Aim 3 - Value for Money (VfM)

This will be key in making decisions about funding moving forward.

To build knowledge and understanding of potential, a review of three models used to evaluate 3 large employability programmes was undertaken. These were selected as they evaluated employability delivery largely aligned to the target groups of NOLB/Glasgow Futures.

In addition to the review of models, a very basic comparison of costs across these programmes against Glasgow Futures spend was made.

Programme Evaluated	Model Used	Pros	Cons
Fair Start Scotland	DWP Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA) Purpose of the model is to quantify wider social impact of employment programmes. It was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of labour market policies in fiscal terms while also considering wider effects on the economy and society in general.	- Financial benefits of service - A measure of improved wellbeing for those who moved into employment - Benefits of redistribution in favour of those with the lowest incomes - Uses long term approach to people’s needs - Model has been used by DWP for evaluation of several programmes e.g. Work Programme evaluation - Details costs and benefits from the perspective of participants, society, public finance and employers. - More focused on participants and uses a societal perspective as it gives the most nuanced picture of impacts. - Estimates how long the benefits of intervention last, based on best avail data	- Participants with lower barriers led to higher value for money, meaning that those who are harder to reach may not be helped as regarded as too expensive
Working Matters	Social Return on Investment (SROI) (Uses Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018 for proxy social and wellbeing measures) The SROI puts together the estimated net impacts for all social impacts (progression, mental health, substance rehab, physical disability enablement, financial management, criminal justice, volunteering)	- Looks at employment, social and personal outcomes. Pools estimated net impacts for all social impacts (progression, mental health, substance rehab, physical disability enablement, financial management, criminal justice, volunteering) - Clearly shows different vfm for: Distance travelled towards sustained employment, Impacts from improved health, Impacts from improved financial management and Impacts from social participation and criminal justice. - Specifies reduced strain on public services brought about by WM, increased employment rate, reduction in econ inactivity and evidence of SROI	- Relies on accuracy of assumptions and proxy measures - More short-term approach to looking at people’s needs (than Fair Start Scotland)
Making it Work	Used New Economics Foundation and New Economy Manchester to value the social interventions	- Looks at outcomes in employment, skills and wellbeing. - Looks and health and wellbeing outcomes 6 and 12 months after first engagement - Shows health improvements but frequent drop off after 12 months - Clearly separates fiscal, economic and wellbeing outputs to show separate vfm figures.

Conclusion

It was concluded that these models are useful tools for identifying fiscal impact beyond standard measures but there is a need to consider impact in other ways. It raised questions on what difference or impact is expected. One of the intentions in the first aim was to understand the levels of support needed and another looked to inform how services were organised – i.e. specialist or volume approaches. These questions all require more in-depth discussion. It is recognised that impact and value for money are two different things.

The financial comparisons were wholly inadequate and provided very little if any evidence of impact or effectiveness of approach.

Contents

Continue to the next page