Research and analysis

Summary: Evaluation of the European Social Fund 2014-2020 Programme in England: qualitative case study research

Published 2 March 2022

Applies to England

Report authors

Lorna Adams, Claire Johnson, Siv Svanaes of IFF Research

Background

The European Social Fund (ESF) is part of the European Structural and Investment Funds which are used by the European Union to fund programmes for supporting growth and jobs across member states. The ESF focuses on improving employment opportunities, promoting social inclusion and investing in skills. The DWP (Department for Work and Pensions), ESFA (Education and Skills Funding Agency), National Lottery Community Fund (NLCF) and Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) are the main co-financing organisations (CFOs) for the ESF in England. A limited amount of funding is also available for smaller delivery organisations through direct bids.

Research context

As part of the impact evaluation of the ESF 2014 to 2020, the DWP commissioned IFF Research to carry out qualitative case study research with projects funded by the ESF in England. The research aimed to understand ‘what works’ in the delivery of employability and skills interventions via the ESF and to provide insight into ‘how’ and ‘why’ outcomes are achieved. The research also aimed to allow some exploration of softer outcomes that can be harder to identify through quantitative analysis.

Methodology

The research consisted of 20 case studies with projects funded by the ESF 2014-2020 programme. The research also included an augmented case study with ESF provision delivered through HMPPS to people in custody or on probation, across six sites. HMPPS provision was managed and delivered through a different model than mainstream ESF provision, and HMPPS provision is therefore discussed separately in this report.

The fieldwork was carried out between September 2019 and February 2020 and was therefore unaffected by COVID-19.

Key findings

The research among mainstream ESF projects found that:

• the most important enabler of effective delivery was positive working relationships with CFOs, LEPs and with delivery partners. Previous experience of delivering ESF contracts also influenced project efficiency. Where staff had this experience, it enabled projects to be up and running and delivering outcomes far sooner than those with little or no previous experience delivering such contracts
• challenges to effective delivery centred on complex and time-consuming ESF eligibility checks and registration processes; and the challenges of working with vulnerable individuals who needed support for multiple issues
• across most of the investment priorities, the key worker model, which allows participants to have a consistent point of contact over a long period of time, was crucial to achieving positive outcomes. This support tended to be highly personalised and holistic
• a flexible approach was important, both for projects working directly with individuals and those working with employers. Those working with individuals out of work recognised that participant lives were often chaotic and unpredictable and tried to accommodate this as far as possible
• some projects working with what they describe as ‘those hardest to help’ felt a varied supply chain was better suited to serve this group
• projects offering in-work support felt that this was important to ensure employment outcomes were sustained. Frequent contact and guidance during this period was helpful, although participants could be reluctant to take this up
• strategic and delivery staff also reported some common challenges to achieving outcomes. Some working with what were perceived as harder-to-help groups said their employment targets were not always realistic and did not take the complexity of individual situations into account
• strategic and delivery staff identified key areas of improvement for similar provision going forward: streamlining some of the ESF processes and administrative tasks; including measures for soft outcomes and allowing projects to draw some funding for these; better integration between local services so that participants receive more holistic support

Among HMPPS projects, the research found that:

• project activities were structured into a package which participants needed to move through sequentially for the delivery organisations to be able to draw down funding. Staff had access to the Discretionary Action Fund (DAF) which could be used to fund one-off expenses. This was a big draw for participants
• to accommodate the fact that participants can be transferred between prisons often with very little notice, the programme was underpinned by careful documentation of progress so that staff and participants can pick up their provision at a new site. Similarly, efforts had been made to try to ensure ‘through the gate’ continuity between prisons and probation settings
• common challenges to delivery included the logistics of delivering support within the constraints of the prison schedule, and difficulties finding suitable spaces for group activities
• the drivers of positive outcomes in HMPPS delivery were similar to those in mainstream delivery. This included the relationship with their case manager; a flexible approach to make the most of short windows of availability; and, among probation-based projects, an established relationship with local employers to build live pathways to employment for participants
• similarly to ESF provision delivered outside HMPPS, those delivering the support felt the evidence requirements were very challenging. They felt ex-offenders were even more likely to disengage from the support once they found a job, which made evidencing employment outcomes particularly difficult
• the structure of HMPPS delivery was designed to allow delivery organisations to draw funding for moving a participant closer to work, therefore taking more account of incremental progress and distance travelled. This was praised as a positive development over former ESF programmes

Conclusions

Drawing on the findings discussed in this report it is possible to make the following conclusions regarding ESF delivery and outcomes.

In terms of the structure of the programme:

• a complex but generally effective supply chain has been built over many rounds of ESF funding
• generally provision was entirely dependent on ESF funding and will not be sustained without it
• the prime provider model seemed to have been effective for the delivery of ESF provision. There were several examples of prime providers being able to facilitate the participation of smaller organisations in ESF programmes that might not otherwise have been possible
• where effective, the CFO structure has been important to help providers navigate the complexities of the ESF programme effectively
• organising ESF provision through the LEP model helped to maintain a strong focus on local needs. ESF providers sometimes felt that the LEP could have done more to support the integration between local services which would have benefitted programme delivery

In terms of delivery:

• ESF provision successfully engaged with very vulnerable individuals
• provision also reached those working for employers who might otherwise have had limited access to development opportunities
• the resource-intensive case-workers or mentor model was integral to delivery across all strands
• flexibility of delivery was critical
• often a key element of the ESF support was to help connect individuals to other support – ‘to be the glue sticking services together’
• participants are not always the best judge of the extent of their needs and having a tangible ‘hook’ that matches an obvious need can secure engagement
• for projects to be effective it is key that they have clear plans for generating referrals and that they have sufficient resource for this
• registration processes and eligibility checks were seen as a barrier to building rapport with participants early on