaborated to identify the physical geography of high streets for the first time – comparing trends on the high street with those in non-high street areas at a regional level. During COVID-19, ONS and OS have sought to provide analysis on the businesses, employment and people living near high streets. Around one-third of addresses on the high street in Great Britain in 2020 belonged to retail shops. More than half of the addresses were residential. In most regions, 10% of addresses were offices and around 2-3% leisure or community facilities. While these figures are similar to 2019, in 2020 there was a slight [1-2%] increase in the proportion of residential addresses, and a similar decrease in the proportion of retail addresses. 

The figures on shopping centre investment and physical locations highlight how the retailers with a presence on our high streets are changing. John Lewis, for example, which has often anchored shopping malls and town centres, is closing 16 standalone stores and opening ‘mini John Lewis’ stores inside Waitrose supermarkets – intending all 331 supermarkets to have a ‘mini’ store within them over the next 12-18 months.  John Lewis expects 70% of their sales to be made online by 2025. Other chains – such as Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Wallis, Topshop, Topman and Miss Selfridge – have been bought by online fashion retailers and disappeared from our high streets altogether. 

For some retailers, the experience of going into one of their shops has been central to their appeal. Whether this personal, caring, customer service ethos can be translated online remains unclear. Similarly, retailers are carefully considering whether, how, and when to invest in physical stores with no guarantee of a decent return. When Woolworths was dissolved [I was very fond of the Ladybird collection and the pic n mix sweets] some of its shops remained unoccupied more than 12 years later.

Figures show how retail sales had been increasing steadily for a number of years prior to COVID-19. However, online sales had been making up an increasingly large percentage of these sales. During COVID-19 statistics reveal how retail sales dropped dramatically – while the proportion of those sales happening online saw a similarly large increase. Although these trends started to return to normal as initial lockdown restrictions were eased, business recovery has not been consistent across all types of shop. Retail sales show that food stores have maintained a steady level of sales throughout the pandemic compared to clothing shops which were below their pre-lockdown level in October 2020. Clothing was the only sector where the increase in online sales did not compensate for the reduction in in-store sales – leading to an overall decline of 14% in the value of clothing sales in October 2020 compared to February 2020.  

According to a report from McKinsey & Company, fashion companies’ profits declined by approximately 90% in 2020, after a 4% rise in 2019. Even in a scenario where COVID-19 is relatively contained during 2021, it is not expected that the fashion industry will return to 2019 levels of activity until at least the second half of 2022. Figures from Oxford Economics for The British Fashion Council (BFC) estimate that some 240,000 direct jobs will be lost in the UK fashion industry as a result of the pandemic; rising to 350,000 job losses if the supply chain and related consumer spending are also included. As some customers do more of their shopping online, jobs in warehouses are increasing as jobs in stores decrease. 

In banking, many lenders are reducing hours or closing high street branches. Which?’s bank closure tool has been tracking the decline in physical branches since 2015. This shows 4,299 branches have closed since January 2015, a rate of around 50 per month. In the first three-months of 2021, the number of bank closures planned for the year outstripped those in 2020. Wentworth and Dearne in Yorkshire is the first parliamentary constituency to lose all of its branches. By the end of 2021 it will be joined by Sheffield Hallam, Bradford South, Warrington North and Erith and Thameshead; with a further 20 constituencies down to their last branch. In August 2021, the Treasury Select Committee published correspondence from high street banks on branch closures. Banks were asked to outline their current number of branches, the number of ‘last in town’ branches, their plans to maintain branches, the factors considered when closing a branch and details of the support provided to customers when a branch is closed. Commenting on the responses, Rt. Hon. Mel Stride MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “while it is encouraging that the high street banks have engaged so positively with the Committee, we note that there are over 200 ‘last in town’ bank branches across the country. We are concerned that, should these close, vital access to cash and banking services will be out of reach for many communities. The Committee will continue to monitor the impact of bank branch closures on access to cash as part of our broader work.”

A number of banks have signed up to the Access to Banking Standard, and in September 2020 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published guidance setting out what banks are expected to do when deciding to reduce the number of physical branches or free-to-use ATMs. While COVID-19 has given people a glimpse into the convenience of digital banking, there are still customers that prefer face-to-face contact at a branch and they continue to be important in rural areas. Yet around 10% of the rural population now lives at least 10 miles away from their bank’s nearest branch. In a report on access to cash in rural areas, Professor Russel Griggs made an argument for improving bank services in the Post Office and highlighted the rural convenience store (with or without a post office) as a critical piece of infrastructure. More recently, there have been calls for Government to legislate to require the provision of physical banking services. 

The challenges facing our high streets are not confined to retailers, banks, businesses and consumers. Since the mid-2010s some Local Authorities have been building up portfolios of commercial property, putting the profits that are generated into their revenue budgets. Local Authorities are legally required to set balanced budgets, and there are risks in some of their commercialisation strategies – not least what happens if commercial property values and market rental values fall. COVID-19 is having a substantial impact on rent collections and this emphasises the need for Councils to ensure their commercial investment strategies are sufficiently diversified. 

How is Government investing in our high streets and town centres? 

A report from the Housing Communities and Local Government Committee in February 2019 identified online shopping as the main structural change to people’s shopping habits – causing a decline in the high street. They highlighted four systemic issues that were preventing high streets from adapting to these pressures: 

  • Too much retail space – within high streets and in terms of the size of some individual shops. 
  • Fragmented ownership – where so many people own different parts of the high street, coming up with a cohesive response becomes difficult. 
  • High fixed costs – namely business rates and rent. 
  • High and inflexible rates of taxation that do not affect online retailers in the same way. 

In December 2020 MHCLG launched a consultation on change of use of permitted development rights that attempts to address some of these issues by giving businesses greater flexibility ‘to respond rapidly to changing market demands’. Where there is a surplus of retail floorspace, Government wants quality residential developments to diversify and support the high street. It also wants to see the effective use of existing commercial buildings, bringing additional footfall from new residents, and assisting in the wider regeneration of town centre and other locations.

As high streets and town centres have felt the effects of structural changes, further highlighted by COVID-19, Government has announced a range of measure to support them become thriving and vibrant hubs where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time. These interventions include: 

  • The Future High Streets Fund: launched in December 2018 and initially worth £675 million, with funding awarded to local areas using a competitive bidding process. Each successful area receives £25 million to spend on capital projects such as improving transport to town centres, congestion relief, new housing or office space, or turning vacant retail units into residential units. 
  • The Stronger Towns Fund: launched in March 2019, with £1 billion to be awarded on a needs-based formula and £600 million through a competitive bidding process. 100 towns were invited to bid for up to £25 million each. The funding runs until 2026, with £241 million made available in 2020-2021. 
  • High Street Taskforce: launched in July 2019, it supports towns shortlisted in the Future High Streets Fund competition through the process of drawing up plans for redevelopment. The Taskforce has published a Review of High Street Footfall between July 2019 and June 2020. This collated data from 154 locations in England and included four case study locations: Manchester, Ashford, Cleethorpes and Windsor. This found footfall volumes fell by 89.86% during the height of lockdown (March 2020) – with district centres seeing a footfall drop of 34.5%. 
  • High Streets Heritage Action Zones: part of the Future High Streets Fund has been allocated to support high streets in conservation areas. The fund is administered by Historic England and can be used to improve the physical realm around the high street and to support activities that encourage people to engage with heritage. 
  • Levelling Up Fund: this £4.8 billion fund will support town centre and high street regeneration, local transport projects, and cultural and heritage assets.
  • The UK Community Renewal Fund: this aims to support people and communities most in need across the UK to pilot programmes and new approaches and will invest in skills, community and place, local business, and supporting people into employment. The Fund will also provide capacity funding to help places prepare for the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.  
  • The Community Ownership Fund: this £150 million fund is intended to ensure communities can support and continue benefitting from the local facilities, assets and amenities that are most important to them. 
  • The Welcome Back Fund: £56 million of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) has been allocated to support the safe return to high streets and help build back better from the pandemic. This builds upon the £50 million Reopening High Streets Safely Fund (RHSSF) allocated to Local Authorities in 2020. 
  • County Deals were announced by the Prime Minister in July 2021. The Deals are intended to take devolution beyond the largest cities, offering the rest of England the same powers metro mayors have. Further detail will be set out in the Levelling Up White Paper due to be published in late 2021. 

It is worth noting that the Government has already created a number of institutional options which Local Authorities and others can use to revitalise town centres – such as Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and Neighbourhood Forums. 

The 2021 Budget announced a new study would be undertaken by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) looking at how to maximise the benefits of infrastructure policy and investment for towns in England.

In June 2021 MHCLG published its Build Back High Streets Strategy, setting out the Government’s long-term plan to support the evolution of high streets. The Strategy is intended to help every part of the country achieve the same: ‘vibrant high streets where communities are at the heart of place-making; where a mix of commercial and residential uses complement each other; and where businesses large and small feel welcome’. The Strategy focuses on five priorities: (i) breathing new life into empty buildings, (ii) supporting high street businesses, (iii) improving the public realm, (iv) creating safe and clean spaces, and (v) celebrating pride in local communities. These priorities are expected to generate more trade and investment on high streets. Whilst this may lead high streets to look different than in recent years, the Government believes that they will increase footfall and activity that is rooted in community pride. 

While there is a recognition amongst policy and decision makers that town centres and high streets need investment and regenerating; there is also a sense that the number of initiatives underway, and the processes in place to access them, are all-too-often centralised, short-term and dis-jointed. Some Local Authorities have struggled to meet bid deadlines, applicants that have successfully bid often find they receive less funding than requested, and the focus sometimes reverts to shovel-ready projects and a bid-by-bid approach with some quick wins rather than taking a longer-term place-shaping approach. 

A new life for our high streets and town centres? 

COVID-19 is seen as both exacerbating the challenges many high streets were already facing but also a means to revive them in the aftermath. Various think tanks, charities and consultancies have published a range of studies looking at how to repurpose and reinvigorate places.    

The Centre for Cities, for example, has a recovery tracker which shows how quickly high streets in cities and towns are returning to their previous levels of activity and the drivers behind it. You can select a settlement and see a series of data and tables before lockdown and from now. The analysis also includes tables summarising the top 10 and bottom 10 settlements for footfall and spend. 

In the future of towns report, Demos developed a new typology of towns and analysed the challenges facing different town types. This reveals how different towns have different needs, and that people living in towns can be divided rather than united behind a clear vision of what they want their town to look like. The report contains a number of recommendations around having participatory conversations about the future of the high street, informed by relevant economic analysis. Similarly, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) published a research paper in December 2020 analysing public views. This also found that COVID-19 was acting as a catalyst for change and the three main issues were affecting high streets: business rates, access and the goods and services offered in shops. Under the strapline ‘survival and revival’, a report by Public First for ABF/Primark (also published in December 2020) found people feel a real civic pride in their towns – but that pride is dented when their towns are in decline; and many people have never heard the term ‘levelling up’ but they did like to idea behind it of leveraging funding into town centres to improve them.  

Alongside retail and regeneration,  the Social Market Foundation and stakeholders have explored scope for a new role for town and city centres: to improve public health. This includes the provision of green spaces, walkable ‘20 minute’ neighbourhoods, and accommodation which supports people to be independent and healthier in their older age.  Sustrans highlights the tension that often exists between the role of a high street as a destination and as a place for movement for people – and makes recommendations around reprioritising high streets as places for people, with more space, use and equitable access. The New Economics Foundation (NEF) has called for a pilot scheme of new self-employment centres, modelled on Sure Start children’s centres, which would provide free coworking and meeting spaces and face-to-face tailored advice services. 

What does this mean for rural settlements?  

In August 2021, the Rural Services Network (RSN) published a rural lens review into the Government’s Build Back Better High Streets Strategy. As part of calls for a cross governmental department Rural Strategy, the RSN highlights how: 

  • The plan lacks any mention of the wider economic and social issues faced by people, businesses and communities in rural areas – and the plan has not been rural proofed. 
  • The importance of high streets in historic market towns to the rural tourism offer – and how this is not particularly recognised. 
  • Some of the content is a re-statement of pandemic support already announced by Government – no new money is detailed. 
  • It does not recognise the financial or capacity constraints facing rural Local Authorities. 

Also in August 2021, the RSN published a report ‘towards the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which reveals how only 18 rural districts were placed on the Government’s priority list of 123 local authorities for its Levelling Up Fund. Researchers found that number should have been as high as 27 if low standards of living in rural communities had been properly accounted for. 

While retail is an important part of the town centre mix, our high streets are also focal points for local identity, community pride, heritage and values. A working paper from the LSE for Power to Change, for example, presented case studies of community businesses on the high street and how these contribute to high street regeneration. The case studies included the old library in Bodmin, Midsteeple quarter in Dumfries, Hebden Bridge town centre, Made in Ashford, Radcliffe market hall in Bury and the ultimate picture palace in Oxford. The paper identified the following benefits of community businesses: increasing the diversity of high street users, building resilience and recovery, building links with other local businesses, and shaping a vision for the high street. The paper highlights the role of Local Authorities in working with communities and businesses around asset transfers, subsidised leases and service delivery. 

The Community Access to Cash Pilots are supporting eight communities across the UK to trial and test scalable solutions to help keep cash sustainable. The initiative involves Botton Village (North Yorkshire), Burslem (Stoke-on-Trent), Cambuslang (Lanarkshire), Denny (Falkirk), Hay-on-Wye (Powys), Lulworth Camp (Dorset), Rochford (Essex) and Milisle (Northern Ireland). The Hubs offer a counter service run by the Post Office, alongside face-to-face access to Community Bankers representing those banks with the most customers in the area. In August 2021, the Access to Cash Action Group announced the initiative would be extended until at least April 2023, and  that ‘cashback without purchase’ would be rapidly rolled out to thousands of smaller shops. 

Research by Alvarez & Marsal and Retail Economics suggests 1 in 4 of us expect to permanently change our shopping habits in favour of online retail, even once the pandemic ends. According to a YouGov poll, 1 in 5 workers wants to work from home permanently after the pandemic, with a further two-fifths wanting to work from home some of the time – leading to reduced demand for office space in towns. What do these trends mean for rural settlements? 

While the high street decline and the succession of programmes and funding to reinvent them has been extensively documented, there has been less focus on what this means for rural places. In order to more fully consider this, we need to build our evidence base to gain a better understanding of how rural settlements function, their socio-economic characteristics, and current Government investment in them [i.e., mapping the allocations for all the funding streams described above; reviewing outcomes from previous investments such as the Portas Pilots]. If we are to ensure that they continue to appeal as places to live, work and enjoy – and if we truly want to build back better – rural residents, businesses, Town and Parish Councils and Local Authorities are at the heart of developing better solutions to local challenges and opportunities. Will the Levelling Up White Paper support them to do this? Watch this space. 

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. John Hann from Winchester for drawing my attention to a series of articles on the financial health of Local Authorities, the future of retail, and the need for town centres to find a new purpose.  

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; and evaluating two employability programmes helping people furthest from the labour market. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

What are the implications of COVID-19 and Brexit for the post-millennial generation?

What are the implications of COVID-19 and Brexit for the post-millennial generation?

New research published by The National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs (NFYFC) reveals how young people are pessimistic about future opportunities to live and work in rural areas and believe the pandemic will continue to affect their prospects in the long-term. What needs to be done to support young people, now and in the years ahead, to ensure they can have a stake in the countryside? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states that a child ‘means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier’. In England, The Children Act 1989, makes a number of orders relating to the welfare of children, defining a child (under Section 105) as ‘a person under the age of 18’. Prior to that, back in 1933 the Children and Young Persons Act imposed criminal liability for the abandonment, neglect or ill-treatment of any child under 16 years of age by anyone over 16 years of age. 

In practice, there is no one understanding of children and/or young people shared by all agencies and bodies; and no set time or age in which a child necessarily moves to becoming a young adult and through to adulthood.  

In medicine, for example, the terms ‘children’ and ‘young people’ are used from birth until their 18th birthday – with the word children used to refer to younger children “who do not have the maturity and understanding to make important decisions for themselves” and young people to refer to “older or more experienced children who are more likely to be able to make these decisions for themselves”.  There is no specific age at which children’s services within the health system end, although generally children requiring continuing treatment transition to adult services between the ages of 16 and 18 years, depending on the service area, local factors and the individual. 

In education, a child can leave school on the last Friday of June if they will be aged 16 years by the end of the summer holidays – but they must stay in full-time education, start an apprenticeship or traineeship, or spend 20 hours a week or more working or volunteering while in part-time education or training.  

From aged 14 years a child can obtain a part time job involving ‘light work’ with some restrictions set over the number of hours and when the work can take place. A young adult can leave home without parental consent at the age of 18 years – although there are provisions contained within the Children’s Act for exceptional circumstances relating to residence coming to an end before or at aged 16 years.    

If a child has been ‘looked after’ by the Local Authority they are provided with a needs assessment and a pathway plan for leaving care that can finish when they are aged 21 years. For those children that go on to higher education, the Local Authority has a duty to assist them past the age of 21, to the extent that his or her welfare and educational and training needs requires it. 

A 17-year old can obtain a licence to drive a car, small goods vehicle and an agricultural tractor on the road but not a medium or heavy goods vehicle (where they need to be 18 years old) or large passenger vehicle (where they need to reach 21 years of age).  

These definitions are important – on the one hand illustrating how we make special protection and provision to children (sometimes while they are under or until they reach 16 years of age, 18 years of age, or beyond 18 years under some circumstances); on the other hand children and young people are often regarded as adults able to make and be responsible for their own decisions (e.g. driving, employment). Crucially, some of these definitions determine what support a child/young person is entitled to receive and from whom and when. 

Age is also important as it is one of the predictors of differences in attitudes and behaviours. ‘Generations’ are one means researchers use to group age cohorts; with each cohort typically spanning people born over a 15-20-year time period. The Pew Research Center, for example, defines younger cohorts as Millennials (anyone born between 1981 and 1996 and aged 24-39 years in 2020) and ‘post millennials’ or Generation Z (people born between 1997 and 2012, currently aged 8-23 years in 2020). Generational cohorts provide a means for researchers to explore how different formative experiences (e.g. pandemics, recessions) interact with the life cycle and shape their view of the world over the longer-term.  For example, the Centre for Longitudinal Studies at University College London has been undertaking a National Child Development Study since 1958, with cohort members followed up ten times since the study began, with the next sweep due to take place in 2020 – 2021 when the participants will be in their early sixties. The Centre is using participants from this study and four other studies to carry out a national longitudinal study on COVID-19.  Similarly, Generation Scotland, based at the University of Edinburgh, is carrying out a  RuralCovidLife survey to better understand how COVID-19 measures are affecting the health and wellbeing of people in rural Scottish communities – the survey complements a longitudinal health and wellbeing study involving 7,000 families since 2006. 

Engaging and empowering young people through research is important – for it reveals important insights about their influences, aspirations and outcomes as they move through childhood and adulthood. It also provides an evidence base to guide policy makers – providing them with valuable data on a range of issues, their causes, and the effectiveness of different interventions.  

What do post millennial young people think about growing up in the countryside? In June 2020, the National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs (NFYFC) launched a survey, ‘Your Post-Brexit Rural Future’. Funded by Defra and led by the NFYFC and Rose Regeneration, the survey provided young people living and working in rural areas, next generation farmers and land managers with an opportunity to share their views on living and working in the countryside, now and into the future.  Input to the survey questions was kindly provided by English Rural, AHDB, and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT). 528 young people responded to the survey, offering their views on housing, services, farming, skills, COVID-19 and the future. 

To build on the survey findings Rose Regeneration carried out 40 follow-up telephone interviews with young farmers. During the lockdown period March-June 2020, young farmers highlighted the impact of COVID-19 on their farm businesses; with some indicating how they had struggled to recruit and/or retain workers, received no income or reduced income from farm diversification activities (e.g. closure of café/restaurant, holiday lets, wedding venue), had been unable to undertake agricultural training, had been pushed to meet changing supermarket and consumer demands, and had to respond to more people walking in the countryside and not closing gates or keeping to designated footpaths. Young farmers also discussed the closure of some auction marts and the cancellation of agricultural shows which provide important outlets for them to meet each other and connect directly with the public.  

Young farmers provided some examples of how they have adapted to COVID-19 and mitigated some of its effects. These included: creating ‘farming bubbles’ by keeping the same staff together on shifts to work as a protective measure to help reduce the potential risk of transmission – and providing personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring social distancing. Other on-farm examples included ensuring vehicles are not shared by staff – and ensuring vehicle cleaning before and after each journey; increasing online and/or direct sales to consumers (e.g. farm shop, box schemes, roadside sales); piloting new diversification ideas (e.g. pick-your-own, mazes); and purchasing equipment and supplies online rather than visiting premises. Some farm businesses had furloughed staff involved in non-agricultural activities (e.g. hospitality, weddings/events). Young farmers were considering their options in recovering from COVID-19 which varied from looking to increase online sales through to pop up visitor facilities and attractions (e.g.  café, food stand, outdoor/countryside classroom), farm stays [converting agricultural buildings into visitor accommodation] and accessing online training opportunities.

During the lockdown period March-June 2020 Young Farmer Clubs used social media and provided support online/virtually so they could carry on with regular activities that could not happen face-to-face (e.g. meetings, event planning, competitions, rallies); raise awareness and run campaigns (e.g. mental health support, buy local-buy British); and deliver new social activities (e.g. stock judging, bale sculptures, virtual farm tours). 

The financial implications of COVID-19 on clubs were emphasised during many of the telephone discussions. These concerns covered three main areas: (1) the impact of a second peak/wave on the next financial year if social distancing measures are still in place or reintroduced; (2) members – particularly newer members – may not renew their membership if clubs are unable to offer regular face-to-face activities; and (3) Clubs may be unable to generate a surplus and donate money to local or national charities. While many young farmers described how they had benefitted from accessing their club through digital platforms; other members miss face-to-face activities and have struggled to engage with the virtual offer. In some instances, club Chairs made telephone calls to members and/or socially distanced visits. Since lockdown restrictions were eased from July 2020 in some areas, clubs have been trying to balancing online/virtual with restarting some face-to-face activities (in line with Government guidelines).

During COVID-19 Government identified farmers, farm workers and people in the food supply chain as ‘key workers.’ Young farmers suggested this had led the public to recognise the work they do in supplying the nation’s food: “farmers are key workers, but I don’t think a lot of recognition was given to farmers before COVID-19.” The majority of interviewees perceived COVID-19 as a short-term problem – with farming facing other threats/issues that have been neglected during the pandemic. These issues can be grouped into three themes: (i) Brexit – and the transition to a new Agricultural System; (ii) broadband and mobile connectivity; and (iii) climate change and the environment. Young people are thinking about the future and the implications of this bigger picture on their farm business, skills and future work: “young farmers are resilient, and innovative, and that’s why we’ll make the best of the situation.”

Overall, the findings of the research suggest: 

1. Young people want to have a stake in the countryside: they care about the community where they live and many take an active part in local organisations and activities (e.g. church, parish council, school, pub). Often growing up and spending many hours working on a farm means they already have a wealth of skills and experiences at a young age compared to their peers not growing up on a farm. 

2. Young people are a vital part of the social fabric of rural communities: this has become even more apparent during COVID-19 with many young farmers delivering medicines or groceries and phoning or visiting vulnerable residents for example.  

3…But they are pessimistic about the future: while many young people want to continue to live and work in the countryside, this research suggests they will only be able to do so if they remain on their family farm. Similarly, many young farmers believe that if they are to have a future in farming, they will need an off-farm income to supplement and sustain them. 

4. COVID-19 restrictions have had a big impact on young farmers and clubs: not being able to meet face-to-face and socialise has had a significant effect on the health and wellbeing of young farmers. Clubs are taking stock in looking at how they deliver activities virtually and in person and the support they need to do this.  

5. Young people are seeking information and advice – and some want more…they are more likely to talk about their mental health than their parents or grandparents. They want more information on housing and activities available for young people. Given the need to undertake further training and skills development [particularly higher-level courses/qualifications] accessing this information will also become increasingly important. 

6. Policy and decision makers need to ensure the voices of young farmers are heard: as future farming schemes are developed and introduced, listening and responding to feedback from young farmers will continue to be important. Defra also has a strategic role as rural champion across Government and can ensure some of the themes emerging from the research (e.g. housing, youth services and activities) are picked up by other relevant Government departments. 

These findings were discussed at a special panel debate held during National Young Farmers’ Week 2020. This current research and discussion builds on a survey carried out by the NFYFC in 2016 which sought to gather the ideas of young farmers for a future British Agricultural Policy. The findings covered six areas: negotiating a better deal for young farmers; future farm business culture; employment skills and training; farming regulations; building farm businesses; and farming subsidies. When asked ‘which do you feel it is most important for UK Government negotiators & legislators to focus on, and which do you feel it is most important for farming’s industry bodies to focus on?’, 79% of the 184 respondents stated that the UK Government should focus on controlling the costs of production and 78% stated that farming industry bodies should focus on consumer confidence. The survey found the two biggest barriers for young farmers wanting to start in or to remain in farming were around access to land and access to credit.  

Amid COVID-19 and Brexit these are uncertain times for children and young people wanting to live, grow up, learn, work and spend time in the countryside. On the one hand, there can be particular challenges for young farmers, particularly relating to  the time they may have to wait before they have the chance to farm in their own right (e.g. access to land, finance, succession planning), juggling paid work on the farms of others or off-farm, and balancing the demands of studying or training with paid work. On the other hand, their involvedness in farming, sometimes from a very early age, and their passion, means they already have a wealth of skills, knowledge and maturity not always seen in other cohorts of young people in the general population. With many longitudinal studies underway, what might research with young farmers tell us about the effectiveness of policy and industry interventions designed to support the industry post Brexit, and how to make a success of farming as a career? Watch this space.   

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). Her current work includes supporting health commissioners and providers to measure their response to COVID-19 and with future planning; working with 8 farm support groups across England on a Defra funded resilience programme; and helping 3 places to develop proposals for a Town Deal. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older and vulnerable people. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Universal Basic Income

What would a ‘basic income’ for rural residents look like?

‘Basic income’ is a tax-free, unconditional and non-contributory basic income automatically paid to people (weekly or monthly) irrespective of how much they earn or their work status. Interest in basic income is growing– with pilots in Spain, Italy, Finland, Kenya  and the Scottish Government supporting Local Authorities to explore a scheme. What does a basic income scheme in England look like and how would it work in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.  ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is basic income? Back in 1516 Thomas More published ‘utopia’, a book depicting a fictional island society. More described how every citizen on Utopia should be provided with some means of livelihood, so that nobody would become a thief first and then a corpse. Although a work of fiction dating back more than 500 years, More’s idea of providing everyone on the island with a universal basic income is now being discussed and tested across the world.  

Universal Basic Income (UBI), Citizen’s Income (CI) or Basic Income (BI) are terms often used interchangeably to refer to an unconditional and regular payment made to every citizen in a given territory or place regardless of means. Basic income has five characteristics: (1) periodic – it is paid at regular intervals; (2) cash payment – allowing those in receipt it to decide what they spend it on; (3) individual – paid to a person rather than a household; (4) universal – paid to all without being means tested; and (5) unconditional – provided without the requirement to work or demonstrate willingness to work. 

Variations to basic income include: (i) making ‘full’ or ‘partial’ payments according to whether a person’s needs are at, above, or below, a poverty line; and (ii) a preference for ‘universal basic services’ where instead of receiving a cash payment services such as education, health, care and transport are provided free for all. 

Why is interest in basic income growing? In recent years there has been increasing academic, policy, practitioner and media interest in basic income. This interest stems from: 

  • Increased support from a broad range of constituencies: from different political parties and Governments, through to NGOs, civil society, academics and think tanks – who are all concerned with looking at how we might distribute and share resources more fairly [for the common good].  
  • Concerns about inequality: the World Bank’s ‘changing wealth of nations’ tracked the wealth of 141 countries between 1995 and 2014. Their analysis shows that while global wealth had grown significantly over this period, per capita wealth declined or stagnated in more than two dozen countries in various income brackets. In the UK, in 2017-2018, 42% of all disposable household income went to the 20% of people with the highest household incomes, while 7% went to the lowest-income 20% (based on disposable income before housing costs had been deducted).
  • New patterns of work: anxiety about the effects that automation could have in workplaces – will robots take people’s jobs? Will this lead people to more flexible but less secure working patterns?   
  • Social protection: a view that some systems of social security have trapped people between benefits and poor quality low-paid work leading to economic insecurity. There is also a view that some welfare systems are leading to a culture of dependency on the one hand [reducing incentives to work and save] and failing to meet peoples’ needs on the other hand [e.g. poverty, skills, labour market changes]. There is a further view that more established welfare states spend too much on administering payments and that basic income would lead to efficiencies. 

These uncertainties around work, livelihoods and living standards amid ongoing social, economic and environmental changes have led momentum around the desirability and feasibility of basic income to build. 

Which countries have undertaken basic income pilots – and how have they been run?  While the idea of a minimum income guaranteed by the Government to its citizens can be traced back to the renaissance; more recent interest stems from the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. At this time policy makers believed negative income tax represented a simple and desirable alternative to existing programmes. The complex set of cash and in-kind benefits paid to certain categories of the population would be replaced with a single guaranteed income payment for all families that would gradually diminish as earnings increased. The scheme was piloted in New Jersey and Pennsylvania from 1968 to 1972 and involved 1,357 low income urban households. A rural experiment, in Iowa and North Carolina, was carried out between 1969 and 1973 with 809 low-income families. A third experiment, in Gary, Indiana, worked with 1,780 black and ethnic minority households. The largest experiment, involving 4,800 families, took place in Seattle and Denver from 1971 until 1982. The Seattle and Denver participants received more generous payments than the three other pilot cohorts, and the duration was extended from three to five years. All four pilots ended in 1982. 

The Alaska Permanent Fund (APFC) was established in 1982 to collect revenue from the state’s oil and mineral leases to fund an annual stipend to Alaskans. Residents register each year from January to March, with the stipend announced in September and payments typically made in October. The amount usually ranges from $1,000 to $2,000 per person ($4,000 to $8,000 for a family of four) and the majority of Alaska’s 740,000 residents receive it.

In February 2019 the state of California launched a basic income experiment. Over an 18-month period 130 adults living in Stockton’s lower-income neighbourhoods will receive a monthly payment of $500 on a pre-paid debit card. 

The Canadian Guaranteed Annual Income (GAI), known as Mincome, took place in Dauphin, Manitoba between 1974 and 1979. The experiment covered the city of Winnipeg and rural Manitoba with lower-income households in one of the sites selected assigned to one of seven treatment groups or the control group. The families in the treatment groups received an income guarantee – or minimum cash benefit – according to family size that was reduced by a specific amount (35, 50 or 75 cents) for every dollar they earned by working. 

Towards the end of the 1970s European countries began to discuss basic income. The most widely known experiment took place in Finland from January 2017 until December 2018 and provided 2,000 randomly selected unemployed people with a monthly payment of £490.  

Back in 2016, the Italian coastal city of Livorno introduced a basic income pilot that saw the city’s 100 poorest families receive €500 a month. In January 2017, they expanded the pilot to include a further 100 families.

Also in 2016, the Dutch city of Utrecht proposed a basic income trial entitled “Weten Wat Werkt” (Know What Works). Over a two-year period the proposed trial will divide 250 citizens into test groups. Each test group will receive different amounts under different conditions. One group, for example, will receive a total of €960 monthly with no additional conditions while another group will receive €150 on top of the original amount if they engage in community service or undertake voluntary work. 

Taking its name from a 1970s basic income pilot in Canada, B-MINCOME is a project running in Barcelona from 2017 until 2020. A guaranteed minimum income is being provided to supplement the income of residents in the most deprived parts of the city – with 1,000 households receiving payments on a trial basis. 

In September 2017 the Scottish Government announced it would support Local Authority areas to explore a basic income scheme – with £250,000 offered between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Following a feasibility study four Local Authority areas were selected for the pilot: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and North Ayrshire. The four local authority areas are undertaking research into the feasibility of a basic income pilot, supported by the Scottish Government and others, including NHS Health Scotland.  The Royal Society of Arts (RSA), for example, has been working in Fife to understand how a place-focused trial could operate and to model the potential economic impact. In a previous report on basic income the RSA proposed every adult in Scotland be given a basic annual income of £2,400, rising to £4,800. 

In September 2019 Professor Guy Standing published a report for the shadow chancellor of the exchequer setting out proposals for the next Government to implement a series of pilots across the UK. The recommendations include initially providing every adult in the UK with a weekly basic income of £48.00 (and a lower sum to children) with the payment changing over time as funding for the scheme builds up. Other organisations have suggested different models – from a partial/starter scheme through to a citizens’ wealth fund. The RSA has produced a toolkit amalgamating experiences from across the world to inform experiments in the UK.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has detailed how much a universal basic income programme would cost the UK Government under three scenarios: (1) available to all working age adults 16-64 years; (2) all adults over the age of 16 years; and (3) all households across the UK. Assuming the programme paid out to working age individuals between the ages of 16 and 64 years old [scenario 1] and the payment was equal to the income poverty line (60% of the median wage) the payment would be £16,320 per person. The total cost of the programme would be approximately £669.1 billion (roughly 83 per cent of UK public spending, or a little over one-third of UK GDP). This compares to the £283 billion spend on UK current social protection and personal social services for the period 2018-2019 (e.g. state spending on pensions, incapacity benefits, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, child benefits and social services). 

Between 2019 and 2022 basic income will be rolled out in Sikkim, India. This builds upon work carried out in in 2011 when the Indian Government and UNICEF launched two pilots to test the impact of basic income in eight villages in Madhya Pradesh. 

While other countries have not provided basic income per se, they have made cash payments to their citizens – Iran, for example, provides each citizen with $33 a month; and between 2007 and 2009 residents in two rural settlements in Namibia received $12 a month to help tackle malnutrition.  

Each of these countries has adopted a different model – from the level of payments made (how much and to whom) to where the funding comes from (and for how long). In some cases pilot schemes have been funded from direct taxation and the development of capital funds with dividends (North America) while in others from sources other than the earned income of citizens (e.g. oil in Alaska, aid in Namibia). Some schemes have ‘strings’ attached to them (e.g. a requirement for children to attend school) while in other instances basic income replaces existing state benefits and/or is targeted at lower income residents or to subsidise low-wage work. In other schemes a regular sum of money is paid to all citizens regardless of their circumstances. 

What are the results – does basic income work? For many these experiments and schemes herald a new way of thinking about the links between public/social services and income security. Proponents believe basic income offers an unconditional safety net that can help people out of poverty by giving them time to apply for jobs, learn new skills or obtain better paid work (tackling in-work poverty); support greater personal freedom, dignity and decision-making; and reform existing welfare and social security systems. Opponents argue that basic income is too expensive to implement (in some cases requiring much higher taxes), leads to an increase in unemployment in vulnerable groups and fails to substantively improve life circumstances (i.e., of individuals in insecure work and poor quality housing). 

What can we learn from experiments that have already taken place or are in train? 

Unfortunately the lessons from the experiments in the United States (negative income tax) and Canada (Mincome) in the 1970s were not gathered or disseminated. 

Preliminary results from Finland found little or no impact on the likelihood of recipients’ undertaking paid employment (i.e., no effects on employment or unemployment or income levels compared to a control group). The Finnish Government had hoped the experiment would lead to an increase in participation in paid work. However, the evaluation did find that people felt healthier and more optimistic about the future. In 2018 the Government decided not to renew the scheme and it ended. The final report on the experiment will be published in 2020.

In Ontario, a pilot running in 2016 was intended to help people living on low incomes better meet their basic needs, including improving their outcomes in food security, stress, mental health, healthcare usage, housing stability, education and employment. Some findings of the work have been shared – with recipients reporting that they could treat food as medicine, undertake voluntary work and were experiencing reduced stress in everyday life. However the Government announced in August 2018 that the research project would be ending. According to Lisa MacLeod, Minister of Children, Community and Social Services: “we have a broken social service system. A research project that helps less than four thousand people is not the answer and provides no hope to the nearly two million Ontarians who are trapped in the cycle of poverty,” 

The National Bureau of Economic Research’s (NBER) working paper on the labour market impacts of the Alaska Permanent Fund found that universal and permanent cash transfer does not decrease employment. Using data from the Current Population Survey and a synthetic control method, the NBER’s analysis showed that where the dividend had no effect on employment per se, it did increase levels of part-time working. 

Aggregating evidence from various schemes, What Works Scotland (WWS) produced a scoping review of ten basic income interventions (from some 28 published studies) in September 2018. WWS found evidence of labour market participation, health, education and a range of social and economic outcomes. For interventions carried out in the 1970s there were small reductions in labour market participation for male household heads and larger reductions for second earners and single parents. More recent studies have found little impact on labour force participation. A number of studies have reported on positive health outcomes (e.g. improved mental health and diet, reduced service use) and social outcomes (e.g. improved parenting, reduced offending). 

Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a policy paper on basic income policies with a view to researching innovative approaches to reduce health inequalities. Citing evidence across countries that insecurity surrounding income support status has adverse effects on people’s physical and mental health; the paper explores how providing basic income stability is both crisis-preventative and health-constitutive and fits with the WHO’s approach of providing universal policies across the whole gradient but implemented at a level and intensity that is proportionate to need.  

What about basic income in rural areas? 

While some basic income experiments have included rural areas, it was back in 2012 that an overarching proposal was published calling for a ‘rural basic income’ (RBI) to be introduced within the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Proponents of RBI argued it would reduce pressure on rural residents having to move and increase spending capacity in local areas. In recognising that experiments and pilots are important, the proposal argued that a small region does not resemble a complete national economy, therefore RBI should be implemented across the European Union at the same time by reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); giving direct payments to all residents living in rural areas, including farmers. Using Eurostat figures of EU inhabitants living in rural areas and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each Member State, and then taking 40% as the basis for a RBI, the proposal estimated the cost of an EU-wide scheme at more than 1000 billion (or five times the total EU budget at the time). As it would not be possible to finance RBI from the agricultural budget alone, a variety of finance models were presented – from co-financing by Member States and levying a basic income tax through to setting certain conditions to be in receipt of RBI (e.g. targeting people in disadvantaged areas). 

Back further still, in 2010 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) extended its work on Minimum Income Standard (MIS) to explore how needs and costs varied for rural households.  Researchers found people living in rural areas typically spent 10-20% more on meeting their everyday requirements compared to their urban counterparts. In 2010 it was suggested that single working adults needed to earn at least £15,600 a year in rural towns, £17,900 in villages and £18,600 in hamlets or remote settlements. For a couple with two children the annual earning requirement increased to £33,000-£42,000. The 2019 MIS reveals in order to reach a minimum acceptable living standard in 2019; a single person needs to earn £18,800 a year and a couple with two children £20,600 per parent. While the MIS figures have not been updated for rural households since 2010 combined with the EU proposal on RBI they provide starting points for considering how much a basic income scheme would cost in rural areas and whether it is affordable / how it might be financed. 

Does basic income work? 

Answering this question depends on what you mean by work – what are the aims, objectives and outcomes expected? In the case of Finland, for example, where the policy objective was to get people into employment, recipients were no more likely to find jobs compared to the control group that did not receive the payments. However, this example and those evidenced by the WHO have highlighted some of the social benefits (e.g. health and wellbeing improvements, changes to the way people access and use public services). 

Undertaking a basic income experiment therefore requires careful consideration: 

  • Is there broad political support for basic income – and how might Government move from idea to policy and implementation? 
  • Is there public support – how is basic income understood and is it seen as feasible? 
  • How would it operate? For example, will it be paid to all individuals or to certain cohorts or in specific circumstances? Will it be conditional or unconditional, withdrawable or non-withdrawal, means-tested, targeted or tiered? Will existing state benefits and services remain in place, be reformed or replaced?  
  • How much would it cost – and where will the money come from? Will there be any financial losses (to people) and/or savings (to society and the state)?  
  • What impact would the scheme have on the individuals who would receive it – and how will we measure and evaluate these outcomes? 

Where next? While basic income is growing in popularity as a concept, there is no universal or agreed upon formulae for deciding how much should be paid, to whom, when and for how long. Basic income continues to be a sticky issue with debates continuing around whether it is desirable, necessary, affordable, should be means-tested, available to all or targeted. For all the efforts involved in setting up pilots across the globe – are they worth it and what do they achieve? While answering these questions is not always clear, basic income in all its forms has not been tried and tested on a large scale. With work underway in Scotland and interest in England, will there be an appetite for designing a feasible, fundable and meaningful basic income scheme for rural England? Watch this space. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Apprenticeships

Apprenticeships – training people for (rural) jobs of the future?

Back in 2012, the Richard Review of Apprenticeships explored what apprenticeships should be like in the future, and how they could meet the needs of a changing economy. Upon finding an extraordinary number of qualifications, which could be stitched together in an infinite number of combinations leading to any number of possible outcomes Richard’s called for turning the system on its head by having fewer, clearer standards (preferable one per occupation), that covered what employers required for an apprentice to be competent in that occupation. In Vision 2020 Government set out its programme for the reform and growth of apprenticeships. As part of a concerted attempt to address skills shortages and meet employers’ needs Government was aiming to increase the number of apprenticeships significantly. What are apprenticeships, how does the current system work and what needs to be done to ensure more are on offer in rural areas? Jessica Sellick investigates.   

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What are apprenticeships? 

According to Government, an apprenticeship is ‘a real job, with hands-on experience, a salary and the chance to train while you work. You’re treated just like all the other employees, with a contract of employment and holiday leave.’  Apprenticeships combine practical training in a job with study (the equivalent of one day a week). Apprentices have the same rights as other employees and are entitled to be paid at least the apprentice rate of the national minimum wage and may receive a nationally recognised qualification on completion of their apprenticeship. 

Apprenticeships are available to anyone over 16 years living in England [separate schemes operate in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales]. Apprenticeships take between one and four years to complete and cover some 1,500 occupations across 170+ industries. 

Apprenticeships can be studied at different levels. From intermediate (Level 2) which is equivalent to an educational level of 5 GCSE passes at grade A*-C or 9-4; to advanced (Level 3) which is equivalent to 2 A Level passes /level 3 Diploma or International Baccalaureate; to higher (Levels 4, 5, 6 and 7) which is equivalent to foundation degree and above; and degree (levels 6 and 7) which is equivalent to a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree.  

There are two different types of apprenticeships: Frameworks and Standards. Government is aiming to move from Frameworks [which were established by sector bodies to assess apprenticeships and are qualification led] to Standards [which are employer driven and occupation-focused] by 2020. Standards were first introduced in September 2014 and are developed by trailblazer groups representing groups of employers and sector organisations.  As of 25 March 2019, there were 421 Standards approved for delivery, 166 Standards in development, and a further 73 proposals in development.  

How many apprentices are there? 

According to the Department for Education (DfE), there were 192,100 apprenticeship starts recorded between August 2018 and December 2018 for the 2018-2019 academic year. This compares to 175,100 reported in the equivalent period in 2017-2018; 230,400 in 2016-2017; and 224,400 in 2015-2016. Of the 192,100 apprenticeship starts reported so far in 2018-2019, 59.1% (or 113,500 people) were on apprenticeship standards. 

In the 2017-2018 period, there were 48,150 higher level (Level 4+) apprenticeship starts, compared to 3,700 in 2011-2012. Between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 higher level starts rose by 31.7%. In contrast, both intermediate (Level 2) and advanced (Level 3) apprenticeships declined between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 – by 38.1% and 15.9% respectively.  The average expected duration of an apprenticeship has increased from 529 to 612 days in the first half of 2017-2018; with the expected off-the-job training hours also increasing from 560 to 700 hours.

83% of apprenticeship starts in 2017-2018 were concentrated in four sectors: business, administration & law (30% of all starts); health, public services & care (24%); engineering & manufacturing technologies (16%); and retail & commercial enterprise (14%). 

814,800 people completed an apprenticeship in 2017-2018 – down 1,600 on the previous year. All regions saw a fall in apprenticeship starts between 2016-2017 and 2017-2018: with apprenticeship starts in the North East falling from 34,000 in 2016-2017 to 23,000 in 2017-2018 (down 33%); the West Midlands falling from 60,000 in 2016-2017 to 43,000 in 2017-2018 (down 29%) and the East Midlands falling from 48,000 in 2016-2017 to 34,000 in 2017-2018 (down 29%). The lowest falls were recorded in London and the South East (both down by 17%). 

Since March 2017, public bodies with a headcount of 250 or more employees in England in each year from 2017 to 2020 are required to meet a minimum target set by Government of 2.3% apprenticeship starts each year [this can be applied to new recruits or existing staff]. This means Government expects public bodies to ‘have regard’ to this target in their workforce planning decisions and use the Apprenticeship Activity Return to demonstrate how they have had regard to the target.  

In March 2019, the National Audit Office (NAO) published a report looking at whether apprenticeships are providing value for money.  According to the report, for the period 2017-2018 public bodies reported that 1.4% of their workforce had started an apprenticeship. This figure was based on returns from 676 bodies and equated to 45,300 starts in total. 

While there was an increase in starts in April 2017 the NAO suggests it is unlikely that the Government will meet its target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. In 2017-2018 there were some 375,800 starts – 26% lower than the 509,400 starts in 2015-2016, with falls marked at Level 2. To achieve its own target, this means the Government would need new starts to double for the remainder of the period. Indeed in May 2019, The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills) suggested not only will Government miss its own target but it will have to rethink its strategy next year. 

The NAO further described the DfE metrics for measuring performance – with a focus on starts rather than the 32% of people who completed their apprenticeship in 2016-2017 who did not achieve it. There is also insufficient data to determine whether people remain with an employer at the end of their apprenticeship and reap financial gains (what are the financial earnings gained according to level, sector). Further, the NAO identified an oversight gap in how the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) ensures apprentices spend at least 20% of their time on off-the-job-training. 

How are they funded? 

Since April 2017 Government has been implementing changes in the way apprenticeship funding works – much of this can be traced back to the Government’s Industrial Strategy. In April 2017 the apprenticeship levy came into effect for all UK employers with a pay bill of more than £3 million and/or employers connected to other companies or charities which have in total an annual pay bill of more than £3 million. The levy is set at 0.5% of the value of the employer’s pay bill, minus an apprenticeship levy allowance of £15,000 per financial year. The levy is paid into an apprenticeship service account with funds in it then spent on apprenticeship training and assessment. Employers pay their levy to HMRC each month through the PAYE process – with the amounts paid dependent upon each month’s pay bill. The Government applies a 10% top-up to the funds paid by an employer through the levy.  Levy-paying employers register for an apprenticeship service account which is then used to pay for apprenticeship training and assessment.  The funding expires 24 months after it enters to service account – employers are able to transfer 10% of their funds to other employers (capped at a maximum of 10% of their annual funds). 

Since May 2017, employers paying the Apprenticeship Levy have been able to select a provider from the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers. The Register lists: (1) main providers: organisations that be selected by levy paying employers to deliver apprenticeship training; (2) employer providers: levy paying employers that can provide training to their own staff and/or apprentices in connected companies; and (3) supporting providers: organisations that can only deliver as part of a subcontractor for contract values of between £100,000 and £500,000 per year. Organisations that would like to deliver apprenticeship training but at a value of less than £100,000 are not required to register.

In April 2018, the OECD carried out a review of Apprenticeship programs in England. The OECD found English apprentices receive 50-100 hours of general education over the course of their apprenticeships, with general education only mandatory for those not meeting the minimum requirements in mathematics and English. This compares to around 400 hours of general education covering a range of subjects in German and Swiss apprenticeships, and nearly 600 hours in Norwegian apprenticeships.   The report also found apprenticeship workplace training in England was not systematic and subject to little quality assurance. Lack of standards with regard to training in workplaces increases the risk that employers will substitute apprentices for unskilled workers, the OECD argues. The reviewers recommended increasing the amount of education in apprenticeships for young people; supporting the development of systematic training provision; keeping apprenticeship qualifications broad and few in number; reviewing the assessment market; providing pre-apprenticeship programmes for disadvantaged young people to progress into full apprenticeship programmes; and ensuring that all apprenticeships include a substantial element of work-based learning with an employer. 

According to the NAO report, £1.6 billion of public money was spent on the apprenticeships programme in 2017-2018 alongside the £2 billion contributed by levy paying employers. While these seem large sums, the average cost of training an apprentice on a standard is double what was expected; raising concerns that the programme will overspend in the future. This is because employers are now choosing more expensive and higher level standards than the DfE expected. The average cost of training an apprenticeship in 2017-2018 was approximately £9,000. Projections show that, even if starts remain at current levels, spending could rise to more than £3 billion a year once frameworks are withdrawn and all apprenticeships are on standards. 

Back in October 2018, the House of Commons Education Committee recommended increasing the top funding band, doubling the time employers have to spend their funds, allowing more levy transfers and providing greater flexibility to the 20% off-the-job training requirement. 

What do employers and apprentices think? 

The Open University commissioned independent market research among 750 senior business leaders from small, medium and large employers across the UK. 84% of respondents supported the apprenticeship levy in principle. 4 in 5 businesses in England either already employ apprentices or plan to do so in the future; and are using apprenticeships to build up skills amongst their existing staff (27%) or to train new staff (54%). Some business leaders have found apprentices make the rest of their workforce more productive and that they pass on what they learn leading to a more motivated and satisfied workforce. From an employer perspective, 34% believe apprentices bring a fresh approach and positive attitude to the workplace; 23% that apprentices are more loyal and easier to retain than other staff members; and 20% that apprentices are more productive than other members of staff. 51% of employers agreed that apprenticeships were less disruptive to their business than other forms of training. In the words of one employer “in my experience, people have a natural desire to pay you back if you invest in them. Apprentices may stay with you for longer, as they feel appreciated and well recognised. Longer-serving employees see apprenticeships as a great opportunity to leave a legacy and get benefit from developing their potential.” Employers suggested greater flexibility in apprenticeship content, including modular apprenticeships (modelled in a similar way to The Open University’s open degrees), would be beneficial going forward.  

Some employer groups have called on some of the levy to be spent on pre-employment engagement with schools, parents/carers and pupils – which takes up much time and requires additional resourcing.   

Other organisations query if the apprenticeship changes have diminished the quality of apprenticeships – with the list of roles covered often offering minimal training and representing low wage jobs that do not constitute skilled occupations? The suggestion here is that some employers may rebadge existing training courses as apprenticeships to shift the training costs onto Government.  

In 2017 Investors in People conducted research into how young people perceived apprenticeships. Of the 1,000 young people surveyed, 45% had considered an apprenticeship. Of the 53% who said they had never considered one: 62% of them said they wanted to do A Levels and go to university; 28% that the industry they want to work in does not offer apprenticeships, 26% thought apprenticeships were known for giving low pay; 16% said their school or college didn’t provide them with information about apprenticeships and 11% thought apprenticeships were for low skilled occupations. The research reveals that while young people have heard of apprenticeships, many are not aware of what they are in practice (e.g. career opportunities, pay) leaving many unsure ‘what’s in it for me?’ 

The Social Mobility Commission 2018 barometer found respondents were more likely to think an apprenticeship offers the best opportunity for young people to progress in life and career than other routes – with 30% thinking apprenticeships offer the best route compared to higher education (26%), further education (14%) and just starting work (8%). However these figures differ by age with those aged 65+ years more likely to suggest apprenticeships than those aged 18-24 years – in the younger cohort 20% would choose an apprenticeship compared to 34% wanting to go into higher education.  

In November 2018, the Government commissioned a learners and apprentices survey. The findings, based on 12.872 interviews (2,287 online and 10,585 by telephone), reveal that while half of all apprentices are young people (aged 19-24 years), the apprenticeship sector is serving people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Typically apprentices are already working for their apprenticeship employer (62%) or had started their apprenticeship straight after finishing full-time education (18%). The main reason for starting an apprenticeship was because their employer had offered it to them or had made it a requirement of their job. Three-quarters of apprentices that had never worked before completing their apprenticeship had moved into and remained in paid work at the time of the survey. Nearly three-quarters of apprentices who completed or were still working towards an apprenticeship agreed their chances of earning a higher wage in the future had increased; with 8 in 10 agreeing their chances of going on to higher levels of training had increased. There was some evidence that where apprentices had left it was for other employment or training. 

According to Government, the monetary benefits of completing an apprenticeship to an individual over their working life are estimated to be £48,000-£74,000 for Level 2; £77,000-£117,000 for Level 3 and £150,000 for Level 4 or above.  

In a series of blogs, young people have described their positive experiences of apprenticeships – see Hyo, an apprentice in the Cabinet Office; Hugh Gaffney, an apprentice at The Careers & Enterprise Company; Rob O’Connor, an apprentice at Accenture, Dominic and John, apprentices at RSA; and Joanna, an apprentice at Argies Coffee.   

What about apprenticeships in rural areas? 

According to Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England (March 2019), the proportion of working age population with at least one qualification, with an NVQ2 and/or an NVQ4 has been consistently higher for the total rural category than for those living in the all urban category. But the proportion of people with NVQ4 or equivalent is much higher for people working in rural areas – 44.7% compared to predominantly rural areas (35.4%). A higher percentage of people working in urban areas receive on-the-job training than people working in rural areas – 12.9% in predominantly rural areas compared to 13.3% in urban areas. However, some people who live in rural areas will travel to urban areas for work so these skills will not necessarily be used in rural areas. 

If you do a key word search on apprenticeship standards entering the word ‘rural’, generates 1 result (for highways maintenance skilled operative); countryside generates 1 result (countryside worker – this standard is in development), agriculture generates 3 results (professional advisor in agriculture/horticulture – in development, land-based service engineer, land-based service engineer technician); and there are 20 results for natural environment (including crop technician, forest operative and poultry worker). Aside from the apprenticeship standards; many RSN members will be familiar with apprenticeships offered in their own areas – from those in national parks (e.g. the Lake District, North York Moors); to those across England – from Cornwall to Cumbria; from Hampshire to Hertfordshire; and from Leicestershire to Worcestershire. The search facilities on existing platforms do not always reveal the geographical and sectoral diversity of opportunities available in rural areas. 

While there is often little difference in the sectors between rural and urban areas, the context is very different and this can bring additional challenges when providing apprenticeships. 

Jo Maher, principal and chief executive at Boston College, highlights some of the rural challenges and opportunities facing colleges, apprentices and employers.  For apprentices living in rural areas the greatest challenge is the time and distance it can take to access an apprenticeship. The greatest challenge for rural college leaders is that assessors have the same time and distance issues as the apprentices they need to assess – compounded by the fact that many employers in rural areas are micro-businesses and only employ one apprentice. Colleges have to model delivery on an assessor spending an hour with a maximum of four apprentices a day to allow for this travel time whereas in an urban area an assessor might be able to train up to seven apprentices in a day. The challenges for employers in rural areas include size, scale and breadth. Maher’s recommendations to better support apprenticeships in rural areas include: providing an uplift [calculated in a similar way to the disadvantage uplift in full-time FE funding]; setting up an apprenticeship loan system – where a larger company is able to loan an apprentice to an SME with a view to bringing them back a year later to progress their employment and leaving the rural SME with a regular supply of apprentices; and establishing a ‘quality mark’ to enable apprentices to select employers in the same way as they can look at a college’s Ofsted grade and feedback score; this means employers could better able evidence their role in providing high quality training.  

These insights chime with witness testimony provided to the Select Committee on the Rural Economy. For example, the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) described how an apprenticeship criterion often favours larger firms, making it harder for rural SMEs to host apprentices. With a higher proportion of older people living in rural areas CRE advocated changing the age limits to attract people of working age at later stages of their careers. Countryside Alliance  identified that ‘affordability’ and time can be real barriers for land-based SMEs wanting to offer apprenticeships. On a more positive note, National Parks England noted that the Government’s 8 Point Plan for National Parks had led to a 91% increase in apprenticeships in National Park Authorities and that hosting an apprenticeship had doubled since April 2018.  

For me, what these findings reveal is the need to focus on rural communities and places rather than apply a one-size-fits-all approach to apprenticeships. This means communities thinking through how they can attract and retain employers and apprenticeships (e.g. Rock the Cotswolds): what rural assets and aspirations can be built upon and what locally defined rural apprenticeship priorities emerge? We also need to provide training and development opportunities for SMEs that works well in rural places; and ensure that adequate funding; support and assessment processes are in place. 

Where next? 

In September 2018, the House of Commons Education Committee called for ‘stronger, clearer oversight of apprenticeship training and assessment. New providers should get a monitoring visit from Ofsted in the first year….Ofqual should be given responsibility for the external quality assurance of all end-point assessments….we found enthusiasm for the opportunities apprenticeships can offer and commitment to seizing them. There can be no doubt that apprenticeships work. However, we think they could work even better and on a greater scale.’ Many of the Committee’s recommendations chime with rural areas, including: providing more bursaries, increased incentives for small and medium sized businesses and a new social justice fund to support organisations that help the hardest to reach.  

In January 2019 the Department for Education (DfE) launched a new campaign to promote apprenticeships among young people, parents, schools and employers. ‘Fire it up’ aims to shift deeply held views and drive more people towards an apprenticeship. With an increasing variety of apprenticeship options available for people of all ages and backgrounds, if we need to improve both productivity and social mobility; for Government apprenticeships will continue to play a central role in maintaining our skills base. 

In March 2019 the Skills Commission, Policy Connect and the Learning and Work Institute embarked on a new project to map the blueprint for an ecosystem that can adapt to current and future economic and social priorities. In asking whether the national skills system [including apprenticeships] is serving different communities and businesses across the UK; the project inquiry team is visiting Spalding (Lincolnshire), Middlesbrough and Bristol and are running a call for evidence until 27 May 2019. 

More recently, in April 2019 the House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy published its report. Seeing apprenticeships as a route to addressing skills shortages in rural areas, the report contained a series of recommendations, including: (i) reviewing apprenticeship criteria to make it easier for rural SMEs to host apprentices and provide new land based apprenticeships; (ii) reviewing funding arrangements for apprenticeships to make it easier for smaller businesses to engage; (iii) increasing the amount of apprenticeship levy that can be transferred from large to small firms should be considered; and (iv) with local industrial strategies focusing on skills there could be a renewed focus and improvements made to support rural apprenticeships.  

In 2020 the Government has plans to refresh its apprenticeship strategy as part of attempts to increase the number of apprenticeships. 

How can we ensure that rural communities and businesses are ‘fired up’ and part of this policy conversation? Will the House of Lords select committee recommendations be taken into account?  And, ultimately, what more can be done to deliver apprenticeships in rural areas and what metrics do we have or can we develop to measure success?   

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She was recently part of the team that successfully bid to create an Institute of Technology in Lincolnshire.   

She is also a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care (https://www.ncrhc.org/). 

In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen 

Rural NEET

[Not] becoming NEET in rural England

Young people are staying in education for longer than previous generations, with many finding their feet through further study and work. Yet one-in-ten 16-24 years olds is NEET: Not in Education, Employment or Training. What affects young people’s life chances and what can be done to boost opportunities for young people in rural areas so they don’t become NEET? Jessica Sellick investigates.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

For statistical purposes, a person is NEET if they are aged 16 to 24 years and not in education, employment or training. In comparison, a young person is considered to be in education or training if they are doing an apprenticeship, on a Government employment or training programme, are working or studying towards a qualification, have received job-related training or education in the last four weeks, and/or enrolled on an education course and waiting for term to (re)start. Therefore, anybody aged 16 to 24 years not in any of these forms of education and training, and not in employment, is considered to be NEET.

How many young people are NEET? 783,000 people aged 16 to 24 years in the UK were NEET in the second quarter of 2018. This is equivalent to 11.2% of all people in this age category; but a decrease of 25,000 young people compared to the first quarter [January to March 2018] and down 6,000 compared to the final quarter of the previous year [April to June 2017]. Of all the young people who are NEET, 37.4% were looking for and available for work (and therefore classified as unemployed) and the remainder were either not looking for work or not available for work (and therefore classified as economically inactive).

To break this down by numbers: 464,000 young people aged 16-24 years were unemployed June-August 2018. This is a reduction of 60,000 people from the previous quarter, and down 60,000 from the year before. This is the lowest number of young people unemployed since comparable records began in 1992. However, this fall coincides with a decrease in the total population aged 16-24 years – 23,000 lower than the previous quarter and 92,000 lower compared to the previous year. The number of young people who are economically inactive [not in work and not looking for work] remains about the same. However, the inactivity rate for young people is at one of its highest levels since 1992 at 38.7%. From April to June 2018 there were 211,000 economically inactive men aged 16 to 24 years who were NEET and 279,000 economically inactive women aged 16 to 24 years who were NEET.

The 2017 Youth Jobs Index found 2 million young people between 16-24 years had spent some time NEET; with 811,000 spending 12 months or more as NEET. The Index reveals how young women were more likely to become economically inactive than men. Young people who are unemployed were also likely to drop in and out of work over the course of a year compared to those who are economically inactive; suggesting job security for young people in both instances is fragile.

In England, the regions with the highest proportion of 16 to 24 year olds who were NEET were the North East (14%), West Midlands (13.1%) and East of England (12.2%). Regions with a lower proportion of NEETs include the South West (9.4%), South East (9.7%) and London (10.4%).

According to Defra’s Statistical Digest of Rural England (September 2018 edition), in 2016, the percentage of working age people in employment [based on where people live and not where they work] was 74% in urban settlements and 78% in rural settlements. The percentage of people who were unemployed in 2016 was 5.1% in urban areas and 3.4% in rural settlements – below the England average rate of 4.8%. In the 2016-2017 academic year the percentage of pupils leaving school with English and mathematics GCSE grades A* to C was 69.75% in rural areas compared to 63.2% in urban areas. The proportion of the working age population with qualifications at NVQ Level 2 (or equivalent) in 2015 was 80.7% for people living in rural areas and 76.5% for people living in urban areas. For a given level of deprivation, the attainment levels of pupils living in rural areas was lower than for pupils living in urban areas with comparable levels of deprivation.

From looking at these statistical categories and numbers, it appears that rural areas might have fewer NEETs compared to urban areas. However, while levels of education attainment and labour market participation may be higher in rural areas overall, this will not be the case for all rural areas (e.g. compare and contrast sparse rural settlements with those proximate to a town or with rural places affected by a seasonal variation in their economies). Many of the current datasets are not broken down according to the Rural Urban Classification. While some rural places may be thriving others are facing decline and/or have a concentration of low wage, low skill and insecure jobs. Current datasets measure a whole population and can be inflexible in picking up the nuances of rural geographies (e.g. measures of deprivation, access to further education). There is also the time-lag, with some datasets on qualifications and skills dating back to 2015. NEET as a statistical category does not tell us how many young people in rural areas are vulnerable to becoming NEET nor how many young people are unable to access educational, training and work opportunities. How can we collect, analyse and interpret data that helps us to understand the rural and spatial components of becoming and being NEET?

What leads a young person to become NEET – and what are the biggest challenges facing young people who are furthest from the labour market?

Back in 2010 the now-defunct Audit Commission published a report into the life chances and cost to the public purse of young people who were NEET. Six risk factors were identified that increased the chances of a young person becoming NEET. These were: (i) being NEET at least once before, (ii) pregnancy or parenthood,, (iii) supervision by a youth offending team, (iv) fewer than 3 months post-16 education, (v) disclosed substance abuse, and (vi) responsibilities as a carer.

In 2011, the LG Group commissioned THE National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) to research young people’s aspirations in three Local Authority areas: Suffolk, Lincolnshire and Cumbria. The final report identified structural factors that may impact on young people’s aspirations in rural areas – these were around transport and distances between providers which were found to impact upon a young person’s post-16 study choice and independence; with lower wages affecting a young person’s choice to participate in Higher Education; and a limited pool of local employment opportunities affecting aspirations. Cultural factors impacting upon young people’s aspirations in rural areas included parental influence and neighbourhood characteristics.

Between 2014 and 2017 a European Project ‘NEETs at RISK’, focused on prevention rather than remedial actions; identifying young people at risk of becoming NEET and providing them with tailored interventions to help stop them from becoming NEET (e.g. increasing their motivation to stay in school, helping them transit from education into training or a job). The project documented 6 factors that increase the probability of a young person becoming NEET: (i) low educational level, (ii) suffering some kind of disability, (iii) immigration background, (iv) difficult family environment, (v) living in remote areas, and (vi) low household income.

Some academic work has looked at risk factors relating to rural areas in the UK, comparing young people’s experiences of growing up NEET in urban and rural settings, and pointing to multiple deprivations and a lack of local opportunities in shaping the life chances of young people.

More recently, in 2017, research in Suffolk drew on statistical analysis and interviews with young people and professionals to understand the experiences of young people as they make the transition through education and into employment. The research found educational and income deprivation were the largest barriers to progression. While some young people in the county live with disadvantage, some appear to be developing a set of capabilities to cope with and surmount it. The researchers therefore suggested that voluntary and community sector organisations might consider undertaking activities that support and foster these capabilities in other young people. The research also called upon policy and decision makers to provide more tailored interventions to support particular (individual) young people rather than taking a universal (collective) approach.

This work begins to highlight rural dimensions to being at risk of becoming NEET or being NEET. For it illuminates how young people living in rural areas face a number of barriers, connected to their remoteness, particularly around access to transport, careers advice, further education, employment and training support and youth services which can all affect their aspirations and attainment. How can we build on this work to more fully understand the risk factors in rural areas and start to address them?

What are young people’s experiences of being NEET?

Several young women have given insights into their daily life and experiences of being unemployed and economically inactive to the Young Women’s Trust:

“Monday morning, we wake up. I probably put the washing on and we go out. We walk up to see family members and I take the baby to the park. He goes to his nan’s every other weekend. On those weekends, I stay at home and clean. I don’t have any friends really – most people my age, they do not have kids and they want to go out and party. By the time it comes to the weekend and [name of baby] is away, I’m absolutely shattered. I’d rather sit at home with a cup of tea and a colouring book.” (Single mother, aged 21, lives alone with baby).

“I don’t go into shops or anything – pretty much do everything on line…I don’t like going into the public. The only time that I go out is when the dogs are with me.” (Single woman, aged 21, lives alone).

I recently evaluated the Humber Bounce Back Programme. This provided 82 young people who were NEET with support to improve their mental health and move closer to the job market or into further education. This pilot programme was delivered in 4 Local Authority areas: Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. Over a 12-month period the young people received focussed support from delivery staff, third party organisations and their peers who found creative ways to help them feel better in themselves, to more fully participate in their communities, return to education and learning and/or play an active role in the labour market. Of the 82 young people who participated: 18 young people who were NEET moved into employment; 13 young people who were NEET moved into education; 4 young people who were NEET moved into training and 2 young people who were NEET took up apprenticeships. The remaining participants took up volunteering and work experience opportunities (9 young people) with 28 moving closer to the labour market i.e., submitting job applications and now actively seeking work.

I asked young people about the difference Bounce Back had made to them. They told me:

“It gave me new experiences that I’d never dreamed of getting on my own. I didn’t see myself ever going to London, to the House of Commons, speaking to MPs…I didn’t see myself standing up at the Freedom Festival and performing in front of 300 people. It’s given me the determination and motivation to go further…at my own pace. I didn’t think I had a future and now I do.”

“It helped me find ways of writing about things…personal things…and finding out about what I wanted to do. It’s connected me to other people who write, helped me meet other people, and go back to college.”

I also asked delivery staff about the difference the programme had made:

“It is important to overcome anxieties before clients can address employability issues. Young people can get frustrated; they know what they need to do but can’t; some find it difficult to ask for help. They have been let down before and need to build bridges and they are sick of telling the same stories over again.

“Without question the project has offered wraparound support that not only helps to support mental health issues but also allows for the development of key vocational skills needed for the workplace.”

Much of the current evidence base is built around statistics or literature outlining risk groups rather than what it’s like to be NEET from a young person’s perspective. How can we enable young people living in rural areas who are NEET, or at risk of becoming NEET, a voice in policy and practice?

 

What can we do to try to prevent young people from being (or becoming) NEET?

How can we help young people to learn? According to the findings of the 2017 Youth Jobs Index securing Level 2 qualifications are crucial for helping young people avoid being long-term NEET and sustain their journey into education or work.

While the DfE has sought to provide a framework to increase participation and reduce the proportion of young people who are NEET, the responsibility and accountability for doing so lies with Local Authorities. Since 2007 the September Guarantee has supported Local Authorities in their statutory duty to ensure that all young people in England continue in education or training until at least their 18th birthday. Here, all 16 and 17 year olds are entitled to an offer of a suitable place in education or training regardless of what qualifications they gained when they left school.

In 2013 the Government increased the Raised Participation Age (RPA), requiring young people to continue in education or training until at least their 18th birthday. In this instance young people can choose to participate in full-time education or combine part-time study with a job or volunteering; and/or undertake an apprenticeship or traineeship.

The Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is a financial scheme which helps students with the cost of further education. EMA was closed in England in 2010 but as education is a devolved matter it remains in operation in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In England, the 16-19 Bursary Fund now provides targeted funding to help young people aged 16, 17 and/or 18 years with the costs of staying on in post-16 education (e.g. paying for books or equipment, support towards transport and lunch costs).

In addition to the DfE and Local Authorities; helping young people to continue to learn also lies within the remits of the Education & Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), schools and colleges, employers, charities and Ofsted.

In 2011 the Government published Alison Wolf’s Review of Vocational Education. This called upon Government to remove some vocational qualifications from the 16-19 performance tables, and replace the system of funding learning providers per qualification with a system of funding per student. In 2016 an Independent Panel published its report containing proposals to reform technical education.

Since 2017 Government has been undertaking major reforms to the technical education scheme in England. This includes the publication of the Post-16 Skills Plan, a consultation on the Technical and Further Education Act 2017; the creation of 2-year technical programmes called T Levels, and established University Technical Colleges (UTCs). The DfE is currently running a competition to launch a network of Institutes of Technology (IoTs) across the country.

In December 2014 the DfE established the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC); an employer-led organisation that is independent of Government and provides advice to pupils aged 12-18 years. The CEC also administers a Careers & Enterprise Fund. In December 2017 the DfE published its Careers Strategy which sets out a range of measures to be implemented between 2018 and 2020, including an investment fund of £5 million to help the most disadvantaged pupils which will be administered by the CEC and a requirement on schools and colleges to have a named Careers Leader and careers programme in place.

How can we help young people to earn? The Support for Schools programme sees Jobcentre Plus advisors provide careers guidance and support to 12-18 year olds in schools across England. An evaluation of the programme commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) reveals how it has been particularly successful when targeted at young people at risk of becoming NEET and/or among families with a background of joblessness because of the way the programme raises aspirations and presents a positive vision of life after school.

Back in December 2015 the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (now BEIS) published Vision 2020. This contained Government plans to increase the quality and quantity of apprenticeships – with an ambition to achieve 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. The document sets out the roles of employers and other bodies such as the Institute for Apprenticeships, Careers & Enterprise Company and UCAS. In April 2017 the Apprenticeship Levy came into force, meaning all UK employers with a pay bill of over £3 million per year contribute 0.5% into an apprenticeship service. The Youth Friendly Employer Quality Kitemark has also been introduced, and has been designed by young people and employers.

For young people who want to get an apprenticeship or job but do not have the appropriate skills or experience, traineeships last for up to 6 months and involve a training organisation working with a young person, providing them with work preparation training, English and maths support (if/where required) and a work experience placement with an employer.

Education and training helps young people to achieve a higher level of qualification, increasing their employment prospects and wages. These monetary returns for individuals over their working life are estimated to add up to between £48,000 and £74,000 for Level 2 apprenticeships; between £77,000 and £117,000 for Level 3 apprenticeships and £150,000 or more at Level 4 and above. For employers, the cost of apprenticeship training pays for itself within one or two years of completion; and for the public purse the amount of return is £26.00-£28.00 for every £1.00 of Government investment in apprenticeships.

The Adult Education Budget (AEB) funds a range of ‘second chance’ further education provision for 19-23 year olds; including helping young people to attain Level 2 or Level 3 qualifications.

Young people with learning difficulties and disabilities have access to Supported Internships – these are study programmes based with employers and typically last for a year.

In April 2017 the Youth Obligation was introduced into Universal Credit (UC). This scheme is intended to provide intensive support for 18-21 year olds who are expected to be looking for work within 6 months of making a UC claim. After 6 months client are expected to apply for an apprenticeship, traineeship, gain work-based skills or take up a work placement. The New Enterprise Allowance (NEA) provides funding and support to help benefits claimants start or expand their own business.

Alongside policy and initiatives from Government; charities and voluntary and community sector organisations are also supporting young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET. For example, Talent Match is a project funded by the Big Lottery Fund that supports 18 to 24 year olds who have been out of work or training for over 12 months; The Prince’s Trust Achieve Programme provides personal development support to 11 to 19 year olds to prevent them from becoming NEET; Groundwork employs specialist youth practitioners called Achievement Coaches to help NEETs; and ThinkForward runs two long-term coaching programmes,

While there is no shortage of public, private, charitable and voluntary and community sector initiatives working with young people; to what extent rurality is taken into account in their design and delivery is uncertain – and precisely how vulnerable young people are able to fully navigate this plethora of initiatives in rural settings is unclear.

How can we ‘think rural’ in support young people to earn and learn?

If we can identify what some of the rural risk factors are, and what young people’s experiences of being NEET in rural areas are, then we may be able to design interventions that better tailored to supporting young people who are NEET and prevent others from becoming NEET.

In a rural context this means thinking about how parish councils, community groups and voluntary organisations have infrastructure and networks that can support local young people. But this also means supporting these organisations in their attempts to often ‘fill the gaps’ left by the reduction in public services in rural areas (e.g. the withdrawal of universal youth provision).

In a rural context there are proportionately more small businesses (single site or headquarters) and turnover per person employed is lower, especially for businesses in a sparse setting. Linking local employers and professionals into local schools, providing training in or near rural communities, mentoring and supporting local projects and services that will provide employment for local young people will ensure that ‘staying’ is a viable reality for young people who want to learn, earn and remain. In some rural settings the private sector has led initiatives to showcase how rural areas can offer fun and fulfilling employment opportunities for young people (e.g. Rock the Cotswolds).

In a rural context there may be more opportunities for universities to undertake outreach activities. For example, Professor Sarah Elton (an anthropologist at Durham University) is working with a farming charity called UTASS to support young people in the Durham Dales to acquire anthropological and archaeological skills and to consider pursuing a science career – this has also involved taking a group of young people on a visit to the university campus.

In a rural context this also means finding innovative solutions to tackle broader issues – which are intertwined with education and employment but are not currently part of the initiatives described above – such as broadband and mobile connectivity, public transport, affordable housing, hidden poverty, isolation and service centralisation.

All-too-often young people who are NEET – or at risk of becoming NEET – are ‘invisible’ and ‘not on the radar’ of numerous policies and initiatives targeted at this age category. More needs to be done to see, hear and understand their experiences and to find solutions that help steer young people towards learning, earning, participating and feeling valued in our rural communities.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes helping an applicant prepare a bid to become an Institute of Technology, supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; evaluating a hospital avoidance service; and undertaking a piece of work on migration. She is also a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Rural Health and Care. In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association.

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211.

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ https://www.ncrhc.org/

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/

Twitter: @RoseRegen

 

Load More