Evaluation of Individual Learning Accounts: Final Report
Learndirect Scotland
7.34 In addition to providing advice to learners and potential learners, Learndirect Scotland also played a key role in administering the ILA system in Scotland. To gauge their understanding of this role, learning providers were asked what role Learndirect Scotland had played in relation to ILAs. One-third realised that Learndirect Scotland provided information on learning opportunities with just over one-quarter (28%) feeling that their role included ILA marketing and promotion (see Figure 7.18).
7.35 However, some misunderstanding was apparent with small numbers of learning providers thinking that Learndirect Scotland were responsible for providing funding.
7.36 Learning providers were then asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they had been with the ILA service provided by Learndirect Scotland. Almost three-fifths (59%) were satisfied (59%) but nearly one-quarter (24%) were either 'fairly' or 'very dissatisfied' (see Figure 7.19).
7.37 Learning providers who expressed dissatisfaction with the service provided by Learndirect Scotland were asked why this was the case. The main reasons for dissatisfaction were the inconsistency of advice provided by staff (38%); insufficient advice given to account holders (21%); and, poor communication (21%) (see Figure 7.20).
Individual Learning Account Centre
7.38 Learning providers were then asked to indicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service provided by the Individual Learning Account Centre operated by Capita. There were slightly higher levels (30%) of dissatisfaction with the service provided by the ILAC than with Learndirect Scotland (see Figure 7.21).
7.39 Those learning providers who were 'fairly' or 'very dissatisfied' with the service provided by the ILAC were asked why this was the case. The main areas of concern were inconsistency of advice provided by staff (42%); the lack of information (28%); the inadequacy of the communication structure (20%) and the inadequacy of the scheme's administration (13%) (see Figure 7.22)
Employer involvement
7.40 To gauge the extent to which employers had contributed towards their employee's ILA-supported learning, providers were asked a series of questions about employer contributions and the impact that this had had upon providers claiming reimbursement.
7.41 Almost two-fifths (38%) of learning providers were aware of employers contributing towards their employees' ILA-supported learning. Of this number, 14% said that they had experienced administrative difficulties because of the employer contribution (see figure 7.23).
7.42 The difficulties cited by this, albeit small, group of learning providers were:
- having to deduct the employer contribution from the course costs (18%);
- too much paperwork and administration (27%);
- the complexity of invoices (55%).
7.43 This feedback may prove helpful if the Scottish Executive wants to encourage more employers to contribute towards their employee's learning as part of any ILA successor programme.
7.44 A follow-up question was asked to identify if employers were more likely to contribute towards any particular course areas. Forty-six per cent of those who said that employers had contributed towards their employees' ILA supported learning felt this to be the case (see Figure 7.24).
Course fees
7.45 Only 9% of learning providers said that ILAs had had an impact upon the fees that they charged. Figure 7.25 below shows that, of this small number, just under three-quarters said that their fees had decreased with very few saying that their fees had increased.
7.46 When assessing the impact that ILAs had upon learning providers, one must remember that the number of providers consulted was relatively small (202) and became smaller when the responses of various sub-groups are shown. These findings can not therefore be said to be statistically significant. However, in many cases, they do provide some useful information which could aid the development of any successor programme to ILAs in Scotland.