Localism vs the Commissioning Strategy? A challenge for the new government

Is the new government really committed to localism? If so DWP will face some tough decisions because its commissioning strategy consciously turned its back on the local, taking contracts to multi-JCP District levels, and contract management to the centre. As Emily Crawford says in Working Brief 214, its three levels of devolution, tacked on after the design was complete, really haven't delivered much for the localities. How can a system built around the intention of managing a national market to deliver national targets possibly be adapted to a localised system where national programmes would be there to meet local priorities and targets? and local partnerships can significantly amend their local delivery?

Incidentally, in the same issue of Working Brief, Dave Simmons asserts that "the combined impact of benefits reform, the Youth Guarantee, and new (DWP)commissioning has led to significantly less long-term unemployment". Is there any evidence anywhere that the commissioning strategy has had such impact? I thought the recent assessments of provider-led Pathways showed no improvement over JCP-led districts. Is there anything else I'm missing or is Dave swallowing the marketeers' wishful thinking (fast becoming assumed truth!)?