Aim 1 - What Works?

This element overall sought to inform what the LEP should fund from April 2026. This would be done by:

· Establishing the most effective methods of engaging and progressing participants

· Understanding the level of support needed to engage and progress people consistently “left behind”

· Exploring whether employability services/support should be organised around specific groups, in particular, those consistently “left behind”

The Shared Measurement Framework was used to define “what works”.

The questions of the first 3 themes of the Shared Measurement Framework were used as they most closely align to the data:

Reach

Who are we reaching and what challenges do they face?

Progression

Are participants entering and sustaining employment, training and education?

Skills Alignment

What relevant skills, knowledge and experience are participants developing as a result of support?

From 2020 -2024, the GFLEP funded over 40 projects and interventions and utilised £Xm of funding.

The measures used in the high-level analysis are the measures used in the national quarterly NOLB statistical publication and looked at young people, parents, disabled people and people from minority ethnic communities. See below:

The data template records

people having been engaged.

Data Analysis - Conclusions

This was the first proper use and consideration of the data sent to the Scottish Government. While it demonstrated great potential it also raised many questions.

Overall -

· Good reach and engagement of the target groups

· Average/comparable conversions to other programmes (although it was appreciated that a like for like comparison was not possible)

· Conversions were less favourable for disabled and minority ethnic groups

· Numbers generally low in relation to volunteering and work experience but disabled people were more likely to take up volunteering

· It was difficult to answer the skills, knowledge and experience question from the data in the template

· There was some dispute over the definitions being adopted for some employment sectors which raised concerns about how robust the data is.

This led to questions on -

Data quality – some of the statistics threw up further questions and led to conclusions of likely under recording or inaccurate recording and this can be explained by:

- the numerous changes to the NOLB guidance/standards

- the time it takes for projects to set up and become familiar with monitoring requirements and the definition attached to criteria (for example economically inactive vs unemployment, industry sector codes or occupational codes

That said, there was more confidence in the data from 23-24 onwards, with agreement that requirements were more aligned and clearer.

Conclusion -

· A useful high-level overview but required follow up on a qualitative level.

· Likely under recording

· Work to be done to improve data quality - clarify definitions

· Further work to be done on the regular use of data and analysis of it – for the LEP and continuous improvement

· Further areas for analysis – geography and child poverty comparison

Follow Up Interviews

As noted, following the overall programme data analysis, the Monitoring and Project Teams used Power BI to develop a report for each of the funded projects then follow up questions were devised with help from the Intelligence Hub.

This gave insights regarding the breakdown of participants accessing each service and helped with probing on certain aspects of delivery – e.g engagement and progression of target groups (disabled people, Minority Ethnic communities and Parents).

Development Officers from the Employability Team met their projects (21 in total) and collected qualitative answers onto a smart survey format. The text was then added to a MIRO tool and AI was applied to extract common themes. From this, the themes were sense checked, cleansed, and sentiment applied and collated under each question. Question areas and findings are below:

Reach Questions:

1) What outreach methods have been most effective in engaging your main target group?

2) Why do you think they have been effective?

3) Any specific challenges?

Responses:

· Community facilities, place based

· Targeted

· Grass roots

· Third sector trusted

· Relationships/Collaborations/Partners

· Expertise and strengths

· Time to build up trust

· Not target driven

· Flexibility

· Holistic and person-centred

Progression Questions:

“Meeting people in their environment. Removes the physical and access barriers. Having a longer length of time to work with people”

1) What are the most effective ways you have addressed the challenges the participants face in progressing?

2) Why do you think they have been effective?

3) What measures have you taken to ensure the sustainability of outcomes for participants?

Responses:

· Key worker role – consistent and knowledgeable on specific challenges people are facing in terms of progressing, especially into employment

· Time to work closely with people and build up a relationship of trust

· Flexibility

· Working with partners with a range of specialisms to address e.g. financial, childcare, ESOL, Mental Health challenges

· Go at the person’s pace

· Involving/engaging and supporting employers

· Mentoring people to build their resilience to face challenges without support

“Personal relationships, just being there, building trust and this varies from person to person. Need a non judgemental approach …..”
“Communication is important. E.g. if they don’t turn up, you still have to get hold of them or get hold of their carer or social work”
“Ideally it’s a wraparound service…..everyone steps up and works alongside e.g. social work, to try to get to the next step. It has to be a holistic service”

Keyworkers Questions:

1) What is the optimum caseload for your keyworkers and why?

2) In relation to the challenges participants face, are there any areas that your KWs need to develop their knowledge?

Responses:

· Ratio of KW to participant ranged from 15-50, supported employment model – no more than 25

· Most felt that it really depended on the person and their challenges or stage in moving on

· Volume services felt the limit was 40-50

· Challenges faced that KW would welcome development on were:

  • Mental health and well being
  • Trauma
  • Neurodiversity
  • Convictions
  • Diversity/Equalities
  • Work status/qualifications from other countries
  • Benefits/money
  • LGBTQI+
  • Hanlon
“Continual training on a range of issues”
“Give staff enough knowledge to be able to know how to help but they don’t have to know everything”

Training & Support Fund Questions:

1) Have you accessed this for participants?

2) Has it helped participants progress? Why?

3) If you haven't accessed it, why not?

Responses:

· Programmes such as First Steps would not be able to run without the TSF

· Flexibility of fund to use it for almost anything is great

· Use when no other funded option is available

· Helps progression – many participants have moved onto further training/work due to TSF

· Can help people at all levels and stages of their journey

· Positive for Key Workers’ motivation as well as the participant

· Only for parents – if eligibility opened up more projects would be keen to use it

· Financially it is great for projects who use the TSF instead of their own budget

Employer Engagement Questions:

1) In your experience, what employer related interventions help people gain employment and why?

E.g. Glasgow Guarantee, ERI, paid work placements, work experience, ILMs, training for work, job coaching, volunteering, HR support, staff training on target groups, Fair Work advice and guidance?

2) Which do you believe employers value and why?

Responses:

· All methods regarded as effective but must work on how they connect and fit together

· Many allow people to get a foot in the door

· People need to be job ready - candidates must have work experience before gaining employment

· Support for employers to train and recruit

· HR support for employers and the person – deliver awareness on the challenges people face and how to make adjustments

· Time is needed to build relationships and trust with employers and services

· Not as many jobs on GG now

· 6mth PWP/ILM was referenced as a very valuable way to get people into permanent work

· Relationship between KW and participants

· Employers having more info sessions on what opportunities are available would help

· Support of Job Coach/having a single point of contact for employers is helpful

“Employers need to feel supported with multiple methods”
“Having the support of a job coach”

Partnership Questions:

1) What factors have contributed most to successful collaboration?

2) What challenges have you encountered?

3) How have you addressed these or how could they be addressed?

Responses:

  • Resource issues – short term funding constraints; staff are stretched; lack of time to invest in partnerships when concentrating on participants
  • Still need to join up citywide
  • It takes time to build up relationships and trust, but partnerships are a positive way of working
  • Creating a culture where people know it is ok to refer clients outside the partnership. This involves changing mindsets as previously it was always about quotas, numbers, etc.
  • Looking at how everything fits together. Prioritise collaboration over competition/having a shared vision
  • Communication an issue
  • Data sharing creates issues for ease of partnership working
  • Need for better social media and networking
“The funding constraints including for 3rd sector organisations – how long will this service last, how can we support and have the capacity? It can be difficult to make it work for everyone. It holds projects back….opportunities for the families, don’t want to put them insecure position. Building relationships and then making them re-start again. It creates more barriers; it can be seen as temporary”

Conclusions

Returning to the purpose of the aim of this part of the evaluation -

Identify “what works” by analysing the 20-24 NOLB delivery (understand performance and impact) in order that the GFLEP can decide the scope and focus of NOLB funding from April 2026 onwards, the following conclusions are drawn under the following headings…

· Establish the most effective methods of engaging and progressing participants

While taking into consideration data quality, the data and follow up interviews confirm that projects are reaching and supporting the “right” people and providing good support which is leading to progressions.

These progressions are broadly in line with many other employability funds albeit it is not possible to compare like for like. Some amendments and refocussing could be suggested from the data that is available but work will continue to develop the data quality.

Each question area produced valuable detail on their view of effective delivery which can be shared going forward and which can support the development of the other two evaluation areas.

It is perhaps too early to confidently draw a conclusion from the data and from the interviews.

The way the funds have been allocated and the resulting landscape of provision does not fully allow this. Glasgow Futures is ultimately still dealing with and responding to this legacy.

  • Understand the level of support needed to engage and progress people consistently “left behind”

· Explore whether employability services/support should be organised around specific groups, in particular, those consistently “left behind”

An extension on this statement is about understanding if this approach works in progressing people but as with statement two above, it was not possible to draw any strong conclusions here but rather it identified the need to establish measurements which would allow a conclusion to be made.

General Conclusions

Time was a key theme running throughout the responses. Time is required to:

  • Set up partnerships
  • Apply for funding
  • Establish projects
  • Recruit new staff and train them
  • Build awareness of the service within communities
  • Build knowledge and referral routes
  • Build trust with participants and between partners and employers to continuously improve and ultimately to see results.

The current annual funding position does not give projects this time. It instead puts obstacles in the way of delivery, leading to fragmented delivery, loss of skills and expertise and impacts on results.

This was a continuous improvement exercise for the GFLEP and not a performance evaluation. However, it did provide valuable learning in relation to understanding performance and the measures in place around that as it stands now. The learning is useful across all 3 aims of this evaluation.

Previous page
Contents
Back to top
Continue to the next page