This week I talked to Steve Holden on LBC News about our recent insecure work findings and the Government's new proposals for a jobs guarantee for 18–24-year-olds who have been out of work for 18 months.

At first glance, the announcement looks like a positive move – but how it is designed and delivered will make all the difference.

Job guarantees are not a new idea. They have been tried in different ways across recent history and around the world. Done well, they can reduce long-term unemployment, improve social outcomes, and even pay for themselves. Done poorly, they can slip into “workfare” – pressuring people into low-quality jobs as a means to access welfare, with few prospects for work that is sustainable once the scheme ends.

What can we learn from similar schemes in the UK’s recent past?

When we talk about job guarantees the contemporary story begins with New Labour’s New Deal for young people launched in 1998 to support 18–24-year-olds who had been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for six months. Participation was mandatory, so it’s no surprise the scheme gave a short-term boost to youth employment figures. However, critics deemed it a missed opportunity to provide lasting employment with too little focus on job quality or fair wages. Longer-term impacts are unclear – but what followed were a range of other mandatory “New Deal” work schemes aimed at other cohorts, including lone parents and long-term unemployed people.

Later came the Future Jobs Fund (2009-2011), set up in the wake of the global financial crisis. This programme was praised for creating opt-in paid placements for unemployed young people focussing on “a real job with a real wage”. It aimed for long-term gains but together with the New Deal schemes, was cut in 2010 when the Coalition Government came to power and the austerity era commenced.

Timeline of UK job guarantees and welfare-to-work programmes (1998-2022)

What followed was an era of “workfare” (mandatory work for benefits) under The Work Programme (2011-2015). The Coalition Government used outsourced provision and relied on sanctions to require claimants to take up often low-quality, unpaid roles. A turning point came with the 2013 “Poundland case”, when the Supreme Court ruled the regulations behind many schemes unlawful after an unemployed graduate was made to work for a major retailer unpaid or lose benefits.

Fast forward to the pandemic, and the UK Government brought in Kickstart (2020–2022),providing six-month fully subsidised jobs for 16–24 year olds on Universal Credit. Importantly, it was voluntary: no sanctions, no compulsory placements. Over 163,000 jobs were created, and evaluations showed an impact: young people who took part were more likely to stay in work two years later, and the scheme appears to have delivered good value for money. Though there was some employer misuse and it didn’t reach all young people, it can be considered a broadly positive intervention in the history of welfare-to-work schemes.

With the Government’s recent announcement of a new Youth Guarantee, the question is whether policymakers have learned from that journey. The lessons are clear: programmes work best when they support, not punish; when they offer real, paid opportunities rather than coercion; and when they give young people agency.

A jobs guarantee in a former industrial town in Austria – focussed on healthy work

Outside the UK, the Marienthal Universal Job Guarantee in Austria provides a novel model worth learning from. The pilot, running from 2020-24 with Oxford University as a research partner, offered guaranteed, properly paid work to residents unemployed for over 12 months. There was an emphasis on civic and socially useful work – childcare, home retrofitting, gardening – and paired with training and mental health support.

Participants were helped to find jobs tailored to their time constraints and health needs, either as a subsidised role with local employers or working for a newly founded social enterprise.

And the evidence suggests it worked. Unemployment was dramatically reduced, and alongside the economic benefits, participants reported higher wellbeing and stronger community ties. The fact it was regionally organised enabled local employers to benefit through hosting the paid job placements, and the Austrian Government has since committed funds for rolling out similar schemes nationally.

The right approach

For a jobs guarantee that works, three factors are important:

1. Focus on good jobs. Research shows that any job isn’t better than no job. Low-paid, insecure work risks trapping people with few prospects. A guarantee must offer roles with a living wage, training, and security.
2. Keep it voluntary. Participation should be a choice. Linking job guarantees to benefit sanctions removes agency from people, and history shows it can have damaging effects.
3. Prioritise socially and regionally useful work. If government is subsidising wages, those jobs should serve the public good. That could mean investing in creating more jobs in libraries, care, or education jobs, and priority sectors identified in the UK industrial strategy such as clean energy and creative industries.

Why this matters now

The labour market remains tough for young people. Vacancies have been falling since the post-pandemic peak, insecure and temporary jobs still dominate many sectors, and AI threatens to reduce entry level jobs further.

A well-designed jobs guarantee could break the cycle by creating secure and socially valuable work that gives young people real independence. It must not lean on welfare sanctions or funnel people into poor-quality roles. Success won’t be judged by short-term job entries or improved “NEET” rates, but by whether it delivers lasting employment, better living standards, and healthier, happier work lives.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.