A Devolution Guarantee for adult skills

The purpose of the Guarantee

A person returning to learning may need a suitable course, help with travel or caring responsibilities and a timetable that fits work. Those requirements are connected, but decisions about provision and access support can sit with different organisations. Devolution offers an opportunity to bring them together under a commissioning plan informed by local needs.

CLA proposes a Devolution Guarantee setting out the responsibilities and protections that accompany such a change. It should allow a learner to understand who makes a decision, a provider to plan its work and the public to examine how money is used. Success should be evident in access, completed learning and progress towards learners’ goals, as well as in the quality of the decisions themselves.

This paper works through a model for a fictional English area, using an illustrative budget. It could inform a new transfer of adult skills commissioning or a review of arrangements already in operation. Adoption would require the authority’s actual legal powers, funding conditions and costs to be established; no authority has adopted this example or begun a pilot.

1. Define the responsibility

The first task is to specify the function. Publish a schedule showing the geography, eligible residents, activities covered and exclusions. For each power, identify the legal instrument, commencement date and any retained ministerial consent. Alongside that schedule, explain in ordinary language what the authority can decide and what remains elsewhere.

The policy context matters. Adult skills policy moved from DfE to DWP in September 2025, with DfE continuing to administer the national Adult Skills Fund on DWP’s behalf. The national rules for 2026/27 generally cover non-devolved areas and exclude devolved-area residents except for specified continuing learners. An authority’s devolved provision must therefore be read against its own applicable arrangements. [F1]

The Integrated Settlement functional framework includes non-apprenticeship adult skills responsibilities. The authority’s instruments and settlement determine the powers, eligible expenditure and conditions. The separate section 31 grant publication excludes Integrated Settlement deals and distinguishes financial-year from academic-year funding. [F2] [F3]

The example here covers an agreed schedule of adult skills commissioning for eligible residents aged 19 and over. School funding, the apprenticeship training budget, higher education and benefit decisions are excluded. Continuing learners, education, health and care plans, English and maths entitlements and study across boundaries need to be addressed individually. Age alone does not establish which funding route applies.

2. Put decisions in the right hands

National government should set the statutory framework, uphold national entitlements and standards, agree funding and redistribute between places. Its responsibilities remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny and the applicable national audit and legal arrangements. The strategic authority should prepare the local commissioning plan, commission eligible provision, support access and account publicly for delivery within its powers.

Councils and local partners should identify neighbourhood needs, coordinate referrals and access support, and carry out activities expressly delegated to them. The delegation should state the funding and responsibility that accompany the work. Providers should retain professional choices about delivery within their contracts, together with responsibility for fair assessment, safeguarding and the first stage of service complaints. Contract management, inspection and regulation continue to apply as appropriate.

Name the elected portfolio holder and senior accountable officer, as well as the budget holder, finance lead, monitoring officer, safeguarding lead and data controller. State who may approve contracts or change the plan, the limits of delegated authority and the route for resolving a dispute. A coordinating lead needs access to the relevant decision-makers; each participating body remains responsible for its legal duties.

Cross-boundary arrangements deserve particular attention. A resident should be able to attend appropriate provision outside the area without being passed between funders. The agreement needs to identify who pays, who holds the records and who resolves disagreements. Learners and communities should help shape the plan and identify barriers, with elected decision-makers responsible for the choices ultimately made.

3. Match funding to the work

Agree a multi-year funding profile, annual cash flow, transition costs and the treatment of existing liabilities. Specify how inflation, demand changes and exceptional shocks will be handled. Reconcile the April-to-March financial year with the August-to-July funding year, and record restrictions on moving money, carrying it forward or recovering it. These terms determine the discretion the authority can exercise.

The following invented figures show how a funding schedule might be reconciled. They are neither an allocation nor a forecast. Every cost would need an eligible funding source; the table does not imply that all items can be charged to every Adult Skills Fund grant.

Test the schedule against changes in demand, provider prices, recruitment, inflation, delayed payments and the loss of a major provider. A 5% increase in the £8.60m provision cost would be £0.43m, exceeding the £0.40m contingency before other pressures were considered. That scenario needs an agreed response or additional funding.

The national settlement should reflect disadvantage, delivery costs and access requirements, with a clear approach to redistribution and exceptional shocks. Residents’ minimum entitlements should not depend on the strength of the local tax base. The receiving authority also needs permanent commissioning, financial and analytical capability, with scrutiny and evaluation properly resourced.

4. Protect learners and give them a say

Preserve applicable statutory entitlements and national quality requirements. Before approving the plan, assess its effects on equality and access. The practical arrangements should cover disability support, digital exclusion, language needs, travel and caring responsibilities. Safeguarding, data protection and whistleblowing routes must remain available throughout the change.

Consult while meaningful options remain open. In this model, a learner panel would include current learners, eligible residents who do not participate and people who withdrew. Accessible and offline routes, reimbursement of reasonable participation costs and an account of recruitment gaps would help broaden involvement. Publish the panel’s recommendations and explain how they affected the plan. The panel would advise the elected decision-makers.

Give scrutiny members the needs analysis, options, costs and equality assessment before the commissioning plan is approved, and require an executive response to their recommendations. The audit committee should have a clear route for examining risks and financial controls. Publish conflicts of interest, recusals and contract decisions, with lawful reasons where information has to be withheld.

A learner also needs a straightforward starting point for a complaint. Service complaints would normally begin with the provider and escalate under the relevant funding arrangements. Complaints about an authority decision, member conduct, data protection or safeguarding may follow different procedures. The published information should explain the correct external review or appeal route and its jurisdiction.

For ordinary complaints, CLA proposes acknowledgement within three working days and a substantive response or reasoned update within twenty working days. An independent second-stage reviewer should give a stated completion date. These would be agreed service standards rather than universal statutory deadlines. Urgent protection concerns need immediate action, and the process must preserve other legal rights and time limits.

5. Prepare the handover

The change should proceed through defined stages. First, appraise the options, including retaining the present arrangements, and complete the legal schedule, responsibility map, initial costing and equality analysis. The national sponsor and authority’s political lead should receive legal and financial assurance on that proposal.

Preparation then requires the funding agreement, workforce and provider readiness, lawful data-sharing arrangements, a baseline, an evaluation plan and a map of complaint routes. The accountable officer, finance officer and monitoring officer should establish readiness, with scrutiny able to examine the supporting evidence. The Green, Magenta and Orange Books provide proportionate disciplines for appraisal, evaluation and risk management alongside the authority-specific requirements. [E6] [E7] [E8]

Rehearse the operational arrangements before the handover. Run shadow reporting and payment reconciliation, and test a failed provider, an interrupted payment run and a data failure. Identify alternative provision, access to learner records, communications and the funding needed to complete learning. Operational leads should demonstrate that these arrangements work, with internal audit testing the controls and the executive publishing its response to scrutiny.

The formal decision to proceed must use the applicable powers and give reasons, including any conditions. Unresolved critical threats to learner safety, entitlements, payment continuity or lawful data handling should prevent the handover until they are addressed. A delayed stage needs a funded remedy and a new decision date, with reasons and support made clear.

From the agreed start date, hold implementation reviews at three and six months, followed by a twelve-month review of outcomes where the data have matured. Longer follow-up should be agreed where needed. The executive should respond publicly, scrutiny and audit should examine the findings, and an independent evaluator should report results. Existing devolved arrangements can use the same checks through a published improvement plan.

6. Respond to problems

Responsibility for emerging problems should be agreed before they occur. During transition, review risks at least monthly and publish corrective plans and evidence of completion, while protecting personal and legitimately confidential information. Each alert needs an owner, a time for action and a review date. The following thresholds illustrate the approach and would need to be calibrated to the programme before adoption.

Learner safety and continuity. A credible serious concern about harm or a rights breach requires immediate protective action by the appropriate lead, including statutory referrals where required. A forecast inability to meet a contractual payment or sustain provision should bring the finance and commissioning leads together before disruption, with continuity arrangements activated and affected learners informed.

Access. A fall of five percentage points in a priority group’s participation against its defined baseline over two comparable quarters should prompt investigation. Check the denominator, sample size, needs and barriers before deciding the response. The threshold identifies a matter requiring attention; it does not establish what caused the change.

Finance. A forecast provision cost 5% above its approved budget, or total commitments exceeding available resources, should require the finance lead to bring revised options and funding to the decision-maker. Commitments must remain within the resources available.

Oversight and information. A material audit action passing its deadline without an accepted recovery plan should be escalated to the audit committee and accountable officer, with a revised owner, date and completion evidence published. A material data validation or reconciliation failure should be disclosed against the affected indicators, followed by correction and publication of the revisions.

Intervention should have an explicit legal basis, trigger, decision-maker, scope, duration and review route. Where learners can be protected, begin with support and a time-limited improvement plan. Restrict the affected activity where possible. A wider transfer of control needs lawful authority, published reasons and a route back to local responsibility.

7. Assess what changes for learners

The authority should publish measures of access, learning, progression, cost and experience together. For each measure, state the baseline, target, numerator, denominator, period, source and responsible owner. Align local reporting with the applicable Integrated Settlement outcomes agreement, while distinguishing agreed targets from results. [F4]

The schedule below sets out the minimum definitions proposed for this example. Starts should be distinguished from unique learners, and achievements from sustained outcomes. Reporting should make clear how disability, age, deprivation and geography affect access and results where the data support that analysis.

Publish missing-data and suppression rules, and keep individual records in controlled systems. An evaluator should distinguish changes in funding, delivery and governance, using a matched-area or other credible comparison where its assumptions hold. Improvement after a transfer alone cannot establish that the transfer caused it. Unfavourable findings should be published with the response they require.

An authority adopting this model would need to complete and publish the legal and responsibility schedules, fund the proposal, agree baselines and thresholds, test continuity and make the formal decision. The resulting Guarantee should give learners and the wider public a usable account of the settlement and a way to hold its decision-makers to it.

References

Sources checked on 16 October 2026. The notes below identify the material inspected.

• [E6] HM Treasury, The Green Book (2026). Appraisal of options, costs, benefits, risk and distributional effects. Government appraisal guidance.
• [E7] HM Treasury, Magenta Book: Central Government guidance on evaluation. Theory of change, impact evaluation and counterfactual approaches. Current HTML edition checked. Government evaluation guidance.
• [E8] HM Treasury, The Orange Book: Management of Risk. Risk governance, responsibilities, monitoring and assurance. Current HTML edition checked. Government risk guidance.
• [F1] Adult skills fund: funding and performance management rules 2026 to 2027. Updated 14 September 2026; Introduction, What is new, Purpose, Who we fund and Annex B. National funding rules; scope exclusions apply.
• [F2] Functional responsibilities for the Integrated Settlements 2026 to 2030. Skills and employment section. Read with the applicable authority settlement and legal instruments. Government policy framework.
• [F3] Strategic Authorities S31 adult skills fund funding for 2026 to 2027. 20 August 2026; grant scope, academic/financial year tables and footnote excluding Integrated Settlement deals. Grant determination publication.
• [F4] Integrated Settlements Outcomes Frameworks for 2026/27 to 2028/29. Published 25 March 2026; authority-specific PDFs. Targets are not measured results. Government outcomes agreements.

Suggested citation: Civil Liberties Action (2026), A Devolution Guarantee for adult skills, Published model | Version 1.1, 16 October 2026.

Corrections and documented evidence: contribute evidence or policy@civillibertiesaction.org.uk. Please identify the passage and supporting source.