Research and analysis

Summary: European Social Fund and Youth Employment Initiative Leavers Survey Report 2016-2019

Published 2 March 2022

Applies to England

Authors

Lorna Adams, Mark Winterbotham, Andrew Skone James, Christabel Downing, Hamish Evans (IFF Research).

Background

The European Social Fund (ESF) was set up to improve employment opportunities in the European Union (EU) and thereby raise standards of living. The Department for Work and Pensions is the Managing Authority (MA) of ESF funds in England.

The ESF 2014-20 Operational Programme - part of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) Growth Programme for England - aimed to deliver against priorities to increase labour market participation, promote social inclusion and develop the skills of the potential and existing workforce.

There are five investment priorities (IPs) underpinning the 2014-20 Operational Programme which directly benefit individuals:

• IP 1.1: access to employment for jobseekers and inactive people
• IP 1.2: sustainable integration into the labour market of young people, through ESF funding
• IP 1.3: sustainable integration into the labour market of young people, through Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) funding
• IP 1.4: active inclusion
• IP 2.1: increasing the skills of the current workforce, enhancing equal access to lifelong learning

Provision for the 2014-2020 Operational Programme was delivered through 4 Co-financing Organisations, the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), DWP, National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF, formerly Big Lottery Fund); Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Services (HMPPS, replacement of National Offender Management Service or ‘NOMS’), as well as direct providers.

Research aims

The DWP commissioned IFF Research to conduct a study exploring the experiences of people in England who had recently left work-related training courses funded through the ESF, including the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI). Specifically, the research sought to collect information about participants’ situation on entry to and six months after they have left ESF provision (to determine long-term outcomes), and participant views on the provision. This information is also needed to meet European Commission requirements to supply Long-Term Results Indicators as set out in the Operational Programme.

The research is part of a wider evaluation programme to provide robust evidence of the impact of the 2014-2020 ESF in England.

Methodology

The research involved a large-scale quantitative telephone survey with participants who had left the ESF provision between December 2015 and December 2018, and YEI provision between December 2015 and May 2019. Leavers were contacted at least six months after leaving provision, with all fieldwork across the pilot and nine mainstage waves taking place between February 2017 and January 2020.

In total, 19,769 interviews were completed with ESF and YEI leavers across the pilot and mainstage, with an average response rate of 23 per cent.

Key Findings

A wide variety of provision types were offered through the range of co-financing organisations (CFOs), from courses designed to reduce the risk of redundancy to those tackling the barriers to work specifically faced by current, or ex-offenders. With the study covering a wide coverage of this provision, any comparisons of outcomes across different types of provision should be made in this context.

Key groups and demographics

Approximately 560,000 individuals completed ESF provision between December 2015 and December 2018, and just under 50,000 completed YEI provision between December 2015 and June 2019 (the relevant timeframes for this research).

IPs 1.1 and 2.1 accounted for the greatest proportions of leavers (33 per cent and 28 per cent, respectively). Around one in five leavers (19 per cent) were under IP 1.4, while lower proportions fell under IPs 1.2 (12 per cent) and 1.3 (YEI, 8 per cent).

Each CFO had a corresponding focus by IP(s). HMPPS and National Lottery Community Fund provision both related entirely to IP 1.4, and the vast majority of DWP provision (90 per cent) related to IP 1.1. Direct Provider provision predominantly focused on IP 1.3 (62 per cent) but addressed all IPs, while Skills Funding Agency focused on all IPs except 1.3, with IPs 1.1 and 2.1 most common (34 and 39 per cent, respectively).

This relationship means that many of the findings by CFO are likely to be related to differences by IP and their target audiences.

Labour market status on entry

Just over half (56 per cent) of participants were unemployed and looking for work and 15 per cent were economically inactive on entry to the programme. Nearly one-third (29 per cent) were in employment. The profile of labour market status within IP and CFO aligned with the focus of each priority:

• most IP 2.1 participants (92 per cent) of were employed on entry, in line with the priority’s objective to address the basic skills and increase the skills levels of individuals in work; this group made up the majority of individuals employed. One in five (20 per cent) participants under IP 1.2 were also employed on entry; employment rates across all other IPs were extremely low
• owing to the ESFA having a large proportion of participants under IP 2.1, this was the only CFO with a considerable proportion of participants employed on entry (40 per cent). HMPPS and DWP participants were the most likely to be economically inactive on programme entry (35 per cent and 34 per cent)

More than four-fifths (82 per cent) of participants in work on entry to provision were working for an employer in a paid role. One in ten (10 per cent) were self-employed. Around three-quarters (74 per cent) of all employed participants were working full time, and the vast majority (90 per cent) were “fully employed”, i.e. they were working full time or working part-time and did not want to be working full time.

Most participants working for an employer were in stable employment (65 per cent), i.e. they were on a permanent or open-ended contract. Around one in seven were in temporary employment or that with a work contract of limited duration (also referred to as ‘precarious employment’, 14 per cent) or employment of unknown stability (13 per cent).

Overall, four per cent of participants were in training or education on entry to the programme.

The majority (85 per cent) of participants unemployed on entry cited barriers to work. Lack of recent working experience and/or availability of jobs were the most common prospect-related barriers to work, both cited by nearly half (48 per cent) of all unemployed participants. Concern around lack of recent experience was more common among YEI participants (59 per cent versus 47 per cent ESF only).

Barriers related to personal characteristics were less common overall, with just under half (49 per cent) of unemployed individuals facing no barriers in this regard. Significantly more ESF (31%) than YEI (18%) participants felt that their disability or health problem was making it harder for them to find work.

Programme experience

Just over a quarter (27 per cent) of participants had parental/guardianship responsibilities for children under 18. Only four per cent received support/assistance with childcare responsibilities from their provider, the vast majority (91 per cent) were not offered this support.

Eight per cent had caring responsibilities for a family member, relative or friend. As with childcare, only a small minority (six per cent) received support/assistance in this regard; most (88 per cent) were not offered this support. Around a quarter (26 per cent) had a mental or physical health condition, or illness expected to last 12 months or more. Approaching a third (31 per cent) of these participants received support and a further eight per cent were offered support.

Regardless of the support need and related assistance, the vast majority (at least 90 per cent across the three types) of participants were satisfied and just under three-quarters said they would have had difficulty attending the course without it.

Programme benefits and satisfaction

Views on the provision were broadly positive:

• around nine in ten were satisfied with:
  • information and guidance they received on what would be delivered through the programme (88 per cent)
  • feedback and guidance they received during the programmes (87 per cent)
  • relevance of the programme to their specific needs (86 per cent).
• more than three-quarters of all leavers thought the difficulty of the course and the amount of time spent on the course was ‘about right’ (78 per cent for both difficulty and duration)
• the majority of participants reported forms of improved confidence and skill development as an outcome (for example, self-confidence about working, 73 per cent; improvement ability to do things independently, 72 per cent)
• nine in ten (90 per cent) participants employed at programme entry reported the course has had helped them in their work environment
• eight in ten participants (81 per cent) inactive or unemployed at entry reported that the course had helped them find a job or made it more likely they will find work
• one in five (19 per cent) YEI participants undertook a traineeship as part of the programme. Nine in ten (89 per cent) who did were satisfied with their traineeship experience; 54 per cent were very satisfied
• assessing all the support received from the programme and how they may have benefited since, more than eight in ten (82 per cent) expressed satisfaction, with nearly half (46 per cent) saying were very satisfied

Employment at six months

More than half (53 per cent) of individuals were in employment six months after leaving the programme compared to less than three in ten (29 per cent) at entry, representing a 24 percentage point increase in employment. While the proportion of individuals unemployed fell from 56 to 20 per cent, there was also a rise in the proportion economically inactive from 15 to 26 per cent.

Employment among ESF-only participants grew 22 percentage points, from 32 per cent to 54 per cent, while YEI-only participants increased from one per cent to 45 per cent. For both leaver groups, unemployment reduced while economic inactivity grew.

Nine per cent of all leavers were in education or training six months after leaving their provision (falling into the inactive group); this was more than double the proportion in education or training at time of entry (four per cent). In terms of individual-level transitions, just over a quarter (26 per cent) of leavers had remained in employment, and a similar proportion (27 per cent) had moved into employment (three per cent had become inactive, one per cent were unemployed). More than two-fifths (43 per cent) of all participants remained unemployed or inactive. More than half of YEI participants (55 per cent) remained unemployed or inactive at six months compared to 42 per cent of ESF participants, yet more than two-fifths (44 per cent) under YEI moved into employment. In contrast ESF participants were much more likely to have been employed at the start of the programme, with 28 per cent remaining employed at six month and four per cent moving out of employment (compared to a negligible proportion of YEI). A quarter of ESF participants (26 per cent) moved into employment.

Type of employment

The proportions of leavers working for employer, self-employed or on an apprenticeship were largely unchanged compared to programme entry.

In terms of type of employment at six months versus programme entry, there was a very small rise in part-time employment (from 25 per cent to 28 per cent). Correspondingly, the proportion of participants underemployed rose modestly from nine per cent to 12 per cent.

Precarious employment for an employee – i.e. temporary employment or that with a work contract of limited duration - was more common at six months than on entry; 21 per cent compared to 14 per cent at programme entry were in precarious employment.

In-work outcomes

Among leavers that were employed on entry and at the 6-month point, around two-fifths (39 per cent) of participants reported being given more responsibility, a slightly lower proportion (36 per cent) reported a requirement for higher skills or competencies in their role, and almost a quarter (23 per cent) required a higher level of qualification.

Employed participants reported a range of other benefits or improvements to their job prospects compared to their situation on entering the programme. More than half of leavers had more opportunities for training (65 per cent), more job satisfaction (60 per cent), improved future pay and promotion prospects (57 per cent) and job security (52 per cent). Just under half (45 per cent) said they have received an hourly or annual pay rise over the six month period.

Individuals with improved labour market situations six months after leaving their course were more satisfied with their experience than those without (90 per cent compared to 85 per cent), although the vast majority of individuals without these improvements were still satisfied.

Conclusions

Some of the main conclusions that can be drawn from this research are that:

• the ESF programme reached many people who faced labour market disadvantage
• for many of those assisted, unemployment was an entrenched position
• provision was received very positively and views were consistently positive across Investment Priority and CFO
• support with childcare or other care was not widespread
• improvements in soft-skills as a result of receiving ESF provision were widely reported
• participation appears to have greatly increased optimism about finding employment
• half of YEI leavers received a job offer in the six months following provision
• job outcomes across the ESF programme were quite common and experienced by a range of leavers
• the job outcome rate was comparable across all CFOs focussing on employability support (HMPPS, DWP and NLCF) and Direct Providers
• nearly all of those who received in-work support were still in employment 6 months later, a large minority reported progress at 6 months and nearly all reported improved prospects for the future
• most leavers were satisfied with their provision; satisfaction was highest among those who were employed in entry
• positive employment outcomes should decrease welfare claimants, indeed the proportion of DWP participants claiming benefits reduced by a quarter between entry to provision and six months later
• there was a slightly unexpected shift of some participants from being unemployed at the start of provision to being economically inactive 6 months after leaving; this happened for a third of participants unemployed on provision entry. Most commonly, these leavers were in education or training, or unable to work because of health at six months

It is not possible for this research to definitively state whether these improvements in job situations would have happened without the receipt of provision funded through ESF. However other research is being conducted using administrative datasets to provide a counterfactual and will provide greater understanding of the impact of provision.