Research and analysis

Part 3 of 4: Assessing performance and lessons learned

Published 17 March 2022

Assessing performance

Returners Fund costs

Returners Fund awards

GEO initially approved around £1.46 million in grant funding for 16 projects. The 16 projects were awarded funding that ranged from £32,000 to £186,900 per project. 3 projects scaled back during their delivery and agreed grant variations with GEO. This reduced the total amount awarded to projects to around £1.39 million. At the end of the Fund, GEO had spent a total of £1.33 million in grant funding.

Total project costs

In addition to the GEO award, 9 projects also planned to provide match funding which increased the planned Fund costs to around £1.67 million. Total planned costs for projects ranged from £48,000 to £247,000, with half of all projects costing between £50,000 and £100,000.

Match funding was not a requirement of the Fund although projects were asked whether they would be using any at the application stage. Successful projects were also asked to report on any match funding when completing monitoring progress reports. During delivery, it was common for anticipated match funding to change – either it was not secured or the scale and source to that stated in applications was different.

The amounts and types of match funding used were not reported consistently by each project. 12 out of the 16 projects reported a form of match funding to deliver their projects. Of these, 9 projects reported specific match funding values (in cash or cash equivalent terms). The total match funding anticipated at the application stage was approximately £280,000 whereas the total amount reported was lower at approximately £200,000.

Match funding was reported in different ways. 8 of the projects reported that all or part of their match funding was provided by their own organisation in the form of staff time. Other sources of match funding were reported to be from external partners and employer partners, including discounts on commercial rates and the use of premises.

Actual delivery costs

In the final progress reports, 9 out of the 16 projects reported that their final project costs were less than they planned. This underspend ranged from £2,500 to £104,000. These projects stated 2 reasons for being below budget.

First, fewer returners participated than expected – while core staffing costs were broadly unchanged, this had some cost effect as:

• fewer returners incurred expenses to be reimbursed – fewer returners were ready to engage in work placements, which meant there was less demand for work related expenses including clothes, IT equipment for those working from home, travel costs and childcare
• less formal training was required – some projects ran fewer formal training events and therefore did not spend what they might have expected on trainers, meeting facilities or catering, while other projects moved their delivery mode from group training to personalised support provided by the core delivery team

Second, COVID-19 led to event cancellations – one of the effects of COVID-19 was the cancellation of a variety of employer engagement events, and returner celebration events.

4 out of the 16 projects reported that their actual spend matched their planned budget.

3 out of the 16 projects reported a small overspend when the actual total project cost was compared with the planned budget. Overspend ranged from £4,100 to £14,300, between 4% and 16% of the planned project costs. Reasons given for budget overspend were:

• higher management costs – some projects overspent on management time, for COVID-19 contingency planning and to meet reporting requirements
• increased overheads – to account for the delays related to COVID-19, some projects agreed an extension period which required additional staff costs and, in some cases, additional costs for socially distanced room hire and IT facilities
• more intensive personal support – some projects engaged returners who required higher levels of support than they had anticipated including more intensive one-to-one support

At the end of the Fund the total reported delivery cost was lower than planned. 9 of the 16 projects received all of their approved grant. Of the 7 projects that were paid less than their approved grant agreement, 5 had underspent and so were provided with funding which covered their total actual costs. GEO, in agreement with the remaining 2 projects, provided less funding than originally approved due to changes in project delivery.

Figure 7-1 shows the planned cost of each project, including the reported actual spend and funding paid out by GEO.

Figure 7-1: Planned and actual total cost with GEO spend by project (£)

Sources: project applications, grant variations and final progress reports.

Project costs

Cost categories were not reported consistently across projects and therefore it was not possible to definitively break down overall project costs by different cost categories. However, most projects incurred similar types of direct and indirect project costs.

Direct project costs

The planned costs for all 16 projects on staffing amounted to approximately £840,000^{[footnote 1]}, which was 48% of all estimated costs. In total, actual reported staff costs amounted to approximately £880,000, which was an overspend of £40,000 and amounted to 57% of the total reported spend.

Projects used different types of staff to deliver their project. While the project manager role was consistently held by the grant recipient organisation, other roles were externally recruited. Examples of externally recruited staff include:

• employer consultants, employer liaison or business advisers
• career coaches or mentors
• communications officers

Staff costs accounted for a substantial proportion of projects costs. The Fund required intensive project management time to cover activities such as returner and employer direct engagement, recruitment of staff to the project, evaluation participation, and ongoing support for returners and employers. In addition, those projects granted extensions to their delivery period due to COVID-19 incurred additional staff costs.

Indirect costs

Common types of expenditure sub-contracted to third party providers were for:

• communications – PR, advertising and marketing materials, as well as social media communications
• specialist trainers, training materials and course content – for example, providers who could deliver grief and bereavement counselling or financial and benefits advice
• specific vocational training – for qualifications and licenses, such as Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) cards, SIA licences, and Food and Hygiene Awards
• hosting events – employer engagement and recruitment events either hosted or attended by the project, best practice sharing events and returner celebration events

Project value

The projects aimed to engage 1,517 returners and provide active support to 864 of them. Collectively the projects engaged fewer returners (1,140), but were close to meeting their support targets with 837 returners supported. Projects recognised in their plans that there would be attrition and not all returners supported would enter employment. Planned job outcomes totalled 468, whereas the actual job outcomes reported at project end was 179. 15 projects did not meet their planned number of job outcomes for returners during the lifetime of their project (the reasons for which were reported in the sections ‘Returner profile’ and ‘Returner outcomes’).

One method to measure the value of employment support programmes is using a cost per job metric. Using the total cost to GEO as a base, the planned cost averaged £2,968 per job, whereas the actual cost per job was £7,436. The figure disguises differences between projects that ranged from actual cost per job of between £1,711 and £47,426 (Table 7-1). The actual cost per job metric was affected by the following factors.

The delivery model

The total cost per job of all projects which used personalised models was around twice the cost per job of all projects which used cohort delivery. A personalised model had more one-to-one delivery time and was therefore likely to require more staff resource.

Underachievement of job outcome targets

2 projects with high cost per job figures both relied on self-referral and digital engagement, and both over-estimated the number of returners that they would be able to engage through these methods alone. While their costs did not rise, the numbers of returners they supported into work was much lower than anticipated and thus drove up the cost per job metric.

Overachievement of targets

2 projects reported a lower cost per job than planned. One project (Creative Equals) exceeded their targeted number of job outcomes and as such the actual cost per job was 63% of the planned costs.

Lower costs

While the Changing Lives project narrowly missed their targeted job outcomes (15 planned against 14 secured), their actual cost per job was less than planned due to a lower total cost of their project.

Timing of outcome measurement

The number of returners who had entered employment was captured at project end. However, subsequent communication with projects revealed that several continued to support returners beyond the lifetime of the project, resulting in more positive employment outcomes. For the purposes of this report, these additional employment outcomes have not been included.

COVID-19

The pandemic affected 9 projects and the probability of returners securing job outcomes during the pandemic decreased.

Table 7-1: Planned and actual cost per outcome by project at project end

Project	Planned job outcomes	Achieved job outcomes	Cost per job outcome	Returners supported	Cost per returner supported
Adviza	30	9	£7,221	36	£1,805
Beam	19	9	£5,556	24	£2,083
Carer Support Wiltshire	45	2	£34,700	27	£2,570
Changing Lives	15	14	£5,582	42	£1,861
CIPD	25	10	£15,335	87	£1,763
Creative Equals	24	38	£1,711	57	£1,140
F1 Recruitment	32	9	£3,556	32	£1,000
GMCVO	30	3	£47,426	85	£1,674
Liverpool City Council	30	6	£11,026	57	£1,161
Livv Housing	30	7	£8,571	52	£1,154
Mpower People	40	14	£6,893	45	£2,145
RFEA	25	4	£12,000	50	£960
Shpresa and Twist	30	16	£4,875	62	£1,258
St Helens Chamber	48	17	£10,994	114	£1,639
Westminster City Council	30	11	£4,265	52	£902
Women Returners	15	10	£9,348	15	£6,232
Total	468	179	N/A	837	N/A

Source: final progress reports and grant agreements.
Note: excludes match funding.

It should be noted that the cost per job does not measure the throughput activity carried out by the projects in terms of businesses and returners supported, skills improved and families helped. Table 7-1 also includes information about the cost per returner supported which showed that activity costs per returner ranged from £902 per returner (for a project that provided mentoring and coaching support to returners) to £6,232 (for a project that provided intensive training and support, connections with employers and personalised recruitment support).

Designing interventions: lessons learned

Introduction

The Fund was set up to create new opportunities and to increase understanding of the barriers and enablers for both returners and employers. Projects were funded to explore ways of overcoming challenges and the benefits of intervention. They were also designed to try out new ways of working, with different partners, in new localities or sectors.

This section summarises the lessons learned from the participating projects in terms of their approach to designing their projects, the groups they expected to work with and the scope and scale of their ambition. Generalisations are difficult as the projects were dealing with issues faced by groups of people with very different and often complex needs, as well as working across different sectors and labour markets. In addition, what started as an initiative in a relatively buoyant labour market ended at a time when COVID-19 was severely affecting the livelihoods of people and businesses.

This section is based upon the learning presented in each of the 16 project evaluation reports. It is structured to create generalised lessons about:

• project rationale
• project design
• proposed delivery model
• grant agreements

Project rationale

Evidence about returners

In their Fund applications, projects used a range of evidence to underpin the rationale for their intervention including:

• GEO reports that were publicised during the market engagement events
• Office of National Statistics (ONS) data regarding population and deprivation which gave regional unemployment levels, claimant counts, qualifications, household income, skills shortages and health outcomes
• local or regional sector intelligence from sources such as local industrial strategy reports
• reports or studies into the barriers faced by particular returner groups (such as those associated with military families, or single parents)

Projects drew on their own experience. 12 projects were led by organisations that had been supporting people into the labour market as part of their core business, of which 3 had participated in projects that specifically targeted returners. Therefore, most projects based their project design on knowledge of previous labour market interventions with a different participant group or in a different locality. 6 projects applied other survey, monitoring or outcome data from previous projects to inform their application.

Such data provided useful context and enabled projects to articulate the nature of the problem that existed. However, the available data was incomplete. It was unable to show the scale of female or carer labour market participation and non-participation, by locality, household type or skill level. There was a lack of quality data available to projects to enable them to assess the number of carers or potential returners in their area, their characteristics or likely career ambitions.

Most projects therefore based their plans on imperfect data. Some of the projects overestimated the number of returners who were ready to engage with the projects. For example, one project had surveyed a group of returners about their readiness to return to work and used the results to set ambitious targets. However, in practice the numbers with serious intent to return to paid work in the short term was far less than their market research had led them to expect. The 3 projects that had worked with returners before were able to more accurately predict the numbers they could engage and in fact collectively surpassed their target for returner engagement.

Summary: evidence about returners

Market research and local surveys provided helpful data but it was often incomplete and needed to be treated cautiously as an indicator of the scale of need in an area.

Projects with experience of working with returners were better placed to accurately assess their needs and the scale of interventions required.

Projects needed to use several sources of information and intelligence to design their project.

Evidence about jobs and employers

Insight into job availability came from analysis of job bulletins and through talking with employers (given that not all jobs are advertised). As part of the application process, projects were asked to provide names of employers that they could work with to deliver their project to demonstrate to GEO that these links were in place.^{[footnote 2]} The application process did not require projects to evidence employer support, or evidence any formal or informal research with employers. The insights from employers were useful but they could not always anticipate future needs or how they might be involved with the project months in advance.

Summary: evidence about jobs and employers

Discussions with local employers informed project design.

Employers were not always able to accurately predict, months in advance, what roles would be available in the future.

Project design

Partners and governance

Projects performed several different roles to connect employers with returners including:

• referral agent – bringing people into their project and referring them to other services, or developing relationships between employers and returners
• trainer – training returners to refresh or extend their employability skills
• mentor or careers coach – advising, guiding, mentoring, and coaching returners to support their career decision, health and wellbeing
• business adviser – advising employers on their recruitment practice and the construction of job roles to make them more flexible and attractive to returners

These diverse roles were not usually available within one organisation. Almost all projects developed partnerships with organisations that provided the roles and expertise that complemented their own. In most cases these were contractual relationships with payment for services. In other cases, partnerships were based on mutual reciprocity. For example, an organisation might refer a client to the project knowing that they would receive employment support before being referred back to them for other support services, or an employer might offer to contribute a trainer or mentor with the hope of making connections with skilled potential recruits.

Partnerships were essential to the design and delivery of projects. Projects were designed to work across areas and sectors and bring together a diverse set of skills and experiences. The ability to connect and work with a range of other organisations was very important and projects proved adept at building these, bringing in new partners where helpful, commissioning partners to deliver services, and harnessing the professional networks of their staff.

3 projects, familiar with working with public or third sector partners, constructed formal governance arrangements to provide additional support when working with private sector employers. One project connected with their parent organisation’s board, while 2 others constructed groups of partners that met up to 3 times during the course of the project to share emerging learning, plan contingencies, and provide specialist expertise to support the project’s delivery.

Summary: partners and governance

Some projects developed a range of partnership relationships to cover the diverse roles and networks that were needed to connect employers with returners.

The projects that had formal partnership governance structures found them helpful.

Location

3 projects applied to the Fund to take a delivery model that had worked in London and apply it in different cities or places beyond the capital’s commuter belt. All 3 projects encountered challenges. One project was unable to make the necessary partner connections before being affected by COVID-19, another found take up of their offer by both returners and employers in the new location to be lower than they expected, while the third did achieve employment outcomes albeit with fewer employers and returners participating than they would have found in London.

The challenges were therefore in part associated with a lack of knowledge about how different the London labour market is compared to other parts of the country. Evidence from the ONS shows that in September 2019, London had record high employment levels, jobs were being created in London faster than anywhere else, and it had the highest proportion of workforce jobs in the services sector compared to other UK regions. Challenges were also attributed to the more limited networks London-based project managers had beyond the capital.

These projects used a number of approaches to overcome these issues. One project found that they needed to include a much wider catchment area than they initially anticipated (across counties rather than focused in an urban centre). The 3 projects also connected with local partners or agents to help them make connections. Local partners helped to create more returner opportunities, but could not replicate the more vibrant job market that existed in London pre-March 2020 and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The concentration of 3 projects running in Liverpool concurrently created some early difficulties as the projects found they were wanting to connect with the same partners, particularly for referrals. This was eventually overcome but could have been avoided with higher quality bids from underrepresented regions and different funding decisions.

Summary: location

Delivery models that worked in London did not transfer easily to other locations.

The concentration of some projects in Liverpool created early difficulties for sourcing partners.

Delivery model

Duration and timing

Project funding was available for a maximum of 12 months. The start date for some projects was later than planned due to the timescales associated with approving the grant funding and preparing formal grant agreements. Both of these factors led projects to reflect on their duration and the timing of important milestones.

With a 12-month delivery period, projects had a limited number of recruitment and training cycles for different cohorts that could be accommodated. Some projects planned a single cycle with one cohort being supported, while 2 projects planned for 5 cycles of recruitment and delivery. Where multiple cycles were planned there was limited time available for contingency measures to be implemented between cohorts.

Projects in the first round of funding planned to use the 2018 summer period to get set up to start in September 2018. This was thought to be a good time for returners with childcare responsibilities to start on projects, as it follows the school summer holidays. However, start dates were delayed which affected their recruitment and delivery efforts. For returners, the time of year was an important factor when making commitments to seek work. For example, those with childcare responsibilities were not looking for work just before the summer holidays. Some projects also reported that the new year was also a good time to recruit returners onto their project.

One project experienced delays with IT developments. Their online portal was essential as it enabled returners and employers to access resources, job opportunities and ongoing support from the project team. The development of the portal took 3 weeks longer than planned.

Other delays were largely associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore not anticipated. This included administration delays in other organisations that meant that returners had to wait longer for their qualifications and certifications to be processed. The projects themselves needed time to manage their own operations, furlough staff and put delivery contingencies in place. Such considerations meant that communication became slower between projects, their partners, and GEO. The effect of these delays was particularly felt by some projects who extended their delivery period and needed staff to work on the project for longer than anticipated.

Summary: duration and timing

Some projects needed to plan recruitment at key times of the year and avoid delivery during school holidays.

Some projects experienced delays and needed time for contingency planning.

Staffing

“[The project manager] made me see that I’m still really capable.” (Returner)

The skills and experience of staff deployed to run the project needed careful consideration. Projects found that both employers and returners responded well to having a named person to talk to. Returners commented that they liked having staff members who were also role models, and who shared some of their experiences or backgrounds. One project actively chose to recruit a member of staff who shared the same experiences as the returners they were supporting and provided them with the training they needed to be able to run the project.

2 projects reported challenges with recruiting or retaining the right staff. In one case this was due to the short-term nature of the contract they could offer, and the other was due to a lack of skilled business relationship managers available.

Summary: staffing

Staff with both technical and communication skills were essential to the success of some projects.

Some projects reported that staff who shared characteristics with the returners connected well with them.

Grant agreements

Targets included at the application stage

Projects that had delivered similar work before could draw on their experiences to plan the resources they would need and the numbers of returners they might be able to engage. However, most projects overestimated the number of returners that they would recruit. Projects responded with active and creative ways to recruit and support returners, including linking with different referral partners, doing work with press and social media, and attending events or groups where returners were likely to be present. Most found their engagement targets challenging.

Nevertheless, most projects either met or came close to meeting their stated targets in terms of recruitment and active participation of returners. 3 projects had run returners projects before and were extending a model that they had previously used. The others were all social or third sector organisations and had a good understanding of the characteristics of their target group and the barriers they faced when seeking employment. These projects were able to make more realistic assessments of the demand for a returners service.

In their applications, projects stated their intentions regarding the number and type of employers they would work with and what their recruitment needs were. 2 projects predicted this accurately based on their existing engagement with employers, but most projects had to adapt their employer engagement plans as the projects progressed.

6 projects initially planned to work with a set number of employers who would each want to recruit more than one returner. They found that this rarely happened outside of London and employers who were involved in the projects either did not have employment opportunities available or only had just one to offer at the time.

Timing was also a factor. Job vacancies anticipated at the project application stage were not always available when projects were active, either because employer recruitment plans had changed or they had filled vacancies by the time the projects started.

Summary: targets included at the application stage

Most project target outcomes for returners and employers were ambitious and challenging.

Most projects overestimated the numbers of returners ready to work with them and recruitment of returners was a challenge for most projects.

Projects engaged employers at the application stage but most found their job insights to be out of date or inaccurate by the time project delivery started.

Administration and record keeping

Each project signed a grant agreement that set out the terms of funding, including reporting requirements, delivery targets and timescales based on their successful application. The monthly reporting process, including use of monitoring systems and requirements to capture evidence, was familiar to several projects. For example, those that had participated in previous government funding schemes or European Structural Funds had systems in place to capture data and report it in the format required by the Fund. Other projects had not planned sufficient administration resources to meet monitoring and reporting requirements, particularly those new to government funding and often from the private or charitable sector.

The project grant agreements included outcome measures and achievements tailored to each project rather than standardised for all projects. For example, the definition of engaged was reported to mean registered interest or enrolled on a training programme by different projects. The match funding contributed by a project was also reported in different ways, with some projects not reporting it at all, some reporting it in text without a financial value, and others allocating a value but not saying how it was used. This may have been because match funding was not a requirement of project funding, although reporting it was. Where payments are based on delivery of activities and achievement of outcomes, written agreement about the nature and definition of key terms is essential.

Summary: administration and record keeping

Some projects had not planned sufficient administrative resource to meet monitoring and reporting requirements of grant funding.

The Fund would have benefitted from standardised definitions of key terms, available at application stage, to streamline monitoring and reporting purposes.

Delivering interventions: lessons learned

Introduction

The projects were diverse in their structure, approaches and experiences. However, all projects included core components, such as pre-delivery activities, engagement and referral of returners, returner training and support, preparations for work, employer involvement, and job brokerage.

Each project assembled their delivery models with some or most of these core components to suit their returner and employer needs. In some cases, the delivery model was adapted as the project progressed. Delivery models included:

• using cohort training models which took a group of returners through a training programme or personalised approaches that created bespoke training or support programmes for each returner
• involving employers as partners engaged in project delivery and returner support, or as providers of an employment opportunity at the end of the project

9 projects offered both cohort and personalised delivery models, 4 chose personalised models, and 3 delivered cohort models. 9 projects also actively engaged several employers in their delivery, and all sought employer opportunities for returners that were work-ready. Given the multiple combinations of delivery models and the relatively small size of each project, there was limited opportunity to undertake a comparison of the effectiveness of different models.

This section of the report describes some of the different approaches taken to present important lessons derived from the experiences of the 16 projects. Note that in some cases learning has been combined from different projects to highlight important points, rather than including every example.

Pre-delivery activities

Publicity and raising awareness

Projects needed to raise awareness of their offer rapidly with both returners and employers in their target communities and sectors. All used digital media. Multiple online channels, including social media and parent-focused websites, were used to publicise projects with returners and employers. Some projects found the use of a specialist public relations professional to be useful. Others developed digital communication strategies, involving different platforms and timing that reflected national campaigns.

Some projects worked with their named partners to extend their reach into different communities. For example, some partnered with local Chambers of Commerce to help reach local businesses by sending information or requests by email to their membership.

Summary: publicity and raising awareness

Multiple online channels, including social media and parent-focused websites, were used to publicise projects with returners and employers.

Some projects found the use of partners’ networks was also an effective way to reach different communities.

Engaging returners

Referral of returners

In addition to social media, all projects used their existing community networks and partnerships to encourage referrals. 11 projects also created links with new organisations that they had not worked with before in order to broaden their referral base. One project actively incentivised their client group to refer friends or family members through offering Amazon vouchers.^{[footnote 3]}

6 projects used self-referral. One project relied wholly on self-referrals in response to social media campaigns, although it was more usual for self-referral to be used alongside other entry routes. Self-referral was a useful supplement to recruitment, but projects needed to have effective screening or eligibility checks in place to ensure that participation was right for the returner.

Successful referrals from partner organisations required regular and in-person contact with partners and messages often needed repeating before the project was fully understood and supported. This worked very well in several projects where project teams were able to use established professional relationships to build contacts in other organisations. Where a project was challenging stereotypes or established practices, time was required early on to persuade partners of the need for intervention and encourage them to take part.

Referral partners needed careful selection. Referral organisations needed to have sufficiently close relationships with clients to be able to identify and refer suitable people. This was often the case when the referral organisation (which could be another part of the funded organisation or a project partner) was connected with a specific group or community (such as carers, migrants or law professionals).

6 projects developed referral relationships with Jobcentre Plus and a further 3 projects stated they wanted to, but it did not happen in practice. Projects working with staff teams within the local Jobcentre offices had to carefully brief them about the type of referral they were looking for and maintain regular contact. One project invested time in this relationship and found it best to focus effort on those offices that recognised and valued how the project would support their clients and would then keep in regular contact with the project. Another project found that the people who were referred by Jobcentre Plus had different characteristics and aspirations to those referred by alternative routes and needed a different model of support.

Summary: referral of returners

All projects used their existing community networks and partnerships to encourage referrals.

Self-referral was a useful supplement to recruitment, but effective screening or eligibility checks were needed to ensure that participation was right for the returner.

Several projects also gained successful referrals from partner organisations through regular and in-person contact. However, referral partners needed to be carefully selected to ensure they could meet project expectations.

Induction and action planning

Projects had a range of ways to share their plans with returners and to introduce them to project teams. Some projects held a formal meeting at their premises or went out to meet returners to explain their project prior to recruitment. Others requested returners apply for a limited number of places. One project held a selection day and interviewed candidates in person, which allowed returners and the project team to assess whether they were right for the project.

Projects often experienced some attrition at this point. Some returners who expressed initial interest were unwilling or unable to commit to a formal programme. Returners may have withdrawn if their circumstances changed, if they lacked confidence to attend a group meeting, or if they thought their employment prospects were poor. Over-referral may be necessary as not all registrations converted into actively engaged returners.

Project onboarding processes needed to identify returners who were eligible and able to fully participate. Reviewing participation barriers helped to ensure that projects were appropriate for returners. In addition, an initial face-to-face and one-to-one introduction conversation with interested returners helped to ensure that those who expressed initial interest were ready to participate. Such an approach helped returners feel comfortable to engage and commit to joining the project. Several projects chose at this point to undertake a personal action planning approach with the returner, led by a project team member or a trained careers adviser. In addition, 2 projects were linked to the National Careers Service delivery teams and supported some returners to develop a long-term career plan and understand different routes for their employment goals.

Projects that planned their induction process to be largely by an online portal or email found this was less successful and most switched to phone communication to make a personal connection with the returner.

Returners were motivated by the prospect of gaining skills and work experience, and for those whose first language was not English, they were also motivated to improve their English language skills. Returners also appreciated being among others who had similar circumstances to them, such as caring responsibilities.

Summary: induction and action planning

Projects used a range of ways to share their plans with returners and to introduce them to project teams. However, over-referral may be necessary as not all registrations to projects converted into actively engaged returners.

Some returners were motivated by the prospect of gaining skills and work experience and being among others who had similar circumstances to them, such as caring responsibilities.

Returner training and support

Returners accessed a range of support from the 16 projects. Some project delivery models were based around a cohort of returners who participated in a scheduled, formal training programme. Other delivery models used a more personalised approach with support offered on a one-to-one basis by the project team, or through other training courses or specialist support teams. Lessons about the different types of training are captured in the following sections.

Formal training

13 of the 16 projects offered a formal training programme. 10 projects ran their own training programme for cohorts of returners as part or all of their offer, as follows:

• some were of limited duration (1 or 2-day courses) and some ran over longer periods (for example, 10 weeks)
• course timing had to consider potential take-up – projects avoided school holidays and some were run within school hours or with childcare provided by the project
• course intensity also needed careful consideration – some projects ran short intensive training bootcamps with participants who were used to training or working in a group

5 projects referred returners to other training courses that they could complete within the duration of the project. These were courses that would improve their vocational and employability skills, for example courses based on food and hygiene (for access to catering and hospitality roles), or IT courses (to support access to administrative or retail roles). Training was helpful to returners as it raised their confidence as well as their skills. Some of the training also provided them with up-to-date certification necessary for certain job roles (such as food safety and hygiene).

Projects stressed the importance of choosing the right training partner and conducting due diligence. One project stated the importance of using trainers who had experience of working with their client group (for example, a training provider with experience of supporting those affected by domestic abuse). They needed to work with clear and agreed procedures to deal with any safeguarding issues that might arise.

Some projects adapted training according to the needs of the group. Several projects reported that digital skills development was found to be a useful way to build both confidence and employability. Intense training experiences such as bootcamps also provided access to a broad range of activities including insights from real employers about their expectations of applicants.

Summary: formal training

The form and content of training needed to recognise returner needs (at a personal and group level).

Training providers needed to be carefully selected to ensure they were right for the returners and some projects needed to adapt course content to respond to emerging returner needs.

Barriers to participation such as location, travel costs and childcare, needed to be removed for several projects to encourage participation.

Peer support

Role models and peer support were important to returners. They valued support and guidance from project team members or trainers that had been in their situation, who provided both empathy and role modelling.

Returners also liked the opportunity to talk with other returners on the project regularly to share challenges, boost confidence, and support and learn from one another. One project noted that their returners led quite isolated lives, and that this element of the project was really important as it helped them build friendships and mutual support networks.

Summary: peer support

Peer support was an important part of the return to work journey that offered emotional support and role modelling.

Personalised support

Some returners were not ready for group work and needed smaller, less formal initial sessions to build their confidence. These returners, whose circumstances had led to them spending a lot of time in their own home, were said to find large group and more formal venues off-putting. They valued having access to a caseworker or mentor who helped them with the support they needed at the time they needed it. This ad hoc support worked well alongside a structured set of planned check-ins. Projects sometimes included access to sessions on things like mindfulness or self-care to help boost returner confidence for participating in group work or starting to look for employment.

A blended model was used by many projects to provide personalised or coaching support alongside structured training, although this could be labour intensive. While returners valued this bespoke, flexible support at times, they also required more structure and definition around activities and goals.

One project used a formal mentoring process where a mentor and mentee were paired and set mutually agreed objectives – this project used a mentoring model where employers (in this case HR professionals) volunteered their time to support returners to find work and support them through their first few weeks of employment. This project found that returners received between 3 and 8 mentoring sessions and reported very positive feedback. Another project was setting up a similar mentoring model after their funded project had completed.

Specialist support and advice was also valued. Specialist support, such as financial advice, was often included in the project offer, with signposting to additional specialist services where needed. For example, access to a financial adviser allowed returners to understand the financial implications of taking paid work with regard to any reduction in their benefits and the effect on their household income. They felt better informed, more in control of their finances and more motivated to find paid work.

Summary: personalised support

Returners valued a structured training approach, including personalised and specialist support where appropriate.

Preparing for work

Job searching

All projects provided job search support for those returners who were ready for work or became work-ready during the course of the project. Sometimes they secured input from a HR professional or an employer. These sessions addressed gaps in knowledge about the world of work (which was particularly valuable to those who were unemployed for a number of years) and about recruitment processes, including:

• what employers look for in applications and CVs
• how to present their career breaks on their CV and at interview
• how to ask about flexible working in interview

In 3 cases, employers also ran mock interviews. Returners who participated in the evaluation commented that they appreciated this type of support as it gave them new skills but also made them feel more positive about their existing skills and employability.

Projects helped returners to apply for roles and opportunities that harnessed their existing skills and were appropriate to their personal circumstances. In many cases returners were looking for full-time flexible roles and were advised by projects to consider more inherently flexible roles such as roles in schools or care environments and shift-based roles.

Summary: job searching

Returners who were ready to start looking for jobs benefitted from job search and application support provided by all projects for roles that harnessed their existing skills and were appropriate to their personal circumstances.

Work experience

Some projects provided returners with work experience opportunities. Projects labelled and defined their work experience in different ways. Some projects called this a ‘returnship’ which was a paid placement, recruited for and designed by the employers. More frequently, projects used different forms of work encounters, such as workplace visits, short unpaid work experiences, or volunteering in third sector organisations. Projects ensured that the nature, duration and location of these experiences matched both the needs and capacity of returners and employers. Bespoke work placements worked well for returners who were considered by the project team to be work-ready, or who wanted to use a placement to improve their language skills.

Projects would not propose a returner for a work encounter if they did not think the returner was ready. Some projects used volunteering in the social sector as a stepping stone experience for some returners. This included work shadowing and pilot workshop opportunities. In some cases, offering unpaid placements within the project organisations themselves enabled returners to gain work experience in a familiar environment.

Summary: work experience

Some projects provided returners with work experience opportunities that matched both the needs and capacity of their returners, and what the participating employers could offer.

Bespoke work placements worked well for returners who were considered to be work-ready, or who wanted to use a placement to improve their language skills.

Some projects considered voluntary work to be a useful stepping stone for returners prior to private sector employment.

Employer involvement

Employers were involved in all projects. Their role was to support the delivery of training or personalised support for returners, provide work experience, placement, or job opportunities, and support project governance. Some projects also sought to provide advice and recruitment support to encourage employers to provide flexible job roles and consider employing returners. Most projects worked with employers with whom they already had constructive relationships, or reached employers through project partners.

Attracting employers

Employers did not necessarily recognise ‘returners’ as a distinct cohort and therefore projects used a range of messages to engage them. Employers appeared to respond to messages about diversity, access to talent, and networking with other like-minded employers. One project found that providing employers with examples of returner stories, particularly where returners have been employed successfully, was a powerful way to change employer perceptions and increase their willingness to engage with returners.

Projects either partnered with organisations with extensive employer contacts or used their own networks. An approach that worked well for one project was to review their contact list, identify those who might be most receptive, and engage using a personalised approach. Another project found that employers became interested if contacts within their professional sector-specific business networks were also interested. Any initial expression of interest needed quick follow-up as employer priorities changed from month to month.

Employers valued opportunities to network and some said they appreciated hearing the authentic experience of recruitment and employment from returners themselves. Other employers valued face-to-face workshops and opportunities to meet other like-minded employers, as well as the dedicated time that some projects provided to consider how to make organisational practices better for returners.

Summary: attracting employers

Employers did not necessarily understand the term ‘returner’ but some projects found that employers responded to messages about increased diversity and access to talent.

Initial expressions of interest from employers required quick follow-up.

Employers valued networking opportunities with other like-minded employers and hearing the authentic experience of recruitment and employment from returners directly.

Involving employers

More employers were interested in the project than actively involved. Many employers who expressed interest did not become involved because the timing was not right. Employers needed to be ready and able to participate in the project at the same time when returners were ready to engage with them.

Employers needed to be aware from the outset of the expected time they needed to commit to be involved in the project, and benefited from being offered a wide range of involvement opportunities. For example, one project found it easier to ask employers for specific inputs as part of relationship building, such as hosting a lunchtime ‘coffee and chat’ with a returner or conducting a workplace tour. Overall, employers that were more involved in project delivery were better placed to recruit the talent they needed.

Each project had very different experiences with employers and each employer had their own set of needs and circumstances. For example, it took some projects several weeks to turn a receptive employer into one who could offer work experience, a placement, or interview to a returner. Others engaged quickly, especially if they saw the potential of returners to address their recruitment needs.

Summary: involving employers

Securing employer involvement was a challenge. Many employers who expressed initial interest did not become actively involved due to timing issues.

Employers needed to be aware from the outset of the expected time they needed to commit to be involved in the project and benefitted from a wide range of opportunities once involved.

Job brokerage

Returner and employer relationships

Projects used different models to connect returners with employers. Some projects developed relationships with groups of employers and returners to broker matches between them. 3 projects used training bootcamps for this and employers who participated in these projects provided employment opportunities (either short duration paid returnships or paid employment). Participating in careers fairs also provided opportunities for returners to meet employers and secure interviews.

Other projects took a personalised approach to job brokerage and made connections with employers on behalf of returners where possible and appropriate. This required active participation or worked for projects with regular contact with employers. Given the time required in taking a personalised approach, this was not extensively used across projects. Nevertheless, it worked very well for one project where an employer got involved in the returner training and was therefore able to talk with returners informally before moving to a more formal recruitment process. Other projects introduced employers to returners who they thought would be a good fit.

Where projects were brokering these relationships, they needed to manage returner expectations carefully and ensure that both parties had sufficient time for one-to-one conversations.

It is worth noting that job brokerage was not used in all projects as returners found employment through usual recruitment channels. However, job brokerage was used by projects to connect employers with returners where they thought there was a good fit.

Summary: returner and employer relationships

Some returners found job opportunities through connections made by projects and employer-related involvement as well as through usual recruitment channels.

1. This total represented 15 out of 16 projects, as 1 project did not identify staffing costs in sufficient detail to include in the calculation. ↩

2. In the second and third rounds of funding applicants were asked: “If you have already secured employer support, please provide further information on up to 5 employers who have committed their support”. ↩

3. 5 of the 31 engaged returners were referred on to it by a friend or family members who then received a £30 Amazon voucher. ↩