Earlier this year I was at a DEMOS Public Services 2030 Network event, listening to Tony Wilson, director of the Institute for Employment Studies, presenting. It had been almost 10 years since I shared a platform with him at the launch of Iain Duncan Smith's first ever Social Justice Conference. It dawned on me that my generic presentation had not changed in 10 years.

Consequences of inaction

My presentation points out huge flaws in the employability and skills system and fundamental assumptions that have gone unquestioned by all involved. I have questioned them and have evidence they are wrong and that we have reached market failure.

The impact of this on local authorities is huge, but as motivational speaker Tony Robbins says: ‘You have to participate in your own rescue.'

Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a local authority that has fully engaged and acted on what has been highlighted.

I appreciate austerity hasn't helped, but things have gone backwards. Too many officers have either been disempowered or not acted when they could have done. Years later, revisiting this becomes even harder, but I suggest we need to open the too difficult box with urgency.

The key question

The simple question I started asking a couple of years ago was: ‘Are jobseekers entitled to the best possible support into work or not?'

Most people would assume they are, but we have recently had confirmation from the DWP secretary of state that this is not the case.

It turns out it does not see why it should measure small-scale employment programmes and doesn't think it needs to. This means no innovation, learning, replication and scale. Given national programmes get 30% into work (with only 6% additionality) that is a 70% failure rate baked in.

My assumption when I founded Recro was that if we had a significantly better way of doing things, including getting considerably more people into work and helping more employers get what they need from the system, councils and commissioners would learn, replicate and scale – but the opposite has happened.

The public purse

In 2010, Haringey LBC's research for its Families Into Work programme showed the cost to the public purse of an unemployed individual in Northumberland Park was £58,000 a year and £178,000 a year for a family of four.

In 2014 I met with Esther McVey, the then minister for employment, and at the end of the meeting asked her to nudge her three job centres in Enfield as we had only been referred three jobseekers for the programme we were about to run.

She said: ‘You do realise unemployment is really low now in Enfield, don't you?'

I told her there were thousands [seeking jobs], which was news to her. Later, the chief executive of Enfield told me there were 26,000. On the basis that costs are similar on the other side of the North Circular, that is a cost to the public purse of £1.5bn for Enfield alone. There are 32 London boroughs.

I met with a director in Birmingham in 2016 who didn't have any budget for a simple, but specialist piece of pre-mortem style consultancy, which would have helped him spend £50m on youth unemployment more effectively.

Recruitment and service delivery

There is a huge candidate shortage in the UK and many councils are feeling this, but still millions of people who want to work or could want to. How are you going to recruit in a way that will improve retention and service delivery if the system is not working?

Social mobility, inclusion and diversity are priorities for many, but if the system is not working and helping those who need help and expertise the most it is a lose-lose.

For all the noise and effort about devolution and levelling up, getting people into work has to be the cornerstone, and yet, if the DWP is purposely not doing what everyone thinks it is, this undermines everything.

Who owns this?

In 2010 I wrote piece in The MJ titled Whose job is worklessness? Thirteen years later, is anyone any clearer?

If the Treasury is not holding the DWP to account and councils are not comfortable or confident in doing so, then who is? The cost of inaction is huge.

The inability to course-correct is what has significantly contributed to the state that we are in today.

It is unrealistic to expect things to magically change after an election. What is it you expect the same people in the same organisations to do differently that is going to double or treble performance?

My latest idea is to have an amnesty, enabling organisations to do now what they should have done years ago. There is an element of getting comfortable being uncomfortable, which means a shift in intent. Otherwise, this will only get worse.

John McDonough is managing director of Recro Consulting

@John_Recro