Research and analysis

Summary: Sector-based Work Academy Programme: qualitative case study research

Updated 16 May 2024

This summary outlines key findings from in-house qualitative case study research on the Sector-based Work Academy Programme (SWAP). The research took place in four Jobcentre Plus (JCP) district areas across England in June to November 2022 and involved a total of 93 in-depth interviews/focus groups with 118 participants. The research was conducted to generate insight into how the programme is delivered, and the value of the support it provides for employers and claimants. In each area, fieldwork was conducted with Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff involved in delivering the programme locally, alongside claimants, employers and training providers who had participated in a SWAP in recent months.

Key findings

Overview of district-level programme delivery

Districts varied in the way that staffing was set-up to support the delivery of SWAPs, and this was mostly driven by their operational priorities. This ranged from a centralised model with a central, co-located team to launch and manage SWAPs for the whole district, to a clustered approach in another area, which saw staff working on SWAPs embedded within operational sites and account managing SWAPs for their sites. The staffing models had implications for SWAP delivery and quality, although the research didn’t identify any trends in outcomes based on these models. A reliance on Adult Education Budget funding also influenced what types of SWAPs were delivered. DWP staff reported a bias within the funding towards generalist skills training which wasn’t always thought to equip claimants with the career-enabling skills required for more specialist roles.

Local SWAPs

The SWAPs delivered across all areas were highly diverse in content and format, reflecting the flexibility of the SWAP model. While SWAPs were thought to align well with local labour market needs, DWP staff identified some gaps in provision in terms of specific sectors claimants were interested in (for example, a lack of administration SWAPs outside of the Civil Service in Areas 2 and 3). Other gaps mentioned included a lack of SWAPs with shorter or more flexible hours for claimants with caring commitments, and district-specific gaps such as few SWAPs in areas outside the main urban centre in Area 1.

Partnership working

The most effective model of partnership working entailed all three parties (DWP, training providers and employers) being actively engaged in the set-up and management of SWAPs. This included all parties being aligned with expectations of the SWAP, employers specifying their training requirements, employers contributing to pre-SWAP information sessions, and regular cross-party communication throughout the duration of the programme. If a training provider initiated a SWAP, however, this could minimise the level of engagement DWP had with end employers and reduce the flow of information to DWP concerning outcomes.

Referral

Referrals were a crucial stage influencing the effectiveness of the SWAPs delivered. Claimants tended to describe receiving minimal information about the programme which mainly concerned course logistics, although most still felt they had a choice in taking part. Overall, most employers reflected that the calibre of candidates was mixed. The poor suitability of some claimants, alongside lower than anticipated referral numbers, was seen as one of the main reasons why SWAPs didn’t meet all these employers’ vacancy needs. Both DWP-related factors such as Work Coach time and knowledge of SWAP, and external factors such as claimant interest and personal circumstances, were thought to determine the volume and quality of referrals received.

Claimant experiences of programme delivery

Overall claimants were positive about their participation in a SWAP, with components such as the pre-employment training considered more useful when it was specific to the end role on offer or wider sector. The work experience placement and guaranteed job interview (GJI) components of SWAP were not consistently offered to the claimants interviewed, and when the GJI wasn’t delivered this could be particularly disappointing. Claimants mostly valued the support received from Work Coaches during the SWAP, although there were some gaps reported, notably in the period immediately following SWAP completion.

Employer experiences of programme delivery

Employers shared diverse experiences of SWAP. While some employers valued the bespoke nature of the training provided, and felt candidates were well prepared and confident at interview, for a minority, they weren’t sure what training had been delivered and/or considered it less necessary for their sector. Some employers linked poor suitability among some of the claimants referred to negative claimant attitudes towards the role or work in general. A small number of employers felt that more robust screening of claimants was needed as part of the referral process to avoid these issues reoccurring.

Outcomes from SWAP

Claimants reported a range of outcomes from their participation in a SWAP, and most of these improved their overall employability (for example, qualifications gained or improved confidence). There was less evidence from this research that SWAPs moved claimants directly into employment, despite this being a key intended outcome for the programme. For employers, SWAPs could help with job-matching and filling vacancies, however, there was doubt about the magnitude of the effectiveness of the SWAP for employers in terms of the number of vacancies filled. Overall, participants found it difficult to attribute positive outcomes to specific types of SWAPs. In general, effective SWAPs were linked to face-to-face training, the delivery of a qualification and the presence of a GJI as part of the offer.