Flexible workforce development fund: first year evaluation

3. Uptake of the FWDF

This Chapter provides an overview of the monitoring arrangements which have been put in place for the FWDF, presents details of uptake, and highlights the main issues encountered in data analysis.

It should be noted that the information provided on the following pages is based on a review of Reporting Templates submitted by the college network to the SFC and dated between October 2017 and March 2018.

Therefore, the picture provided below on uptake reflects activity across a limited timescale and further awards will have been made by the college network since this time. We would also highlight that there are also many data gaps. The SFC is, however, currently collating a more up-to-date picture of actual and pipeline awards as of 30 ^th June 2018.

3.1 Monitoring Arrangements

Prior to setting out our analysis of uptake and how the funding is being used by employers for upskilling/reskilling, it is worth setting out information about the monitoring process itself, and some challenges faced in undertaking the data analysis piece.

The Process

The SFC designed a Reporting Template for colleges to use to keep track of awards made (and to capture information on waiting lists). The information is uploaded by colleges via an Online Portal, and was designed so that the SFC could have easy access to “real time” data on the Fund’s uptake and pipeline of applications.

The Reporting Template, which is a Microsoft Excel sheet, captures information and data across the following indicators (some guidance is also provided to aid completion):

• date of application approval;
• name of employer;
• business type (e.g. private sector, etc);
• type(s) of training to be undertaken;
• number of employees to be involved in the training;
• training start and end dates;
• number of hours of training;
• qualification level (if any); and
• cost.

Challenges Encountered in Data Analysis

The monitoring process and form has been designed to be simple and easy for colleges to complete. This is a sensible approach. However, from a review of the templates there are a number of issues that:

• make data analysis challenging; but which;
• provide useful learning and insights for how the process could be improved for Year 2 of the Fund.

The main issues are detailed below.

1. Incomplete data fields

There are a number of data gaps across the Reporting Templates. This spans data gaps against the following indicators: business type, type(s) of training to be undertaken, number of employees involved, training start and end dates, number of hours of training, qualification level (if any), and cost. It should be noted that this reflects instances of data gaps and where colleges have inserted “ to be confirmed”.

2. Not all colleges are routinely updating the Online Portal

As highlighted above, the Reporting Templates reviewed are dated between October 2017 and March 2018. This suggests that routine updating of the Online Portal is not happening across the college network.

3. Not all colleges are using the Reporting Template provided

While colleges have been provided with a Reporting Template, some have created their own templates and have included other information/data which is not required (e.g. date of approval meeting, key sector, top-up funding fee, and additional comments). In part the inclusion of additional information might reflect that each college is responsible for keeping their internal position up-to-date, and some have adjusted the form to record wider information from the application process. This seems sensible.

For Year 2 all colleges should, however, provide the same “core” information in the same format (but should still be allowed to record additional information where this is used to inform the colleges’ internal reporting requirements).

4. Interpretation of what is meant by a waiting list

The guidance specifies that the waiting list part of the form (a separate tab) should be completed with details of employers who have applied for funding but there is insufficient funds (i.e. the college budget is over-subscribed).

It would appear that some colleges are completing the form correctly, while others are providing details of employers who they are having an active conversation with about the Fund but funding has not yet been approved (the college still has sufficient funds left to meet demand – i.e. it is not unmet demand). Others have put waiting list information in the part of the form that sets out actual awards (but do highlight that it is a waiting list).

5. Consistency of Input

There are various inconsistencies of data input. The main issue is that while the guidance specifies that there should be separate entries where employers have chosen more than one training course (e.g. both IT and Leadership and Management), most colleges have provided one entry for each employer regardless of whether one or multiple courses have been agreed.

As such this makes it very difficult and indeed time consuming to try and cluster the training into meaningful categories for analysis purposes (i.e. the data is not easily filtered).

There are wider inconsistences in terms of data input on qualifications, the duration of training courses and notional hours of study. In part this might reflect that there is no guidance provided on how to complete these indicators and/or the information was not available when the form was completed (e.g. conversations ongoing with employers).

Monitoring arrangements are considered in the final Chapter which also includes suggested areas for improvement.

3.2 Key Messages on Fund Progress to Date

As highlighted earlier, the information presented below is based on the Reporting Templates dated between October 2017 and March 2018, and further awards are likely to have been made since this time. Waiting lists are considered later.

Key headline findings from the data are that:

• similar to any new programme or fund, it has taken longer than expected to raise awareness of the FWDF and to generate interest and demand – there is likely to be an underspend in the 2017/18 budget;
• part of the thinking for the £10,000 funding cap was that it was anticipated that the Fund might be over-subscribed in the first year - this has, however, not materialised;
• progress across the college network (and in some cases within regions) in allocating their 2017/2018 FWDF budget is considerably varied – as highlighted earlier, application deadlines have, however, been extended various times to help address timing challenges; and
• a few colleges have almost fully allocated their budget, and the advice to these colleges from SFC has been to continue to invite applications, as there will be potential underspend within the overall 2017/18 FWDF budget to accommodate any new awards.

3.3 Waiting Lists

In examining Fund uptake, it is important to also consider any waiting lists colleges have, as this shows additional interest and demand for the Fund. Some colleges have a waiting list which suggests that more applications will be approved by colleges by the 30 ^th June 2018 deadline ^[6] . In many cases it appears that these employers are looking to tap into multiple training courses with the funding

3.4 Employers Engaged

The following information is based on awards to date (and does not include waiting lists).

Number of Employers Supported

The data in Table 3.1 shows that there has been:

• 508 employers awarded funding from the FWDF; and
• a total of 1,041 awards made.

The number of awards made is greater than the number of employers. This reflects the fact that colleges have completed the Reporting Templates in different ways. Some have included a single entry for each employer that captures all of the training to be delivered (i.e. it might be more than one course). While others have inserted multiple entries for the same employer which provides details of every single course to be undertaken separately.

Table 3.1: Number of Employers Engaged and Awards Made

College	Nos. Awards Made	Nos. Employers Engaged
Ayrshire College	35	4
Borders College	11	11
Dumfries and Galloway College	11	11
Dundee and Angus College	40	40
Edinburgh College	51	51
Fife College	265	59
Forth Valley College	18	18
Glasgow Region	81	81
Highlands and Islands Region	66	64
Lanarkshire Region	168	47
North East Scotland College	86	52
SRUC	3	3
West College Scotland	188	49
West Lothian College	18	18
Total	1,041	508

Source: Flexible Workforce Development Fund Reporting Templates 2017-2018

Note: Some colleges also have waiting lists of pending awards – these are not included above.

Employer Type

Where data is available, the most common type of employer supported is Private Limited Companies, Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Employer Type

Employer Type	Nos. Employers	%
Private Limited Company	130	70%
Public Limited Company	20	11%
Public Sector Body	18	10%
Registered Charity	16	9%
Partnership	1	1%
Total	185	100%

Source: Flexible Workforce Development Fund Reporting Templates 2017-2018.

Note: Information Not Provided/ TBC = 323 entries.

3.5 Employees Supported

The total number of employees to be trained the FWDF is estimated as 15,245. This ranges from one employee to a high of 360 employees (average is 18). As might be expected, the majority of training courses had less than 20 employees participating in the training, Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Employees Enrolled in Training Courses

Number of Employees	Nos. Awards	%
Less than 10	424	49%
10 to 20	382	44%
21 to 50	47	5%
51 to 100	11	1%
Over 100	2	<1%
Total	866	100%

Source: Flexible Workforce Development Fund Reporting Templates 2017-2018.

Note: Information Not Provided/ TBC = 175 entries.

3.6 Types of Training Undertaken

As highlighted earlier, a key issue is that colleges have completed the Reporting Template in different ways, in particular the recording of information on training undertaken (see Section 3.1). This means that it is somewhat difficult and time-consuming to undertake any meaningful analysis.

Our approach to analysis has therefore been the following:

• where colleges reported awards individually, these are fully captured in the Table 3.4 below; but
• where colleges reported multiple training types within the same award entry, one type of training has been selected for inclusion in the analysis - this is typically the most expensive course.

The most commonly accessed types of training being provided via the FWDF are:

• Leadership and Management;
• Health and Safety;
• IT and Digital; and
• technical or specialist training relating to employers specific needs (e.g. welding, electrical training and PAT testing, etc).

Table 3.4: Types of Training Undertaken

Type of Training	Nos. Awards	%
Leadership and Management	292	30%
Health and Safety	213	22%
IT and Digital	172	17%
Technical and Specialist	166	17%
Communication/Personal Skills	43	4%
Customer Service	34	3%
Coaching and Mentoring	31	3%
Business Administration	25	3%
Food Safety/Hygiene	10	1%
Total	986	100%

Source: Flexible Workforce Development Fund Reporting Templates 2017-2018.

Note: Information Not Provided/ TBC = 55 entries.

3.7 Award Size

The amount of funding available from the FWDF to each employer is a maximum of £10,000. The average award size is £8,900.

It can be seen in Table 3.5 that awards have varied in size, however, the bulk of awards are £5,000+.

There are, however, a number of entries which are greater than £10,000, and our understanding is that employers are covering the additional cost where this exceeds the maximum possible award size.

Where the total cost is greater than £10,000, this goes up to circa £16,000. This suggests that the FWDF is in some cases leveraging in additional match-funding towards the total cost of the training.

Table 3.5: Total Cost of FWDF Training

Final Cost	Nos. Employers	%
Less than £100	1	<1%
£100 to £999	11	2%
£1,000 to £4,999	37	7%
£5,000 to £9,999	184	37%
£10,000	226	46%
Over £10,000	35	7%
Total	494	100%

Source: Flexible Workforce Development Fund Reporting Templates 2017-2018. Note: Information Not Provided/ TBC = 14 entries.

3.8 Duration of Training Courses and Notional Hours

The Reporting Template requires colleges to provide information on the duration of training courses (i.e. start and end dates). It would appear, however, that the data provided by colleges is a mix of:

• actual start and end dates for the training; and
• a longer period of time during which the training will likely be undertaken (i.e. actual start and end dates not yet firmed up).

It is not possible to provide any meaningful analysis of this data.

The guidance also asks colleges to report on the “ notional hours of study for training courses per employee”, however, as above there are instances where this has been completed correctly and instances where this does not appear to be the case.

An example is an entry of 15,000 hours for a total of nine employees – which on first glance seems incorrect, and would certainly skew any wider analysis of the data.

It is therefore not possible to provide any meaningful analysis of this data.

3.9 Qualifications

The Reporting Template also requires colleges to provide information on the types of qualifications employees will gain as direct result of completing the training.

There is no specific guidance provided around what colleges could insert for this indicator. As above, input is also inconsistent and makes any meaningful analysis difficult.

While some colleges provided responses (e.g. SCQF Level 5), others have stated “ yes”, “ no”, “ college level”, or it has been left blank which may or may not be the correct response.

3.10 Summary

The main summary points to note are that:

• the Fund has got off to a slow start, however, it would appear that some traction and momentum is now being made;
• a positive sign is that some colleges also have waiting lists – however, this is not necessarily unmet demand, rather it reflects ongoing conversations that colleges are having with employers (and the colleges have unallocated funds to enable additional awards to be made); and
• the development of an Online Portal is a good idea to be able to access real time data on the Fund – however, there is scope for improvements to be made across a number of areas, and as highlighted above in order to be effective and of practical use the data must be accurate, complete and up to date, and needs to feed directly into policy-making – it is not enough to collect it - see Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter.