Individual Training Accounts: evaluation

Literature Review Findings

A short, focused literature review of seven key academic and policy documents (including one which was a review of a series of ITA type programmes in seven countries) which explore the available evidence on ITAs and/or similar approaches from other places was undertaken to inform the research. This chapter outlines the key findings from the literature review, focusing on: eligibility; scale; targeted beneficiaries; and lessons learned from wider provision.

Eligibility and target beneficiaries

From the ten international programmes identified in the literature, the extent to which eligibility was restricted varied (OECD, 2019a; UNESCO and ILO 2019). The broadest eligibility criteria had a restriction only by age (e.g. everyone aged 25+ is eligible for Skills Future Credit, Singapore) (CIPD, 2021), but it was more common for programmes to have a combination of criteria relating to age, income, education level, and employment status (e.g. Cheque Formação, Portugal) (OECD, 2019a). More restrictive criteria on some programmes also included reference to equality characteristics, most commonly focusing on gender, disability and parents/carers (e.g. Bildungskonto, Austria) (OECD, 2019a; CIPD, 2021).

There was evidence of programmes being restricted to specific customer groups: older ages, above 25 years and those in low paid work. Those in work aged under 25 years were excluded from programmes in Belgium and Canada (CIPD 2021), and all individuals under 25 years were excluded in Singapore (UNESCO and ILO, 2019). In Austria, those in low paid work, and over 50 years were targeted for inclusion (OECD, 2019a).

Some of the programmes either targeted employed or active individuals only, with a few also including those who were unemployed (OECD, 2019a). Self employed people were also less likely to be covered than employees (OECD, 2019a). In some cases, part-time employees can't benefit from training programmes based on hours worked, and can't attend training programmes requiring full time participation aimed at those who are unemployed. Evidence from the OECD suggests that low skilled workers participate less than higher skilled workers in training programmes which are not restricted to their employment status or income (OECD, 2019b).

This evidence may indicate why some programmes specify a restriction on employment status with an income threshold. This type of circumstance may lead to specific training programmes being developed as in Wales which has the Personal Learning Accounts for those in employment, and the ReACT scheme for those unemployed, seeking work.

Scale

There were examples of both solely state funded, and a combination of state and individual funded programmes. The size of the state contribution varies widely ranging from c.€125 (Belgium) to $10,000 (Michigan, USA) (OECD, 2019a). Almost all programmes cap the amount of funds provided to the individual (UNESCO and ILO, 2019).

The exception was Personal Learning Accounts in Wales which covers the full course cost (CIPD, 2021). However, this programme was focused on skills provision in 'priority sectors' facing skills shortages, such as engineering, construction and ICT, although in reality a wide range of courses are offered (CIPD, 2021). For example, one college offers over 50 courses ranging through: Foundation Certificate in Accounting; CMI Level 5 Award – Management and Leadership; Level 2 Award in MOT Testing; and Sport Massage L4. There was also a requirement to evidence how the training would improve future job prospects.

Most programmes provide a single payment per year, either as a set value or set percentage (ranging from 30% - 90%) of training costs (CIPD, 2021). Less commonly, some programmes allow individuals to accumulate training funds over multiple years, which is capped at a lifetime limit (e.g. Canada: $250/yr, max. $5k) (CIPD, 2021).

There were also examples where state funded contributions varied depending on employment status, education level or age (OECD, 2019a). In France, those with lower qualification levels can access more funding (€800/yr compared to €500), whereas in Portugal employees can access €175 for two years, which rises to €500 for jobseekers (UNESCO and ILO, 2019; OECD, 2019a).

It appears that most programmes allow repeat use, although it was not always clear whether this was multiple uses within a year, or repeat use in consecutive years(CIPD 2021). However, there was one instance where repeat use was restricted (e.g. Switzerland, three consecutive years use maximum) (OECD, 2019a).

Target training courses

All programmes restricted the range of training courses available to individuals funded through their programmes, with individuals required to choose from a list of approved courses (OECD, 2019a). Most of the course lists provided vocational training, including language and digital courses to support employability. It was common for driving license training to be excluded unless for professional use (OECD, 2019a).

The extent to which the approved training courses were explicitly aligned with labour market priorities and supporting individuals into employment varied (OECD, 2019a). Wales, Portugal and states in the USA explicitly linked their training provision to in-demand occupations or priority sectors, whereas in Singapore training funds could also be used for leisure courses (CIPD, 2021; OECD, 2019a).

Lessons learned

From the review, it was apparent that relatively little is known about the performance of individual learning account programmes, including the impact on individuals (OECD, 2019c). Evaluations of the impact of ILAs are also relatively rare, and counterfactual impact evaluations establishing causal links even more so (OECD, 2019a).

The literature review highlighted some common broad guidelines with regards to the design and delivery of ILA/ITA programmes (OECD, 2019a; OECD, 2019c). Although the recommendations are derived from a limited number of sources, they help explain the evidence base and provide more confidence around the points made in this literature review. Stakeholders consulted as part of the European Commission's research on ILAs (OECD, 2019a) stated that:

• ILAs should be designed in collaboration with social partners.
• Careers guidance and information should be available.
• Sufficient attention should be devoted to the engagement of particular groups (groups who stand to make the largest benefits from learning opportunities, or who face particular barriers to engaging with the skills system).
• Ease of access for individuals should be prioritised.
• Complexity and bureaucracy should be avoided – simplicity of use is required to promote effective participation of individuals in individual learning schemes.