United Kingdom

The employer-led specialist training resulted in a wider choice of provision, which also increased the relevance of the training offered, improved value for money, and allowed for more targeted provision. Additionally, from the pilot a change in employer behaviour was observed due to reduced/removed risk in regards to cost (e.g. SMEs offered training that would otherwise have not been available). General impacts from the pilot report were: learners gained a route into employment, developed their careers or improved their confidence; businesses reported gains in productivity and efficiency; and providers realised market opportunities. Specific to the instrument was the impact of collaborative activity, such as cost savings made through collective bargaining or a reduction in duplicated training activity, meaning that businesses could become more productive through improved utilisation of staff. No exact figures were given however, as many conclusions have been drawn from qualitative research methods. Innovation resulting from the pilot is subtle. The individual projects funded under Round 1 did not generally produce transformative, unique innovations (most pilot projects adapted or extended existing approaches to training), though this is not necessarily a weakness of EOP. The key impact relates to collaborative activity. The pilot created opportunities for businesses to work together, either directly or through an intermediary, which would be an unlikely consequence of traditional funding models.

Due to the instrument's flexible implementation, different models were executed in the districts included in the Pathfinder evaluation. While explicit impacts were not specified in the evaluation report, initial discussions with Jobcentre Plus staff suggested that a collaborative approach to engaging with schools improved the instrument's effectiveness. Jobcentre Plus and LEP/EAN staff also reported making use of existing school networks and contacts to arrange face-to-face meetings, and the Jobcentre Plus Support for Schools programme proved to be an effective way of engaging schools. Overall, the programme was well received by both schools and employers. As expected, the schools involved benefited from the added value of receiving an additional free resource and new opportunities for careers education activities. Although not a cost, demand was not as expected (in the first implementation stage) based on the lack of information given to schools. However, once schools were properly informed, demand rose to the expected level.

From the 2016 impact assessment evaluation report, it was found that sector-based work academies reduced the time 19-24 year-old JSA claimants subsequently spent on benefits, and increased the time they spent in employment. The more positive effects of moving participants off benefits and into work were found, as opposed to moving off benefits and into non-work destinations, which may be less sustainable. The results also suggested that the positive impact of participation extended beyond the observed 18-month tracking period.
From the 2016 impact assessment, the employment impact was greater for participants of all three elements of the programme (pre-employment training, specific to the needs of the chosen business sector; work experience placement; and a guaranteed job interview for participant, where the work experience element is optional in some cases). According to the report, for the 2012/13 cohort, the individuals who had completed all three elements spent on average 64 more days in employment and not in receipt of benefits, relative to the matched comparison group during the year and a half after a placement start. Additionally, where the sector-based work academy included a work placement, 42% of participants were offered a job upon completion. Nine in ten job offers were accepted. Benefits have exceeded expectations, as they continued past the tracking period and the instrument was proven to have long-term impacts. There were no additional costs, and a cost-benefit analysis suggested that the programme was efficient.

The active engagement of a core group of employers in the early stages of the programme was critical in confirming initial employer appetite, and in shaping and verifying that the scope of the product/solution provided through EIF was appropriate. As projects were delivered, testing them with a larger group of employers helped to ensure the quality of the product/service being offered was adequate and provided the flexibility to make adjustments, addressing emerging or nuanced employer requirements. Another positive impact to recruitment activities occurred. From the final report, evidence was found to show that Apprenticeship Brokerage (i.e. finding apprenticeship places) activities had eased recruitment activities for those employers that have used them, contributing to a decline in apprenticeship vacancies that were hard-to-fill. Benefits have been lower than expected, but this has been attributed to needing more time to understand and evaluate the long-term changes promoted through the instrument (such as promoting behavioural change in sectors or sub-groups of employers who are used to the government taking responsibility for training supply). Although not explicitly a cost, the over-representation of large employers and those in the charity/voluntary sector made it difficult to assess the overall success/impact of the instrument, as these employers were typically more likely than average to provide training to their employees in the first place. Most of the EIF beneficiaries from the 2015 survey (87%) had already arranged or funded training or development for their staff in the previous 12 months, which at the time was higher than the UK population as a whole. This made it difficult to assess the training outcomes of EIF, especially in the short to medium-term, since the large majority of employer beneficiaries were already delivering training to their employees prior to their involvement in the programme.