NGRF - UK National Guidance Research Forum

Join the discussion about this question below, or make your own contribution to the consultation on the IAG Review website

Who should pay for what? Should it be the State, individuals, employers? What additional services might users pay for? Which users might pay and how much?

The summary of responses (total 55) from the IAG website as of the 30 June 2006, suggest that in relation to who should pay for what:

More than half of respondents felt the State should pay for a free, universal IAG service.  Reasons given included: the benefits to the individual, society overall and the economy in particular; the risk of disadvantaging those least able to pay their way; and the need to avoid the current level of wastage of public money caused by individuals making the wrong course choices.  The need for an accurate assessment of the actual costs of IAG was stressed.  Some felt that employers (as the ultimate beneficiaries of guidance) should pay, or at least make a contribution, to costs.  Others felt that a graded system of payment by clients was fairest, based on some type of needs assessment and/or voucher scheme.  One suggestion for an alternative source of funding was the Trade Unions, who could offer IAG as an additional benefit of membership.  Another proposed model is that similar to private health care, whereby employers could offer an insurance policy for IAG as an employee benefit.  One respondent emphasised the way in which the current funding structure penalised Voluntary and Community Organisations, since contracts awarded did not cover real costs.  This acted as a disincentive to take on these contracts, which, in turn, disadvantaged the socially excluded clients with whom VSO work