Research and analysis

Part 2 of 4: Profiles and outcomes for returners and employers

Published 17 March 2022

Returner profile

Returners Fund participants

While the Fund supported different types of returner, across projects returners did share some characteristics. They had all taken time out of work due to caring responsibilities, mainly for children but sometimes for other family members. All had been out of work for a number of years, mostly more than a year but often less than 10 years (although some people had been out of work for longer).

The majority were women, White and without disabilities. However, as would be expected^{[footnote 1]}, there was a broad range of people needing support to return to work in terms of their gender, ethnicity, disability status, age, and level of education.

Gender

The majority of returners were women, as many projects targeted women. At least 7 projects were known to have recruited at least 1 man and 1 project (Adviza project) recruited mostly men.

Ethnicity

Most of the returner cohorts across the projects were White British. For 2 of the projects, the majority of returners were Black African, Black Caribbean or Black British.

Disability

All returner cohorts across the projects included people with disabilities^{[footnote 2]}. This ranged from just 1 person per project, to over one-third of a project’s returners.

Age

Returners ranged from those in their early 20s to those in their mid-60s, although returners were most commonly in their 30s, with almost half of returners aged between 30 and 39 years old. Around one-third of returners were reported to be aged between 40 and 49 years old. While some projects had targeted older age groups, returners of all ages were accepted by all projects.

Education level

In the majority of projects, the education levels of returners spanned a wide range. These projects supported a mix of returners, including those with no formal qualifications, those with GCSE level qualifications or those with degree level qualifications or higher. The returners in 3 projects mainly had degree level qualifications or higher and were projects that had specifically targeted highly educated, highly skilled returners.

Some of the projects were designed for specific groups, and largely recruited those people . For example, the Women Returners project recruited qualified solicitors, the Shpresa and Twist project recruited first generation migrants with a significant history of paid work, and the RFEA project recruited female partners of armed forces serving personnel and veterans.

Profiles of participating returners

One returner left her previous work when her daughter was born prematurely and with health conditions that are still present. Since her birth, the returner’s mother passed away, and subsequently, her father committed suicide. The returner had been diagnosed with mental health issues which made her unfit to be employed. After a recent medical assessment, the returner was declared ok to work and wanted to become employed so she could provide for her daughter.

Another returner, who had previously worked in the advertising industry, had a career break when she became a mother. During her break, she did some freelancing in digital design. However, this had become out of date as she had not worked full-time in the advertising industry for 6 years.

Getting overlooked was her main barrier to returning to employment, but she also found many advertising companies were not open to flexible working. She wanted to return to work as she enjoyed the creativity in her previous job and she missed the salary.

Barriers to participation

Commonly, returners supported by the Fund had tried to return to work previously but had not been able to overcome the barriers they faced. Some returners identified 1 or 2 barriers such as confidence, job availability and navigating the job search process. Other returners faced multiple and complex barriers, for example, the returner cohort on the Beam project faced barriers to work caused by homelessness, caring responsibilities, having refugee status and having prior criminal convictions. In addition, some returners had issues related to obtaining leave to remain in the UK, not having recourse to public funds and domestic violence.

Some projects supported returners with very specific challenges to returning to work. These were the projects that recruited very specific cohorts, such as the RFEA project. This project recruited female partners of armed forces serving personnel and veterans, who tend to move area often, whose partners don’t live in the household for months at a time, and who cannot therefore share childcare responsibilities.

Across the funded projects, 5 common barriers were reported by returners and project teams. These were:

• a lack of confidence
• a lack of flexible working options
• childcare costs
• unpractised or dated skills and knowledge
• employer perceptions

These are outlined in more detail in the following sections.

Lack of confidence

Low confidence and low self-esteem among returners were commonly identified as barriers to work. This was said to mainly be the result of being out of the workplace for a length of time and losing confidence in their own skills and abilities. Some reported such low levels of confidence that they had felt unable to begin looking for work independently. For others, frequent job application rejections, negative interview experiences, and negative relationships with their local Jobcentre had damaged their confidence and self-esteem.

Lack of flexible working options

Returners reported that flexible working options such as flexible full-time hours or part-time work contracts were important to enable them to manage both work and caring responsibilities. Some returners also noted that their needs were likely to change as household circumstances changed, for example, as children started school, or if their relationship status or own health changed. However, many said that flexible working options were not often advertised when searching for jobs.

Childcare costs

Many returners had taken time out of work to care for their children. The high cost of professional childcare was often cited as a barrier to their return to work. Where employers require different shift patterns or extra hours at short notice this creates a childcare challenge. Some returners feared that this would mean they needed to book and pay for more hours of childcare than they needed (for example, needing to block book nursery places to be able to assure cover).

Unpractised or dated skills and knowledge

“My job 10 years ago used pen and paper. Now they use tills and computers which I have no experience with.” (Returner)

Returners’ workplace skills and their industry-specific knowledge were affected by their career breaks. Those returners with longer periods of unemployment often commented on how different the workplace had become, and how outdated they felt their skills and knowledge to be. This was especially the case with digital technology which has transformed workplaces in recent years, making some roles unrecognisable for returners.

Returners who were looking to work in a new industry often had to gain new knowledge and skills. One example was in the Adviza project, where returners were looking to take up security work for the first time.

Returners also commented that their time out of work meant that they didn’t always have up-to-date knowledge around the latest trends in their industries, or job-specific knowledge needed to carry out their work. For example, some participants from the Women Returners project who wanted to return to the law sector said they had outdated professional knowledge as laws had changed since they were last working.

“I know I have tonnes to offer but I didn’t know how to put that down and convey that to someone else.” (Returner)

Returners commented that their job searching skills were not to a high standard and prevented them from returning to work. These skills included CV preparation, interview skills and completing application forms. Others lacked knowledge that would help them in their job search, for example they:

• were unaware of how employers recruit for roles, and said that this had hindered them in returning to work
• lacked confidence to ask about flexible working options if they weren’t specified in job descriptions, and this dissuaded them from applying to some roles
• were unsure about how to approach communicating their career breaks to employers

Employer perceptions

Returners reported that when looking for a job they found that some employers were wary of recruiting them due to their career break. This was a particular issue for those looking to return to high-skilled roles. They highlighted that their job market was competitive, and many job applicants who didn’t have a career break on their CVs might be more attractive to employers as a result. A second issue was highlighted by those returning to the creative sector (as part of the Creative Equals project), who said that their position and age worked against them, as employers may prefer to employ junior staff with fewer domestic responsibilities who could, without notice, work longer hours to meet client needs.

Motivations to return to work

Returners across the projects had a range of different motivations for returning to work. The most common reasons for returning were as follows.

To increase their household income

This was a large motivator for returning to work. For some, this was out of financial necessity, where increased income would make a notable difference to personal and family living standards. Some were seeking the sense of pride and confidence that comes with financial independence and being able to provide for their children.

To improve their daily lives

A common narrative told by returners was that they enjoyed working but took a career break due to caring responsibilities, mainly to have children. As their children grew older and more independent, they grew increasingly bored, felt ‘stuck’ at home, and felt that they had lost their sense of identity. They felt the need to ‘do something for themselves’ after spending many years caring for others, which motivated them to return to work.

To be a positive role model for their children

Some returners wanted to demonstrate the positive attributes outlined previously to their children: being financially independent, and pursuing self-fulfilment in their daily lives. Other reasons given were to show their children that it was possible to take an extended career break and also have a long and rewarding career.

“I can’t sit around doing nothing, I need to be earning money and I’ve always wanted to do security work.” (Returner)

Returner outcomes

Returner experiences

The Fund aimed to support returners into paid employment, and projects adopted a range of different approaches to support returners to achieve this. They helped returners to understand the modern workplace and the types of skills that are valued by employers, as well as advising them about the roles that might be available locally, and providing guidance to explore their career ambitions. Projects also sought to build returners’ confidence, provide practical advice and support to ensure their wellbeing, and to help returners apply for jobs.

Workplace knowledge and skills

Returners increased their workplace knowledge and skills through participation in a range of activities including training programmes, one-to-one support, employer placements, and employer talks. Examples include:

• digital knowledge and skills – such as general computer skills, Microsoft Office skills, online job search skills and social media skills
• business knowledge and skills – such as setting-up a business, business improvement techniques and change management
• vocational knowledge and skills – for example, undertaking vocation-specific training required to become teaching assistants, beauticians or chefs
• communication skills – including public speaking, team building, self-promotion and networking, and understanding different leadership styles
• language skills – returners who faced difficulties with their English language skills reported that they improved these skills through the targeted language support offered by their projects
• qualifications – such as the SIA Door Supervision Level 2 qualification and the Level 1 qualifications offered by the Open College Network

Often, returners reported surprising themselves because they already had good skills in the areas previously mentioned. Some project activities helped returners to recognise other transferable skills they already had, such as caring, drive and resilience, budgeting, and emotional intelligence.

Job searching knowledge and skills

10 projects reported that their returners improved their job searching skills by participating in the projects. In addition, returners from 3 of the projects reported that their CV writing and interview skills had improved through participation in the project. For example, some returners from the F1 Recruitment project had said that the project had taught them effective approaches to communicating with organisations in an interview setting and pitching themselves. A participating employer confirmed this, observing that the returners were better able to ‘market’ themselves and explain their career breaks following their training.

Projects supported returners with job searching so that they would be more aware of the options available to them in terms of sectors, job roles and flexible working. Returners on the Changing Lives project who were interviewed said that this had broadened the scope of the type of work they would consider applying for.

Confidence

Growth in returners’ confidence was an important outcome reported by all of the funded projects. Returners interviewed for the evaluation said they felt more confident in their own workplace skills and abilities having taken part in their project. Firstly, the support received helped them to upskill and learn new things. Secondly, the projects encouraged returners to acknowledge their existing skills. This happened through project activity and employer placements. Returners who took part in placements with employers or who met employers through the projects often felt reassured that their skills were still useful to employers, as it was clear to them that the employers valued returners and wanted to recruit them. Within one project, employers met returners at the project launch event – they encouraged returners to apply to their organisation, invited them to interview and recruited them.

“They gave me confidence that I could do something with myself after so long without employment.” (Returner)

“I realised that I could accomplish anything I wanted in life.” (Returner)

Another vehicle for increasing returners’ confidence were some of the one-to-one sessions, workshops, and training sessions which were specifically designed to address confidence issues. The Shpresa and Twist project offered workshops covering topics such as inspiration, ambition and confidence, as well as wellbeing. The Mpower People project offered training modules to returners on anxiety management and confidence building – the trainer who led this module commented that the returners had become more confident in their communication skills and their ability to talk about their emotions.

One project team noted that gaining a formal qualification gave returners the confidence to believe in their abilities and move forward with their career. This was particularly true for those with no formal qualifications participating in the project.

All of these factors combined to help returners to feel more confident in applying for jobs, going to job interviews, and expressing themselves confidently in interviews. Some returners also said they felt more confident about discussing flexible working in interviews.

However, confidence can be damaged if returners have negative experiences. Within one project, 2 returners interviewed said that they were less hopeful about finding employment, as they hadn’t yet found work despite the support received.

Mental health and wellbeing

“This project helped me get a job, and more importantly my life back.” (Returner)

Returners reported that they improved their personal wellbeing as a result of taking part in the projects. Returners from 12 projects volunteered feedback which referenced their improved mental health, specifically around social isolation, resilience, anxiety, and depression. Many reported a more positive outlook and a newfound sense of purpose and hope.

The projects offered returners the opportunity to have time away from caregiving to experience new things and meet new people. Some reported that this helped them to develop an identity outside of the home and the carer role. Some returners from the Changing Lives project reported that they were more confident when meeting new people and felt less anxious in new environments as a result. Returners across the projects reported a sense of achievement and accomplishment from taking part in the Fund, particularly those who found employment after participation. Returners who participated in volunteer work had improved self-worth and fulfilment, including a feeling that they were contributing to society. Those who did find employment also reported that returning to work helped them to further regain their sense of identity after having spent years caring for others.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures affected 9 of the funded projects. During the period between March and July 2020, projects often changed the emphasis of their activity from employment-seeking to wellbeing support, and from face-to-face to virtual training. Returners with school-aged children were especially affected by the lockdown as they had homeschooling to attend to. At the same, many employers were putting their recruitment plans on hold.

Returner outcomes

These experiences mentioned previously have helped returners with their plans to return to employment. Project targets were related both to returner job outcomes, but also intermediary outcomes such as the take up of work experience, work shadowing paid placements, and volunteering. These targets were tailored to each project and quantified the type of support that would be given and the numbers of returners and employers who would benefit. These returners targets have been categorised as follows:

• engaged – those who have had some form of interaction with the project
• supported – those who participated in a project-led activity, including training, mentoring, advice and guidance, employability support, or active referral to other services
• trained – participating in a formal training programme, both accredited and non-accredited training
• completed work experience, including paid and unpaid work experience, placements and ‘returnships’^{[footnote 3]} – some projects identified that these types of workplace opportunities would be dependent upon the individual needs and circumstances of each returner and was at the discretion of the returner to accept the opportunity
• entered paid employment – meaning work which extended beyond the lifetime of the project

Figure 4-1 provides a summary of the outcomes achieved for each of the categories previously mentioned. All projects had returner engagement targets – some defined ‘engaged’ as registering an expression of interest, attending an event or being referred, while others used stricter criteria, such as submitting a project application or enrolling onto training. Within this range of definitions, the projects planned to engage 1,517 returners and achieved a total of 1,140 (75%). 10 of the 16 projects met or exceeded their returner engagement targets.

Figure 4-1: Total planned and reported returner outcomes

Source: final progress reports.
Note: 11 projects reported work experience targets (including returnships, placements, work experiences and volunteering).

Projects overall supported the number of returners they planned (837 supported against a target of 864, or 97%). This support ranged from receiving regular jobs bulletins and referral information to intensive and personalised support over several weeks or months.

All projects aimed to provide formal training and support to returners during the project period. These opportunities varied across projects. For example, the Beam and Mpower People projects enrolled their returners onto a range of different courses depending on their needs and ambitions. Several projects developed their own training programmes and commissioned external training providers to run them. Other projects ran their own training programmes involving project partners. The St Helens Chamber project offered a combination of both bootcamp training for some returners and referral to other courses (or both for some returners). In total, the 16 projects intended to provide 845 returners with a form of training. At the end of the Fund, 569 returners were reported to have completed some form of training, 67% of the target.

11 projects hoped to provide returners with a form of work experience. This included opportunities to work with an employer for a period of time, either paid or unpaid. Volunteering with a social enterprise was also included within work experience targets. These activities provided returners with an experience of being back in a workplace and a way to improve or update their skills. It also gave returners and their families an opportunity to experience new routines associated with work. Across the 11 projects that planned work experience within their delivery model, 156 returners completed work experience against a target of 354 (44%).

Most of the projects which relied on external employers to offer placements to returners had issues generating sufficient placements. Reasons for this included a lack of willingness or ability from employers to provide placements, having employer contacts that did not have authority to agree recruitment or placement decisions, and employer contacts moving roles. In addition, these types of workplace opportunities were dependent upon the needs and circumstances of each returner and it was at the discretion of the returner to accept the opportunity provided to them. 2 projects offered some of their returners unpaid work experience in their own organisation. One project (Shpresa and Twist) provided this for all the returners they were working with and hence exceeded their targets for returner placements.

A total of 179 returners were reported to have entered employment (either full or part-time, temporary or permanent) that extended beyond the lifetime of the project. This includes some who entered employment with an employer with whom they had completed work experience or who was connected to the project. Returners also found employment with employers in the open labour market. This 179 was against a target of 468, meaning that 38% of the target was met.

Figure 4-2 shows the breakdown of planned and reported employment outcomes for each project at the end of their funding period. Within the 16 projects, the number of targeted employment outcomes ranged from 15 to 48. By the end of the Fund, the actual employment outcomes achieved ranged from 2 to 38. It should be noted that this does not reflect lack of effort on the part of projects but rather a combination of factors associated with difficult labour markets (made harder for those projects affected by COVID-19), ambitious targets and client groups who required longer periods of training and support to return to employment than the project timescales allowed. It should also be noted that these figures capture outcomes at the end of each project – as each project completion date is different (see Table 2-1), this will not capture any additional employment outcomes beyond the funding period.

One project exceeded its employment outcome target (Creative Equals). This project was London based, working with professional and highly skilled women, and used a delivery model that was an extension of an earlier model. Other projects that also supported highly skilled returners (F1 Recruitment and Women Returners) found it harder to support their returners into employment despite significant efforts. This may have been because they were working outside the London labour market where professional roles may be less frequently available and employment opportunities more dispersed.

Figure 4-2: Planned and reported achieved employment outcomes by project

Source: final progress reports.

Most returner cohorts from each of the projects found employment in a diverse range of industries. Returners found work in the care sector, retail, hospitality, the third sector, the civil service, financial services, education, and administration. Where projects targeted sectors and brokered relationships between returners and employers (for example at ‘speed-networking’ events), returners found employment in those sectors. Such projects secured good employment outcomes, which may have been helped by having a sector focus, but might also be due to the characteristics of returners (higher skilled), timing (when labour markets were relatively buoyant and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), and location (close to urban centres).

While there is limited evidence on salaries received by returners in their new roles, we know that all of those from the Changing Lives project who completed the post-project survey stated their salary in their current job was higher than their previous job. For the Creative Equals project, salary levels varied significantly, ranging from London Living Wage to £400 per day for placements, and between £21,000 and £65,000 per year for permanent roles.

There is some evidence of returners securing flexible jobs. Many of the 10 returners who took part in the Women Returners project and subsequently found a job could blend home working, part-time working and flexible working patterns. For example, one returner worked from 9am to 3pm 4 days a week so they could pick up their children from school. Another returner was able to delay the start of their permanent contract so they could spend the summer holidays with their child. Within the F1 Recruitment project, several returners stated that without the project, they would not have been successful at interviews or had the confidence to discuss flexible working options.

However, some returners did not find employment that was sufficiently flexible to accommodate their childcare responsibilities. The project team from the Mpower People project observed that placements arranged for returners in September 2020, following the easing of lockdown measures, were not as flexible towards childcare issues as expected, and did not accommodate returners when their children were sent home from school due to suspected COVID-19 outbreaks. On another project, a small number of returners were unable to accept paid work because shifts were offered with short-notice and at locations that were not easy for them to get to.

Employer profile

Returners Fund participants

Target numbers engaged

The employer engagement target was exceeded, with projects engaging 422 employers (114% of the 370 planned target). 11 of the 16 projects also met or exceeded their target number of employers engaged (Table 5-1). The definition of employer engagement varied across the projects. This included employers who:

• attended one-off promotional events
• participated in training and upskilling returners, and training to improve their employment practices
• offered workplace opportunities and jobs

Table 5-1: Employer engagement targets

Project	Target number of employers	Actual number of employers
Adviza	10	10
Beam	15	27
Carer Support Wiltshire	80	20
Changing Lives	15	20
CIPD	25	24
Creative Equals	15	38
F1 Recruitment	30	23
GMCVO	30	56
Liverpool City Council	40	19
Livv Housing	30	14
Mpower People	18	26
RFEA	10	16
Shpresa and Twist	18	25
St Helens Chamber	12	62
Westminster City Council	10	12
Women Returners	12	30
Total	370	422

Source: final progress reports and grant agreement.

While the number of employers engaged by the projects was reported to be higher than planned, the intensity of that engagement was, in some cases, lower than they had anticipated. This more limited engagement took a number of forms, for example offering a single work experience placement rather than multiple, attending recruitment fairs with no active job roles to recruit into, or attending a meeting with no further follow up.

Projects aimed to engage with employers in different ways beyond the scope of sourcing jobs for returners. Most projects (14) also wanted to work with employers who could provide work-related opportunities for returners – which included reviewing CVs and providing work placements. In addition, 6 projects wanted to provide training and support to employers, reviewing and adapting their recruitment practices to become more attuned to the needs of returners, where appropriate. Figure 5-1 demonstrates that projects exceeded targets for general employer engagement as well as sourcing work-related opportunities with employers. However, the 6 projects that aimed to offer training and recruitment support to employers did not get the anticipated take-up.

Figure 5-1: Planned and reported employer outcomes

Source: final progress reports.
Note: Project specific outcomes have been categorised by the evaluation team. Projects were not required or expected to report on outcomes in each category.

Types of employer engaged

A range of different types of employer participated in the Fund.

All 16 projects engaged both small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs – those with under 250 employees) and large-scale employers (those with 250 or more employees). Most projects reported that at least half of their employers were SMEs that might not have specialist HR skills in-house. 3 of the projects targeted larger employers. Of the 11 projects which reported on business size, the split between SMEs and larger business participation was almost even, with 127 SMEs and 122 large companies recorded.

Employers engaged in the projects were generally located within the same region as the project and were often local to the project area. Some of these were branches or offices of national companies. One project (RFEA) used their national profile and connected with some employers through their dedicated employer engagement team based across the UK. Working with several large employers who have roles across the UK supported the project’s aim to create portable positions for returners.

A wide range of sectors were also represented across the 16 projects (Figure 5-2). At least half of all projects funded engaged with employers that represented education, and health and social work sectors.

Figure 5-2: Number of sectors engaged by each project

Source: SQW.
Note: Represents all the sectors identified within the final progress reports for all 16 projects.

Projects often worked with employers from several different sectors and even those that planned to target a small number of sectors found they worked with employers from a wide range of sectors. The sectors they engaged with reflected 2 main factors. The first was the composition of the local labour market. For example, the St Helens Chamber project had a high representation of manufacturing employers because of the concentration of manufacturing in and around St Helens. The second was the need to engage employers who represented sectors that returners were interested in. A few projects were deliberately focused on single sectors. For example, the Creative Equals project only worked with employers from and returners who wanted to return to the creative and marketing sector. Other projects were led by what their returners wanted and actively sought to engage employers in those sectors. For example, the employment and skills team within the Liverpool City Council’s project approached employers in their networks on behalf of returners.

Employer participation

All 16 projects engaged employers to support their project, however some employers were more active than others. Employers participated in a variety of ways depending on their own capacity (of the main contact, local branch, and overall business) and the specific requests from individual projects.

3 projects reported that employers actively participated in governance or advisory groups. Employers in these advisory roles offered insight into their expectations of the required skills and competencies of returners, and employer ability to meet demands for flexible working or other support needs.

Projects were able to actively engage employers by:

• publicising the project with other employers in their networks to encourage project participation and to promote the benefits of employing returners
• providing support for training activities including offering access to their training venues and providing training sessions
• holding mock interviews with returners and arranging for them to attend job fairs
• hosting work experience opportunities, placements and returnships
• contributing to resources on best practice when employing returners – informed by the previous experiences of those re-entering the workplace and employer’s knowledge of recruitment processes, flexible work contracts and employee support options

Although projects reported that they engaged more employers than they expected, employers were reported as being passively involved, and the type of employer engagement may have been limited. For example, employer engagement could include attendance at a webinar or a project promotion meeting. Figure 5-1 also reports the number of employers who were willing to offer a work-related opportunity, although this may not have happened in practice. Consequently, the number of employers engaged overstates the degree of interaction they had with projects and with returners.

The limited, more passive engagement also affected the evaluation research. In total, 117 out of 422 employers reported to be engaged in the Fund actively consented to participate in the evaluation (28%). Levels of consent varied greatly across the 16 projects, from no consent from any employers (2 projects) to all employers consenting to engage in evaluation (1 project). Employer engagement in research is often difficult to get, particularly among SMEs. This would have been made worse if employers felt they had nothing to contribute (for example, if their engagement had been limited), and further affected by the onset of the lockdown restrictions associated with COVID-19 in March 2020. The following sections are therefore informed by survey data which was reported for 4 projects and interview data which was gathered from 15 projects.

Barriers to participation

Not all projects engaged their targeted number of employers, or had the type of relationship with employers that they expected. The following sections suggest reasons why employer engagement was a challenge for some projects.

Interest

Employer interest in the projects was greatest where returners were work-ready (they were ready for interview or had completed the relevant training or accredited qualifications to begin work). Projects felt that it was a challenge to keep employers engaged when returners were not ready for work, and some employers were unwilling to offer supported progression into jobs.

One project reported that prior negative experiences of similar employability programmes made employers hesitant to engage in the Fund. In particular, some employers felt that the time they would need to invest in setting up and supporting a placement would not be cost effective because it would take the returner some time before they were able to perform productively in the workplace. It was also reported by the project that the duration of placements also affected whether employers felt able to engage.

Project aspiration and employer need

Negative employer attitudes towards flexible working meant some projects struggled to engage employers. 3 projects reported challenges around generating flexible working opportunities with specific employers. Their project managers felt some sectors (examples noted by projects included construction, dentistry and media) appeared less inclined to offer flexibility to meet the needs of returners.

2 projects experienced initial engagement from employers at introductory sessions. However, these employers chose not to engage further because they thought the jobs they had available were not suited to the returners they met.

One project found that they attracted employers from the care sector because their project was supporting people with experience of caring for others. However, while some wanting to return to paid work might have had skills and experience that made them attractive to care homes or other similar employers, the returners themselves often wanted to move away from a caring role. There was therefore a mismatch between the type of employers interested in the project and the career aspirations of returners.

Capacity

Employer capacity to engage in the Fund was an issue experienced by some of the projects. One project found employers were interested in participating but were unable to attend events or provide any additional support to returners, while those who did participate did not recruit as many returners as hoped due to a lack of appropriate vacancies.

One project felt that staff turnover made it difficult to develop or maintain a consistent relationship with the employer through which to implement project-related activities.

Motivations to employ returners

Employers reported varying reasons for participating in the Fund. The most common motivations were as follows.

Recognising the benefits of recruiting returners

For 3 projects, employers were specific about the advantages they perceived returners would bring to their businesses. Returners were considered an ‘untapped’ labour force and loyal employees who were likely to help address retention issues. They were considered to have a wide range of experience, skills and competencies which would benefit the workplace, including understanding, resilience and empathy. Returners were also considered to be more likely to make the most of opportunities presented to them and be willing to learn.

Difficulties in recruiting

For 5 projects, employers reported that they thought the project could help them recruit for specific vacancies and specific skill sets (such as those with caring experience or those with security industry licenses). Employers from 2 projects also thought it would help them to address equality issues in their workforce and encourage female returners into their companies.

Company culture and corporate social responsibility

For 6 projects, employers reported that their company culture and approach to corporate social responsibility aligned positively with the aims of the Fund.

Project managers had additional thoughts about why employers were involved. In some cases, it was the specific interest and motivation of a key employee whose own experience or values made them sympathetic to the Fund. For example, an employer supporting the RFEA project was a military partner and had previously received employability support earlier in their own career. In other cases, they suspected that companies might be involved because they wanted to use it for public relations value rather than having a serious commitment to recruiting returners.

Employer outcomes

Employer recruitment of returners

11 projects successfully engaged employers who provided work experience for the returners. This usually involved a period within their business, either paid or unpaid, as agreed with the project. Employers offered experiences for various reasons, including agreeing with the project’s aims, having values and practice aligned to the project, working with the funded organisation already, or because they were testing different approaches to recruitment.

Many of the employers that participated in the Fund did not employ a returner and not all returners that entered paid employment did so with an employer engaged through the Fund. In fact, the only examples where returners were taken on by participating employers were the 3 projects whose delivery model was based on a high intensity intervention for highly skilled returners. In these cases, employers were looking for scarce skills in their labour markets and proved willing to invest time in the project to secure access to people with the required skills.

This section includes feedback from employers who participated in projects. Employers with no connection to a project but who did employ a returner were not interviewed because their feedback would have focused on a returner rather than the project.

Experience of recruiting returners

Events to meet and engage with returners prior to recruiting were valued by employers who participated in these opportunities. The benefits they reported included:

• improved returner understanding of roles and expectations – employers appreciated the opportunity to provide returners with more detail about the roles they offered, and what was expected of employees in their companies, and one employer felt this might help returners make more informed decisions about which roles to apply for
• practical outcomes – employers had access to potential employees who they could contact about current vacancies and opportunities
• early access to potential talent – employers could engage with skilled returners before they started applying for job roles on the open market
• developing new partnerships – employers appreciated the opportunity to network with businesses they had not had contact with before
• improved employer understanding of returner circumstances – hearing first-hand about the barriers that returners had previously faced when attempting to return to work was valued, which helped some employers to reflect on how their current recruitment practices might inadvertently miss out on a set of skilled potential employees.

There was evidence of employers engaging in repeat recruitment from projects. 2 projects reported that they had observed a pattern of employers who had successfully recruited a returner, returning to recruit again. This was confirmed by one employer who had hired several returners from a project, citing that they felt the quality of candidates was good.

Satisfaction with project engagement

Most projects reported that at least some of the employers they worked with were already known to their organisation. Indeed, some projects had been supporting the recruitment or business development needs of these employers in the past. 6 projects reported that they supported 102 employers with their training or recruitment practices (Figure 5-1) which was fewer than anticipated. This may partly have been because they had already received support from the projects in the past.

Satisfaction with project team engagement

The quality of engagement with project teams was viewed positively by employers who participated in the Fund. From 2 projects, employers identified the following reasons:

• good professional relationships with a named team member – one employer appreciated having a relationship with an employment or project adviser and knowing that the adviser could identify returners with the right skills for their business
• training materials and informal support – employers received informal support through the Fund, such as receiving training materials, and they felt this was sufficient to address their needs
• conflict resolution – with one project, an employer faced challenges with a returner who was on a placement and could draw on the support and advice from the project team to help them make decisions about whether to end the placement and how to do so appropriately

Satisfaction with the work readiness of returners

Employers who participated in the Fund said they were impressed by the calibre of the returners. Employers from 2 projects commented on the readiness of returners for the workplace, with one employer reporting that the calibre of returners was similar to that within the wider labour market. Another employer didn’t recall interviewing any returners that they wouldn’t have put forward for a vacancy (if one was available).

“I am honoured to have been part of the project and to work with other organisations that were passionate about supporting parent returners. It has supported a direction the company was keen to explore and develop.” (Employer)

It is worth noting that projects were careful to only link a returner with one of their employer contacts if they thought the returner was employment ready. They did not wish to jeopardise the relationship and any future opportunities with that employer.

Generating change in employment practice

Given the low level of employer engagement in the evaluation, there is limited evidence that employment practices for employers participating in the Fund changed. 6 projects evidenced some examples in varying levels of detail. It should be noted that most projects did not have targets associated with changing employment practice and focused on engaging employers to secure employment outcomes, rather than broader systemic change.

Most changes were associated with adaptations to recruitment practices. Employers reported to projects a range of changes they had made including proactively reaching out to returners and ensuring recruitment materials clearly stated that roles were flexible (to make them more attractive to returners). Another example was ensuring that policies and practices emphasised the skills and competencies required, with less focus on experience and time out of work.

Other changes to employment practice included a project which found employers were thinking more about supporting returners amongst their current workforce (for example with flexible working practices) and another project that reported an employer was considering running their own bespoke returnship programme.

The CIPD project offered intensive support to participating employers. Employers participated in training and networking programmes and created a community of HR practitioners focused on returner issues and flexible working across Yorkshire and the Humber. Employers who participated were very enthusiastic about their engagement as evidenced in the example case study.

Employer case study

Jacobs (a large professional services company) launched a UK returner programme with consultation from the CIPD project in 2019. Their programme, ‘Bridge the Gap’ offers a package of support for employees and their line managers that helps with the transition out of, and back into, their careers at Jacobs. The programme supports staff to:

• explore different career paths and types of flexible working
• decide which routes best match their career plans
• boost their confidence, skills and experience ready for their return to work
• reconnect with the business (and vice versa) during and after their break

A buddy system and parental forum were established, creating space for parents to share experiences. Returners are offered a ‘Juggling Act’ workshop on their return, and receive one-to-one coaching as well as group support. By July 2020, 40 of 180 eligible employees had participated.

Jacobs said: “The creation of Bridge the Gap was a much‐needed step for Jacobs and one which is already delivering positive outcomes for our employees and our business. Having the support of the CIPD at the development stage was instrumental in its success.

The project leads shared excellent insights, advice and research, and prompted us to explore critical issues, such as the barriers that materialise when you challenge the status quo. The programme also offered a supportive forum for bouncing ideas and sharing advice and experiences with other HR leaders who were going through a similar process.”

Source: CIPD

Some projects felt there were other factors which affected the ability of employers who participated in the Fund to enact change. These included the following.

Seniority and responsibilities of the employee engaged in the project

Projects had employer contacts with a range of different job roles. Projects were able to make more changes if their contact was someone responsible for recruitment as part of their job role than if they were working with a regional manager or someone indirectly responsible for recruitment for whom participating in the project was additional to their job role. The role of the employer contact therefore affected the pace at which they could make changes.

The need for businesses to show leadership

One employer commented that change within sectors is also determined by clients. If clients required gender diverse teams when pitching and delivering projects, the supply-chain would respond accordingly. However, it takes time to change perceptions through this mechanism.

1. GEO commissioned research which showed that women and men are more likely to be potential returners if they have dependent children, live in a household with an adult with a health problem, have a lower level of qualification and have a health problem which affects the amount or type of work they do. GEO (2018) Quantitative analysis of those returning to the labour market following a break to care for others ↩

2. Projects asked returners to state whether their day-to-day activities were limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted or is expected to last, at least 12 months. ↩

3. Some projects called these opportunities ‘returnships’, which consisted of short, paid placements, designed and paid for by an employer with project support for returners before, during and after the returnship period. ↩