Scottish Government

CHAPTER SIX GENERAL OUTCOMES AND LESSONS

ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES

Survey Data

6.1 We asked whether respondents thought that SULF had achieved its objectives. Their responses are presented in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Achievement of objectives (No., %)

6.2 Clearly most thought their SULF project had exceeded its objectives (40%), while almost a third thought the project had fully met its aims (30%). A further 30% thought that their project was partially meeting its objectives (30%) and none thought that the project had not met its objectives at all.

Significant Others

6.3 This perception of success was, with one exception, unanimously endorsed by the Significant Others, who thought that SULF had not only achieved its broad aims and provided considerable value for money for the Scottish Executive, but that it had also developed, as intended, a momentum in terms of workplace learning that would generate future benefits. Given this perceived success, without exception, these respondents thought that SULF should continue, at least in the medium term. Continuation of this funding, however, raised the issue of how sustainable these union based learning initiatives were beyond SULF funding (see below).

6.4 There was no disagreement amongst those Significant Others expressing a view that the SULF had benefited the broader lifelong learning agenda in Scotland in the following ways:

• SULF raised the profile of learning
• SULF provided opportunities for working people that would not otherwise have existed
• Through SULF, barriers to learning have been removed
• Learning has become more flexible and accessible
• SULF has contributed to the inclusion policy agenda
• SULF has supported broader literacy and numeracy objectives

UNMET DEMAND

Survey Findings

6.5 A key issue is the extent of unmet demand in workplaces for further lifelong learning. The responses are in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Demand for further lifelong learning (%)

6.6 For respondents there were major demands for in areas of IT (83%) and personal fulfilment (64%). Demand also focused on job-related skills (49%) and in literacy and numeracy (47%).

Significant Others

6.7 Despite the development of SULF priorities beyond capacity-building, most Significant Others also stressed that there remained a considerable need for capacity-building in a range of sectors and for a range of employers and types of workers. A number of categories of potential learners were identified for future SULF activities - young people, ethnic minority workers, migrant workers, and workers with disabilities. It was acknowledged that, at this point, only a small proportion of firms/organisations were actively involved in union-led learning. In addition, it was widely recognised that there was still a significant need in terms of developing the skills and capabilities of ULRs.

ADDITIONALITY

Survey Findings

6.8 It is interesting to consider views on what would have happened if SULF had not existed. Responses are in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Views on learning without SULF (No., %)

6.9 Most thought that no learning needs assessments would have occurred (68%) and that no training and learning (58%) would have occurred without SULF. The responses reinforce the point that deadweight was not a serious concern for respondents and re-affirms that learning generally would not have happened without SULF.

6.10 A good example of the additionality that has been provided by SULF occurs through the SPFA's projects as the case study below illustrates.

Case Study 6: SPFA and Additionality

Playing professional football is a dream for many young boys. Many are playing for clubs whilst still at school. Their passion for football and their desire to make it in the game often consumes them. They forget, or try to ignore, the fact that most football apprentices don't make it. Failure rates are high; most 2 year apprentices are not offered contracts beyond age 19. 'Involuntary exit' from clubs by signed players is also high, much higher than in other industries. In addition, of those who are contracted not all earn a living solely from football. Of the 1250 players in Scotland in the 2004-05 season, only just over 700 were employed full-time. ²⁷ Despite the dreams, it's important therefore that apprentices receive not just football training but other education as well. Such education is not geared to improving their job performance as footballers but to enhancing their employability outwith football, and so clearly additional to what might be expected to be provided by the employer.

At one Scottish Premier league club working with the SPFA, SULF is providing that education. As a club director explained: 'if we want to be taken as a serious employer and really give these kids a chance in life, we have got to have someone who looks after them other than just on the football field. [An apprentice] will be taken out of education for 2 years and in 2 years time I am going to come back and say "Sorry it didn't work out." We owe it to the family to look after that kid for 2 years so that when the bad news comes and it probably will, we can say at least he hasn't fallen 2 years behind his mate who went to [work for] the bank.'

Previously in conjunction with the SFA, courses were available only in Leisure Management but with demand more diverse, participation was poor. SULF monies have been used at the club to expand the range of learning available to apprentices. SULF money has also been used to part-fund a pilot Education & Welfare Officer at the club whose job is to organise the off-field education of the apprentices. Now when signing at 16 or 17 years, apprentices and their families are give professional advice to help develop education supplementary to football with courses at local colleges. The level and type of education reflects the abilities and interests of the apprentice. One apprentice has chosen architecture and is aiming for university should a football career not develop, another is taking accounting for the same reason, others are doing IT courses.

The club benefits, using learning as 'a selling tool … "Sign for us because we are going to give you a better chance, one of making it as a footballer and 2 for making it as a young person"', explained the director. Because the learning is not directly related to football, apprentices wouldn't ordinarily have considered it without the push from the club. Some were wary of learning after their experiences of school but once learning through SULF they find it enjoyable and intend to go to do further courses. They want to keep the dream alive but realise 'if football doesn't work then you've got your education. You've got something to fall back on but you still put your football first,' said one apprentice. And they now appreciate the learning opportunities being offered: 'It's a brilliant club to be at,' said one; another continuing 'They don't just try and work you at football. They're making sure for the rest of your life.'

The apprentices have an opportunity, the club director said, 'to start putting in place the foundations of a career outwith football' - an opportunity denied to most current senior players as well as those who didn't make it that far. Many of the older players are still 'stuck in their attitudes … very old skool', said the ULR. But even here a change of attitude can be detected. Through SULF, 12 senior players from the club have participated in IT training recently. It helps that the ULR is a role model. As one of the apprentices explained: '[The learning rep] was taking me aside and was like "Are you interested in doing it?" and that. You kind of look up to him. He's a first team player and he's still doing education. He's taking time out to help us and find an education for us. So he's good.'

6.11 Other employers' views were markedly different: most thought that they would have provided the same training and learning but for fewer learners (N = 7), of shorter duration (N = 4) or just provided the same (N = 4). Deadweight was more of an issue for employers. Only a small number agreed that these activities would not have taken place without SULF (N = 4).

6.12 For learners, 46% would not have undertaken job-specific learning without the SULF project, and 40% would not have undertaken personal interest learning.

Significant Others

6.13 There is almost universal agreement amongst the Significant Others too that the learning undertaken through SULF funded projects and the associated benefits would not have been possible without SULF. This widely held and overarching view had a number of components:

• Workplace representatives would not have become involved in aspects of vocational training and learning
• SULF does not substitute for employer provided training
• Learning would not have been such a high priority for unions
• Unions would not have had sufficient resources to fund this learning
• Employers would not have provided this learning
• No other public funding available for this learning

6.14 Some respondents noted that some pre-existing initiatives would have continued, most notable, Unison's Return to Learn initiative. However, this particular initiative was acknowledged as very much the exception.

" SULF has allowed initiatives to take place that would never have taken place previously, they have allowed partnerships to develop that would never have existed without it, they have allowed learning to be made accessible and affordable for people who would never previously have done it."

EXTENDING/DEVELOPING SULF PROJECTS

Survey Findings

6.15 In terms of whether SULF projects sought any additional funding to continue, extend or develop individual projects, 76% said that additional funds had been sought. The sources of funds pursued are in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Sources of additional funding pursued to extend or develop projects (No., %)

* This includes two large amounts (£530,000 and £150,000) for two European Social Fund bids.

6.16 Additional sources sought were largely related to later rounds of SULF (93%) but there were also moderate levels of attempts made to lever funds from employers (38%) and unions (37%) as well as local enterprise agencies (24%) and other funding sources (22%).

6.17 In terms of the likelihood of success, the responses are in Table 6.5. The responses reveal that expected success was high for all sources.

Table 6.5: Estimations of success in securing additional funding from other sources (No., %)

Significant Others

6.18 Three particular issues were raised by the Significant Others about the extension of learning projects beyond their original funding. Subsequent rounds of SULF provided the most obvious resource in terms of continuing or developing the original project. However, a number of respondents noted the significant leverage of SULF projects in encouraging employers to contribute resources to learning. Given this leverage, SULF was seen as providing considerable value for money both directly and indirectly. For particular unions, additional funding from all of these sources had enabled considerable development of, and progress in, learning activities across the rounds, from training ULRs to establishing learning centres, entering into learning agreements and involving unions in employers' skills agenda.

LESSONS

Survey Findings

6.19 The key factors that respondents thought affected the success of their SULF project(s) are outlined in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6: Factors positively affecting project success (No., %)

* Based on multiple responses.

6.20 The main positive factors concerned the commitment of the key stakeholders in projects: project workers (16%), ULRs (16%), employers (14%) and unions (14%).

6.21 Respondents were more likely to stress positive rather than negative factors. The main negative factors are outlined in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Factors negatively affecting project success (No., %)

* Based on multiple responses.

6.22 The main negative factors concerned the commitment and structures of unions (20%) and delays in the appointment of project workers and their turnover (17%).

6.23 Table 6.8 outlines responses to the question of whether anything could have been done differently that would have improved the operation or outcomes of the project.

Table 6.8: Doing things differently (No., %)

* Based on multiple responses.

6.24 Although a high proportion thought that there was nothing that could have been done differently (23%), 32% thought that they could have planned and managed the project more effectively: started marketing and the recruitment of ULRs sooner, planned resources, kept updated project records, established the steering group earlier and had better communication structures to support ULRs. An additional 16% thought they should have targeted employers that they had pre-existing relationships with instead of negotiating with new ones. All of these factors have negative implications for project time, resources and delivery.

6.25 It is worth noting, however, that Significant Others identified improvements that had taken place over the various rounds of SULF, addressing a number of the above areas, notable in relation to more realistic target setting; improved project management; recruiting, developing and co-ordinating ULRs; and in understanding both the learning environment and to a lesser extent the policy issues surrounding lifelong learning in Scotland.

6.26 We asked about how lessons and practice have been disseminated to others in the union movement. The responses are in Table 6.9.

Table 6.9: Disseminating lessons and practice (No., %)

* Based on multiple responses.

6.27 The main dissemination channel was through combinations of conferences, seminars and forums ( e.g.STUC) (47%).