The levelling up white paper has headlined a focus on qualification-focused skills achievements. Extending devolution is a core strategy to achieve this, with 10 further devolution deal areas proposed in England. With devolved bidding for adult education budgets (AEB) already becoming the norm, and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) programmes expected to be commissioned in a similar way, levelling-up could have a lasting impact on skills procurement.
In simple terms, there will be more bidding rounds for the same or similar provisions in devolved areas, rather than singular national competitions. We’ve already seen this with AEB. There will also be more fragmentation and differentiation across these devolved models, rather than a standard approach. Whilst that is arguably the essence of devolution, it also runs the risk of different models being applied for the sake of it, rather than pursuing a truly best practice model for skills procurement. Why not, for example, have a singular national AEB framework which different devolved buyers can simply call off provision from?
Devolution also brings mixed prospects for providers. The approach is arguably good news for high quality, locality specific providers who don’t necessarily have national growth plans, but who can demonstrate mile deep connections, competency, and capacity in their locality. There is strong appeal for local commissioners to keep the local pound in the local economy.
Conversely, larger national providers could struggle. They will have more bid rounds to manage, chasing a variable patchwork of provision, with smaller localised contract values. Such providers may qualify out more opportunities on the grounds of then being ‘not worth their while’. Having said that, larger, national providers still tend to have more bidding resource, capacity, and expertise, so may still win more business for this reason alone.
Whilst that is arguably the essence of devolution, it also runs the risk of different models being applied for the sake of it
Many providers have grown comfortable with ESF over the years, carving out a decent market. UKSPF is not, however, a like-for-like replacement, meaning that the sun will inevitably set on ESF initiatives like Skills Support for the Workforce. Successors such as Multiply, the new maths focused UKSPF initiative, will have a different focus. As such, not everyone who currently has ‘ESF’ in their job title can simply be rebadged as ‘UKSPF’. New programmes are often welcomed as new opportunities, but there will be inevitable winners and losers in the market as new levelling-up initiatives are rolled out.
This is further compounded by the cynical argument that devolved commissioning doesn’t necessarily better meet local needs. How much is influenced by, for example, what commissioning practitioners think is solely a good idea from their personal perspective, as opposed to a robust, evidence tested, deep dive approach to local challenges? We may see conscious attempts not to replicate what works, because best practice wasn’t necessarily thought up by ‘people from around here’, as well as more than a few skills vanity projects casually disguised with a levelling-up sheen.
There is also the matter, if not the duty, of collaborative due diligence between devolved area. What if Provider X is materially underperforming in Manchester, but then picks up a tasty new contract in Birmingham? Who safeguards learners against that risk? A key provider could fail, yet none would have had ultimate responsibility for spotting and stopping this. Again, a national framework or, dare I suggest it, a rebooted but much more meaningful revamp of the register of training organisations could be the necessary answer.
And how much commercial stress may skills devolution also place on the traditional big beasts of procurement like the ESFA?
If more skills funding, for example, is diverted to combined authorities, and the purse strings from UKSPF similarly sits in the regions, the ESFA will find itself managing an ever-dwindling contracted funding pot. Will good commercial and contract managers, perhaps twiddling their thumbs, choose to exodus in favour of more aspiring career challenges elsewhere?
So, levelling-up leaves a lot at stake. It will be interesting to watch how this will all impact upon the market for skills funding in practice.