Burnham’s devolution agenda could transform the youth guarantee

As Andy Burnham sets out his case for moving power out of Whitehall and into places, many of us in further education, skills and youth employment are asking the same question: what would this mean for our work?

Would he devolve more power over skills and employment? Would the Greater Manchester Baccalaureate become a national model? Would Alan Milburn’s review be strengthened, adopted or quietly absorbed into something else? And, critically, what would happen to the youth guarantee?

Burnham’s recent speech said less about young people than I expected, but the clues are there if we look back at Greater Manchester.

In 2020, before the national youth guarantee and mayoral trailblazers, Greater Manchester was one of the first places in England to develop a place-based young person’s guarantee. Burnham appointed the Olympian Diane Modahl to chair the Youth Task Force, bringing together employers, colleges, local authorities, voluntary organisations and young people as the pandemic threatened to create a lost generation.

Youth Employment UK supported that work as an independent adviser and subject expert, while leading the Youth Advisory Group.

What stood out was not that Greater Manchester had found a perfect answer. It hadn’t. What mattered was the method: local leadership, open collaboration, youth voice treated as evidence, and a willingness to ask the whole system what it needed to do differently.

That matters now because the national Youth Guarantee risks becoming exactly what it cannot afford to be: another programme.

If Burnham’s argument is that places should be trusted to lead, youth employment is one of the clearest tests of that idea. Young people’s transitions into work are shaped by schools, colleges, transport, confidence, mental health, employers, local opportunity, family networks and whether someone trusted helps them navigate it all.

Whitehall struggles with that complexity. Places live with the consequences.

The best version of Burnham’s approach would strengthen the youth guarantee not through another pilot, but by turning it into permanent national infrastructure: national expectations, local delivery, shared accountability and proper investment in the organisations that connect young people, employers and educators.

It would also shift the focus from crisis response to prevention. Young people do not suddenly become NEET (not in education, employment or training). The warning signs emerge much earlier, and a serious youth guarantee would intervene before unemployment through better careers education, meaningful work experience, trusted support and smoother transitions from school and college.

It would also recognise that an opportunity is not real simply because it exists on paper. If a young person cannot afford to reach it, does not feel safe accessing it, does not trust it or cannot see someone like them succeeding, then it is not yet a genuine opportunity.

Employers would also have a bigger role to play, supported by clearer standards and practical help. Young people need fair recruitment, meaningful work experience, good first jobs and managers who understand how to support them.

Finally, it would mean measuring what matters. The youth guarantee should be judged not by activity but by whether young people believe opportunity is improving, employers are becoming more youth-ready and places are closing the gaps we know exist.

If Burnham’s thinking shapes the next phase of national policy, youth employment could move from being treated primarily as a labour market issue to becoming part of a broader economic strategy. That would be a welcome shift. A stronger economy depends on more young people participating, more employers investing in talent and more places having the freedom to connect the two.

Greater Manchester showed in 2020 that youth employment works best when leadership is shared, young people have a genuine voice, employers are part of the solution and places are trusted to bring the whole system together.

The national youth guarantee can now go further. We have the benefit of the mayoral trailblazers, Alan Milburn’s review, years of evidence from employers and educators, and the voices of thousands of young people telling us what works and what still gets in the way.

The next chapter should not be another short-term programme. It should be about building the permanent infrastructure that gives every young person, wherever they live, a better chance of making a successful transition into work.

If Burnham wants opportunity to define his vision for Britain, the youth guarantee is one of the clearest ways to demonstrate it. The evidence, partnerships and expertise already exist. Now is the time to get on with the job.