Evidence of effectiveness
The long-term period of observation post-M1 allowed M2 to have greater impact and run more smoothly. The model was transparent, with clear data available at all stages to show how effective the return to work process was. The data and evaluation of the instrument have shown that higher outcomes were achieved in M2 than in M1 across recruitment, training, placement and employment. This demonstrates that the most effective element of the instrument is in its continuous evaluation. A total of 34% of participants had obtained full-time employment in M2, and a further 11% had obtained part-time employment. These results are more than those achieved in the first programme, where 24% of participants had obtained full-time employment, and 6% had obtained part-time employment. The outcome for M2 is considered positive, because evidence shows that long-term unemployed (LTU) people have LTU exit rates to employment of around 10%. In addition, M2 took place in a better economic environment than M1, which meant that greater benefits were expected irrespective of the improvements made. That said, M2 tended to concentrate on a more traditional group of long-term unemployed people, whereas M1 concentrated on those who had been made unemployed as a consequence of the economic downturn.
Engagement of stakeholders
The instrument was designed on the assumption that the positive engagement between employers, training providers and stakeholders was crucial for success. This was addressed by the model's design (which was changed based on the evaluation and observation of M1), which allowed for a crucial structural link between labour market activation programmes and employers, where a reciprocal relationship sees the employer provide real work, based on a comprehensive period of state funded training, and placement provided by the public or private sector provider. The newer model also allowed the Employer to influence training-room content with insights on the sector skills gaps that need to be addressed.