Guidance

Annual Implementation Report 2018

Updated 27 May 2021

Applies to England

0.1 Part A

0.2 Idenifiction of the Annual Implementation Report

CCI	CCI
Title	ESF England
Version	2018.1
Date of approval of the report by the monitoring committee	18/06/2019

1. Overview of the implementation of the Operational Programme (Article 50(2) AND 111(3)(A) of regulation (EU) NO 1303/2013)

Key information on the implementation of the Operational Programme for the year concerned, including on financial instruments, with relation to the financial and indicator data.

Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, all commitment by the Managing Authority (MA) and spend is quoted in Sterling (£) and all commitment and spend against the Performance Framework is reported in Euros (€) and all figures include Match. Where included within an IPA, all Euro values in this part of the report are as transmitted to the European Commission using the EUR Exchange Rate appropriate to that payment request, all other figures, where not yet included within any IPA, have the January 2019 EUR exchange rate applied and are therefore converted using EUR exchange rate of 0.90273.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the European Commission (EC) formally agreed and adopted the European Social Fund (ESF) Operational Programme (OP) in September 2015. The OP was reviewed in 2018 to better reflect current policy challenges and evidence; reviewing the assumptions made in the OP around finances and associated indicators; addressing long-standing issues and revisiting assumptions in the light of more experience delivering the programme and a significantly different economy. The new OP was adopted in October 2018.

In January 2019 the MA received notification that the Commission had interrupted payments on the basis of findings from the 2017 Early Preventative Systems Audit. We are working to address the Commission’s outstanding concerns and demonstrate that our systems are compliant with the EU Regulations. The Audit Authority is currently undertaking testing on behalf of the Commission.

Detailed below are the interrupted payment applications totalling €1,072,822,689.17:

• IPA9a submitted 23 November 2018 for €506,694,462.17 (£451,705,734.65) total eligible expenditure. We expect reimbursement of €263,640,732.25

• IPA9b submitted on 20 December 2018 for €509,667,043.10 (£454,140,429.15) total eligible expenditure. We expect reimbursement of €290,330,528.26

• IPA10 submitted on 19 March 2019 for €56,461,184.46 (£48,275,990.28) total eligible expenditure. We expect reimbursement of €33,463,973.96

The MA is keen to resolve the payment interruption at the earliest opportunity.

At the end of 2018, overall committed spend, between the Direct Bid Funding Agreements and Co-Financing Organisation (CFO) Memoranda of Understanding was £3.02bn (€3.34bn).

The Performance Framework (PF) Targets have been met. In terms of progress against the PF milestones, the actual performance of the programme with relation to the financial and participant indicators has been robust and the achievement against the PF targets for 2018 is sufficient for ESF England to be deemed able to draw down the 6% Performance Reserve. The data below illustrates in more detail achievements for each Category of Region (CoR), for both the participant and financial indicators, against the 2018 milestones.

The achievement of financial milestones is further demonstrated through the financial tables within our AIR. The milestone achievements for the output indicators in the performance framework are (in accordance with the methodology for setting milestones and targets) based on the data for output indicator O1 plus output indicator O2. In our OP, the indicator O2 operates in exactly the same way as indicator O1, but is specific to IP 8ii. You will note that in our OP, O2 is the indicator we have used to count the number of participants under the age of 25 (which is specific to this IP). We have not included an indicator O1 in this IP to count total participants, as this would be duplication of the O2 indicator.

As per our recent correspondence with the Commission, when we next update our Operational Programme, we will include an amendment to ensure the output O1 is included in IP 8ii.

Therefore, as Table 5 counts only O1 participants, the totals in that table do not reflect our actual achievement, which is detailed below:

1.1 Participant Actuals Performance (O1 + O2)

Priority Axis 1:

• Less Developed: 5541 (87%) actual outputs against 2018 target of 6,360

• Transition: 122,610 (236%) actual outputs against 2018 target of 51,930

• More Developed: 329,729 (149%) actual outputs against 2018 target of 220,910

• YEI: 61,011 (276%) actual participants against 2018 target of 22,100

Priority Axis 2

• Less Developed: 6,413 (490%) actual outputs against 2018 target of 1,310

• Transition: 54,367 (289%) actual outputs against 2018 target of 18,820

• More Developed: 113,970 (204%) actual outputs against 2018 target of 55,780

1.2 Financial Performance

Priority Axis 1

• Less Developed: actual performance against 2018 target €18m (77%) against a 2018 target of €23.3m

• Transitional: actual performance against 2018 target €209.4m (171%) against a 2018 target of €122.3m

• More Developed: actual performance against 2018 target €663m (129%) against a 2018 target of €512.7m

• YEI: actual performance against 2018 target €147m (159%) against a 2018 target of €92.4m

Priority Axis 2

• Less Developed: actual performance against 2018 target €9m (155%) against a 2018 target of €5.8m

• Transitional: actual performance against 2018 target €52.2m (115%) against a 2018 target of €45.3m

• More Developed: actual performance against 2018 target €150.3m (103%) against a 2018 target of €145.9m

As shown in the information above, both participant and financial aspects were met in the Transition and More Developed CoRs for Priority Axis (PA) 1.

The MA worked intensely with Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (CIoS), ESF England’s only Less Developed Region (LDR).

CIoS had a slow start during the first year of the programme, however the situation is improving and there have now been Calls to the value of £49.4m launched. This, plus the CFO contracts in the Region, has resulted in projects to the value of £82.9m being approved and a further £23.9m in the pipeline. If all the applications in the pipeline come to fruition, this would lead to 66% of the notional allocation being committed in the LD region. Further Calls are planned that would utilise the entire LDR notional allocation.

CIoS has relatively low numbers of unemployed people. This has caused some challenges with absorption in Priority Axis 1. To alleviate this a PA1 focus group has been set up to provide support to Grant Recipients, improve focus and drive performance. In addition, the MA held meetings with the CFOs delivering in PA1 to ensure effective absorption. Robust contract and stakeholder management of projects has ensured that claims have been submitted more quickly and efficiently. Additionally, the MA prioritised the processing of larger claims to further drive performance in this region.

All CoRs have successfully exceeded both Financial and Participant targets for 2018 in PA2. Overall, performance against the Performance Framework targets was strong, with only two indicators below 100%, only one of which, at 77%, was below the 85% threshold.

2. Implementation of the Priority Axis (Article 50(2) of regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

2.1 Overview of the implementation

ID	1
Priority axis	Inclusive Labour Markets

Key information on the implementation of the priority axis with reference to key developments, significant problems and steps taken to address these problems.

The MA is quick to identify and address issues that affect implementation, for example

• raising minimum call value to £125k

• raising minimum application level to £150k, or 25% of call value

• encouraging consortia bids & pan area calls

• streamlined processes to reduce the risk of attrition in the application process

• YEI - reallocated funding within the MD CoR and will launch a national call for £80m, to ensure YEI commitment maximised

• OP reviewed in 2018 to better reflect requirements of the Programme

By the end of 2018 we had achieved the following:

IP 1.1: Funding Agreements (FAs) to the value of £144.3m were in place. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were signed with the Education & Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) to the value of £244m, with 25 MoUs, with the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) CFO to the value of £202.4m with 24 MoUs & Greater London Authority (GLA) to the value of £13.1m with 1 MoU. Calls to the value of £32,344,816 were issued by the end of 2018.

IP 1.2: FAs to the value of £13m were in place. MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £145m & with the National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF – previously known as Big Lottery Fund) to the value of £2.6m. Calls to the value of £23,386,232 were issued by the end of 2018.

IP 1.3: FAs to the value of £157m were in place. Calls to the value of £12,948,000 were issued by the end of 2018.

IP 1.4: FAs to the value of £40m were in place. MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £29m, with NLCF to the value of £170m, with DWP CFO to the value of £17m and with the Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) to the value of £131m. Calls to the value of £32,680,000 were issued by the end of 2018.

IP 1.5: FAs to the value of £22m were in place.

ID	2
Priority axis	Skills for Growth

Key information on the implementation of the priority axis with reference to key developments, significant problems and steps taken to address these problems.

Many of the actions taken and focus stated above were also appropriate for PA2.

By the end of 2018:

IP 2.1: 24 FAs to the value of £57.8m were in place. 42 MoUs were signed with ESFA to the value of £621.4m and 1 MoU with GLA to the value of £916.4k. Calls to the value of £83,475,000 were issued during 2018.

IP 2.2: 21 FAs to the value of £47.6m were in place. 1 MoU was signed with ESFA to the value of £38.2m. Calls to the value of £15,015,439 were issued during 2018.

ID	3
Priority axis		Technical Assistance

Key information on the implementation of the priority axis with reference to key developments, significant problems and steps taken to address these problems.

There have not been any specific issues in delivering PA3, however there has been a level of under commitment in this PA which has been addressed by launching a further Call The analysis of this will be captured in the 2019 AIR return.

By the end of 2018:

IP 3: 38 FAs to the value of £36m were in place. 1 MoU with HMPPS valued at £2.1m. Calls to the value of £30,000,000 were issued during 2018.

3. Common and programme specific indicators (Article 50(2) of Regulation (EU) No1303/2013)

3.1 Priority axes other than technical assistance

Priority Access	1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority	8i - Access to employment for job seekers and inactive people, including the long term unemployed and people far from the labour market, also through local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within AIR 2018 data table 8i

Priority axis		1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority		8ii - Sustainable integration into the labour market of young people (ESF), in particular those not in employment, education or training, including young people at risk of social exclusion and young people from marginalised communities, including through the implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within AIR 2018 data table 8ii

Priority axis		1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority		9i - Active inclusion, including with a view to promoting equal opportunities and active participation, and improving employability.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 9i

Priority axis	1 - Inclusive Labour Markets
Investment Priority	9vi - Community-led local development strategies.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 9vi

Priority axis: 2

Skills for Growth

Investment Priority 1

10iii Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning for all age groups in formal, non formal and informal settings, upgrading the knowledge, skills and competences of the workforce, and promoting flexible learning pathways including through career guidance and validation of acquired competences.

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 10iii

Priority axis

2 - Skills for Growth

Investment Priority

10iv - Improving the labour market relevance of education and training systems, facilitating the transition from education to work, and strengthening vocational education and training systems and their quality, including through mechanisms for skills anticipation, adaptation of curricula and the establishment and development of work based learning systems, including dual learning systems and apprenticeship schemes

Tables 2A, 2C, 4A and 4B can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 10iv

3.2 Priority Axes for technical assistance

Priority Axis: 3

Technical Assistance

Specific objective

3.1 To ensure that the activities which fall within the scope of the programme are managed, monitored and evaluated in line with the Common Provisions Regulation, European Social Fund Regulation and the Commission’s delegated and implementing regulations.

All tables for Priority Axis 3 can be found within AIR 2018 data table 3

Table 5

Information on the milestones and targets defined in the performance framework.

3.3 Financial data (Article 50(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

Table 6

Financial information at Priority Axis and programme level

Table 7

Breakdown of the cumulative financial data by category of intervention for the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund (Article 112(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 and Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013)

Table 8

The use made of cross financing

Tables 5 to 8 mentioned above can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 5 to 8

Table 10

Expenditure incurred outside the Union (ESF)

Table 11

Allocation of YEI resources to young people outside the eligible.

Both the tables above can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 10 to 12

4. Synthesis of the evaluations

Synthesis of the findings of all evaluations of the programme that have become available during the previous financial year, with reference of name and reference period of the evaluation reports used

It should be noted that leavers’ survey results quoted here and in the interim report were based on interviews completed at September 2018 and may differ slightly from results quoted in sections 5 and 18 of this report which are from the latest results taken at February 2019.

Overall, evaluation findings so far show that the ESF and YEI in England have been effective in meeting their objectives of supporting participants to progress towards and into sustainable employment, education or training. While it is too early to quantify the impact of ESF and YEI, latest evidence from evaluations of the YEI and results from the leavers survey point to effective delivery and positive outcomes, while helping to identify elements of provision that have been less effective and groups for whom there has been less progress.

Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) impact evaluation

Evaluation in the first half of the programme has focused mainly on the YEI. Here, the evidence so far suggests that the YEI has been effective in making progress towards its objective of sustainable integration into the labour market of young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs). This is based on findings from qualitative research, analysis of Management Information (MI) and results from the six month leavers survey. We cannot yet quantify impact or value for money pending the completion of the counterfactual impact evaluation (CIE) in 2019.

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) Impact Evaluation, commissioned in April 2017, aims to assess the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the YEI. Drawing on recommendations of a feasibility study, this evaluation is using mixed methods, including qualitative and quantitative research utilising primary and secondary data from a range of sources including government administrative data. Impact is being measured both qualitatively using theory based evaluation methods and quantitatively using counterfactual impact evaluation (CIE). The evaluation also draws on findings from the leavers survey. When complete, results from the impact evaluation will be used to conduct a value for money assessment of the YEI.

The findings presented here are drawn from the interim evaluation report submitted to the Commission in December 2018, drawing on the evidence sources referred to above. Taken as a whole, they present a persuasive case that the nature and delivery of the YEI, is in most cases, effective in addressing the issues and challenges young people face. This is reflected in encouraging results in terms of YEI participants moving into employment and high satisfaction levels with the support provided:

• nearly half (49%) of participants surveyed reported that their main activity was being in employment six months after leaving YEI, while a further 16% reported being in education or training. Taken together, almost two thirds were either in work and, or learning six months after leaving YEI

• the overall satisfaction rate with the support amongst survey respondents supports the impression of effective delivery. More than half (52%) of respondents were ‘very satisfied’ overall whilst a third (34%) were ‘fairly satisfied’

Targeting and engaging YEI participants has been relatively effective with the programme broadly on target in terms of the gender split. In addition, the high proportions (72%) experiencing additional disadvantages, and half of all participants (51%) stating they had been unemployed on joining YEI provision for more than six months or never having had a job, shows how YEI is engaging those most in need of help.

Reasons given for the apparent effectiveness of targeting by providers include local data sharing, exploitation of partner networks and a focus on outreach activity, particularly having a high street presence. There have been challenges engaging so called ‘hidden NEETs’, economically inactive NEETs and lone parents, but overall identifying marginalised young people was often seen as less of a challenge than getting them to positively engage with provision and maintain that engagement, suggesting this group might be harder to support than harder to find.

Key drivers of effectiveness in the YEI model were seen as co location with other related services supporting young people and use of a key worker model to provide consistent support and case management, often combined in a ‘hub and spoke’ delivery model, enabling consistency of support and case management combined with a wider support offer. The latter was seen as very important by participants in terms of developing trust, sensitivity to needs, flexibility and working at a pace suitable to the individual’s needs. However, it was also noted that there could be over dependence on key workers or a reluctance to progress the participant on at the appropriate time.

Having a range of support tailored to the individual was a key factor in its perceived effectiveness. The forms of support most consistently mentioned by staff included: wraparound support often involving building motivation and confidence or addressing anxiety as a precursor to engaging with work and education; short sharp skills interventions; English and Maths qualifications; and training linked to an employment pathway. Social or community based activities and volunteering were also important. There were mixed views from participants on the value of work experience but traineeships received very high levels of satisfaction. On the other hand, classroom based support was seen to be less effective.

Results from the leavers survey suggest a positive picture in terms of the quality of jobs and training offers received. Of the two thirds (63%) who had received at least one job offer between starting on the provision and six months after leaving, a similar proportion (65%) rated the quality of job offers as either ‘very good’ (28%) or ‘good’ (36%). Of those in employment six months after leaving YEI, just under half (46%) were on a permanent contract and a further 15% were on a contract lasting 12 months or more. However, around a quarter (26%) were either on temporary or zero hours contracts, demonstrating less stable forms of work for a substantial minority of YEI leavers. Nearly 7 out of 10 participants in work six months after leaving YEI were working full time (69%).

4.1 ESF impact evaluation

An impact evaluation of the whole ESF programme will commence in spring 2019 and report in 2020. Similar to the YEI impact evaluation, it will aim to assess the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the ESF and employ a mixed methods approach. The methodology has been informed by a research design and scoping study (published July 2018) that recommended a combination of Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE) and theory based evaluation to measure impact at programme level and where feasible sub groups within the ESF population, while exploring the effectiveness of different types of provision and how and why they are effective for different groups.

However, evidence is emerging from the six month leavers survey that ESF and YEI are proving to be effective in helping people move towards and into sustainable employment. The survey, which commenced in October 2016, has completed seven waves and interviewed more than 13,000 participants (including more than 1,400 YEI participants) to the end of February 2019. Results have been weighted to be representative of the whole ESF population.

Findings show that ESF and YEI are effectively engaging participants facing an array of disadvantages in the labour market. Before joining ESF or YEI, the majority of respondents were either unemployed (59%) or inactive excluding those in education (9%). Of those unemployed, half (51%) had been out of work for 6 months or more. Just over half of all respondents (51%) were in receipt of benefits and the majority (62%) were recorded as having a disadvantage. More than a third (37%) had a disability or long term health condition.

A key indicator of success shows that around 4 in 10 (41%) of respondents who were unemployed or inactive before they joined an ESF or YEI course or programme, moved into employment since joining and were in employment, including self employment, six months after leaving. There is little variation by gender (42% male, 40% female) and on average across all categories of region, this indicator is well above the programme targets (31% Less Developed, 34% More Developed, Transitional).

However, there were some notable differences between groups: those recorded as having a disadvantage were significantly less likely (36%) to have moved into employment than those without (52%) and similarly for those with a disability or long term health condition (31%) compared to those without (50%).

Considering the quality of employment, nearly two thirds (63%) of those in employment after six months were on permanent or open ended contracts, with a further 8% on a fixed term contract lasting 12 months or longer, suggesting a reasonable standard and stability of job. However, a substantial minority (26%) were either on zero hours’ contracts, employed on a temporary or casual basis or on a fixed term contract lasting less than 12 months.

There is some evidence that ESF or YEI is helping people to progress in employment with 30% of those in employment on entry showing improved labour market status six months after leaving, however this is slightly below the programme target (35%).

Overall satisfaction with the course or programme was very high (82%) and the same proportion felt that it had helped them to some extent to get a job or made it more likely they would get a job in the future. A minority (17%) felt it hadn’t helped at all.

In terms of how the programme helped, the vast majority (85%) felt it was relevant to their needs and that the level of difficulty (78%) and time spent on the course (77%) were about right. For most (72%), advice or guidance about types of work they could do was the most common form of support, followed by more general advice about work (70%) and training or advice in how to look for work (65%).

Looking at softer skills, when asked about how the course or programme had helped them, respondents rated self confidence most highly (73%), followed by ability to do things independently (71%) and communication skills (70%).

Other forms of support provided were childcare for whom 3 in 4 (75%) who received it would have faced difficulties otherwise and help with managing a health condition or disability (32%).

5. Information on the implementation of the Youth Employment Initiative, where applicable

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) is one of the main EU financial resources to support the implementation of Youth Guarantee schemes. It was launched to provide support to young people living in regions where youth unemployment was higher than 25% in 2012. The UK Government did not implement the Youth Guarantee due to the measures it had put in place at the time through Jobcentre Plus and the Youth Contract.

The (Youth Guarantee) specific model of an offer of training or employment placement within four months of being unemployed or leaving education will not be implemented through the Youth Employment Initiative in England. At the time of its inception, over 80 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds flowed off Jobseeker’s Allowance within six months, and over 65 per cent flowed off within three months so a rigid four months’ period would have incurred significant deadweight loss and would not have been a cost effective use of public funds. Instead the UK Government chose the flexibility to provide individualised support, in line with local circumstances focusing resources on those who need it most. The YEI in England complements or supports activities referred to in the European Union recommendation on the Youth Guarantee such as apprenticeships, traineeships and work experience.

The YEI exclusively supports young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs), including the long term unemployed or those not registered as job seekers. It ensures that in parts of Europe where the challenges are most acute, young people can receive targeted support. In England, the YEI is delivered locally with the advice of local committees in Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPS) areas who work with the ESF Managing Authority (MA) to develop calls to invite applications for funding to tackle youth unemployment in their area alongside existing Government provision. The YEI builds on and enhances existing provision, or develops new innovative programmes to support young NEETs to access the labour market or education or vocation training opportunities.

In England, there have been a number of challenges with regards to the YEI implementation such as the availability of match funding which must be integral to the project and be drawn from the same eligible area as well as the improvement in the economic climate and falling youth unemployment rate which have reduced the number of eligible participants.

The MA and its partners recognise that YEI (Investment Priority 1.3 of the England Operational Programme) is strictly targeted at young people between the ages of 15 to 29 and NEET, and can only operate in eligible areas as set out in the first paragraph above. In England 90% of YEI funding is allocated to five (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) NUTS 2 Regions (Inner London, Merseyside, Tees Valley and Durham, and West Midlands) which had a 25% youth unemployment at the time the initiative was conceived. In line with the ESF Regulation, the remaining 10% of the YEI allocation is targeted at NUTS 3 Regions (Kingston-upon-Hull, Leicester, Nottingham and Thurrock) with youth unemployment rates above 30% in 2012.

The YEI focusses on providing support and help for marginalised participants to move into traineeships, apprenticeships and work or to re engage in education and training moving them closer to the labour market. Participants might, for example, be members of gangs, care leavers, young lone parents, ex-offenders or young people with learning difficulties. They are likely to require more intensive and tailored interventions.

5.1 Issues identified and measures taken to address them

YEI in England was expected to underspend owing to a shortfall in take up. The reasons for this include the restrictive eligibility criteria, the reducing numbers of NEETs due to youth unemployment falling, a lack of eligible match funding and the (since revised) assumption that the YEI would finish in 2018. In addition, Co-Financing Organisations such as the Education and Skills Funding Agency and DWP declined to participate in the initiative due to the added complexities involved.

In order to utilise the full value of the YEI, the ESF MA has worked with LEP areas to find solutions to increase the take up of YEI and identifying appropriate match funding.

In 2018, the EC clarified that YEI contracts may run beyond 2018 on the proviso that the Operational Programme targets (N+3) are met. In England, the 2018 N+3 target for 2018 was achieved and the MA worked with existing grant recipients to identify whether their projects could be extended using the Project Change Request (PCR) process. As a result, 18 PCRs totalling £47.9m (£12.96m More Developed (MD) and £34.9m Transition (T)) were submitted and approved. In addition, there are 3 PCRs still under consideration which if approved will commit a further £3.02m (£2.51m MD and £0.51m T).

Allied to the above, the MA is also aiming to launch a National YEI call in the MD Region and is currently working through the detail of the call and the timing of its publication.

Performance

In England, YEI has, to date, supported a total of 61,011 young people who are NEET and spent €147m (YEI and ESF funding, including domestic match funding).

Latest results from the YEI evaluation present a positive picture. The YEI Leavers Survey found that nearly two thirds (62%) of YEI participants received an employment offer between starting and six months after leaving YEI, of which the vast majority (87%) were perceived as being offers of good or reasonable quality. Nearly half (47%) of YEI NEETs surveyed stated that they were in employment, including self employment, six months after leaving, with a fifth (20%) in continued education, training programmes leading to a qualification, an apprenticeship or a traineeship. These results confirm the positive emerging findings from the YEI Impact Evaluation Interim Report.

Further analysis of the YEI performance is set out in Youth Employment Initiative (Article 19(4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 (where applicable))

Examples of the sort of YEI activity currently taking place in England include;

Springboard works with 20 delivery partners in a number of sectors in the city of Hull and across the Humber. Participants receive help with barriers to work such as travel, childcare costs and mental health issues, as well as training when required. Strong working relationships with Jobcentre Plus, alongside their partners’ own recruitment activities, has resulted in a high level of referrals for this programme.

By the end of 2018 the Springboard project had achieved the following outputs and immediate results: 1,586 Participants; 678 into work, apprenticeships or education or training on leaving; 1,392 gained qualifications. Black Country Impact provides a tailored approach, designed to help each young adult build a future in a way that suits their specific circumstances. Specialist commissioned provision is available for key groups such as care leavers, teenage mothers, offenders, homeless people and substance misusers, and those furthest away from the labour market who are in need of additional support to access national provision.

By the end of 2018 the Black Country Impact project had achieved the following outputs and immediate results: 10,674 Participants; 2,993 into work, apprenticeships or education or training on leaving; 325 gained qualifications.

DurhamWorks is a partnership project between Durham County Council and 16 organisations working together to support unemployed 16 to 24 year olds NEET. The focus is on providing one to one support that helps young people identify their employment goals; and through access to education, training and work experience opportunities develop their skills and capacity to achieve them. Support is also provided to removing other barriers to work such as help with childcare and benefits.

By the end of 2018 the DurhamWorks project had achieved the following outputs and immediate results: 2,487 Participants; 21 into work, apprenticeships or education or training on leaving; 2 gained qualifications.

6. Issues affecting the performance of the programme and measures taken. (Article 50(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

(a) Issues which affect the performance of the programme and the measures taken

The Programme made significant progress during 2018 with a high volume of commitment through Funding Agreements (FAs) and payments made to Grant Recipients (GRs). All projects are now able to make their claims online which has speeded up the payment process. Arrangements put in place during Q3 and Q4 enabled a substantial number of claims to be paid, this led to the achievement of the 2018 N+3 target.

To further support the commitment of funding, the Managing Authority (MA) has raised the minimum call and application values. This is aimed at attracting larger consortia applications, maximising funding and resources. It has also introduced a one stage application process. These changes remain under review and will additionally be supported by the use of Technical Assistance.

Co-Financing Organisation (CFO) performance is managed through monthly teleconferences and bi annual Performance Monitoring Meetings, which has provided the MA with the opportunity to discuss performance variances and the work the CFO is doing to ensure that Outputs and Results are delivered in line with contracted profiles. CFOs themselves conduct monthly contract performance meetings with procured contracts and implement Performance Improvement Plans where contracts fail to meet minimum requirements. Supporting continuous improvement, where local areas have confirmed a continued need, the highest performing contracts have qualified for contract extensions.

Some LEP areas were offered new Opt Ins and further funding committed to support new activity which will go live in 2019.

The MA restructured to provide dedicated leads to each CFO. This provides consistent advice and guidance resulting and supported the timeous submission of claims.

A series of additional MI products were developed and improved throughout 2018 to support claim tracking and payments which proved invaluable for N+3 and will support robust challenges to CFOs in 2019. It will also support the de-commitment of funding from poorer performing Projects to be reinvested in new Projects. In the Less developed region CFOs worked closely with providers to drive up performance; using SMART action plans; holding regular performance meetings, and; using Quarterly Review Points and published Performance Management Points.

To encourage performance improvements CFOs have supported the implementation of best practice sharing forums which proved successful towards the end of the year. This has supported the recovery plans in place with those Projects struggling to meet performance requirements.

During 2018 CFO Projects consistently reported the challenge of dealing with participants facing multiple barriers and need for more intensive or specialist support needs. Changes to delivery models have been supported with the recruitment of specialist staff and changes to the delivery network to adapt to the changes required. This has started to support recovery plans toward the end of year.

Increased publicity is also a feature, as it has been found that using multiple mediums including local Radio and local Cinema adverts to reach potential participants is particularly effective in areas with poor transport networks.

Following a revision of the European Commission’s approach to de-commitment, the EC confirmed that the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) could continue to be spent up to the end of 2023 providing that the programme meets its N+3 targets. This allowed the MA to review use of YEI in eligible areas so Action Note 011 of 2018 and Action Note 021 2018 were published to encourage extensions to, or increase the value of, existing YEI contracts. Eighteen PCRs were received.

The revised ESF OP, October 2018, reflected the potential to continue to spend YEI beyond 2018. LEP Leads have continued to work with local areas to progress this and as a result a national YEI Call for the MD regions is planned in 2019 to the total value of £80m.

The England European Social Fund Programme 2014 to 2020 Case Study Booklet 2018 provides information on 6 YEI projects demonstrating the positive impact ESF is having in supporting young people from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds to overcome multiple barriers, gain new skills and move into or closer to employment and training; examples at section 5.5 (above) refer.

CLLD delivery progress remains slower than expected due to:

• delays in recruitment or lead time to appoint CLLD Delivery Team staff

• local calls or application processes

• local Elections which resulted in push back of call launch dates

• training of Local Action Groups and local engagement

• recruitment of new LAG members was required (some LAG members left due to new priorities)

• delays at due diligence stage; securing evidence of eligible match funding offered in the initial application

Other constraints:

• lack of match funding or availability of match funding on a timescale that matched the proposed CLLD calls

• poor responses to initial calls or the ability of potential applicants to turn around applications which met eligibility requirements within very limited timescales

• weak ESIF experience or capacity to lead in CLLD areas

The MA is bringing projects together to share learning and experience.

ECLAIMS development is now complete, the service has been rolled out to all beneficiaries in line with the EC’s E-cohesion requirements. Organisations can now submit claims, share documents, deal with queries and issues, directly through the system. To assist users, there are a significant number of validation rules within ECLAIMS to support error reduction.

Jaspersoft is now in use and being used to report on Programme financial performance. Combined with the MA’s other Business Intelligence tools, we can fully report on the programme, both at individual beneficiary level and aggregated programme level.

(b) An assessment of whether progress made towards targets is sufficient to ensure their fulfilment, indicating any remedial actions taken or planned, where appropriate.

Narrative provided in Information in Part A and achieving objectives of the programme (Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

7. Citizen’s summary

A citizen’s summary of the contents of the annual and the final implementation reports shall be made public and uploaded as a separate file in the form of annex to the annual and the final implementation report.

8. Report on the implementation of financial instruments

9. Optional for the report to be submitted in 2016, not applicable to other light reports: actions taken to fulfil ex ante conditionalities.

Please see data table 14: Actions taken to fulfil applicable general ex ante conditionalities and

Table 15: Actions taken to fulfil applicable thematic ex ante conditionalities.

Both tables can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 13 to 15

10. Progress in the preparation and implementation of the major projects and joint action plans (Article 101(H) and 111(3) of regulation (EU) NO 1303/2013)

Major projects

Table 12 major projects can be found at AIR 2018 data tables 10 to 12

Significant problems encountered in implementing major projects and measures taken to overcome them

Not applicable to ESF England

Any change planned in the list of major projects in the operational programme

Not applicable to ESF England

10.1 Joint action plans

Progress in the implementation of different stages of joint action plans

Table 13: Joint Action Plans (JAP) can be found within AIR 2018 data tables 13 to 15

Significant problems encountered and measures taken to overcome them

Not applicable to ESF England

10.2 Part B

10.3 reporting submitted in years 2017,2019 and final implementation report. (Article 50(4), 111(3) and (4) of regulation (EU) No 1303/2013

11. Assessment of the implementation of the Operational Programme (articles 50(4) and 111(4) of regulation (EU) NO 1303/2013)

Information in Part A and achieving objectives of the programme (Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) No1303/2013)

Priority Axis:1

Inclusive Labour Markets

Throughout this report, unless stated otherwise, all commitment by the Managing Authority (MA) and spend is quoted in Sterling (£) and all commitment and spend against the Performance Framework (PF) is reported in Euros (€) and all figures include Match. Where included within an IPA, all Euro values in this part of the report are as transmitted to the European Commission using the EUR Exchange Rate appropriate to that payment request, all other figures, where not yet included within any IPA, have the January 2019 EUR exchange rate applied and are therefore converted using EUR exchange rate of 0.90273.

Financial Objectives

At the end of 2018, committed spend for Priority Axis 1 (PA1) was £2.2bn (€2.45bn). This was broken down in to Direct Bid Funding Agreements with a total value of £709m (€786m) and Memoranda of Understanding for the four National CFOs valued at £1.5bn (€1.67bn).

11.1 Performance Framework (PF) targets

Financial targets:

• Less Developed Region €17,980,378.12 declared against a target of €23,263,000 77%

• Transition Region €209,358,061.43 declared against a target of €122,283,000 171%

• More Developed Region €663,015,432.74 declared against a target of €512,660,000 129%

The More Developed and Transitional regions reported 129% &171% expenditure respectively against the 2018 milestone targets. In the Less Developed region expenditure reported against the 2018 milestone is 77%.

The financial figures for the PF are inclusive of what was submitted in IPA10 at the end of March 2019, relating to spend from beneficiaries in 2018, and as such can be treated as our final position.

Please note that the participant data referenced below includes both O1 & O2 participants, whilst the data in Table Five includes O1 only and therefore the two data sets will not directly correlate. Please see the reference to and explanation of this in section; Key information on the implementation of the operational programme for the year concerned, including on financial instruments, with relation to the financial and indicator data.

11.2 Participant targets

• Less Developed Region: 5,541 declared against a target of 6,360 87%

• Transition Region: 122,610 declared against a target of 51,930 236%

• More Developed Region: 329,729 declared against a target of 220,910 149%

The More Developed (MD) and Transitional (T) regions had 149% & 236% reported participants respectively against the 2018 milestone target for the Performance Framework. The Less Developed (LD) region achievement is 87%, exceeding the 85% threshold.

The information detailed in the above is to 19 March 2019. It contains expenditure incurred by Grant Recipients (GRs) until the end of the 2018 calendar year, but received in Q1 2019, as this contributes towards the PF achievement.

11.3 Less Developed (LD)Region

The MA has concentrated efforts in the LD Category of Region to support the achievement of PF Targets. This has included prioritising calls for new operations and claims, working with GRs and CFOs to ensure that all progress to date has been reported.

CIoS has relatively low numbers of unemployed people. This has caused some challenges with absorption in PA1. To improve this situation going forwards, a PA1 focus group has been set up to provide support to GRs, improve focus and drive performance. In addition, the MA held meetings with the CFOs delivering in PA1 to ensure effective absorption. Robust contract and stakeholder management of projects has ensured that claims have been submitted more quickly and efficiently. Additionally, the MA prioritised the processing of larger claims to further drive performance in this region.

The performance outlined above indicates that the MA is in a position to be deemed to have achieved the required PF achievement for this PA, as the PF targets are deemed achieved if 85% of target or over is recorded in all but one indicator at PA level. The one remaining indicator must be above 75% achievement.

11.4 2018 N+3 spend targets (Narrative covers all PAs)

The MA achievement against the 2018 N+3 target was 103.65% across all programme PAs. This is a significant achievement given the slow start to the programme and reflects the success of the MA’s approach to prioritising the processing of claims in the latter part of the year. Close management and monitoring of this indicator within the MA was key to achieving this level of performance.

Although a global programme target, it should be noted that the 2018 N+3 target was achieved in the MD and T Category of Regions and YEI. The MA continues to work proactively with the LD Region (Cornwall & Isles of Scilly (CIoS)), in order to bring forward more calls and activity and is confident that the commitment levels in this area will increase significantly during 2019, thus ensuring that we can meet, with proactive contract management, the targets in this area going forward.

The lessons learned from this exercise have supported our approach for N+3 2019. As a cumulative target, the excess carried over from 2018, pre-financing and forecasted expenditure indicates that we should achieve this measure at the end of Q2 2019 to early Q3 2019.

11.5 Overall Progress Outputs

Following the relatively low level of claims received in 2017, the MA focused on the close management of GRs during 2018 to ensure that claims were received and processed promptly. The actual number of participants reported at the end of the year 2018 was 66% of the total Programme target.

Across England, commitment varied throughout the sub groups. At the start of the year, the ‘Over 50s’ and ‘Unemployed’ sub groups were relatively under committed compared to the budget committed as was the ‘Ethnic Minorities’ sub group. The MA’s analysis of commitments made so far is being used to inform the development of future calls at local level. This proactive approach has been successful and the performance gap for the ‘Over 50s’ and ‘Unemployed’ groups has been closed. Our current focus is on ‘Ethnic Minorities’ which is being addressed through current and future calls and Project Change Requests.

11.6 Overall Progress Results

Across England, the level of committed results was positive and represented a strong ratio of output to result.

11.7 Overall Progress Category of Region

Though the Programme is close to approx. 65% commitment at a national level, there are variances among Categories of Region, IP and LEP areas.

11.8 Committed spend:

• Less Developed €47m (41% of allocation)

• Transitional €352m (73% of allocation)

• More Developed €964m (67% of allocation)

Please find below breakdown for each Category of Region showing commitment, variances and actions being taken to address these:

11.9 Less Developed

Overall ESF commitment 41%. The percentage of commitment varies by IP:

IP 1.1		IP 1.2		IP 1.4		IP 1.5
39%		63%		31%		87%

CIoS had a slow start during the first year of the programme, however the situation is improving and there have now been Calls to the value of £49.4m launched. This, plus the CFO contracts in the Region, has resulted in projects to the value of £82.9m being approved and a further £23.9m in the pipeline. If all the applications in the pipeline come to fruition, this would lead to 66% of the notional allocation being committed in the LD region. Further Calls are planned that would utilise the entire LDR notional allocation.

Robust contract and stakeholder management of projects has ensured that claims have been submitted more quickly and efficiently. Additionally, the MA prioritised the processing of larger claims to further drive performance in this region.

Additionally, the work of the PA1 Focus Group, previously mentioned will help drive further performance improvements in the CoR.

As part of the OP review (adopted in October 2018), it was agreed to move €15m to ERDF and these funds would be taken from the LDR’s allocation. In this, CIoS’ mid term adjustment included an increase in their PA2.1 allocation.

There was also a reduction of participants in IPs 1.1 and 1.4 and a redistribution of the Inactive and Unemployed Outputs which addressed the fact that CIoS had a high number of Inactive participants and lower numbers of Unemployed people.

Transitional

Overall ESF commitment 73%. The percentage of commitment varies by IP:

IP 1.1		IP 1.2		IP 1.3		IP 1.4		IP 1.5
42%		84%		103%		89%		62%

The current over commitment in IP1.3 occurred as a result of changes requested through Project Change Requests. The MA is confident that this over commitment risk can be managed through exchange rate changes and project underspends.

More Developed

Overall ESF commitment 67%. The percentage of commitment varies by IP:

IP 1.1		IP 1.2		IP 1.3		IP 1.4		IP 1.5
40%		102%		52%		98%		65%

The MA will continue to work with LEP areas to manage levels of commitment in accordance with the performance framework and OP targets.

Overall Progress – YEI

At the end of 2018 the total commitment in Funding Agreements for YEI, including the ESF element, was £285m. This has increased from £155.2m since the last report due to launch of new calls and Project Change requests. The MA has closely monitored progress in this particular IP and has worked with the relevant LEP areas to explore ways to further increase spend. To address the YEI under commitment in the MD Region an £80m national call will be launched on 10th June covering this Category of Region. This should utilise the remaining unallocated funding.

Claims

At the point of writing, the MA has paid claims (EU funding only, not including Match) to a value of £629m in grants against an expected value against a profile of £879m. A more robust approach to Contract Management and improved MI will lead to an increased claim rate in future.

A key reason for the lower amount is that many projects started later than expected and as such have submitted Project Change Requests to re profile expenditure and indicator profiles.

Many GRs are new to the obligations of operating as an ESF GR. This has resulted in the gathering of evidence for claims checks being slower than expected. The MA has actively worked with GRs to ensure more accurate completion of claims in line with the Claims Schedule.

Since the last report an electronic claims system has been successfully rolled out to all GRs allowing them to input their own claims, which has speeded up the claims process and reduced the opportunity for input errors.

Priority Axis: 2

Skills for Growth

Throughout this report, unless stated otherwise, all commitment by the Managing Authority (MA) and spend is quoted in Sterling (£) and all commitment and spend against the Performance Framework is reported in Euros (€) and include Match. All Euro values in this part of the report are as transmitted to the European Commission in January 2019 and are therefore converted using the EUR exchange rate of 0.90273.

11.10 Commitment

At the end of 2018, committed spend for Priority Axis 2 (PA2) was £763.5m (€845.7m). This was broken down in to Direct Bid Funding Agreements with a total value of £102.9m (€114m) and Memoranda of Understanding for SFA CFO valued at £660.5m (€731.7m).

11.11 Performance Framework Spend Targets

Financial Targets:

Performance across the Category of Regions against the 2018 milestone targets is as follows:

• Less Developed Region €9,041,061.58 declared against a target of €5,823,000 155%

• Transition Region €52,233,752.02 declared against a target of €45,314,000 115%

• More Developed Region €150,307,752.56 declared against a target of €145,876 103%

The financial figures for the Performance Framework are inclusive of what was submitted in IPA10 at the end of March 2019, and as such can be treated as our final position.

Participant Targets:

Please note that the participant data referenced below includes both O1 and O2 participants, whilst the data in Table Five includes O1 only and therefore the two data sets will not directly correlate. Please see the reference to and explanation of this in section 2.1.

Performance across the Category of Regions against the 2018 milestone targets is as follows:

• Less Developed Region 6,413 declared against a target of 1,310 490%

• Transition Region 54,367 declared against a target of 18,820 289%

• More Developed Region 113,970 declared against a target of 55,780 204%

All targets have therefore been exceeded. The information detailed above is to 19 March 2019. It contains participant data relating to the 2018 calendar year, but claimed in Q1 2019, as this contributes towards the Performance Framework achievement. 2018 N+3 spend targets (Covered under PA1)

Overall Progress Outputs

Following the relatively low level of claims received in 2017, the MA focused on close management of GRs (GRs) during 2018 to ensure that claims were received and processed promptly. The actual number of participants reported at the end of the year 2018 was 24.53% of the total Programme target. The MA’s analysis of commitments made so far is being used to inform the development of future calls at local level, the focus going forward is ‘Basic Skills’ and ‘People with Disabilities’ to increase the opportunities for people that fall into these disadvantaged groups.

Overall Progress Results

Across England, the level of committed results was positive and represented a strong ratio of output to result.

Overall Progress Category of Region

Though the Programme is close to 65% at a national level, there is some variance among Categories of Region, IP and LEP areas.

Committed spend:

• Less Developed €23m (46% of allocation)

• Transitional €136m (42% of allocation)

• More Developed €297m (32% of allocation)

Please find below breakdown for each category of region showing commitment, variances and actions being taken to address these:

Less Developed

Overall ESF commitment 46%. The percentage of commitment varies by IP:

IP 2.1		IP 2.2
41%		53%

CIoS had an especially slow start, however the OP review of 2018, rectified some incorrect assumptions around the financial and output indicators for this CoR. The indicators were adjusted to better reflect events since the Programme started and take account of significant recent changes to the labour market of the region. For example, CIoS requested that the mid term adjustment be allocated to PA2.1 rather than distributed equally amongst all Investment Priorities (IPs).

At the time of writing there are currently 10 applications for PA2 funding in appraisal, these total £13.8m. There is a planned call for £1.3m. The MA continues to collaborate with the Less Developed Region to develop and prioritise calls to ensure the future performance targets are achieved.

Transitional

Overall ESF commitment 42%. The percentage of commitment varies by IP:

IP 2.1		IP 2.2
45%		28%

At the time of writing there are live and planned calls totalling £49.7m.

More Developed

Overall ESF commitment 32%. The percentage of commitment varies by IP:

IP 2.1		IP 2.2
65%		29%

At the time of writing there are live and planned calls totalling £164m. The MA will continue to work with LEP areas to manage levels of commitment in accordance with the performance framework and OP targets.

Claims

At the point of writing, the MA has paid claims to a value of £276.4m, against an expected profile of £339m. A key reason for the lower amount is that many projects started later than expected and as such have submitted Project Change Requests to re profile expenditure and indicator profiles. Many GRs are new to the obligations of operating as an ESF GR. This has resulted in the gathering of evidence for claims checks being slower than expected. The MA has actively worked with GRs to ensure more accurate completion of claims in line with the Claims Schedule.

Priority Axis:3

Technical Assistance

Throughout this report, unless stated otherwise, all commitment by the Managing Authority (MA) and spend is quoted in Sterling (£) and all commitment and spend against the Performance Framework is reported in Euros (€) and include Match. All Euro values in this part of the report are as transmitted to the European Commission in January 2019 and are therefore converted using the EUR exchange rate of 0.90273.

Commitment

At the end of 2018, committed spend for Priority Axis 3 was £38.1m (€42.2m). This was broken down in to Direct Bid Funding Agreements with a total value of £36m (€39.8m).and a Memorandum of Understanding for Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) valued at £2.1m (€2.3m). During 2018 the MA launched a national call with a value of £60m. A further £1m call closed in April 2019.

Overall Progress Category of Region

Once again, the overall commitment has a variance among Categories of Region, IP and LEP areas.

Committed spend:

• Less Developed €2.2m (32% of allocation)

• Transitional €6.7m (22% of allocation)

• More Developed €16.6m (17% of allocation)

The MA will continue to work with LEP areas to manage levels of commitment in accordance with the performance framework and OP targets.

Claims

At the point of writing, the MA has paid claims to a value of £22.9m, against an expected profile of £30.5m. A key reason for the lower amount is that many projects started later than expected and as such have submitted Project Change Requests to re profile expenditure and indicator profiles.

11.12 Specific actions taken to promote equality between men and women and to prevent discrimination, in particular accessibility for persons with disabilities, and the arrangements implemented to ensure the integration of the gender perspective in the operational programme and operations (Articles 50(4) and 111(4), second subparagraph, (e) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

Equality, including gender equality has been embedded and promoted into the four main stages of the programming process; planning; implementation; delivery and monitoring, evaluation. An equality impact survey was undertaken before the OP was launched. This ‘Ex Ante’ Equality Assessment was undertaken by the MA following full consultation with the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission. A revised ESIF equality mainstreaming plan was published on the Gov.UK website in May 2018 covering the England ESF and ERDF programmes.

All Cross Cutting Themes compliance is included as an integral part of each of the relevant business process sections where the checks are undertaken from the beginning of the programme (for example, Project Application Guidance; Project Appraisal Scoring Frameworks; Project Inception Visit Guidance and MI Indicator Guidance). The theme was strengthened in the revised business process guidance published in 2018, providing greater clarity in project appraisal and helping staff understand what made a ‘good’ equality policy and plan as well as introducing some new equality checks.

The ESF MA delivered 12 gender equality and diversity training workshops (including two pilot workshops) in 2017 to all MA staff which aimed to help them understand what equality and diversity meant, the legal context, good practice in promoting equality and the overall importance of the cross cutting theme. The MA delivered a further 14 equality workshops for MA, CFO and IB staff during 2018 which helped explain the updated equality guidance and related requirements. Key staff including contract managers, verification officers as well as CFO and IB staff attended the training.

The Equality and Diversity National Sub Committee (of the GPB) met in January and May in 2018. The meeting in January 2018 focused on: a presentation by The Women’s Organisation’s national ESF TA project which aims to enhance the representation of ‘third sector’ and voluntary organisations within the programme; an update on the progress being made in the MA’s equality training workshops; how equality principles are being applied across the ESF programmes; an update from the ESF Evaluation Team on equality in future evaluation work; arrangements for presenting progress to the GPB in June 2018.

Women and disabled people have been supported through a range of ESF projects. For example:

• £2m of ESF has been allocated to help deliver the Solent Jobs Programme which help disabled people access support for work by providing intensive case management, cognitive behavioural therapy and health support as well as employment support, including work experience opportunities. The project’s localised and strategic approach links a range of specialist agencies to provide personalised holistic support

• 11.2m ESF and £5.8m YEI has been allocated to DurhamWorks project which aims to help young people who are NEET including young women aged 16 to 24. The project provides 1 to 2 to 1 support to help them identify their goals and access opportunities to help them achieve their goals as well as removing barriers such as help with childcare and benefits

D2N2’s Changing Lives project offers tailored employment support to vulnerable women whilst on licence or in custody. Participants receive 1 to 2 to 1 support as well as group self development courses. The project also helps provide access to specialist women only accommodation projects for those women who are at risk of homelessness and domestic violence.

11.13 Sustainable development (Articles 50(4) and 111(4), second subparagraph, (f) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

Section 11.1 of the England ESF Operational Programme (OP) explains that the programme will be pursued in line with the principle of sustainable development by requiring all ESF providers to have:

• Sustainable Development (SD) policies which explain their commitment to promoting sustainable development and comply with relevant legislation

• Sustainable Development action plans which explain what the projects will do to take the environment into account when they are delivering their projects and to turn this commitment into action – for example by reducing energy consumption; waste minimisation and management; promoting green, public transport and complying with waste disposal legislation

The ESF MA’s project application appraisal arrangements require policies and plans to be in place ‘from day one’ of delivery (unlike in the previous programme where they were allowed 26 weeks after the project start).

The MA has issued guidance which sets out what the polices and plans should cover. The type and nature of projects vary considerably across the England ESF programme and each project is expected to record and monitor its own individual progress and to update its implementation plan to reflect progress on a regular basis.

These policies and plans are monitored by the MA through contract management arrangements as well as verification checks by the MA verification team.

During 2018, the MA aimed to strengthen the SD mainstreaming approach by embedding SD more clearly within key ESF business processes. New, revised ‘in house’ guidelines were prepared covering:

• application assessment and appraisal of SD

• Project Inception Visits & SD

• Article 125 On the Spot Visit Checks & SD

• ECLAIMS progress checks

• checks undertaken by CFOs

An ESF Action Note was published on GOV.UK highlighting the new assessment and appraisal arrangements and this was followed by revised guidance relating to SD which was also updated and published on GOV.UK in 2018.

During 2018 the ESF MA designed and delivered training workshops aimed at key staff involved in ESF, including verification team, contract managers and CFO staff. The training aimed to (a) refresh their understanding of what SD is in the context of ESF OP and also (b) what the new strengthened business process requirements are for SD and, in particular, what made a ‘good’ SD policy and plan.

Training was delivered via 14 workshops across England. The training was designed and delivered ‘face to face’ to ensure that there was a full discussion around any issues arising through appraisal, contract management and verification work as well. An early pilot of the training was developed in late 2017 (Sheffield) and a full pilot was delivered in February 2018. Four workshops were delivered to ESFA CFO staff during February to March 2018 in Leeds and London (including the pilot) and four workshops were delivered to MA and CFO staff in late March 2018 in Birmingham and Sheffield. A further five workshops were delivered to National Lottery Community Fund ((NLCF) previously Big Lottery Fund) contract managers in Newcastle during June – July 2018 and one workshop was delivered to Greater London Authority IB staff in August 2018.

The ESF MA has produced a SD mainstreaming progress report which covers the progress that has been made in mainstreaming SD since the start of the ESF programme. A copy of this more detailed report will be sent to the EC Desk Officer alongside the AIR report as a separate document.

11.14 Reporting on support used for climate change objectives (Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

Priority Axis

Amount of support to be used for climate change objectives

(EUR)

Proportion of total allocation to the operational programme (%)

Total 0.00

0.00%

Not applicable to ESF England.

Role of partners in the implementation of the programme

The ESF programme is governed through the national ESI Funds Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) which is also responsible for the England ERDF programme. The committee is known as the ESI Funds Growth Programme Board (GPB). The GPB meets quarterly.

In accordance with Article 5 of Common Provision Regulation, the GPB comprises representatives from:

• local authorities; city and county councils, including the Greater London Authority

• urban and other public authorities; educational establishments

• economic and social partners; chambers of commerce, local representative groups, including LEPs

• organisations, including the Trades Union Congress and those representing equality and environmental issues, small businesses and the voluntary and community sector

In addition to partnership working through the GPB, the ESF programme is further supported through partners who make up the GPB sub committees. The sub committees comprise representatives from relevant organisations who advise and challenge policy approaches to ensure the ESI programmes respond to emerging needs and issues.

Performance and Dispute Resolution (PDR)

This board monitors and assesses spend and performance across ESF, and considers and assesses programme and project related dispute cases raised by LEP arrears and GDTs to advise the GPB and MAs as needed. The PDR reports findings, trends and outcomes to the GPB, providing recommendations where appropriate.

Communications

This board advises on communication related issues and activity and promotes best practice. It evaluates the effectiveness of the Communication Strategy undertaking regular reviews. It also drives the delivery of the Annual Communication Activity Plans. The group reports directly to GPB.

National sub committee (NSC) Employment, Skills and Social Inclusion

This board sub-committee provides the sub-committee with an updates on the progress of the ESF 2014-2020 Programme and provide examples of projects being funded to promote inclusive labour markets on the programme. NSCs report directly to the GPB.

NSC Equality and Diversity

This board sub-committee provides the sub-committee with an updates on the progress of the ESF 2014-2020 Programme and provide examples of projects being funded to promote inclusive labour markets on the programme. NSCs report directly to the GPB.

European Structural Investment Funds Committees (ESIFs)

At local level, the role of partners is embedded through the 38 local ESIF Committees which complement the functions of the MA. Committees comprise members from business, public, environmental, voluntary and civil society sectors. The role and purpose of the ESIF Committees is to provide advice to the MA on local development needs, to work with local sectors and organisations to understand the opportunities provided by the ESF to support local economic growth and to provide practical advice and information to the MA to assist in the preparation of local plans that contribute towards the ESF OP priorities and targets. It also has an advisory role providing advice to the MA on local strategic for new project appraisals. Through this, partners deliver the role foreseen in the Common Provisions Regulation and the main principles and good practices set out in the European Code of Conduct on Partnership.

12. Obligatory information and assessment according to article 111(4), first subparagraph, (A) and (B), of regulation (EU) no 1303/2013

12.1 Progress in implementation of the evaluation plan and the follow up given to the findings of evaluations.

The ESF 2014 to 2020 Programme Evaluation Strategy was formally approved by the Growth Programme Board in June 2016. In the current work plan and corresponding Funding Agreement (to February 2020) we have 5 evaluation projects. Progress against each is detailed below.

12.2 Summary of position at April 2019

At April 2019, 2 of the 5 current projects have been completed and published. These are the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) Process Evaluation and the ESF Impact Evaluation: Research Design and Scoping Study. The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) Impact Evaluation is partially complete and an interim report was submitted to the Commission in December 2018. A final report incorporating results from the Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE) and value for money study will be completed in summer 2019.

The ESF and YEI Leavers Survey 2016 to 2018 is ongoing and latest results have been used to provide Long Term Results Indicators included in this report. We have also made considerable progress in an internal feasibility study on the use of administrative data to supplement and partially replace future leavers surveys in the period 2020 to 2023.

The ESF Impact Evaluation has been commissioned and will commence in April 2019.

12.3 YEI Process Evaluation

The YEI Process Evaluation was commissioned in May 2016 to Ecorys UK to examine the strategic fit, design and early implementation of the YEI. Fieldwork primarily involved qualitative research with a range of key stakeholders and was carried out between August and November 2016. The final report was published on Gov.UK in October 2017.

A summary of the key findings is included in the 2017 AIR report. As a result of the findings, the Managing Authority (MA) took forward the following actions:

• carrying out a gap analysis to ensure future YEI funding allocations are focusing on the right type of provision in the YEI eligible areas

• reviewing the funding application process to ensure it is streamlined whilst remaining robust

*reviewing guidance provided for grant recipients and introducing a number of improvements including: clarity of participant eligibility evidence requirements, consistent messaging across all guidance and improving accessibility of guidance

12.4 ESF and YEI Leavers Survey 2016 to 2018

The leavers survey meets the EC’s requirements for Longer Term Results Indicators and collects information on participants’ experiences and perspectives of ESF or YEI provision. It asks a sample of leavers about their situation 6 months after they left provision (and 12 months after for YEI leavers), mainly by telephone interview.

The survey was commissioned in October 2016 to IFF Research. To date 7 out of 10 planned survey waves are complete. The current survey will run until autumn 2019, capturing participants who left ESF or YEI provision up to the end of 2018, with a full report of findings to be published in 2020.

Reflecting the delays in projects starting and returning participant data, the early sample volumes were lower than expected meaning a census approach was taken (for instance, all participant data was used). However, volumes have increased significantly during the second half of 2018 with a response rate of around 20%.

Up to the end of wave 7, more than 13,000 interviews had been completed and results have been weighted to reflect the overall ESF population.

Findings have been used to derive indicators for this report and by the MA as an early indicator of progress against outcomes, including identifying sub groups where less progress is evident.

12.5 ESF & YEI Leavers Survey 2019 to 2023

We plan a new leavers survey to cover the remainder of the programme (capturing leavers from 2019 to the end of 2023). Its size and scope will depend on the conclusions of a feasibility study due for completion summer 2019 to assess the extent to which we can use administrative data to supplement, or where possible, replace survey data while meeting the Commission’s sample requirements.

12.6 YEI Impact Evaluation

The YEI Impact Evaluation was commissioned to Ecorys UK Ltd in April 2017 to explore the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the YEI. The evaluation is taking the following approaches to covers these three elements:

1. A theory based approach to assess the extent to which how and why the YEI has met its objectives (or not) using qualitative research with YEI projects and participants, in addition to findings from the leavers survey

2. A Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE) using administrative data to measure employment and education outcomes and compare with a group of similarly matched non participants

3. A value for money study using the results of the CIE and applying the UK’s Social Cost Benefit Analysis model to monetise where possible the costs and benefits of YEI provision

To date, the first element has been completed and an interim report produced and submitted to the Commission in December 2018. A summary of these findings is included in ‘Synthesis of Evaluations’

The CIE has not been completed due to delays in accessing the necessary administrative data. We anticipate this data becoming available in June 2019 enabling us to proceed with the planned CIE or to adopt an alternative methodology to estimate the impact of the YEI. Once the CIE is complete, government analysts will complete the value for money study. We aim to complete the final report and submit it to the Commission in summer 2019.

12.7 ESF Impact Evaluation: Research design and scoping study

The ESF Impact Evaluation: Research design and scoping study was commissioned in June 2017 to Ecorys UK to inform the design of a programme level impact evaluation required to assess the extent to which objectives under the Priority Axes have been achieved. The aims of the study were to consider the scope and feasibility of the evaluation and to assess different methodological approaches that could be used to measure the impact of ESF, including detailed consideration of Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE) methods.

The study recommended a combination of:

• theory based evaluation using qualitative case studies to test intervention logics developed for the ESF Investment Priorities

• a CIE employing Propensity Score Matching to design a comparison group of non ESF participants, alongside Difference in Differences to account for differences between the ESF participants and non participants before and after ESF began

The evaluation will also consider how and to what extent the cross cutting principles of gender equality, equal opportunities and sustainable development have been integrated effectively across ESF provision. The report was published on GOV.UK in July 2018 and has been used to write the tender requirements for the commissioning of the impact evaluation. The tendering exercise concluded in March 2019 with IFF Research appointed to begin the evaluation in April 2019. The project aims to report in summer 2020.

12.8 The results of the information and publicity measures of the Funds carried out under the communication strategy

Communications Strategy and 2018 Communications Activity Plan

As set out in the ERDF and ESF Communications Strategy for the 2014 to 2020 programmes in England (approved in 2015 and updated in late 2016) DWP has a clearly defined set of roles and responsibilities for ESF programme communication and information activities. To reflect the ESI Funds focus on supporting local growth, some communication platforms and activities are joint with the ERDF programme, managed by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

A joint ESF and ERDF Communications Annual Activity Plan for 2018 was agreed late in 2017. The plan set out a programme of communications activities, including expected results and success measures. Some activities were ESF specific, others joint with ERDF. The target audience for ESF communications includes stakeholders and partners, potential applicants, interested parties and members of the public. Communications outputs set out in the 2018 Annual Activity Plan were delivered and regulations met. Specific examples of these are below.

ESF Programme communication activities 2018

The ESF MA continues to promote the purpose, priorities and availability of ESF and how to access it. Recognising that 2018 is mid programme and projects have greater maturity, there has been more opportunity to publicise what projects are delivering and achieving across the country. A formal Communications Partner Survey was carried out in early 2018 and received 190 responses. Survey responses were used to benchmark and to shape, modify communications activities. The 2019 survey (conducted early 2019) contained the same questions where possible or relevant in order to enable comparisons and assess progress. 136 responses were received – the reduction in responses received is attributable to a GDPR enforced rebuild and reduction in contact databases. Survey results and responses are referenced where relevant against activities below.

Ongoing development and promotion of ESI Funds pages on GOV.UK

The official website portal for the programme is located at www.gov.uk/european-growth-funding.

The website:

• is built into the existing GOV.UK website structure containing key programme documents, guidance and governance information; plus annual booklets featuring project case studies to publicise activities and achievements

• provides access to the bespoke, fully searchable ‘funding finder’ tool where project calls for the ESIF programme are located. A separate page provides access to funding opportunities from ESF CFOs

• hosts the searchable list of beneficiaries. Two lists of ESF funded beneficiaries were published – in January and June. The full list covers ERDF and ESF programmes and is fully compliant with EC regulations

• sets out branding and publicity requirements (including access to logos and poster templates) to support partners and projects in delivery of compliant communications

The website portal received 427,016 page views in 2018 (target 360,000 page views). 64% of (early 2019) partner survey respondents found website pages were easy to locate and access and 88% felt information provided on pages was useful or helpful.

12.9 ESF Annual Information Activity – ‘Supporting Local Growth 2018’ booklet and related communications

In November the MA published its Supporting Local Growth 2018 booklet on GOV.UK, showcasing how 40 ESF projects provide skills support and help people across the country, from primarily disadvantaged backgrounds, to move towards and into employment. An overview of the programme’s progress and access to further information, including links to main ESF partners is also provided.

The booklet and projects featured were supported by a week’s promotional activities on the national ESIF twitter account @esif1420england, and through a special ESF Project Bulletin and featuring in an ESIF Programme Bulletin article. The booklet was promoted across and through ESF delivery partners including CFOs, LEPs and Technical Assistance projects. It was published alongside an equivalent ERDF booklet, both of which contain project cases studies in another language (French) to ensure regulatory compliance. The booklets continue to be promoted in 2019. 89% of (early 2019) partner survey respondents who had seen the booklet found it informative, useful and helpful.

ESI Funds Programme Bulletin and ESF Project Bulletin

This joint Programme Bulletin is distributed monthly to a partner database of around 700 people (started 2018 at around 2,000 but reduced to ensure compliance with GDPR in May). It provides latest news on ESI Funds programmes, including latest government announcements, call updates, key events, project case studies and programme guidance. Work to re grow the database is ongoing. 90% of (early 2019) partner survey respondents found the content informative, interesting and 92% felt the monthly frequency was about right. The ESF Project Bulletin is issued regularly to ESF grant recipients, providing news, guidance, information and good news stories that highlight best practice to assist effective project delivery.

Social media activity

Regular updates and news is shared through the joint ESF and ERDF @esif1420england Twitter account. There were c.100 ESF specific tweets to c.1,350 followers in 2018. 41% of (early 2019) partner survey respondents had seen the twitter feed. 66% had found MA tweets useful and informative and 35% had retweeted one or more tweets. MAs continued building up content on our dedicated ESIF YouTube channel, uploading films – including some highlighting successful projects.

Senior government official project visits

There were a number of senior DWP official visits to ESF projects during the year, including a joint visit in November involving the Head of the England ESF Programme and Deputy Director for the England ERDF Programme to ESF and ERDF projects in Coventry and Warwickshire. Positive feedback was received from officials and partners involved in visits.

Media activity

Online press cuttings searches are undertaken by the MA with stories and links tweeted and some featuring in other communication activities.

Internal communication activities

The ESF MA undertook a range communications activities to improve awareness and understanding of the ESF programme within DWP, including showcasing a range of projects and visits.

ERDF and ESF Communications sub committee

Made up of communications practitioners from a range of programme partner groups it supports the ESF and ERDF MAs in devising and delivery of annual communications activity plans. Met twice in 2018 (April and October) and members in regular contact throughout the year.

Participating in key partner communications networks and activities

MA representative attended May meeting of DG EMPL’s Informal Network of ESF Information Officers. In regular contact with ESF MAs in UK Devolved Administrations, including providing of some UK project examples to assist European Commission update their ESF website.

13. Actions taken to fulfil ex ante conditionalities (Article 50(4) of regulation (EU) NO 1303/2013)

(This may be included in the report to be submitted in 2016 (See Optional for the report to be submitted in 2016, not applicable to other light reports Bookmark). Required in report submitted in 2017) Option: progress report

14. Additional information which may be added depending on the content and objectives of the Operational Programme (article 111(4), second sub paragraph, (A), (B), (C), (D), (G) and (H), of regulation (EU) NO 1303/2013)

Progress in the implementation of the integrated approach to territorial development, including development of regions facing demographic challenges and permanent or natural handicaps, integrated territorial investments, sustainable urban development, and community led local development under the operational programme

There has been significant progress in the Less Developed Region with direct bid calls worth £49.4m being launched to the end of 2018. Including the additional committed funding from CFOs, LDR has committed 62.8% of its allocation with a further £23.9m of projects in the pipeline and £40m calls in development.

The MA has introduced a single stage process to facilitate projects being appraised and delivered more quickly.

Investment Priority 1.5 of the Operational Programme sets out how Community Led Local Development (CLLD) is used to deliver additional, localised support to people in particularly deprived areas, so that they move towards or into employment.

CLLD is mainly implemented as part of an integrated ESF/ERDF co dependent operation in local areas, but can also be ESF mono funded.

To the end of 2018, a total of 51 CLLD projects have been instigated at both Phase One and Phase Two, with 23 CLLD Phase Two projects currently committed across 7 LEP areas. The total commitment is at £58.5m (€64.8m), including £35.4m ESF (€32m).

This equates to 90.23% (£5.9m) of the Less Developed (LD); 64.37% (£6.8m) of the Transition (T) and 66.96% (£23.3m) of the More Developed (MD) Regions’ total allocations and will target 35,157 participants. 8 of these projects have submitted a total of 24 claims to the value of £9.3m €10.3m. No further calls or CLLD investments are envisaged.

Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area	CLLD Projects	Total ESF Committed
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority	Wisbech	£1.5m MD
Cornwall and Isles and Isles of Scilly	Coast to Coast, South and East Cornwall, Atlantic and Moor, West Cornwall	£5.9m LD
Humber	Hull Stage 2, North Lincolnshire	£3.8T
Leeds City Region	People Enabling Area, Transformation 2, Inner East Leeds 2, South Leeds 2, Bradford Central – Getting it Going 2, West Leeds 2, Keighley 2	£5.8m MD
North East	North Durham, North of Tyne, Gateshead Goes Local, South Durham Implementation, Sunderland Economic Corridor	£6.9m (£5.1m MD & £1.8m T
South East	Folkestone Community Works, Connecting Hastings and Rother, Together, Tilbury Tomorrow	£4.4m MD
York, North Yorkshire and East Riding	Yorkshire Coast Communities	£4.2m (£2.9m MD & £1.2 T)

• a Cross Programme MA Steering Group meets quarterly to discuss key issues and contract managers meet on an ad hoc basis as key issues arise

Action Note 026/18 clarified the Programme position on the two defrayal models available to applicants and Beneficiary Organisations who are operating Delegated Grant Schemes, including mandating the defrayal model for CLLD project checks.

14.1 Progress in the implementation of actions to reinforce the capacity of Member State authorities and beneficiaries to administer and use the Funds

IT System

ECLAIMS is the Digital Service used to support the delivery of ESF. It supports Grant Recipients (GRs) to submit compliant Claims through a series of validation checks as well as supporting the performance of contracts by both GRs and the Managing Authority (MA).

ECLAIMS was developed using Agile methodology; incremental stages with regular new functionality releases. The core service went live for external users in February 2018. Further development took place to June 18, at which point the service formally moved into live running. Development in the last year includes:

• additional validation on participant data, to improve data quality and accuracy

• implementation of Project Change Request functionality

• enhancement of visit functionality

• development of the ‘apply online’ functionality

ECLAIMS is now in a “Business as usual” state. However, in response to the ESPA Audit recommendation of having an Online Application and Appraisal function for GRs, further enhancements have already been made and this service went live on 29th April 2019. We will continue to identify opportunities, but consider the service to now be fully implemented.

MA Technical Assistance (TA)

The MA has worked, and continues to work, with partners including local stakeholders, MHCLG and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). We ensure that all partners and stakeholders are aware of the technical requirements and regulations in relation to delivery through the delivery teams.

The ESF TA Strategy 2014 to 2020, approved by the ESIF Growth Programme Board, facilitates robust governance, accountability and partnership engagement to support the efficient and compliant management and implementation of the ESF Operational Programme. TA builds capability amongst partners, helps ensure that programme performance targets are achieved and that delivery is compliant with EU regulations. The MA has produced a ‘Common Themes’ document which outlines the common error s or issues from Applications, which have been identified through the appraisal process. This document has been issued to all TA teams throughout England, to support the work that they undertake with applicants during the application process; early feedback is positive in terms of providing key areas where applications need to be stronger, and GRs made more aware of the requirements of the Programme.

Up to the end of 2018, there have been 3 national Calls for ESF TA projects.

TA Project Contacts are published on GOV.UK. Examples of these include:

• a South East Midlands LEP project provides local support and advice for potential applicants to enable them to develop robust and compliant project proposals, including support to enable organisations to apply for and deliver ESF co funded projects to support residents and small, medium enterprises across the LEP area

• the European Civil Society Involvement (ESCI), a National TA project aims to ensure the full participation of the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector (VCSE) in the ESIF Growth Programme. ECSI will contribute to achieving this by ensuring that

• VSCE develops and provides appropriate sector representation at a national ESIF level

• Supporting Civil Society networks and organisations to participate in the programme through information sharing and targeted communications

Both of these aims contribute to the objective of building capability in the civil society, as well as supporting the delivery of the Programme.

14.2 Where appropriate, the contribution to macro regional and sea basin strategies

As stipulated by the Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, article 27(3) on the “content of programmes”, article 96(3)(e) on the “content, adoption and amendment of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal”, article 111(3), article 111(4)(d) on “implementation reports for the Investment for growth and jobs goal”, and Annex 1, section 7.3 on “contribution of mainstream programmes to macro regional and sea basin strategies, this programme contributes to MRS(s) and, or SBS:

There are no macro regional or sea basin strategies within ESF England 2014 to 2020 Programme.

• EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)

• EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR)

• EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR)

• EU Strategy for the Alpine Region (EUSALP)

• Atlantic Sea Basin Strategy (ATLSBS)

14.3 Progress in the implementation of actions in the field of social innovation, where appropriate

The ESF England Operational programme enables social innovation to be tested and developed within Priority Axes 1 and 2 and examples of activities that can be supported are listed in the social innovation section of the OP. The overarching approach is to work with partners from the private, public and VCSE sectors with the aim of addressing societal challenges. Examples of progress against some of the innovative themes listed in the OP are listed below:

Supporting activities and initiatives to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty:

The HMPPS CFO uses ESF to help fund the Shaw Trust’s Centre 70 project uses a holistic programme of activities to target and help adults who are facing social, mental, financial and other personal difficulties. Part of their assessment includes a comprehensive assessment often including an individual’s debt history along with an action plan covering welfare, benefits and coping with individuals who may have a negative influence on the individual’s progression etc. So far, HMPPS has committed £70.8k of ESF to support this project.

Developing provision and new opportunities for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups:

Achieve North West (who are funded via HMPPS CFO) have commissioned the Margaret Carey Foundation to deliver a bespoke bicycle repair programme which targets individuals with mental health needs. The bike project aims to improve independent living skills, develop practical and vocational skills, team building and problem solving through one-to- one provision. The first bicycle that the individual repairs is donated to a disadvantaged child in Africa or Europe (this often has a profound effect on the participant). The second bicycle repaired is given to the participant to help promote independence and support mental health since physical exercise can help support mental health. So far, HMPPS has committed £23.1k of ESF to support this project.

Developing new approaches to address the intermediate, advanced and higher level skills needs of businesses:

£1.3m of ESF has been allocated to the Higher Level Skills Match project which aims to tackle skills gaps faced by SMEs in the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP area. The project works in cooperation with local universities to help identify skills gaps and take appropriate action. The project has a particular focus on five priority growth areas: low carbon and environmental technology; advanced manufacturing and engineering; life and health sciences; digital and creative industries; and business, professional and financial services.

Supporting entrepreneurs, developing social enterprise, promoting self-employment and encouraging a culture of entrepreneurship:

In the North East, Gateshead College has been allocated £21.4m of ESF to help deliver the Go>Grow project. This project aims to deliver training to SMEs to help them develop their workforce and grow their SME businesses.

The project is delivered through a delivery partnership of 30 partners and 20 college departments. This enables the project to provide a menu of training and support covering all sectors. In 2018 many businesses have benefitted, including: an automotive firm securing training for their staff to help them repair and restore electric and hybrid vehicles, allowing their business to grow in this emerging sector.

14.4 Progress in the implementation of measures to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or of target groups at highest risk of poverty discrimination or social exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities and persons with disabilities, long term unemployment and young people not in employment including, where appropriate, the financial resources used.

The ESF Operational Programme (OP) has been designed to enable a wide range of support to be offered to the most disadvantaged people in the Labour Market. LEP area committees provide a local strategic steer for how ESF can best be used to support local communities and target local groups covered by the programme. Some examples of support are provided below:

In London, National Lottery Community Fund ((NLCF) previously Big Lottery Fund) allocated £1.5 million (IP 1.4) to The Hopscotch Asian Women’s Centre to provide support services to BAME women aimed at improving life skills and access to work within central London boroughs. By the end of 2018 £1.3m had been spent by NLCF on the project which engaged with 494 participants. People targeted by this project include female refugees; marginalised groups, such as Irish and Gypsy travellers, and; disadvantaged women from Pakistani, Bangladesh and Somalian communities.

In Manchester, the Motiv8 project has been allocated £9.7m (ESF and NLCF’s Building Better Opportunities (BBO) match) to help transform lives by helping people overcome issues such as health conditions, debt, drug or alcohol dependency, domestic violence and homelessness and ultimately to help them move towards employment. Support is targeted at people aged over 25 and each person is offered a tailored support package. By the end of 2018, 2137 participants had been engaged. By the end of 2018, £5.2m had been spent by the project.

In Cornwall, the NLCF has used ESF funding to help support the Atlantic and Moor Working Together project which aims to support 750 economically inactive and unemployed adults from the Atlantic and Moor area of Cornwall get education, training, job search or employment. The project works with a range of specialist partners to help a wide range of disadvantaged people including: care leavers; people with drug addictions; people with mental health problems; offenders, ex-offenders, and people with low self-esteem.

Liverpool City Region (LCR), (£1.6m ESF and NLCF’s BBO match) provides financial support for the Include IT Mersey project which provides targeted, personalised digital skills development and employment support to digitally excluded, unemployed and economically inactive residents of the LCR.

The project has a targeted focus on those aged 45 plus and others for whom digital inclusion is a key barrier to work.

Part C reporting submitted in year 2019 and final implementation report (Article 50(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

15. Financial information at Priority Axis and programme level (Articles 21(2) and 22(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

16. Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (option progress report)

Information on and assessment of the programme contribution to achieving the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Article 9 of the (Common Provisions Regulations 1303 / 2013) explains that the main way ESIF funds support the EU’s 2020 Growth Strategy is through their support for the various Thematic Objectives (TOs) set out in the regulations.

The England ESF OP has aligned its Priority Axes(PAs) and Investment Priorities (IPs) to TOs 8, 9 and 10. PA1 (Inclusive Labour Markets) brings together ESF IPs from TO 8 (Employment) and TO 9 (Social Inclusion) as follows:

• Access to employment for jobseekers and inactive people 1.1 (8i)

• Sustainable integration of young people 1.2 (8ii)

• YEI 1.3 (8iii)

• Active inclusion 1.4 (9i)

• CLLD 1.5 (9ii)

PA 2 (Skills for Growth) supports the following priorities:

• Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning 2.1(10iii)

• Improving the labour market relevance of education and training systems 2.2 (10iv)

The IPs for PA2 are from TO 10 (Skills).

The analysis provided below aims to show the contribution ESF has made so far (to end of 2018) through the delivery of the Programme’s PA’s and IPs. The data provided is cumulative from beginning of programme to the end of 2018.

Please note: The analysis below does not include data for IP 1.5 (CLLD) since the set up phase of CLLD took place in 2018 and participant data will not be submitted until 2019.

TO 8: Employment (IPs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)

Number of participants supported under TO 8
Total Male	201,730
Total Female	151,730
Total	353,460

Labour market characteristics of participants supported under TO 8

Unemployed, including Long-Term Unemployed (LTU)

Total: 270,635

Economically Inactive

Total: 82,835

Participants by Disadvantage supported under TO 8

Disabled Total	87,687
Ethnic Minority Total	105,015
Over 50 Total	56,502
Without Basic Skills Total:	70,531

Results Achieved under TO 8

In employment, including self-employment, on leaving (CRO4) from 1.1 and 1.2

Total: 41,436 (excludes YEI who received an offer of employment or other positive result).

Participants in employment, including self-employment, 6 months after leaving

based on representative sample:

Total: 41%

In the course of making these contributions to the Thematic Objectives, the England ESF programme made progress against a range of key milestones, for example:

Labour Market Characteristics of Participants

CO 01: Unemployed (including Long-Term Unemployed (LTU)) - progress towards 2023 targets

	(% MS)	1.2 (% MS)
LD	1,557 (19%)	472 (15%)
T	55,489 (81%)	6,619 (23%)
MD	128,309 (47%)	32,704 (17%)

CO 03: Economically Inactive progress towards 2023 targets

	(% MS)	1.2 (% MS)
LD	1,020 (16%)	528 (20%)
T	8,824 (19%)	4,745 (26%)
MD	29,905 (17%)	22,179 (24%)

YEI IP 1.3: Labour market characteristics	2023 MS	Actual (% of 2023 MS)
YEI 09 (Unemployed)	81,650	45,482 (55%)
YEI 10 (LTU)	28,830	18,810 (85%)
YEI 11 (Inactive)	28,830	15,536 (53%)

Disadvantage (IP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)

CO 16: Disabled – progress towards 2023 targets

	1.1 (% MS)	1.2 (% MS)
LD	577 (14%)	580 (48%)
T	17,853 (54%)	4,478 (52%)
MD	36,596 (30%)	14,562 (37%)

YEI IP 1.3: Disabled

MS 2023 Target	Actual (% of 2023 target)
24,310	13,041 (53%)

CO 15: Ethnic Minorities – progress towards 2023 targets

	1.1 (% MS)	1.2 (% MS)
LD	81 (33%)	20 (33%)
T	8,393 (72%)	1,240 (77%)
MD	62,444 (47%)	18,684 (60%)

IP 1.3 CO 15: Ethnic Minorities

MS 2023 Target	Actual (% of 2023 target)
33,150	14,153 (42%)

O4: Participants over 50 – progress towards 2023 targets

| | 1.1 | (% MS) | LD 838 (15%) T 14,983 (51%) MD 40,681 (34%)

O6: Participants without basic skills

	1.1 (% MS)	1.2 (% MS)
LD	158 (3%)	479 (38%)
T	15,959 (60%)	479 (55%)
MD	32,555 (31%)	16,586 (32%)

16.1 IP 1.1: progression into employment & basic skills

R1: Unemployed participants into employment (including self-employment) on leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	22%	17%	-5pp
T	22%	15%	-7pp
MD	22%	15%	-7pp

R2: Inactive participants into employment (including self-employment) or job search on leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	33%	23%	-10pp
T	33%	16%	-17pp
MD	33%	15%	-18pp

R3: Basic Skills

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	4%	40%	+36pp
T	4%	9%	+5pp
MD	4%	9%	+5pp

CR06: Participants in employment (including self-employment) 6 months after leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	31%	-	-
T	34%	44%	+10pp
MD	34%	39%	+5pp

Result for less developed CoR for ESF CR06 unavailable due to low sample base.

16.2 IP 1.2: Progression into employment and basic skills

R5: Participants (below 25 years of age) in employment (including self-employment) or education or training on leaving | | 2023 Target | Actual | Progress (percentage points) | | LD | 55% | 29% | -26pp | | T | 43% | 27% | -16pp | | MD | 43% | 39% | -4pp |

CR06: Participants in employment (including self-employment) 6 months after leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	31%	-	-
T	34%	41%	+7pp
MD	34%	32%	-2pp

Result for less developed CoR for ESF CR06 unavailable due to low sample base.

IP 1.3: YEI Results

YEI CR02: Unemployed participants who receive an offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship upon leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
48%	39%	-9pp

YEI CR03: Unemployed participants who are in education or training, gaining a qualification, or in employment (including self-employment) upon leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
48%	31%	-17pp

YEI CR05: LTU who receive an offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship upon leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
38%	91%	+53pp

YEI CR06: LTU who are in education or training, gaining a qualification, or in employment (including self-employment) upon leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
38%	27%	-11pp

YEI CR08: Inactive participants who receive an offer of employment, continued education, apprenticeship or traineeship upon leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
33%	39%	+6pp

YEI CR09: Inactive participants who are in education or training, gaining a qualification, or in employment (including self-employment) upon leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
33%	38%	+5pp

YEI CR10: Participants in continued education, training programmes leading to a qualification, an apprenticeship or a traineeship six months after leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
15%	20%	+5pp

YEI CR11: Participants in employment six months after leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
34%	47%	+13pp

YEI CR12: Participants in self-employment six months after leaving

2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
3%	2%	-1pp

16.3 TO 9: Social Inclusion (IP 1.4 (9i))

Please note: IP 1.5 (9ii) Data Not Available until 2019 return

Number of participants TO 9

Total Male: 129,802 Total Female: 54,687 Total: 184,489

16.4 Labour market characteristics of participants supported under TO 9

Unemployed, including LTU Total: 124,834

Economically Inactive Total: 59,421

16.5 Participants by Disadvantage supported under TO 9

Disabled Total: 60,225

Ethnic Minority Total: 43,024

Over 50 Total: 31,696

Offenders or ex-offenders Total: 79,926

16.6 Results Achieved under TO 9

Unemployed into employment (including self-employment): Total: 7,828

Inactive participants into employment (including self-employment): Total: 14,232

CR 06: Participants in employment, including self-employment, 6 months after leaving

based on representative sample:

Total: 41%

In the course of making these contributions to the Thematic Objectives, the England ESF programme made progress against a range of key milestones for IP 1.4, for example:

Labour Market Characteristics of Participants

CO 01: Unemployed (including Long-Term Unemployed (LTU)) - progress towards 2023 targets

IP	1.4 (% MS)
LD	1,163 (26%)
T	33,255 (89%)
MD	90,416 (63%)

CO 03: Economically Inactive – progress towards 2023 targets

IP	1.4 (% MS)
LD	1,209 (19%)
T	15,682 (41%)
MD	42,530 (30%)

CO 16: Disabled – progress towards 2023 targets

	Total (% MS)
LD	1,310 (43%)
T	14,811 (84%)
MD	44.104 (68%)

CO 15: Ethnic Minorities – progress towards 2023 targets

	Total (% MS)
LD	59 (32%)
T	4,508 (55%)
MD	38,457 (61%)

O5: Participants over 50 progress towards 2023 targets

	Total (% MS)
LD	613 (30%)
T	7,216 (61%)
MD	23,867 (53%)

16.7 IP 1.4: Active Inclusion - Results

CR02: Participants in education or training on leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	17%	5%	-12pp
T	17%	2%	-15pp
MD	17%	2%	-15pp

R1: Unemployed participants into employment (including self-employment) on leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	14%	12%	-2pp
T	14%	6%	-8pp
MD	14%	6%	-8pp

R2: Inactive participants into employment or job search on leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	27%	9%	-18pp
T	27%	25%	-2pp
MD	27%	23%	-4pp

CR06: Participants in employment (including self-employment) 6 months after leaving

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	20 %	-	-
T	22 %	45%	+23pp
MD	22 %	39%	+17pp

Result for less developed CoR for ESF CR06 unavailable due to low sample base.

R4: Participants with childcare needs receiving childcare support

Results for R4 by CoR unavailable due to low sample base.

	2023 Target	Actual	Progress (percentage points)
LD	36 %	-	-
T	36 %	-	-
MD	36 %	-	-

In the course of supporting Thematic Objectives 8 and 9 progress was made towards PA level targets set for the ESF Programme’s PA1, for example:

Total participants: progress towards 2018 targets

	PA1 MS	PA1 Actual
LD	6,360	5,949 (93%)
T	51,930	154,333 (297%)
MD	220,910	377,443 (170%)
YEI	22,100	61,119 (276%)

Total participants: progress towards 2023 targets

	PA1 2023 MS	PA1 Actual
LD	31,790	5,949 (18%)
T	259,660	154,333 (59%)
MD	1,104,560	377,443 (34%)
YEI	101,490	61,119 (60%)

Progress towards PA Gender targets (2018)

Progress against gender 2018 MS targets: Female

	PA1 MS	PA1 Actual
LD	3,230	2,468 (76%)
T	24,000	53,637 (223%)
MD	101,340	150,278 (148%)
YEI	9,560	24,294 (254%)

Progress against gender 2018 MS targets: Male

	PA1 MS	PA1 Actual
LD	3,130	3,481 (111%)
T	27,930	100,696 (360%)
MD	119,570	227,165 (189%)
YEI	12,540	36,782 (293%)

16.8 TO 10: Skills (IPs 2.1, 2.2)

Number of participants (IP 2.1)

Total Male 90,371

Total Female 84,379

Total 174,750

Participants by Disadvantage (IP 2.1)

Disabled total 11,801

Ethnic Minority total 24,897

Over 50 total 33,002

Without Basic Skills total 44,259

Lone parents total 6,468

Results Achieved under TO 10 (IP 2.1)

Participants gaining a qualification

Total: 98,170 (56%)

Participants gaining level 2 or below, or a unit of a level 2or below qualification (excluding basic skills)

Total: 77,372 (44% of participants in 2.1)

Participants with an improved Labour Market situation, six months after leaving (sample survey)

Total: 30%

Employed female participants with improved labour market status (sample survey)

Total: 30%

In the course of making these contributions to the Thematic Objectives, the England ESF programme made progress against a range of key milestones, for example:

IP 2.1: Progress towards gender targets 2023 MS target

	Male (% MS)	Female (% MS)
LD	2,412 (35%)	4,001 (57%)
T	27,983 (27%)	26,384 (27%)
MD	59,976 (19%)	53,994 (19%)

IP 2.1: By Disadvantage 2023 MS target

	CO16	CO15	O4	O6	CO14
	Disabled (% MS)	Ethnic (% MS)	Aged 50+	W or O B. Skills	Lone Parents
LD	746 (46%)	142 (59%)	1,445 (54%)	486 (16%)	286 (52%)
T	3,565 (18%)	3,386 (27%)	10,687 (28%)	10,946 (31%)	1,796 (18%)
MD	7,490 (12%)	21,369 (24%)	20,870 (19%)	32,827 (31%)	4,386 (14%)

16.9 IP 2.1 Results: Enhancing equal access to lifelong learning

R3: Participants gaining basic skills

	2023 Target	Actual Progress	Progress (percentage points)
LD	11%	3%	-8pp
T	11%	2%	-9pp
MD	11%	3%	-8pp

R8: Employed female participants with improved Labour Market status

	2023 Target	Actual Progress	Progress (percentage points)
LD	35%	26%	-9pp
T	35%	27%	-8pp
MD	35%	31%	-4pp

16.10 IP 2.2 Results (TO 10)

Total number of SMEs successfully completing projects (which increase employer engagement and, or the number of people progressing into or within skills provision).

	2023 MS	Actual Profile	Progress (percentage points)
LD	75%	3%	-72pp
T	75%	3%	-72pp
MD	75%	71%	-4pp

In the course of supporting Thematic Objective 10 progress was made towards PA level targets set for the ESF Programme’s PA2, for example:

Total participants: progress towards 2018 targets

	PA2 MS	PA2 Actual
LD	1,310	6,413 (489%)
T	18,820	54,367 (288%)
MD	55,780	113,970 (204%)

Total participants: progress towards 2023 targets

	PA2 MS	PA2 Actual
LD	13,740	6,413 (46%)
T	198,100	54,367 (27%)
MD	587,210	113,970 (19%)

Progress towards PA2 Gender targets (2018)

Progress against gender 2018 MS targets: Female

	PA2 MS	PA2 Actual
LD	660	4,001 (606%)
T	9,220	26,384 (286%)
MD	26,940	53,994 (200%)

Progress against gender 2018 MS targets: Male

	PA2 MS	PA2 Actual
LD	650	2,412 (371%)
T	9,600	27,983 (291%)
MD	28,840	59,976 (207%)

17. Issues affecting the performance of the programme and measures taken – performance framework ( Article 50(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013)

Where the assessment of progress made with regard to the milestones and targets set out in the performance framework demonstrates that certain milestones and targets have not been achieved, Member States should outline the underlying reasons for failure to achieve these milestones in the report of 2019 (for milestones) and in the final implementation report (for targets).

17.1 Operational Programme (OP) Review and Less Developed Region

The biggest change in the OP review was the transfer of the £15.3m to ERDF for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (CIoS). This transfer of funds affected CIoS’ performance against targets and the MA has worked closely with this Less Developed Region (LDR) on achievement of these as the lowest performing region.

The LDR is a small geographical area that has relatively low numbers of unemployed people which has meant that, rather than a saturated market, there has needed to be a more focused and strategic approach when releasing calls.

To mitigate against the risk of market saturation in PA1, the Technical Assistance (TA) team has worked with the Managing Authority (MA) to only release PA1 calls when there is a known market. Despite this the low level numbers of unemployed people in LDR has meant that it has been difficult task to meet the PF targets, however the MA have worked to ensure there have been many projects delivering to try to achieve these. As there is a greater market for PA2 in the LDR and not to oversaturate the market in PA1 the number of PA2 calls published has been higher for this half of the Programme. It is anticipated that the second half of the Programme will address this imbalance and focus on the remaining allocation in PA1.

The OP review included a mid-term adjustment for CIoS which, at CIoS’ request, was allocated to Investment Priority (IP) 2.1, rather than re-distributed equally amongst all the IPs. The OP review also addressed the low levels of unemployed in LDR resulting in a re-distribution of the Inactive and Unemployed Outputs which addressed the fact that CIoS had higher levels of Inactive people and lower levels of Unemployed people due to the demographical nature of the LDR.

17.2 Grant Recipient (GR) and Stakeholder Engagement

The Managing Authority (MA) took a robust stance on Contract Management. In particular, regular checkpoint discussions were held with the LDR LEP lead and Contract Managers (CMs) who oversee CIoS contracts. This helped ensure that claims were submitted on time and that they were on track to be paid, and included within the Interim Payment Applications (IPAs), in order to meet the PF target. Checkpoints also allowed the MA to identify IPs and GRs that required extra focus in order to meet targets. Where GRs were not submitting claims, they were contacted directly to explain the consequences of not completing claims timeously and where issues in claims were found these were promptly resolved.

In addition, regular discussions were held with Integrate Territorial Investment (ITI) board members, the local partners and TA team to ensure that they were fully aware of the situation and that every penny, participant and claim counted towards the overall Programme performance. These key stakeholders were able to disseminate this message to GRs further stressing the importance of timeous and accurate claim completion. This was further reiterated at the Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) boards to ensure the message was fully disseminated and understood.

This informal dialogue between key influential stakeholders and GRs was extremely helpful in applying pressure to some GRs who were slow to complete claims or return evidence.

17.3 Calls

The CIoS Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) lead worked with the LEP and Intermediary Body (IB) team to ensure that calls in PA1 were prioritised and launched to help the Less Developed (LD) Region meet the PF target.

Over the last 18 months 12 calls worth £32.2m have been published in CIoS and they were one of the first LEPs to use the single-stage Application process. This approach has been used for all of CIoS’ calls to help facilitate further spend and commitment in time to meet PF target.

There are a number of calls planned for CIoS over the coming months which, alongside CFO Project Change Requests (PCRs), will strengthen their position in meeting the next PF.

17.4 Labour Market

There have always been very low numbers of Unemployed people but high levels of Inactive people in the CIoS area which has not changed in this programme and, as stated earlier, the OP review redressed the imbalance, to better match the LEP area’s demographic.

Although the PF concentrates on participants rather than other Outputs, the OP revision had minimal impact on this specific element for CIoS, however, it has made calls easier to apply for and, thereby, the Outputs more achievable.

18. Youth Employment Initiative (Article 19(4) and (6) of Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 (where applicable))

The report submitted in 2019 shall set out and assess the quality of employment offers received by YEI participants, including disadvantaged persons, those from marginalised communities and those leaving education without qualifications. The report shall also set out and assess their progress in continuing education, finding sustainable and decent jobs, or moving into apprenticeships or quality traineeships.

The report shall set out the main findings of evaluations assessing the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of joint support from the European Social Fund and the specific allocation for YEI including for the implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

18.1 Quality of employment offers and finding decent jobs

These outcomes have been assessed using the YEI leavers survey. Respondents were asked how many employment offers they had received during the YEI programme and up until 6 months after leaving, the type of employment contract, satisfaction with the offer and whether they accepted it. Finding good quality jobs has been assessed based upon type of employment contract, preference for full-time or part-time status and is also reflected in other aspects of quality of employment offers, such as acceptance rates.

The findings suggest YEI support has been effective in generating employment offers, which have generally been considered positively in terms of quality. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of leavers received an employment offer with half of those (50%) receiving at least two offers. The vast majority (87%) felt that the offer was good or reasonable in quality, which is reflected in a high acceptance rate (91%).

Despite the positive picture, some groups were significantly less likely to receive job offers compared with the average (62%). These included: 15-17 year olds (47%); participants living in jobless households (54%) or in jobless households with dependent children (49%); and single adult households with dependent children (40%). Those recorded with a disadvantage were significantly less likely to receive a job offer (58%) compared to those without (71%) and similarly for those with a disability or long term health condition (54%) compared to those without (66%).

Just under half of respondents in work 6 months after leaving YEI (49 per cent) were on a permanent contract and a further 15 per cent on a fixed term contract lasting 12 months or more. Also, the majority (84%) in jobs 6 months after leaving were fully employed, either full-time or did not want to be full time. These findings suggest the majority of jobs gained by YEI leavers were fairly stable and of decent quality. However, a substantial minority (25%) were in precarious forms of employment (temporary or casual jobs or zero hours’ contracts) and 8% were on a fixed-term contract lasting less than 12 months.

For those not in employment after 6 months who had accepted an offer while on YEI, having a temporary contract was the most common reason for leaving (23%) with only a small minority giving other reasons such as pay (6%) or needing a full time job (5%). However, high satisfaction with other indicators of job offer quality such as required levels of experience (86%), qualifications (70%) and availability of training (73%), suggests YEI is attracting decent job offers.

18.2 Progress in continuing education, finding sustainable jobs, apprenticeships and quality traineeships

Sustainable jobs

Overall, the survey findings show that YEI has made substantial progress in helping young people into employment. Six months after leaving YEI, nearly half of respondents (47%) were in employment including self-employment, well above the programme target (34%). However, the proportion in self-employment (2%) was marginally below the target (3%).

Continuing education

One in five (20%) were in continued education, training programmes leading to a qualification, an apprenticeship or a traineeship, again above the target (15%). Of those in education or training, half (50%) were in college full time and just under a fifth (18%) part time. Included in the remainder, 10% were in university and 6% on a traineeship. For the majority (84%), the course led to a nationally recognised qualification.

Apprenticeships and quality traineeships

Traineeships appear to have been a successful element of YEI with 1 in 5 (20%) respondents doing one as part of their course, and the majority providing positive feedback on their experiences. Nearly all (92%) said that working conditions were at least the same or better than other members of staff and the time spent on it was about right (80%). Overall most (90%) felt the traineeship had helped their chances of finding a job and they were either very (51%) or fairly (36%) satisfied with it. A minority (6%) were still on a traineeship after 6 months.

Apprenticeships provided an important route with 14% of respondents on one 6 months after leaving YEI. The 15-17 age group was significantly more likely (35%) to be on an apprenticeship than older age groups.

Sustainable jobs

Taking a longer term view, the 12 months’ follow-up survey shows that the majority (85%) who were employed 6 months after leaving YEI (including 4% in self-employment), were still in employment after 12 months, of which three quarters (76%) were in the same job role as at 6 months.

Of those who were in employment, excluding self-employment at 12 months, the vast majority (80%) were with the same employer and a quarter (25%) had experienced a promotion while more than half (57%) were in permanent roles. Despite this positive picture of job sustainability, caution should be exercised due to the small sample base.

18.3 Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) impact evaluation

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) Impact Evaluation (commissioned in April 2017) aims to assess the effectiveness, impact and efficiency of the YEI. It uses qualitative and quantitative research from primary and secondary sources, including qualitative fieldwork interviews with YEI stakeholders and participants, a CIE, a cost-benefit analysis assessment (CBA), analysis of management information (MI) and analysis of the YEI leavers survey.

Due to delays accessing administrative datasets the CIE and CBA are not yet complete. An interim report containing the findings from qualitative research, analysis of MI and the YEI Leavers Survey was submitted to the Commission in December 2018, key findings from which are presented here. A final report including the CIE and CBA will be completed in 2019.

18.4 Effectiveness

Research findings suggest that the processes, mechanisms and activities put in place by providers generally support the YEI objectives of helping participants move into employment, education or training.

Management information shows that the programme is broadly on target in terms of engaging young people on to YEI. Allowing for a lag in submission of validated MI, data at October 2018 showed 40,819 (37%) of the Operational Programme’s 110,480 target for end-2023 had engaged with the YEI. The programme is broadly on target in terms of the gender split of participants, with 40% of participants being female (OP target=43%). Qualitative findings identified the key factors perceived as supporting effectiveness in targeting, including: effective use of local data and intelligence; use of delivery partners’ existing networks; focusing extensively on outreach activity; developing partnerships with Jobcentre Plus to encourage referrals; and engaging in co-location with other services.

Qualitative findings also showed that the majority of YEI delivery and provision was perceived as effective, in particular the ‘key worker’ model. The range of support available, and the extent it was tailored to individual needs, were key factors promoting effectiveness. Other elements consistently perceived as effective included: ‘wraparound’ support designed to address individuals’ barriers; short interventions addressing small gaps participants’ CVs; English and Maths provision; community-based activities and volunteering; and training linked to employment route-ways. However, some elements appeared to be less effective in particular contexts, such as classroom based learning.

Efficiency

In the absence of administrative data, the interim report could only draw on qualitative evidence on providers’ approaches towards ensuring value-for-money, and broader indications around the efficiency of activity types offered. It found that efficiency is a general concern for organisations delivering YEI but is sought commonly through: control of staffing numbers and caseloads; reducing recruitment costs, through staff retention and development; lowering transaction costs between delivery partners; and reducing overheads wherever possible. Focusing on unit costs when developing provision was found to support efficiency, alongside effective partnership working and governance. Activities seen as most cost-effective included work on personal development and short courses leading to qualifications.

Impact

Research found a positive picture in terms of impact, though without the CIE element we must be cautious in drawing conclusions at this stage. Analysis of MI showing outcomes recorded on leaving found 37% in employment and 20% in education or training. Little variation was evident by gender; however, employment outcomes were lower for those with a disadvantage (34%) than those without (46%).

‘Softer’ impacts of YEI were also evident, contributing to the achievement of broader YEI impacts, such as reducing barriers to work and learning, and supporting access to traineeships and apprenticeships. Improvements in confidence, motivation and communication were commonly cited in both survey and qualitative research. These were alongside new or improved skills including leadership, employability, subject based such as English and Maths; finance, and enterprise skills. Certain participant groups benefited from support to help manage personal health or finances.

18.5 European Social Fund

An evaluation of the ESF programme to assess the impact, effectiveness, and efficiency of ESF, will begin in spring 2019 and will report in the first half of 2020. It will employ a mixed methods approach including counterfactual impact evaluation (CIE) and theory-based evaluation, as informed by a research design and scoping study (published July 2018).