Flexible workforce development fund: first year evaluation

Appendix E: Employers Survey

This Appendix presents the main findings of a survey of employers on the FWDF which sought their views and experiences of engagement with the college network and the Fund.

Context

An online opt-in survey was promoted and distributed on behalf of EKOS via colleges to employers on their patch. EKOS provided colleges with an introductory email text and a link to an online survey that asked employers to:

• specify which college they are engaging with;
• indicate whether they wanted to opt-in or opt-out of the telephone survey; and
• if selected opt-in – we gathered some basic contact details (name, telephone number, etc.).

Other organisations also helped distribute the opt-in - opt-out survey link to employer contacts, including SDS, NHS Scotland, and Coalition of Care and Support Providers.

A total of 187 responses were received of which 172 employers opted-in to the survey. These employers were then contacted and asked to take part in a telephone survey.

A breakdown of opt-in responses by college is provided below, Table E.1. It should be noted that there were no responses from employers engaging with South Lanarkshire College, Argyll College UHI, Lews Castle College UHI, North Highland College UHI, and North Atlantic Fisheries College

Table E.1: Employers Opting-In to Telephone Survey

College	Nos of Opt-Ins	College	Nos. of Opt-Ins
Ayrshire College	9	Inverness College	8
Borders College	5	Moray College	3
City of Glasgow College	7	North East Scotland College	3
Dundee and Angus College	24	New College Lanarkshire	7
Dumfries and Galloway College	6	Orkney College	2
Edinburgh College	16	Shetland College	1
Fife College	11	Perth College	1
Forth Valley College	15	West College Scotland	15
Glasgow Kelvin College	7	West Highland College	2
Glasgow Clyde College	4	West Lothian College	7

N=153.

Not all employers provided details of college engaging with, and might reflect early stage of conversation.

A total of 82 telephone interviews were completed, which represents a response rate of 48%.

Employers Stage in the FWDF Process

Most employers surveyed have accessed funding from the FWDF, but are at different stages – for example the training is either underway, complete, or yet to start (89%), Figure E.1.

All other employers consulted are aware of the FWDF (11%) – four employers are currently working on an application and/or agreeing training, and five have decided not to apply.

Figure E.1: Employers’ Stage in the FWDF Process

N=82.

It should be noted that there are some common question areas asked of all employers, and specific question areas depending on what stage employers are at with the FWDF. Base numbers are provided in Figures and Tables for ease of reference.

Employers Profile

Business Sector, Type and Local Authority

As might be expected, employers operate across a range of sectors, with the most common responses from employers in the Food and Drink, Healthcare, Manufacturing, and Leisure and Culture sectors, Figure E.2.

Figure E.2: Business Sector

N=82.

A mix of employers took part in the survey, with more private sector (60%) followed by public sector (29%) employers, Figure E.3. In part, this is likely to reflect the make-up of employers that have accessed the Fund and the reach of the opt-in – opt-out survey.

Figure E.3: Business Type

N=82.

Employers’ company HQs are based across Scotland, with the survey securing responses from employers with HQs within 24 of Scotland’s 32 Local Authority areas. The most common responses were from employers with HQs in Edinburgh City, Dundee, and Glasgow City – all are key population and business centres, Figure E.4.

Figure E.4: Employer HQ Location

N=81.
Outside of Scotland HQ’s were all based in England.

The majority of employers operate from multiple-sites across the country (e.g. national employers) - 76%, with the remainder operating from a single site (24%).

Business Size

All are medium or large employers, of which two-thirds have more than 250 employees (i.e. large employer), Figure E.5. The number of employees ranged from 85 to 24,000 (average is 1,600).

Figure E.5: Business Size

N=79.

Prior to the FWDF

The following questions in this section all relate to employers’ experience prior to the FWDF.

Previous Engagement with a College

Almost 75% of employers had engaged with a Scottish college prior to the FWDF – this suggests that much of the engagement to date has been with existing clients. That being said, the Fund is also reaching some employers who have no prior experience of college engagement (25%).

The top four colleges where college engagement had previously taken place are Forth Valley, Fife, Edinburgh, and Dundee and Angus, Figure E.6 – and is largely reflective of the make-up of the sample.

Figure E.6: Previous Engagement with a Scottish College

N=61.
N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Type of Previous Engagement with Colleges

Prior to the FWDF, colleges have engaged with colleges in a range of ways. The main ways are workforce development training (62%) and Modern Apprenticeships (54%), followed by work placements (30%), Figure E.7.

Figure E.7: Nature of Previous College Engagement

N=61. N.B. Multiple responses possible.
Other includes: developing a course with a college and attending careers fairs.

Understanding of the College Sector

While many employers reported a good understanding of how the college sector could help with workforce development prior to engagement with the FWDF (71%) - and in part this is reflective of the fact that almost 75% of employers had previous experience of college engagement – there has still been a positive shift in levels of understanding, Figure E.8:

• an increase of good/very good ratings from 71% before to 90% now; and
• a corresponding decrease in employers reporting a poor/very poor understanding (18% before to 2% now).

Figure E.8: Previous and Current Understanding of College Sector’s Services

N=61.

Workforce Development

A positive finding is that the over four-fifths of employers report that the delivery of skills and training is a key activity for their business, Figure E.9.

Figure E.9: Delivery of Skills and Training Activities a Key Priority

N=82.

Where workforce development is not considered a top priority (12%), the main reasons provided centre on the following:

• where employers must undertake mandatory training they do so, however they do not place emphasis on other general staff development/training;
• cost factors; and
• it is one of a number of priorities.

Current Skills Gaps

Employers identified a range of current skills gaps, with the most common skills gaps leadership and management, IT and digital, technical/specialist skills, succession planning, and health and safety, Figure E.10.

Figure E.10: Current Skills Gaps

N=78. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

The technical/specialist skills gaps employers noted are those specific to their sector of operation, and include skills associated with job roles such as chefs, welding, engineering, quantity surveying, and marketing.

Current Workforce Development and Training Provision

Employers typically use a combination of internal (on the job) and external training providers to meet their workforce development and training needs, Figure E.11.

Internal on-the-job training is the main source for 58% of employers, with 41% using external sources as the main source. Where employers access external sources, this is more likely to be private training providers than colleges.

Figure E.11: Sources Used for Workforce Development and Training

N.B. In the case of ‘All sources used’ multiple responses were possible.

Other includes: charities and not-for-profit organisations.

Over three-quarters of employers reported that current training providers meet their workforce development/up-skilling needs to a large extent or fully (78%), Figure E.12.

The main reasons for this relatively high level of satisfaction relates to employers:

• being able to access tailored/bespoke courses to fit their training needs;
• choosing to work with those training providers they know can meet their needs;
• valuing the importance and value of on-the-job training (as well as external provision); and
• positive feedback from employees who have participated in training.

Figure E.12: Extent to Which Current Workforce Development Training Meets Needs

N=79.

Where current providers of workforce development training do not meet employers’ needs to any large extent or at all (23%), the feedback typically centres on:

• external providers not providing bespoke/tailored courses; and
• negative feedback from employees on previous courses.

Finding Out About the Fund

The main way employers became aware of the Fund was directly from a college they have an existing relationship with (38%), followed by signposted by another organisation or from another college, Figure E.13.

Figure E.13: How Employers Became Aware of the FWDF

N=82.
Other includes: hearing about it through committees they are involved with.

College(s) Engaged With for the FWDF

Where employers are in receipt of funding, the training is largely being delivered by Dundee and Angus College, Edinburgh College, Forth Valley College and Fife College, Figure E.14. However, it should be noted that the colleges with the most responses were those for which we received more opt-in contacts.

Figure E.14: College Delivering FWDF Training

N=73.

Some 22% of employers had initial contact at the application stage with more than one college about the FWDF, as outlined below in Figure E.15. The main reasons why employers did not choose the college in question relates to:

• not offering the training courses needed; and
• another college had approached the employer first; and
• they had an existing relationship with the other institution.

Figure E.15: Other Colleges That Employers Had Initial Engagement With

N=16. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Satisfaction with Initial Engagement

Overall, there are high levels of satisfaction with employers’ initial contact with colleges on the FWDF. With the exception of ease of finding out about the Fund, this ranged from 77% for college’s understanding of business needs to a high of 96% for clarity on how much funding was available, Table E.2.

Much of the wider feedback centred on colleges being very clear, helpful, flexible and supportive through the application process. Many employers reported that colleges were willing to have multiple meetings to discuss the details of the FWDF which helped employers feel supported and informed about the process to follow.

“The college was helpful and easy to get in touch with and happy to answer all of our questions.”

FWDF Employer

Table E.2: Levels of Satisfaction with FWDF Initial Engagement

Aspect	Very Satisfied/Satisfied (%)	Neither/Nor (%)	Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied (%)
Clarity on how much funding was available	96%	2%	2%
Initial contact and help from staff	90%	7%	2%
Clarity on what training was eligible for support	78%	12%	10%
College’s understanding of your business’s needs	77%	13%	10%
Ease of finding out about the Fund (i.e. marketing and promotion	56%	17%	27%

N=82.

The main area of dissatisfaction is ease of finding out about the Fund (27%), with wider feedback from that employers that they had seen little or no promotion of the Fund, and only became aware of it when, for example, a college contacted them.

“It was almost as if information about the Fund was hidden as we had no idea it was going ahead even though we are paying into the levy.”

FWDF Employer

Areas for improvement centred on making the Fund more visible to employers – making information more widely available, including the range and type of courses that can be accessed (and what is not eligible).

Satisfaction with Application Process

Employers in receipt of funding are in the main satisfied with many aspects of the application process. Highest levels of satisfaction are for help received with the application form, the time taken to receive a decision on the application, and the ease of completing the form (satisfaction ranges from 85% to 96%), Table E.3.

Wider feedback from employers again centres on the supportive and helpful nature of college staff, and that the application is straightforward and easy to complete.

Table E.3: Levels of Satisfaction with FWDF Initial Engagement

Aspect	Very Satisfied/Satisfied (%)	Neither/Nor (%)	Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied (%)	N/A (%)
Help from the college with the application form	96%	1%	3%
Time taken to receive a decision on your application	88%	4%	8%
Ease of completing the application form	85%	10%	5%
Deadlines for application submission	47%	25%	29%
Training needs analysis undertaken	41%	4%	3%	52%

N=73.

That being said, there are also some wider points to note:

• employers are less satisfied with deadlines for the application (25% dissatisfied) – and this mainly relates to the various changes to deadlines over the first year of the Fund, with many employers feeling that their application had to be rushed to meet these deadlines, which they would then hear had extended/changed last minute; and
• many employers did not recognise having had a training needs analysis undertaken – this reflects a number of factors, including that some employers had already undertaken this internally or that tight deadlines for applications meant that this was not considered to have been undertaken. It might also be reflective of the informal nature of this part of the assessment, in some cases this was simply a conversation.

The main area for improvement centres on the deadlines for application forms – with some employers suggesting a rolling application programme year round and that if deadlines are going to be changed they are informed of this within plenty time.

Training Undertaken

Employers in receipt of funding have opted for a variety of training courses, and in the main this relates to leadership and management, health and safety, and IT and digital skills, Figure E.16. These directly match onto the skills gaps reported earlier.

Figure E.16: Nature of Training Undertaken or to be Undertaken

N=73. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Other includes: food safety/hygiene and mental health awareness training.

The technical/specialist training typically relates to the specific technical/specialist skills gaps employers had identified earlier ( Figure E.10) such as chefs, welding, engineering, quantity surveying and marketing.

The number of employees taking part in the training ranges from less than 10 to 100+. Over two-thirds of employers indicated that they have less than 51 employees taking part, Figure E.17.

The total number of employees being trained through the FWDF is 3,200. This ranges from three to 195, with an average of 44 employees.

Figure E.17: Number of Staff Taking Part in Training through the FWDF

N=73.

The majority of employers (96%) indicate that the training courses involve upskilling, with 48% involving reskilling, Figure E.18.

Figure E.18: Purpose of training

N=73.

Overall, 70% of employers in receipt of funding indicate that the training will lead to a formal qualification, 43% report that it will not, and the remainder are unsure ^[19] .

As Table E.4 shows, the types of courses which will typically lead to a formal qualification for staff includes human resources, leadership and management, health and safety and business administration.

Table E.4: Whether Training Will Lead to a Qualification

Training Type	Formal Qualification (%)	No Formal Qualification (%)	Don’t Know (%)
Human Resources (N=3)	100%
Health and Safety (N=27)	93%	7%
Leadership and Management (N=36)	81%	17%	2%
Business Administration (N=5)	60%	40%
IT and Digital (N=24)	50%	46%	4%
Technical/Specialist Skills (N=12)	50%	42%	8%
Customer Service (N=10)	40%	60%
Coaching and Mentoring (N=5)	40%	60%
Communication/Personal Skills (N=8)		100%
Succession Planning (N=1)		100%
Other (N=7)	71%	29%

A wide range of employees are taking part in the training – with a particular emphasis on older workers (50+) and those belonging to equalities groups, Figure E.19.

In terms of equalities groups, this appears to be a mix of:

• women (and men);
• disabled people;
• employees from an ethnic minorities background; and
• older workers (and younger workers).
  

Figure E.19: Employees Participating in the Training

N=73. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Views on the Training Providers

Mixed views were provided on training providers by those employers in receipt of funding.

On a positive note:

• almost all employers report that the training provided by the colleges will help address skills gaps (90%) – and that a wide range of courses are available; and
• there are also relatively levels of agreement on the capability of colleges to provide the training needed (75%) and that courses are being tailored (64%).

Figure E.20: Training provider statements

N=73.

However, some wider points to note include that a relatively high proportion of employers would have liked the opportunity to have chosen another college(s) to provide the training or a private sector provider (55% and 40% respectively).

Wider feedback relates to some employers looking for a greater range of provision and/or more tailored training, and for employers with multiple sites across Scotland they would have valued being able to work with more than one college to save costs of travel for employees and money spent on replacing employees who were to attend these courses.

Views on the Training Delivered

Overall, employers are positive about the training provided (where this has started or is complete). This ranges from 80% who agree/strongly agree that where the training took place met their needs to a high of 85% for both the training was of a high quality and it met their needs, Figure E.21. Where satisfaction was high, employers pointed to having received positive feedback from employees.

Figure E.21: Training delivered statements

N=48.

Areas of dissatisfaction typically centres on time away from the business (in particular for longer courses).

Aspects which some employers felt could be improved included increased communication between the college and employer to ensure that the training delivered meets their needs in terms of level, location, duration and quality.

Value for Money

A positive finding is that almost fourth-fifths of employers agreed/strongly agreed that the training was value for money, Figure E.22, and this is likely to be reflective of the high levels of satisfaction reported earlier.

Figure E.22: FWDF Training - Value for money

N=48.

A small number of employers provided reasons for why the training was considered value for money are considered to be: that the training budget has enabled employers to access in many cases multiple training courses across different subject matters and many employees have/are participating in the training.

Where value for money was not reported, feedback centres on the need for employers to backfill staff posts to cover employees attending the training, and it would have been better for the funding to have been given to the employers to provide the training themselves internally (e.g. might be more efficient and effective).

Extent to which Expectations have Been Met

Where training is underway or complete, some 79% of employers report that the training has either met or exceeded their expectations, of which almost one-third report that their expectations have been exceeded, Figure E.23. This is directly related to employers’ receiving positive feedback from employees.

Figure E.23: Extent to Which FWDF Training Met Expectations

N=48.

A few employers reported that the training had fallen short in some way, and this centres on the training not being what they expected (e.g. content/level of course was different from expected) and/or they had received some negative feedback from employees that took part.

Follow-on Activity

A positive finding is that 29% of employers have already accessed follow-on support from the college as a direct result of the FWDF training, and 59% report that they are likely to engage with the college in the future. This suggests that many employers have had a positive experience of the FWDF and their engagement with the college network.

The main types of follow-on engagement accessed already are Modern Apprenticeships and additional workforce development training, Figure E.24. Workforce development training is more likely to be accessed by employers in the future.

Figure E.24: Current and Future Follow-on Engagement with College Network

N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Benefits of the Training (Now and Future)

Employers report a wide range of benefits that have been achieved and/or will be achieved over the next year as a direct result of the training undertaken through the FWDF, Table E.5. Of Employers, 97% reported at least one current or future benefit.

As is to be expected many of the benefits achieved to date centre on employers’ relationship with, and understanding of the college offer. When future benefits are taken into account, it can be seen that more employers report wider benefits, including in relation to the extent to which the training will benefit their workforce.

The main benefits achieved to date are:

• saved money in company training budget (53%);
• increased skill level of employees (53%);
• strengthened an existing relationship with a college (48%); and
• increased engagement with college(s) (42%).

Table E.5: Achieved and Expected Benefits

Benefit	Achieved to date (N=45)	Expected over the next year (N=63)
Employee Benefits
Increased skill levels	53%	63%
Increased confidence	38%	52%
Gained increased levels of qualification	24%	46%
More motivated	20%	33%
Experience more fulfilling work	7%	21%
It is too early to tell	36%	29%
Business Benefits
Saved money in our training budget	53%	37%
Saved time/staff resources in procuring training services	36%	25%
Developed new/improved processes and procedures	24%	41%
Increased productivity	9%	29%
Enhanced levels of workplace innovation	7%	24%
It is too early to tell	36%	30%
Company and College Relationship Benefits
Strengthened an existing relationship with a college	48%	22%
Increased engagement with college(s)	42%	33%
Increased knowledge and awareness of the college offer/expertise	39%	19%
Made new college contacts	38%	21%
Increased understanding of the college offer/expertise	34%	19%
Developed a relationship with a college not worked with before	29%	16%
Increased uptake of college work based learning provision	23%	37%
Improved perception of the college sector’s capabilities	23%	16%
It is too early to tell	26%	29%

N.B. Multiple responses possible.

N.B. Company and College Relationship Benefits achieved to date (N=69).

When anticipated benefits are explored, the main benefits are:

• increased skill level of employees (63%);
• increased confidence of employees (52%);
• employees will gain increased levels of qualifications (46%); and
• developed new/improved processes and procedures (41%).

“Other” benefits reported by employers include:

• the training has provided an opportunity for employees to bond and to get to know each other better; and
• increased interest expressed by employees to take part in more training.

Additionality of the FWDF

The findings from the survey suggest relatively high levels of additionality which is a positive message – 74% of employers report that either none or only some of the training would have been undertaken in the absence of the FWDF, Figure E.25.

Figure E.25: What Would Have Happened to the Training in the Absence of Funding

N=73.

Of those employers who would have undertaken the training anyways, the majority have/will use this existing budget to undertake this training, Figure E.26.

Figure E.26: Use of Existing Training Budget Training Budget

N=33.

Likelihood of Further Engagement with the FWDF

Further positive findings include that:

• almost all employers would recommend the FWDF to another employer (96%); and
• all expressed an interest in accessing the FWDF in future years (100%).

These findings show that there will likely to be a good level of repeat business for the Fund in Year 2, and again is largely reflective of the high levels of satisfaction reported by employers of their experience of accessing and using the funding.

Figure E.27: Recommend to Others and Access the Fund in Future Years

N=73.

What Works Well and Areas for Improvement

Some of the ways employers felt that the FWDF works well are that:

• employers feel like they are getting something back from the money they pay into the Apprenticeship Levy;
• it gives employers the opportunity to assess and address important skill gaps;
• it helps employers undertake training which they may not have had the funding for;
• the process from beginning to end is considered to be simple and easy;
• employers can form beneficial and lasting relationships with colleges; and
• the wide range of courses on offer ensures employers can receive the specific training they need.

“Its an opportunity for employers to reflect on what their skills needs are and process these requirements with the college and help to address them. “ FWDF Employer

“You have an amount that is enough to have some influence and can be used flexibly in order to meet your needs. “ FWDF Employer

The main areas for improvement identified by most employers are that:

• the amount of funding employers can receive (up to £10,000) should be increased and proportionate to how much paid into the levy; and
• greater marketing and promotion of the FWDF to employers.

Other improvements suggested by some employers are that:

• some of the terms and conditions of the FWDF make it less “flexible” and could be relaxed in some way (i.e. can choose any college/more than one college, could use private training providers, etc.); and
• application deadlines need to be fixed (sufficient time for completion) or a rolling programme – changing deadlines causes confusion and frustration.

“As we have multiple sites across Scotland, it would be beneficial to split the funding over different colleges and providers in these. This would suit our business needs more.“

FWDF Employer

“We need to be able to get back more money from this fund depending on how much we pay in – this would make it more worthwhile for larger companies “

FWDF Employer

Employers Working on or Not Submitted an Application

As Figure E.12 showed, nine employers (11%) indicated that they were aware of the FWDF and had not yet submitted an application.

This section now considers those employers who are aware of the FWDF and are working on an application or have not submitted an applications who:

• have had very initial discussion with a college (7%);
• are discussing the training that will be provided (3%); and
• are in the process of completing an application (1%).

Engagement with the FWDF

The colleges with which more of these employers had had any form of engagement/contact with were West Lothian, Dundee and Angus and Dumfries and Galloway, see Figure E.28.

Figure E.28: Engagement/contact with colleges

N=9.

Engagement with the FWDF

Just over two-thirds of employers indicated that they had only have very initial discussions with a college, Figure E.29. Others were discussing training or completing an application.

Figure E.29: Stage of Engagement

N=9.

Views on the Application Process

Of the employers who were discussing training or currently completing an application, all were satisfied/very satisfied with the ease of completing the application form and the help they had received from the college with this, Figure E.30.

However two-thirds were very dissatisfied/dissatisfied with the deadlines for the application and did not receive a training needs analysis.

Figure E.30: Satisfaction with application process

N=3.

Those who were unsatisfied with the deadlines felt this way as they kept changing and caused confusion. The only suggested improvement for the application process was again that deadlines be made clearer.

Likelihood of Applying

Just over half of employers (55%) indicated that it would be very unlikely or unlikely that they apply for the FWDF, Figure E.31.

Figure E.31: Likelihood of applying for the FWDF

N=9.

Reasons Why Employers Won’t Apply

Of employers who indicated that it would be very unlikely or unlikely that they apply for the FWDF, the main reasons why this was the case were that the training on offer does not match their needs and that the application submission timescales are too tight, see Figure E.32.

Figure E.32: Main reasons why employers will not apply for FWDF

N=5. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

How the FWDF Needs to Change

Some employers provided suggestions as to how the Fund would need to change in order increase the likelihood of them applying, which included:

“It needs to become much more flexible and needs to be opened up to specialist private training providers. Colleges can only deliver courses and not bespoke training opportunities. One big mistake of the FWDF is saying that the training needs to be delivered through colleges.”

FWDF Employer

“The main thing is the money needs to rest with employer rather than colleges, as colleges can’t always provide what employers are looking for.”

FWDF Employer

Employers Likely to Apply in the Future

Of the employers who indicated that it would be likely or very likely that they apply for the FWDF, three-quarters will submit an application this year, Figure E.33.

Figure E.33: When employers will submit an application

N=4.

The types of training of these employers are interested in includes leadership and management, IT and digital and health and safety, see Figure E.34.

Figure E.34: Nature of training

N=4. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

All of the employers indicated that training would be used for upskilling their employers, and half would also use it for reskilling, Figure E.35.

Figure E.35: Purpose of training

N=4.

Employers indicated that a variety of types of employees would participate in the training, with three-quarters involving those from equalities groups and older workers, Figure E.36.

Figure E.36: Types of employees participating

N=4. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Future Workforce Development Needs

Note: all 82 employers were asked questions about their future workforce development needs.

Importance of Workforce Development

The majority of employers (98%) indicated that workforce development will be important/very important to their business over the next few years, Figure E.37.

Figure E.37: Importance of workforce development in future

N=79.

Future Training Budget

Just over a quarter of employers were willing to disclose their budget for workforce development training in the coming year. Of those who did, almost two-thirds (65%) indicated that this was over £50,000, see Figure E.38.

Figure E.38: Training budget for coming year

N=23.

Just over three-fifths (61%) of employers indicated that this was the same amount as last year’s budget, Figure E.39.

Figure E.39: Change from previous year

N=23.

Future Skills Gaps

The areas where more employers anticipate future skills gaps were broadly the same as they are currently ( Figure E.9): leadership and management, technical/specialist skills, IT and digital, succession planning and health and safety, Figure E.40.

Figure E.40: Anticipated skills gaps

N=79. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

The technical/specialist skills gaps employers were again specific to their business sector, and included skills associated with job roles such as chefs, welding, engineering, quantity surveying and marketing.

Drivers of Future Skills/Labour Problems

Employers indicated that ageing workforce, changes to technology and Brexit were some of the main drivers of skills/labour problems within their sector, Figure E.41.

Figure E.41: Main drivers of skills/labour problems

N=79. N.B. Multiple responses possible.

Some of the other drivers of change reported by employers were that they struggle to attract and retain staff, are directly impacted by changes to government legislation and the financial climate (i.e. in terms of training budgets and staffing restrictions)

Final Comments

Many employers chose to leave final comment about the FWDF, and the majority of these were positive and included that:

• they have enjoyed working with colleges/they have been an integral part of their experience;
• they hope to see the FWDF continue/ be safeguarded in the future;
• they feel the training undertaken will add value to their business;
• it has allowed them to assess their needs/address skills gaps; and
• the FWDF has made them feel like they are actually getting something back from paying into the Apprenticeship Levy where they hadn’t before.

“I personally feel that the Fund has been good for us and would like to see it extended, we have had a positive experience and feel that the training will add great value to the business.”

FWDF Employer

“Very pleased to see the Fund happen as a way to get something back from the money we pay into the levy. It has also created a training opportunity that has been very engaging for the staff.”

FWDF Employer

However, other employers provided more constructive criticisms of the FWDF, which included:

• the amount of funding employers received should be proportionate to how much they pay into the levy;
• there needs to be more marketing and promotion of the FWDF;
• all of the terms and conditions of the FWDF make it less flexible and should be addressed (i.e. can choose any college/more than one, could use private training providers, etc.);
• application deadlines needs to be fixed or open, but not keep changing throughout the year;
• funding could be given to employers who then have more control of where and when to use it; and
• the option of bespoke courses needs to be more readily available through the colleges, so employers can received the specific training they require.

“I think more should be done to increase the promotion of the fund and make employers aware of it as not all employers directly engage with a college, so they’re less likely to know about the fund.”

FWDF Employer

“The level of funding could be more proportional to amount of levy paid by employers – it would be good for us to visibly recoup some of the levy and make it more proportional to levy that’s been paid.

FWDF Employer