Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

1. The Scottish Union Learning Fund ( SULF) was established by the Scottish Executive in August 2000. Its aim is to 'encourage workplace learning in its widest sense'. SULF enables Scottish-based trade unions, in partnership with employers and others, to develop this workplace learning.

2. The focus on lifelong learning in Scotland is intentionally broad, ranging from the raising of adult literacy and numeracy skills to the acquisition of technical skills to continuing personal and professional development. The key premise of SULF is that trade unions enhance workplace learning additional to that already provided.

3. To the end of 2005, there were 5 rounds of funding amounting to almost £3.3m, with awards made to 54 projects, involving 23 unions. All of these projects are intended to contribute to wider Scottish Executive policy, specifically lifelong learning and the development of a smart, successful Scotland.

4. In autumn 2005, the Scottish Executive commissioned the Scottish Centre for Employment Research ( SCER) at the University of Strathclyde to evaluate the 5 rounds of SULF so far funded by the Scottish Executive. The objective of the evaluation was to assess the difference made by SULF to trade unions' capacity to enhance workplace learning.

DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY

5. The evaluation required a broad research design. This design involved different stages and included both qualitative and quantitative research. Within this research there were surveys of, and interviews and focus groups with, trade union officials, union representatives, learners, employers, learning providers and significant others from the Scottish business and policy communities. In addition, a number of case studies were investigated for examples of best practice. The evaluation was Scotland-wide and encompassed a range of unions by size, occupation and sector.

6. There were six stages to the research:

7. The response rate from the UPO survey was excellent, though responses from the employers' and learners' surveys were low but still valid.

8. A new, purposive framework of analysis was developed to interrogate this material and evaluate the contribution made by SULF. This framework is the Trade Union Learning Impact on Policy Index, which has 5 dimensions relating to Scottish Executive concerns: sustainability - referring to the extension of workplace learning beyond the period of SULF funding; performance - referring to the contribution made by SULF to firms; inclusion - referring to the contribution made by SULF to social inclusion; capacity-building - referring to the ability of trade unions through SULF to deliver additional workplace learning; and employability - referring to the contribution made by SULF to improving the quality and quantity of qualified workers.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

9. The most important finding is that unions are using SULF for its intended purpose: to deliver workplace learning that is additional to that which already exists. This learning is both job-related and non job-related, accredited and non-accredited, and successfully draws in non-traditional learners as well as traditional learners and provides lifelong learning.

10. All of these outcomes have been enabled through SULF and the learning and learning capacity is additional to that which already exists; so that it is not substituting but supplementing employer training (where that training exists). These projects have both revealed and stimulated a so far unappreciated large demand for workplace learning, and in many cases has effected a learning culture change amongst employees who previously would not have considered let alone been involved in learning.

11. It is widely accepted, both within and outwith the unions, that this increased learning capacity along with other benefits have arisen from the unique position occupied by trade unions in relation to learners in the workplace. As such, unions have wide support both in the policy making community and, importantly, amongst individual employers. Evidence reveals that partnership with employers is both more extensive and deeper than previously suggested. In addition, because of SULF, management are becoming more aware of lifelong learning and the benefits to be gained from it. The success of SULF projects is further demonstrated by their capacity to lever additional funding, both direct and indirect.

12. More specific findings are presented sequentially, starting with the implementation of SULF projects through to their operation and outcomes, including problems and contributions to Scottish Executive policy, followed finally by a summary of the evaluation's main recommendations.

Implementation

13. In applying to SULF, unions were using this opportunity to develop workplace learning and skills development. Unions also recognised the opportunity for SULF to be a promotional tool for unions. The latter is important, as unions too must gain from involvement in SULF if their engagement in workplace learning is to be sustained. The appropriateness of a union-led learning initiative was endorsed by the Significant Others.

14. It was recognised that enabling workplace learning was a new activity for unions, one that also required them to learn. Early round projects had steep learning curves but project implementation and management became easier with experience. Information sources external to projects provided useful support.

Operation

15. Unions were also generally successful in partnership working. All projects involved partners - usually employers, learning providers and in some cases, other unions. Particularly with employers, the depth of this partnership increased over the rounds of funding, though many employers were sceptical of the benefits that might accrue to them. There were differences over the type of learning best delivered through SULF - job-related or not job-related. However, where market failure existed and job-related training was not available through employers, unions filled this gap in provision. With early rounds' projects unions did report some inflexibility on the part of learning providers, caused mainly by a lack of appreciation by these providers of learner circumstances. Over the funding rounds, unions became better at articulating and matching employee learning needs with learning providers.

16. These partnerships also helped lever additional funding for workplace learning. Thirty-one per cent of projects secured additional funding. In total, SULF projects managed to access £1,030,565 additional funds, an average of £23,967 per SULF project overall.

17. It was acknowledged that partnership working on learning was not always feasible, either because of a lack of commitment by employers or because employer involvement was not possible either because no employer existed or employees spanned a number of employers.

18. Project management tended to improve over the funding rounds. Almost all projects had a steering group that included employers and which met regularly. Pressures on union resources did create some project management and execution problems.

Outcomes

19. There are challenges in measuring the outcomes of SULF projects. These outcomes can be tangible - e.g. accredited qualifications - or, in many cases, in-tangible, as is the case with soft skills development.

20. Tangible outcomes are quantifiable. Based on returns from the UPO survey, at least 116 employers are involved in SULF. Since its launch SULF has led to the training of at least 846 Union Learning Representatives ( ULRs) to help access learning for employees and led directly to the appointment of 18.5 permanent learning project officers and 38 temporary project officers within unions.

21. Importantly, these individuals have facilitated at least 1,820 learning awareness/dissemination events, enabled 9,962 individual learning needs assessments and 1,543 company learning needs assessments. Through these initiatives, at least 22,434 employees had been provided with personal information, advice, guidance on learning and 2,456 learners have undertaken accredited learning; 10,582 learners have undertaken non-accredited learning; 1,960 had undertaken IT training. In addition, at least 6 learning centres have been opened. SULF also stimulated demand for learning as well as met existing but latent demand. In some cases, ULRs struggled to cope with this demand, as did external public organisations such as ILA Scotland.

22. Some concern may exist about the types of employees taking up learning opportunities - more men than women, more full-time workers than their part-time equivalents, for example. This profile could be linked to patterns of union membership and recognition. Where unions have a high density of female members, these members are more likely to participate in learning.

23. As for intangible learning outcomes, it was recognised and appreciated that involvement in SULF increased employees' (particularly those who are non-traditional learners) confidence, life-skills, ability to cope with change and attitudes towards employers. Increased willingness to learn could also lead to the emergence of a 'learning escalator' as individuals, having gained confidence and experience, progress to further and higher level accredited learning. These outcomes usefully contributed to employees' personal development and employability but could also have indirect benefits for employers. These benefits, however, need time to become apparent. There was also evidence that SULF projects also helped improve both management-union relations - even in those industries that had difficult industrial relations - and management-employee relations, for example with involvement in SULF being an indicator of being a good employer.

Problems

24. The level of funding available under SULF was generally agreed to be appropriate though the allocation of funding did cause some problems. Short-termism was a problem with early projects but which was alleviated with later rounds funding priorities. Having enough funding to adequately service the Highlands & Islands was also a problem in some cases. Some projects under-budgeted, constraining more comprehensive inclusion of the Highlands & Islands. There were also concerns about the type of funding, in terms of the constraints imposed on the employment of project management staff and ensuing instability in learning activity. There were also issues related to an inability to meet perceived necessary capital costs in some cases.

25. Moreover, learning and developing learning capacity is hampered by practical difficulties in the workplace - by the lack of time off for learning and the need for ULRs to cope with the unexpectedly high demand for learning; by the need to widen the type of employees taking up learning opportunities; the lack (to date) of formal learning agreements with employers where applicable; and the need for better application of ILAs to SULF projects.

26. Problems are not limited to funding. Unions too have to learn: how to develop appropriately and then sustain learning capacity. There is a particular need to embed ULRs into both union and employer structures and practices. Record keeping and reporting were also issues that stretched existing unions' existing internal capacity. Unions are very aware of the need to address the lack of current sustainability. It is encouraging to note that SULF is encouraging unions to create more posts concerned with lifelong learning and that a small number of learning centres and learning agreements are being established in partnership with employers. There is strong indication that both unions and employers are committed to lifelong learning as it has emerged through SULF, and are prepared to offer further, own, funding to support it.

27. However, sustainability has not generally been achieved, though there are important indicators that some unions are close to achieving it. Learning is becoming more embedded in the organisational structures and practices of unions. Some unions have appointed their own staff to support learning; others are seeking alternative ways of supporting learning within their own structures such as incorporating learning responsibilities into the existing roles of union officers.

28. In terms of the other dimensions of SPICE and the contribution of SULF to Scottish Executive policy:

• SULF's attributable contribution to Performance is limited, partly because 'hard' benefits, for example higher productivity and lower absenteeism, are not easy to measure. However some 'soft' benefits are reported such as attitudinal shifts amongst employees towards learning and their employers.
• SULF has been successful in terms of Inclusion, attracting non-traditional learners, ethnic minority and migrant workers. It has also attracted traditional learners. As a consequence, SULF has delivered genuine lifelong learning. However reach to the Highlands & Islands remains relatively under-developed.
• SULF has developed three types of Capacity: learning capacity - delivering workplace learning that is additional; organising capacity - creating the will and infrastructure within unions to continue to engage SULF; learner capacity - stimulating the desire and willingness amongst employees to engage and progress in learning.
• SULF's contribution to Employability has been both indirect and direct. In relation to the latter SULF has increased the stock of employees with qualifications. In terms of the former SULF has increased participants' quality and range of soft skills, often through non-accredited learning.

29. Thus, although variable, there is evidence of achievement in relation to each SPICE dimension. Most progress has been made in terms of inclusion and capacity. Significant progress has been made towards sustainability; although at present true sustainability is relatively rare. This lack of sustainability is not surprising given the length of time that SULF has been operating and the nature of the changes required to ensure sustainable learning within unions. In relation to performance and employability, while there are very positive indicators, there is also a lack of hard data on these dimensions. This variability may well relate not to a failure to achieve, but again to difficulties in measurement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

30. In terms of meeting its objectives SULF has been successful. As for SULF's future operation and orientation, the evaluation makes a number of recommendations, the main ones being that:

• SULF should continue to be funded by the Scottish Executive, with existing priorities not abandoned.
• SULF should continue to be union-led.
• There needs to be awareness raising with employers and their organisations of the benefits of SULF.
• There needs to be better engagement with the Highlands & Islands.
• Unions need to consolidate the position of ULRs, and these ULRs should more systematically record learning data.
• Future funding rounds might consider placing emphasis on encouraging cross-union learning activity.
• The Scottish Executive should recognise that many of the outcomes of SULF-led learning are largely intangible and are thus not easily measurable.
• The Scottish Executive should also recognise the time required to embed learning activities within unions and workplaces.
• Some evaluation is required of the interface of SULF with the re-launched ILAs.
• The one single change that might transform learning activity within workplaces is a statutory entitlement to time off for learning for all workers, this time off could be achieved through statutory entitlement for all workers or through the incorporation of learning time arrangements within collective bargaining.