Flexible workforce development fund: first year evaluation

4. Colleges and Wider Stakeholders

This Chapter presents the main messages arising from the consultations undertaken with the college network and wider stakeholders. The findings should be viewed in the context of the different ways those consulted are involved in the FWDF:

• the college network are closely involved in the day-to-day delivery and operation of the Fund - we consulted all colleges that have accessed FWDF monies; and
• the wider stakeholders consulted are a diverse group that span those involved in the management of the Fund (i.e. SFC), numerous agencies and organisations that have an employer facing role (e.g. Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, etc), and a large national employer (Police Scotland). It should also be noted that we often consulted with multiple representatives from the same organisation.

Table 4.1 provides details of the consultation programme undertaken, and further details are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4.1: Primary Research Undertaken with Colleges and Stakeholders

College Network in Scotland	25 face-to-face and telephone consultations
Wider Stakeholders	21 face-to-face and telephone consultations

Where differing views are provided between the college network and some wider stakeholders this is highlighted where appropriate.

4.1 A Welcomed and Valued Fund

The college network and wider stakeholders welcome the introduction of the Fund. Here, feedback centres on:

• strong support for an approach that seeks to utilise the levy to foster skills investment and inclusive growth;
• strong support for the growing recognition that upskilling and reskilling of the existing workforce is equally important from a skills perspective to interventions that aim to ensure new entrants have the right mix of skills, attitudes, and competences; and
• that the Fund provides a real opportunity to improve support and address specific current and future skills needs – and to improve the productivity of employers.

The college network further emphasise the value of the Fund as an additional mechanism in its “tool box” through which they can actively engage and support:

• not only some of their existing employer contacts – i.e. strengthening existing college-employer relationships;
• but also that the Fund provides an opportunity for new college-employer engagement – i.e. relationships with employers they have not engaged with previously; and
• the Fund also supports the college network’s wider objectives and ambitions on developing Scotland’s young workforce.

A further point raised by some wider stakeholder is that the Fund needs to deliver on its name - i.e. the FWDF needs to be seen as being sufficiently “ flexible” – scale of funding, choice of any accredited training provider, etc.

4.2 Time to Raise Awareness and Stimulate Demand

The general consensus among the college network (and wider stakeholders) is that it has taken much longer to raise awareness of the Fund among levy-paying employers than had been envisaged at the outset. This view is supported both by the review of Reporting Templates which shows that it has taken time to stimulate demand ( Chapter 3), and through the Employers Survey ( Chapter 5).

There are reported to be a number of factors at play which help contextualise slower than envisaged uptake of the Fund in its first year, namely:

• there is no levy-payer employer list - it has therefore taken much longer for colleges to identify levy-paying employers on their patch and to make that initial contact and communication about the Fund.
  HMRC has confirmed that it is not able to share this information, and this has certainly impeded progress in the Fund’s early stages. That being said, colleges report that some of the larger levy-paying employers are immediately obvious (e.g. Local Authorities, NHS, etc);

• lead-in times have been challenging for both colleges and employers - this largely relates to feedback on the late issue of the Fund’s guidance document (day before the formal launch of the Fund). While some colleges had progressed some initial planning work, others were caught on the back foot and had to make up ground following the official launch of the Fund;
• a lack of awareness of the Fund among employers - with no national marketing or promotional campaign on the Fund (promoted individually by each college), there is considered to have been limited awareness of how the Apprenticeship Levy income was to be used in Scotland, and a lack of awareness of the Fund among employers more generally; and
• some employers did not know they are levy-payers – when communications were issued by colleges and contact made with employers, some colleges report that many employers did not even know they are indeed levy-payers and assumed that the Fund was not for them.

Taken together, these issues would seem to have constrained initial uptake of the Fund.

Without a list of levy-paying employers, the starting point for colleges in identifying and engaging with employers was to take stock of their existing employer contact lists. Colleges report that they typically engage with SMEs (not large employers), but that it made sense to start here, as some larger SMEs are levy-payers.

As is to be expected, colleges report the use of a whole host of other mechanisms as a means to identify and engage with levy-paying employers. This spans:

• data mining (purchase of employer contact details);
• engagement with other agencies ( SDS, Enterprise Agencies, Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses, etc);
• emails and mailshots;
• cold calling;
• social media campaigns;
• business breakfasts/dinners;
• piggy-backing onto other business events being held by other agencies; and
• press articles.

Most (but not all) colleges have a Business Development team (or similar), and the FWDF has become part of that team’s responsibility (i.e. one of a number of things that they do). The main feedback from the college network is that employer engagement activity is resource intensive, and colleges with no or very small Business Development teams expressed some internal capacity constraints. It has also impacted on other work commitments (e.g. engagement with SMEs).

Feedback is that a broad range of approaches have worked well in practice, and that “ boots on the ground” – having direct face-to-face employer engagement works best, where capacity for this allows.

Awareness levels among levy-paying employers is reported to be increasing. While it is reported that it took time to raise awareness of the Fund, the general consensus is that good progress is being made, and that employer engagement continues to be an ongoing process among colleges to reach a wider audience.

Interest in, and demand for, the Fund is also reported to have been affected by the £10,000 funding award cap. While many colleges reported that up to £10,000 can go a long way for some employers (and this is further evidenced in the review of Reporting Templates which shows that most employers selected multiple training courses), the general consensus among the college network and wider stakeholders is that £10,000 may be too small to be of interest to some levy-paying employers. This view is further supported through the Employers’ Survey.

4.3 The Impact of Changing Deadlines

The original and changing deadlines for the submission of employer FWDF applications and the delivery of training is raised by the college network and wider stakeholders alike as challenging.

When the Fund was launched (September 2017), the original deadline for applications was December 2017. The main feedback is that this was far too tight for both colleges and employers, and in the main relates to the points raised earlier (e.g. no access to a levy-paying employer list, etc).

Wider challenges encountered by colleges and employers which made meeting initial timescales somewhat difficult include:

• making the right contact within each employer also took time, especially for some of the larger levy-paying employers;
• time taken to agree training plans and complete applications – in part this is associated with the timescales originally set for application submissions, but is also reflective of the internal channels that employers are required to go through in order to get training plans approved; and
• some employers had already been through a process of agreeing their training plans for the year, and so were not in a position to access the Fund (yet).

The general sense from the college network and many of the wider stakeholder is that the initial timescales were “ too rushed”, and did not allow sufficient planning and development time for colleges and employers alike.

The college network and wider stakeholders appreciate that timescales for the submission of applications and contractual arrangements for the training to start have been extended by the SFC (twice to date), however, some wider stakeholders in particular emphasised that “ changing goalposts” has been a source of both confusion and frustration for employers, and that communications could be improved. Again, this is a finding that is supported through the Employers Survey.

An interesting point to also note, which is raised by some colleges and wider stakeholders, is that in some cases employers might have chosen other training had timescales for the contracting and delivery of training been different.

4.4 The Delivery of Training

Mixed views are provided on the training that has been delivered to date, and this in part reflects the make-up of the stakeholders consulted.

On the one hand, the college network confirm that the training taken up by employers has been a mix of off-the-shelf training (e.g. Leadership and Management) and more bespoke and customised training to meet the specific needs of employers.

On the other hand, the feedback from many of the wider stakeholders (exception being SFC) is that the feedback they have received from employers is that colleges have typically approached employers with a “ menu” of existing training courses, and that it has been much less about the design and delivery of bespoke training, or indeed pointing employers in the direction of another Scottish college(s) who could provide the training employers are looking for.

In addition, some wider stakeholders report that some colleges appear to be more proactive than others, that some have made better use of the Fund, and that there is “ no incentive” for colleges to develop bespoke training products.

In part this links to a point made earlier – there is a sense that some employers might have been encouraged to choose particular training courses to meet the Fund’s timescales, and that had timescales for contracting and delivery of training been different then some employers might have chosen alternative training.

The college network report that there has been strong interest and demand for training on Leadership and Management and IT and Digital (and this is supported by a review of the Reporting Templates and the Employers Survey), but that a much broader range of training has also been delivered.

The college network report that much of the training has been delivered by college staff. Most report, however, that they are also utilising their pool of “bank staff ^[7] ” to support delivery and/or backfill lecturers’ posts who are delivering the training.

The use of bank staff is considered necessary to overcome certain challenges, most notably to:

• address capacity constraints - lecturers are typically fully timetabled for the teaching of students and/or the delivery of commercial training work; and
• meet the timescales for the delivery of training.

As such, the use of bank staff has provided the college network with much needed additional capacity and flexibility to support delivery – as well as enabling some colleges to bring in others with particular specialisms.

Now that Year 2 of the Fund is confirmed, some colleges report that they have already begun the planning phase to support employer engagement and delivery of training (and its wider commercial activities of which the FWDF is part). For example, there is recognition that there might be a need for additional part-time lecturing staff or a staff post that supports the delivery of commercial work alone to address internal capacity constraints now that the Fund is gaining traction.

Linked to a point raised earlier by some wider stakeholders around a perceived menu of existing training being offered to employers rather than bespoke training to meet specific skills needs, most wider stakeholders support an extension of the current delivery model to include the college network and all other accredited training providers (e.g. private training providers). There is some support for this from the Employers Survey and being able to access training from more than one college.

4.5 Benefits and Impacts of the Fund

Even though the Fund is still at an early stage, the college network and wider stakeholders all report that the Fund is already benefiting those involved, and in a range of different ways. The main benefits and impacts are summarised below.

Table 4.2: Benefits and Impacts Reported

Benefits for Different Stakeholder Groups
College Network	Strengthened employer engagement New employer relationships developed Increased college-employer engagement Development of new training in response to industry need Additional commercial income stream
Employers	Increased awareness of the college network’s products/services Improved perceptions of the college network and its capabilities Increased engagement with colleges (tapping into the FWDF and other products/services)

Some wider stakeholders report that is perhaps too early to undertake a full evaluation of the Fund, but that it is important that the Scottish Government and SFC more clearly articulate and communicate with stakeholders (and others) what success looks like for the Fund, how success will be measured, and to regularly report on progress and achievements (e.g. through the use of case studies to share with levy-paying employers, etc).

4.6 What Works Well

Some aspects identified about the Fund that work well are:

• application process - generally considered to be easy and straightforward, and college staff typically support employers through the process;
• issues raised about the funding cap aside, the £10,000 is considered to go a long way for many employers;
• face-to-face engagement with employers works best – taking the time to have a conversation and to understand issues and training needs;
• the opportunity to build on and further strengthen college-employer relationships;
• provides the time and space for employers to consider their training needs and skills gaps, and the different ways that these can be addressed;
• there is some evidence that colleges are sign-posting employers to other college(s) if they cannot provide the training the employer is looking for – albeit this might not yet be across the board; and
• feedback from employers is that they value the training.

4.7 Wider Points Raised

It is worth noting some wider points on the first year of the FWDF raised during the consultation process, including:

• some wider stakeholders, who were consulted and/or submitted a response as part of an earlier Scottish Government consultation to inform the design and delivery of the Fund, report that their feedback has not all been fully taken into account. However, this is in part likely to reflect the diverse range of agencies and organisations consulted (each has their own goals and priorities, etc) and the inherent challenge in taking everything on board;
• FWDF guidance document and clarifications:
  • a general sense that there could be greater clarity on the Fund (what is eligible, what is not eligible, etc)
  • some examples include: whether colleges themselves are eligible for training as they are levy-paying employers, the same holds true for whether the Fund can support provision of qualifications/training required by legislation;
• many levy-paying employers operate nationwide and/or have multiple sites across the country:
  • some colleges raised points around discussions having progressed to a relatively late stage with an employer before then finding out that the employer is in discussion with another college already (e.g. a different contact in the company) - and the need to find this out at an earlier stage
  • some employers might want to work with more than one college and/or a college in a different region to its HQ – the guidance seems clear that employers operating on a Scotland-wide basis can work with a college of their choice, but it is not clear the extent to which this is known by, and communicated to, employers. A picture is emerging that some colleges might be informing employers on their patch that they need to work through that college (or a college in the region), and employers are perhaps then working with the college that contacts them first; and
• additionality of the FWDF – some wider stakeholders questioned the extent to which employers would have undertaken the training anyway in the absence of the funding. Feedback from the Employers Survey, however, suggests a relatively high level of additionality (74% of employers report that either none or only some of the training would have been undertaken in the absence of the FWDF).

4.8 Propositions for Year 2 of the FWDF

A wide range of propositions were made by consultees in relation to Year 2 of the Fund, and these are articulated below:

• access to a levy-paying employers list – albeit there is recognition that this might not be feasible;
• scaling the funding available – perhaps up to £25,000 and a tier system based on amount of levy paid;
• longer lead-in times and less arbitrary deadlines – for submission of applications, for contracting training, and for training to be delivered;
• longer term strategic approach to funding – a two-year Fund going forward would enable better planning by colleges and employers, including allowing for more strategic conversations to be had about how the Fund could be used to address current and future skills gaps. A longer-term commitment would also allow colleges sufficient comfort to give due consideration to the need for additional staff to support engagement and/or delivery;
• early issue and communication with colleges about the guidance for Year 2 – possibly involving a face-to-face session with the college sector, FAQs, etc, plus ongoing early notice of changes in timescales and improved (more timely) communications more generally:
  • two phase application process – note of interest, then develop more detailed application (some colleges are already doing this)
  • a rolling application process as the general feedback is that deadlines have been set somewhat arbitrarily (albeit from an SFC perspective there is a need to be able to draw a line from one financial year to a next)
  • development of case studies to showcase and share employers experience of the Fund, how it has benefited employers and employees, and to generate more interest in the Fund among other levy-paying employers;
• not unanimous but most wider stakeholders felt training should be delivered by all accredited trainers perhaps through the college network (the colleges as might be expected have a different view on the delivery model); and
• some support for opening up the Fund (e.g. top-slice) to SMEs ^[8] (supply chains) who make up the vast majority of the business base in Scotland (or if not via the Fund another solution required) – for example, up to £5,000.

However, the above needs to be seen in context. There was overall support for the Fund (in principle) and any changes would be seen as evolution and not revolution.