employment and skills boards- current and potential role

IND

EPEN

DEN

T EMPLOYMENT ANDSKILLS BOARDS

THIN

KIN

GC

OLL

AB

OR

ATIV

EA

CTI

ON

Nicola Croden & Lynn Simmonds

Current and potential role

May 2008 The project team was Nicola Croden and Lynn Simmonds. The team would like to acknowledge the support of Michael Davis at CFE and representatives from DWP, DIUS, BERR and CLG. We would also like to thank all those interviewed as part of this project for their invaluable contributions.

For more information about this report, please contact Nicola Croden at: CFE, Phoenix Yard, Upper Brown Street, Leicester, LE1 5TE Tel: 0116 229 3300 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cfe.org.uk

CFE is a not for profit consultancy that brings practical insights to policy questions. We create actionable ideas and then add the research and management expertise that can bring them to life.

© CFE 2008

Employment and Skills Boards - Current and potential role CFE

Findings Paper 1

May 2008

Contents

Contents ........................................................................................................................... 1

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8

2 Aims and objectives .............................................................................................. 10

3 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 10

Findings ......................................................................................................................... 12

4 Current landscape ................................................................................................. 12

5 Governance ............................................................................................................ 19

6 Membership ........................................................................................................... 28

7 Strategy and delivery ........................................................................................... 38

8 Funding .................................................................................................................. 41

9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 45

Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 48

Appendix A ................................................................................................................... 51


Findings Paper 3

May 2008

Summary Background

1 This paper presents findings from independent research exploring the current and potential future role of Employment and Skills Boards (ESBs). The research was designed in consultation with DWP, BERR, DIUS and CLG to enable them to better understand the current landscape, and inform decisions regarding Employment and Skills Boards and any role they may play in the integration of the employment and skills agenda. The policy considerations presented represent the views of the authors based on the research findings.

2 The paper provides an insight into where ESBs and similar partnerships currently exist, and what model/s they follow. It then goes on to discuss key themes identifying where such partnerships currently add value and highlights some of the challenges they face. The research included desk based research and interviews with 23 key representatives across all nine regions to explore current arrangements. Case study research was then conducted with 34 representatives across the South East and North West to explore issues in more depth. The findings presented provide messages for consideration across all regions.

Current arrangements 3 Employment and Skills Boards have significant support as partnerships that

have the potential to be influential in the promotion of economic prosperity at local and sub‐regional levels, feeding into wider regional and national agendas. Evidence shows that where ESBs have been established, and are operating effectively, they have worked successfully with current programmes such as Train to Gain, the Skills Pledge, Local Employment Partnerships and Work Trials, as well as linking to the current Regional Economic Strategy (RES), Local Area Agreements (LAA), the development of Multi‐Area Agreements (MAA) and City Strategy.

4 There is evidence to show that when ESBs have buy‐in from key stakeholders across an area, they provide the opportunity to streamline current arrangements within an area, promoting a unified, integrated approach to employment and skills, merging with or linking into existing arrangements such as Employer Coalitions, Local Strategic Partnerships and other existing economic partnerships. This has enabled these partnerships to successfully influence and target relevant funding, such as Deprived Area Funding (DAF) and Local Authority Business Growth Initiative (LABGI) directed to their area to focus on meeting local employment and skills needs.

5 However, employment and skills partnership arrangements differ both within and between regions. Partnership arrangements are well established in some

CFE Employment and Skills Boards - Current and potential role

4 Findings Paper

May 2008

areas, whilst in very early development stages in others. Arrangements differ in their: governance and models of regional coordination and planning; streamlining and links to other policy developments and activity (such as LAA/MAAs and City Strategy); membership including employer engagement and the role of public sector representatives; focus on different ends of the strategy‐delivery spectrum; and funding arrangements. The diversity in arrangements provides many benefits in allowing areas to determine what is best to meet local needs. However, the current variation and perceived lack of direction and guidance raises questions regarding quality and accountability in some areas.

6 There is evidence to show that many areas face challenges and frustrations in moving forward with their employment and skills partnership arrangements. Many regions and sub‐regions feel uncertain about the direction of national policy and seek guidance or a framework from the national level on what works in establishing and operating an ESB, and in gaining effective buy‐in from stakeholders from both the public and private sector.

Effective Employment and Skills Boards 7 Evidence suggests that five key factors are required to promote successful

development and operation of ESBs, and to facilitate them in streamlining the current landscape, an in linking with new and planned developments such as the Flexible New Deal, Skills Health Checks, development of Integrated Regional Economic Strategies and the proposed Local Authority Economic Assessment Duty. These include:

1. The sub‐regional level taking responsibility for identifying issues and needs within their area and having the confidence to make any necessary changes, building upon and streamlining current arrangements.

2. A strong independent partnership manager to drive forward the agenda and ensure the partnership maintains momentum and is successful in gaining buy‐in from both public and private sector representatives.

3. Coordination and support at the regional level most often lead by the Regional Development Agency (RDA) (or the Regional Skills Partnership (RSP)), to reduce duplication and facilitate communication across the region, share good practice and drive quality and accountability, and ensure a clear link to the RES.

4. A figure head championing the achievements of the ESB, promoting their role across the local community. This role was most effectively played by a well known local employer, but could also be taken on by an elected member.

5. A clear framework for ESBs to operate within and championing at national level which many saw as an important role for the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, supported by DWP, BERR, DIUS and CLG to ensure a joined‐up approach and single ‘voice’ from the national level.


Findings Paper 5

May 2008

Landscape 8 The employment and skills landscape is rapidly changing at all levels of

governance, particularly at sub‐regional and local level where current partnership arrangements aimed at integrating the employment and skills agenda vary widely both within and between regions.

9 Across England, most demand‐led employment and skills partnership arrangements can be categorised into one of five ‘types’ of demand‐led models. These include Employment and Skills Boards, Employer Coalitions (including Fair Cities Board), City Growth, Skills and Productivity Alliances, and the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) employment and skills sub‐groups (or 4th block/theme groups) established to feed directly into LAAs.

10 Where new arrangements, or the streamlining of current arrangements, are seen as necessary at regional, sub‐regional or local level, the development of ESBs has allowed areas, irrespective of the funding they receive and the initiatives targeted at their area, to establish a demand‐led employment and skills partnership, focused on meeting local needs with clear links to the regional and national level.

11 The nine regions have taken very different approaches to developing employment and skills partnerships at sub‐regional and local level with arrangements in different stages of development, achieving varying levels of impact. There are patterns across urban and rural areas – ESBs are most likely to have been developed in cities or city regions, and are least prominent within rural areas. This flexibility is essential to ensure arrangements are fit for purpose and meet local needs. However, there are lessons that can be learnt from successful approaches currently in place to allow all areas to progress with this agenda particularly in preventing patchy coverage and driving quality and accountability in partnership arrangements.

12 There is evidence of good practice where ESBs have successfully streamlined current arrangements. Many regions are keen to learn from this good practice to strategically plan the way forward: to reduce duplication and overlap of different employment and skills partnerships through merging a number of partnerships and other sub‐regional activity into ESBs.

Governance 13 Many stakeholders welcomed the progress made nationally on the

employment and skills agenda particularly in publications such as the Leitch Review of Skills and the following implementation plan and the Sub‐National Review. However, it was clear that progress in terms of establishing ESBs has been tentative as regions and sub‐regions await guidance from the national level signalling support (or otherwise) for ESBs and providing a steer on the role they should play. Many also called for the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) to take on the role of a national champion, supported by DWP, BERR, DIUS and CLG providing: a single voice; a


6 Findings Paper

May 2008

framework within which ESBs are expected to operate; and drive quality in partnership arrangements.

14 The regional role appears important in the establishment and operation of ESBs. In regions where there was strong coordination of partnerships offering advice, sharing good practice, creating space for discussion and supporting the development of a Terms of Reference, employment and skills partnerships were stronger and more effective with overlaps and duplication reduced. This role was most effective when taken on by the RDA. A local or regional champion may be useful in promoting the work of ESBs and raising their profile. Within local areas this role was often taken on effectively by a well known local employer but suggestions were also made that this role could be taken on by elected members or the Regional Minister. The most effective model is likely to depend on the region and local area however evidence indicates that thought needs to be given to governance and current performance management arrangements.

Membership 15 ESBs and other sub‐regional and local employment and skills partnerships

varied greatly in their membership. Those ESBs or partnerships which were most effective had secured strong buy‐in from senior public sector representatives, had the support of a dynamic and enthusiastic local business representative as Chair and were managed by an independent partnership manager who provided dedicated support to the partnership.

16 Most partnerships found it challenging to engage employers in their work and strived for greater employer representation on their Board. Those who had successfully engaged with employers worked on: achieving the right balance between discussions on strategy and delivery, making the language meaningful to employers, and used innovative techniques to secure private sector buy‐in, such as work place visits, virtual memberships, newsletters and forums. Having an independent partnership manager to drive forward this activity appeared key to achieving this success.

17 Gaining senior public sector buy‐in was also a challenge in several areas. Those who had senior public sector representatives who were able to make decisions regarding funding and priorities for their organisation were able to move forward at a faster pace and deliver results for the area. This also facilitated the buy‐in of private sector employers who saw the impact of their involvement on the Board.

Strategy and delivery 18 ESBs and similar partnerships focused on different parts of the delivery‐

strategy spectrum with some partnerships exclusively focused on delivery issues, and others involved mainly in the development of strategy within their area. Those who were most successful tended to have a balance between strategy and delivery and some had established different mechanisms for


Findings Paper 7

May 2008

consultation and debate depending on where issues fell on the delivery‐strategy spectrum. This technique appeared to maximise engagement and maintain the important balance between senior public sector and employer buy‐in.

19 Many stakeholders, both at regional and sub‐regional level felt there was a need for greater clarity over the remit of ESBs from Central Government. They sought clarity on where ESBs responsibilities lie with regard to strategy and delivery to inform where their efforts should be most effectively targeted. The development of targets or performance management arrangements may help here.

Funding 20 Funding for ESBs and other employment and skills partnerships again varied

greatly. In some areas the ESB was supported by sub‐regional or regional partners who pooled together funds to support a partnership manager and sometimes additional administrative support. However, funding was often short‐term and not guaranteed, presenting challenges in what the partnership could commit to deliver in the long‐term.

21 Most ESB and similar partnerships members (both public and private sector) felt that having influence over funding directed to their area, and being able to ‘bend the spend’ was more important than securing a separate funding pot for the ESB to deliver against. However, some called for a small allocation of funds to secure long‐term commitment for the partnership manager’s post, payment of expenses to the Chair and possibly other private sector members. A discretionary funding pot had enabled some partnerships to gain some ‘quick wins’, encouraging the support of its members by achieving direct action on the ground. This suggests a role for the regions in allocating funds where ESBs (or similar) are adding value to the employment and skills agenda.


8 Findings Paper

May 2008

1 Introduction 1.1 The purpose of this paper is to present findings from research exploring the

current and potential future role of Employment and Skills Boards. The research was designed in consultation with DWP, BERR, DIUS and CLG to enable them to better understand the current landscape, and inform decisions regarding Employment and Skills Boards and any role they may play in the integration of the employment and skills agenda.

1.2 The paper provides an insight into where ESBs and similar partnerships currently exist, and what model/s they follow. It then goes on to discuss key themes identifying where such partnerships currently add value and highlighting some of the challenges they face. In particular, focusing on the current landscape, governance issues, membership and employer engagement and funding issues. The paper concludes by summarising some issues for future consideration based on the evidence presented.

1.3 The findings are based on a wide ranging mapping exercise involving desk based research of websites and key documents as well as 23 qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, and consultation with RSP leads in each region. It also draws on in‐depth case study research carried out within two regions (North West and South East) involving 34 interviews with stakeholders from the public and private sector.

Background 1.4 The Leitch Review of Skills (December 2006)1 analysed and made policy

recommendations to address the UK’s long term skills needs. The Review advocated a ‘new Employment and Skills Service’ influenced by a ‘network of employer‐led Employment and Skills Boards’. Leitch recommended that ESBs would inform how ‘training [can] be more relevant to the needs of the local labour market’ and ‘scrutinise the functioning of local careers and employment information to ensure that it better reflects employer needs’2 bringing together the skills and employment agendas within an area.

1.5 Government felt that a structured network of boards responsible for reporting to the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) was overly prescriptive in meeting local economic development needs. However, there was support for the concept of ESBs to function at a sub‐regional level ‐ promoting economic prosperity, bringing together the employment and skills

1 Leitch Review of Skills, Prosperity for all in the Global Economy (December 2006) HM‐Treasury: London

2 Leitch Review of Skills (December 2006) p. 24


Findings Paper 9

May 2008

agendas and strengthening the employer voice in identifying priorities, particularly within Core Cities.3

1.6 The Sub‐National Review (July 2007)4 supported ESBs and stated ‘it is at this [sub‐national] level that local employer‐led Employment and Skills boards should operate’. There is recognition that these boards need to work flexibly to meet different needs in different areas. The Leitch Implementation Plan (July 20075) states ESBs ‘will rationalise and build on successful city, employer coalitions and other regional models’. It also calls for the development of ESBs to be based on the sharing of ‘good practice’ rather than prescribing specific models and processes. The report also recognises that ESBs may not be an appropriate mechanism within some areas and leaves it to ‘local partners to decide’ if they are appropriate within their area. The Lyons Inquiry (March 2007)6 also supported the concept of ESBs and called for ‘local authorities to play an appropriate role’.

1.7 Despite significant support for ESBs, and many areas having already established some type of ESB (or in the process of doing so) examples of ‘good practice’ and accounts of ‘what works’ are surprisingly lacking. There is little pooled knowledge of where ESBs currently exist, what their main roles are, what lessons have been learnt about what works, how they can be used to streamline current arrangements and where they have achieved real results. Informing these knowledge and information gaps is essential in moving forward the debate and informing the future of ESBs and the wider integration of the employment and skills agenda.

3 Strong and Prosperous Communities: Local Government White Paper (October 2006) Department for Communities and Local Government, London also supports this and ‘encourage Employment and Skills Boards to be formed in core cities’ to support economic development

4 Review of Sub‐National Economic Development and Regeneration (July 2007) HM‐Treasury: London

5 World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England (July 2007), HM‐Treasury: London

6 Lyons Inquiry into Local Government ‐ Place‐Shaping: A shared ambition for the future of local government (March 2007) HM‐Treasury: London


10 Findings Paper

May 2008

2 Aims and objectives 2.1 The aims of the project were:

To identify current practice through conducting a mapping exercise of demand‐led employment and skills partnerships (including but not restricted to those called Employment and Skills Boards).

To compare and contrast current models exploring what works in establishing and operating an ESB (or similar partnership) to effectively promote economic prosperity at a sub‐regional level – exploring the roles of the public and private sector.

To learn lessons and identify good practice about how ESBs can build upon and streamline current arrangements, identify where they add value particularly in strengthening the employers voice and promoting economic prosperity at the sub‐regional level.

3 Methodology Definitions

3.1 For the purpose of this work we have used the following broad definition to identify an ESB or similar partnership:

A partnership integrating the employment and skills agenda at the sub‐regional level, promoting shared responsibility through a demand‐led approach.

3.2 Demand‐led is defined as:

Market driven, identifying employers’ needs through private and public sector joint working.

Within this report we use the generic term ‘partnerships’ or ‘employment and skills partnerships’ to refer to all models identified within this research who meet with the definition above. We use ESBs to refer specifically to those partnerships termed as such.

Approach

3.3 The research was undertaken in two phases:

(a) A mapping exercise

(b) Case study research


Findings Paper 11

May 2008

3.4 The mapping exercise was conducted to populate a bespoke grid and undertaken using desk based research drawing on both published and grey literature – including websites, action/business plans, annual reports/newsletters and Terms of Reference. This was supplemented by primary research to ensure information was as up‐to‐date as possible and that all relevant partnerships were captured. This involved specific enquiries and 23 interviews with key stakeholders including the RSP in all nine regions. The mapping grid is a live document and can be viewed at www.cfe.org.uk.

3.5 In addition to the 23 interviews across the nine regions, case studies were conducted focusing on the North West and South East. The regions were selected in consultation with DWP, BERR, DIUS and CLG and were chosen to ensure the research provided maximum learning opportunities. The regions had adopted very different approaches to developing employment and skills partnerships, with contrasting arrangements in terms of the regional role, current landscape, role of public and private sector at the sub‐regional level and funding arrangements.

3.6 A total of 34 interviews were conducted across the two regions with a range of stakeholders including representatives from the RSP, Jobcentre Plus (JCP), Learning and Skills Council (LSC), Sector Skills Councils (SSC), Chamber of Commerce, Local Authorities (LAs), Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), Private Sector representatives (both partnership members and non‐members) and partnership managers.

3.7 Key documents were also reviewed including the Regional Economic Strategy (RES), available Terms of Reference (TOR), Business Plans and partnership meeting papers and minutes.

3.8 This report draws on the findings from both the initial 23 interviews across the nine regions, and the case study research. This approach has enabled us to provide detailed information on the current arrangements regarding local and sub‐regional employment and skills partnerships and enabled us to identify examples of good practice and make suggestions for future consideration, drawing on the available evidence. It is important to note that this work is based upon desk based research and qualitative methods therefore there are limitations to the breadth of this study. This report provides a contribution to the current policy debate and development of policy regarding integration of the employment and skills agenda.


12 Findings Paper

May 2008

Findings 4 Current landscape

Overview

4.1 The employment and skills landscape is rapidly changing at all levels of governance, particularly at the local and sub‐regional level where current partnership arrangements aimed at integrating the employment and skills agenda vary widely both within, and between, regions. This section summarises the current landscape in relation to demand‐led employment and skills partnerships.

Demand-led employment and skills partnerships

4.2 Across England, most sub‐regional employment and skills partnership arrangements can be categorised into one of five main types.7 These include: 8

(a) Employment and Skills Boards;

(b) Employer Coalitions and Fair Cities Boards;

(c) City Growth;

(d) Skills and Productivity Alliances; and

(e) Local Strategic Partnership employment and skills sub‐groups (or 4th block/theme groups) established to feed directly into Local Area Agreements.

4.3 Other initiatives which bring together employment and skills at the local level, but without a demand‐led focus include City Strategy, economic partnerships and community‐led models (these models were not within the scope of this project).

4.4 Those partnerships formally calling themselves ESBs exist to some extent within all regions. Some have been established for two or three years, for example, the partnerships in Nottingham and Manchester. However, most are more recent developments, often established in response to the publication of the Leitch Review and are still in the early stages of development, for example, Cheshire and Warrington ESB.

4.5 ESBs offer a mechanism for integrating the employment and skills agenda at the sub‐regional level, focusing on meeting local needs with clear links to the

7 A comparative chart of the five models is included at Appendix A

8 This work focused on partnerships following these five models, however the landscape is constantly evolving and there are likely to be other partnerships which were not within the scope of this review.


Findings Paper 13

May 2008

regional and national level. The map below shows where ESBs and similar demand‐led employment and skills partnerships are in operation.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright 2008. All rights reserved, Ordnance Survey Licence number 100048026

ESBs Established

ESBs Proposed

Employer Coalitions

City Growth

LSPAs

SW Partnership Sub-Groups

East Partnership Employment and Skills Forum

Community Partnerships (East of England) Learning Partnerships (Y&H)

Map of demand-led employment and skills partnerships


14 Findings Paper

May 2008

Regional approaches

4.6 The nine regions have taken very different approaches to developing employment and skills partnerships at sub‐regional level. This flexibility has been important in allowing sub‐regions to develop arrangements that are fit for purpose within their locality. However, most regions are in discussion regarding plans for developing effective ESB arrangements across their area and were keen to receive guidance from the national level to confirm the planned role of ESBs before moving forward.

4.7 Regions had tended to follow one of three approaches. Within some regions the RSP or RDA had taken on a ‘coordinating’ role, proactively supporting the development of ESBs across their region, others had liaised with local partnerships to gain a sense of developments within their region by taking a ‘monitoring’ approach, whilst others were ‘waiting’ for further guidance before taking any action.

Coordinating approach

4.8 Those regions that had taken a lead in the coordination of arrangements across their area appeared to have been most successful in ensuring the development of ESBs (or similar partnerships) were based on good practice from other models in the area and promoted the streamlining of arrangements, for example, merging with the Employer Coalition or the LAA 4th block sub‐group. They had also ensured that there were clear links between local partnerships and the development of the RES. Some regions had pooled together funding for local partnership managers, for example, the development of the Local Skills and Productivity Alliance partnerships across the South East. Regions taking this approach had also often implemented mechanisms for sharing good practice and facilitating communication among the partnerships within their region.

Monitoring approach

4.9 Those regions that had taken a monitoring approach had developed a clear picture of the partnerships established within their region. However, there was no active role undertaken at the regional level to influence partnership arrangements across the region.

Waiting approach

4.10 Some regions had not taken an active coordinating or monitoring role. These regions were most likely to feel that a bottom‐up approach was required which had to come from the sub‐regional level, or felt that there was insufficient clarity from the national level to advise on the partnership arrangements in their region.

4.11 Where there was little regional coordination there was more likely to be evidence of duplication or overlap of arrangements and a lack of a clear link between the sub‐regional arrangements and the RES. This appeared most likely in regions where there were one or two dominating large cities or city


Findings Paper 15

May 2008

regions attracting significant national funding through various initiatives. These partnerships as a result were more likely to look to the national level than look for regional direction or support. Within these regions coverage of employment and skills partnerships was more likely to be patchy, but there were examples of individual partnerships which were well established and achieving results.

4.12 All regions irrespective of the role that they played, called for clarity or direction on ESBs from the national level to facilitate them in making progress at the regional and sub‐regional level.

Urban/rural differences

4.13 ESBs and other employment and skills partnerships were most prominent in urban areas, particularly within cities and city regions, which often attract various funding streams and require arrangements (such as an ESB) to ensure successful integration of the employment and skills agenda at a sub‐regional level, focusing on local needs. The development of some ESBs has been closely aligned with the Core Cities agenda as supported by the Local Government White Paper (2006), where cities, notably Manchester and Nottingham, have developed ESBs to meet their local employment and skills objectives and achieve wider economic development. It was within these areas, where there are multiple funding streams and initiatives that there was greatest potential for overlap and duplication:

The landscape is so complicated. There are so many strategies in development in the City Region.

NE Public Sector

In [a NW city region] many initiatives exist around business support, finance and the [city‐region] vision. They need to work together more effectively.

NW Public Sector

There has been difficulty in fitting together arrangements; Leitch has added another level.

East Mids Public Sector

4.14 However, there are many examples of good practice where partnerships have achieved effective collaborative working with organisations across their area and successfully streamlined the landscape. ESBs have been shown to add particular value here and offer the opportunity for local areas to review and streamline arrangements in their locality.


16 Findings Paper

May 2008

Streamlining the landscape Tyne and Wear and Merseyside In the sub-regions of Tyne and Wear and Merseyside, the City Region Employment Consortiums work closely with the Employer Coalitions in their areas to learn lessons from, and build upon, their success in engaging with employers to promote a demand-led approach. This has allowed them to deliver the City Strategy and targets agreed with DWP. South Yorkshire Employer Coalition The South Yorkshire Employer Coalition has been fully streamlined into City Strategy activity. The ESBs [Work and Skills Board] set up to support the South Yorkshire Employment Consortium, are led by the previous South Yorkshire Employer Coalition employees and employer members. The involvement of the Coalition has facilitated employer enrolment onto the boards and aided set up of project support. The boards are charged with influencing a wide agenda from Deprived Area Funding (DAF) to LAAs:

I have taken good practice from the Employer Coalition initiatives and have had experience in supporting similar initiatives. We had already engaged with many of the employers before and it was just a case of getting them on board… The Employers provide strategic leadership, a sounding board and employer champions… Their influence on strategy keeps them involved.

South Yorkshire Employment Consortium Representative

Collaborative working (Links to LAA/MAA’s) Within the Merseyside City Employment Strategy, LSP sub-groups feed into the LAAs economic development targets. There are employment and skills sub-groups to the Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in Liverpool, St Helen’s, Sefton, Wirral, Halton and Knowsley. In some instances, the sub-groups are described as having an ‘operational arm’ to oversee the delivery of targets. The LSP sub-groups have been described as ‘achieving successful coordination of the economic development network’ with the ‘ability and buy-in from the appropriate partners to direct funding’ (NW Public Sector). The arrangements are linked closely to the City Employment Strategy, which they have had considerable opportunity to influence. Within the North West there are discussions taking place about the potential for MAAs to be delivered via ESBs.


Findings Paper 17

May 2008

4.15 ESBs and other partnerships tend to be most sparse in rural areas where often the economic unit is not so clearly defined, less funding streams are attracted regarding employment and skills and it may not be seen as a key priority for the area. Where ESBs are successful in rural areas, it is often dependent on a clear economic unit and a drive from the local area to focus on employment and skills issues. The Alliance, spanning North Nottinghamshire and North Derbyshire, have been particularly successful in establishing an ESB across a largely rural sub‐region to promote employment and skills issues at the local level, identifying local needs and raising these issues up the agenda within the area.

4.16 ESBs may not be relevant in all areas and therefore it is important for sub‐regions to decide whether an ESB will benefit their area. However, sharing of good practice, particularly showing where ESBs can add value in rural areas as well as urban areas is essential to ensure arrangements are fit for purpose and build on what works.

Conclusion

4.17 Where ESBs have shown to add the greatest value to the current landscape, they have proved an important mechanism to effectively streamline and engage with other similar initiatives to simplify the range of employment and skills activity based at sub‐regional level. The need for an ESB or similar was most often decided at the sub‐regional level.

4.18 Where the region had taken an active role in coordinating employment and skills partnerships within their sub‐regions, partnerships appeared more effective, had clear links to the RES, with the risk of overlaps and duplication less prominent than in regions which had not provided this support.


18 Findings Paper

May 2008

Policy Considerations ‐ Landscape

To promote streamlining and ensure ESBs add value to the current landscape, future policy development could consider:

1. The national level to play a championing role – supporting ESBs and clarifying the links to national policy. This will provide regions and local areas with the confidence to move forward with plans for ESBs. This role could be taken on by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

2. The regional level to play an active coordination role – having an overview of what exists in the region and advising local areas on potential gaps and overlaps as well as facilitating communication and the sharing of good practice to drive quality and accountability. This role could be taken on by the RDA. Consideration should also be given to appointing independent sub‐regional partnership managers.

3. The local ESB partnership manager or Chair to take a lead role in looking across their sub‐region to ensure they are joining‐up effectively with other partnerships in their area. In particular ensuring links with the local LSC, JCP and the LA.

4. The sub‐regional level to identify local priorities and needs, working with the Local Authority to ensure a fit with the LAA/MAA and the proposed new economic duty to undertake an economic assessment of their area.


Findings Paper 19

May 2008

5 Governance Overview

5.1 Evidence suggests that Employment and Skills Boards function most effectively at sub regional level. Nevertheless, the national and regional levels have important roles to play to ensure a joined‐up approach to the employment and skills agenda across all spatial levels, and to drive quality in partnership arrangements. However, these roles and responsibilities need to be clear and defined. This section covers governance issues in relation to demand‐led employment and skills partnerships

National role

5.2 Many areas welcomed the progress made nationally on the employment and skills agenda particularly in publications such as the Leitch Review of Skills and the following Implementation Plan. However, it was clear that progress in terms of establishing ESBs has been slow as regions and sub‐regions await guidance from the national level signalling support (or otherwise) for ESBs, and providing a steer on the role they should play, with many calling for a national champion.

Guidance

5.3 There was overwhelming agreement that the national level could do more to provide clarity and direction on the role ESBs should have within the employment and skills agenda:

There needs to be clear messages about the links between policy and the role of ESBs i.e., LEPs and ESBs; BERR and Enterprise; DIUS and Leitch, CLG and City Prospectus… the Sub‐national Review discussed the future role of the sub‐regions however where powers are devolved to the region and sub‐region, the national level will need to provide a strong steer; we need parameters.

NW LSC Representatives

There is no steer on what a demand‐led model [ESB] should look like. Is it where employers are engaged through focus groups? Or events? Or sitting on the board? We need a greater steer on this before we go out and present what we have to offer to employers… You need to have this to ensure credibility and encourage greater involvement.

SE Partnership Manager


20 Findings Paper

May 2008

5.4 Both public and private sector stakeholders found matters relating to governance confusing.

The biggest problem is I donʹt think that there is any one department whose remit covers this position. Whose remit covers the interaction of public and private sector? Or is it about enterprise? Social cohesion? Is it employability? Is it skills? This agenda is not black and white in terms of responsibility.

NW City Growth Employer

National champion

5.5 There was general agreement that the UKCES should play an important role in directing and championing the employment and skills agenda and development of partnership arrangements from the centre gaining buy‐in and support from the public and private sector throughout each tier of governance:

There needs to be a champion within the Commission ‐ someone who is passionate about employment and skills.

SEEDA Representative

We need to have some higher level support from the Commission… to support the dissemination of some good practice.


Central government

5.6 Most felt that the four government departments – DWP, BERR, DIUS and CLG had an important role to play in working with the UKCES to promote the employment and skills agenda and ensure a joined up strategy with a single message from the national level – driving quality and accountability.

It is a positive that all the key departments are signed up…It will be important to provide an infrastructure for the departments to work within.

NW LSC Representative

Sharing good practice

5.7 There were many calls for the UKCES to be responsible for sharing good practice on what works in establishing and operating an ESB. Examples suggested within this research include where demand or employer‐led employment and skills models have worked effectively in aiding Local Employment Partnerships, supporting enterprise, effectively engaging with employers, addressing the issues raised by Leitch and ensuring a joined up


Findings Paper 21

May 2008

approach and effective structures for key public sector players to feed into LAAs and proposed MAAs. Some examples include:

Merseyside Coalition Employer Coalitions are linked closely with JCP and the welfare to work agenda. They support JCP to promote Local Employer Partnerships through the Coalition’s network of employers. They are tasked with referring suitable employer candidates to the appropriate contact within JCP. The Coalition has also worked with the LSC to promote Skills Pledges and hosted an event for 200 employers in the area. Alliance Employment and Skills Board The Alliance ESB has aligned itself with the local Alliance for Enterprise Programmes which is funded by the first round of LEGI allocated to Ashfield, Bolsover and Mansfield. The board highlights its work to support Making the Connection which is responsible for the projects in the LEGI programme concerned with getting ‘economically inactive individuals connected to training and employment opportunities generated by inward investing and local expanding businesses.’

Licensing and inspection

5.8 Views were split regarding licensing and inspection, with a majority of stakeholders seeking a flexible approach with clarity and direction on the role of ESBs. Many strongly rejected any prescribed elements related to licensing or inspection:

It would be completely inappropriate for these bodies to be inspected. [Employers] are volunteers, who are giving up their time to contribute to this section.... It is about facilitation at the national level... [Employers] should be allowed to challenge, inform and influence... like a lobby. You wouldnʹt get the dynamics that you have now if inspection was the case.

SE LSC Representative

[The region] do not want to be forced along as it is important to be flexible concerning the very local level.

RSP Director

5.9 However, there were a few stakeholders who believed there might be a case for considering licensing and inspection if ESBs were to have responsibility over budgets and priority setting. This was particularly apparent within those sub‐regions with a strong city focus such as Merseyside where there are multiple funding streams to support initiatives to tackle levels of deprivation and promote attainment of skills. The sub‐region has been charged with supporting these developments to promote effective strategy development:


22 Findings Paper

May 2008

There has been much suggestion about the devolution of powers to the sub‐regional level. I would not agree that this should be to the extent seen in London, but where the sub‐region will be accountable for decisions, licensing will be important to uphold this.


5.10 Some employers also supported the idea of licensing or ‘reporting of some sort.’ They felt that some formal monitoring arrangements would ‘be important to show how effective the model is and to ensure it is not just another body in the landscape’ (SE Employer). A few employers also commented that it would be helpful for them to assess how effectively they spend their time working within these partnerships.

Regional role

5.11 The regional role appears important in the establishment and operation of ESBs. In regions where there was a strong coordination of local partnerships offering advice, sharing good practice, creating space for discussion and supporting the development of a Terms of Reference , employment and skills partnerships appeared stronger and more effective with overlaps and duplication reduced.

5.12 This role appears most effective when taken on by the RDA. The RSP played a useful role here however; several RSP representatives felt that they could add more value if utilised effectively.

RSPs can support the articulation of [skills and employment] needs… National departments need to use the RSP better. With these initiatives, we have had to blag our way in.

RSP Director

5.13 It was suggested that where the RSP was based within the RDA, they were able to take an objective perspective in integrating the employment and skills arrangements across the region, particularly in joining together LSC and JCP and ensuring clear links to the RES. Where the RSP was based within one of the key employment and skills partners, such as LSC or JCP, RSPs reported some difficultly in separating the priorities of their organisation from establishing an effective partnership which represented and integrated the views of all partners and their initiatives within the employment and skills landscape. There was also some difficulty experienced in aligning each organisation’s priorities to the RES.

Links to Regional Economic Strategy

5.14 ESBs added particular value where there were clear links to the regional level and they were able to feed into the RES. This link allowed regions to represent the employment and skills needs of the sub‐region.


Findings Paper 23

May 2008

5.15 Where regions had taken an active coordination role, they were also able to ensure there were clear links between the sub‐regional partnerships within their region. This allowed sub‐regions to understand both regional and sub‐regional priorities and target their activity accordingly. The arrangements in the South East were particularly effective in promoting this alignment.

Alignment with the Regional Economic Strategy

The Regional Skills for Productivity Alliance (RSPA) in the South East has successfully supported the Local Skills for Productivity Alliances (LSPAs) based at the sub-regional level. The links between the regional and sub-regional level have benefited both tiers of governance equally.

For the regional level, ‘skills priorities have been set through work with the LSPAs. These bodies are important in the RES and [the RSP] has worked hard to align them with it.’ For the sub-regions, ‘the support of the region has been important to access funding streams where priorities are different to those expressed at the national level’ (SE Partnership Manager). The region is described as a ‘lobbyist’ to ‘reflect the broader policy picture’ at the national level and represent the sub-regional cause (SEEDA Representative):

The RES has set the priorities and states what this region needs to make the economy grow. We know our priorities lie with level 3 and 4 skills… and against national priorities, we appear to perform poorly… It is important for us to lobby at the national level to represent our priorities.

SEEDA Representative

The effective links between the sub-region and the region in the South East have been observed by employers who sit on the board. One employer commented that he ‘was able to influence SEEDA objectives for 2012’ and was ‘grateful for this opportunity.’

Sharing good practice

Many stakeholders identified an important role for the regions in identifying and facilitating the sharing of good practice. As one local partnership manager mentions, ‘the RSP plays an important role to share good practice for us to apply within our own model.’

The South East RSP held regular regional meetings for the sub-regional employment and skills partnerships managers. These were particularly welcomed, and involved facilitating the sharing of ideas, discussing challenges and sharing good practice:

I have five other colleagues that work in my area that are linked to the regional level. This enables us to share good practice with the other [partnerships].



24 Findings Paper

May 2008

ESB champion

5.16 Stakeholders found that a champion at the regional or sub regional level to promote the work of ESBs was valuable. This role could be taken on by a local employer or public sector representative. An RSP representative suggested an important role for the Regional Minister to play in relation to ESBs ‐ championing their cause, promoting their role, and providing a link between the national level and ESBs. In support of the idea of a champion based at this level, one SE employer mentioned that the enthusiasm of his local MP worked well in promoting and identifying with the needs of the private sector:

He is particularly effective in championing the cause of business and skills. He appears passionate about this area, and this works well.

SE Employer

Sub-region

5.17 The success of local partnerships appears to be driven by:

(a) an effective partnership manager responsible for gaining buy‐in from, and facilitating discussions between, the private and public sector, providing the partnership with momentum to achieve results;

(b) the engagement of employers, particularly securing a dynamic and committed Chair; and

(c) the strength of the regional tier promoting the sharing of good practice and reducing duplication across the region.

5.18 A majority of stakeholders agreed that ESBs work most effectively at the sub‐regional level, supporting the recommendations made by the Sub‐National Review (2007)9. As a sub‐regional partnership manager mentions, ‘on a more local basis… you bring too many people in’, complicating the landscape for employers to engage with.

5.19 The sub‐region is seen as important to ‘engage with the local level’ (SE Partnership Manager), ‘feed into LAAs and MAAs,’ (NW LSC representative) and ‘facilitate effective partnership working’ (Employer Coalition representative) for initiatives such as Local Employment Partnerships, Train to Gain, and enterprise initiatives.

Links to other initiatives

5.20 Some sub‐regions are more advanced than others in setting up employment and skills arrangements. Those sub‐regions that are more advanced appear to

9 Review of Sub‐National Economic Development and Regeneration (July 2007) HM‐Treasury: London


Findings Paper 25

May 2008

have a strong city focus, such as those boards based within Core Cities. A North West City Growth member discussed how ‘so much of the policy and strategy development is based at the City‐Region’ rather than at local or regional level.

5.21 ESBs have effectively fed into LAAs, and the proposed MAAs. This has been particularly evident in the North West where the LSP sub‐groups are aligned against LAA and MAA boundaries. These arrangements are currently under consultation in terms of their transfer to ESBs. In any move to ESBs, it is essential to maintain these links to the LAA/MAA and build further links with other initiatives to drive quality in the partnership arrangements and ensure streamlining of activity. The Merseyside sub‐region is keen to build links between the key partners involved with the City Employment Strategy. Different solutions may be appropriate in different areas – from the ESB being the key partnership feeding into and agreeing the design of the LAA/MAA, to the ESB being represented on the LAA/MAA partnership and vice versa.

5.22 Boundaries of the sub‐regions remain a challenge for ESBs to work effectively. This has proved particularly difficult in areas such as Kent and Medway and the Alliance based across North Nottinghamshire and North Derbyshire. Where there are difficulties in effectively linking ESBs and similar partnerships to LAAs it is hoped that proposed MAAs can contribute to clarity on boundaries and therefore enable such arrangements to add value.

Local level

5.23 There was broad consensus that ESBs were not as effective at the very local level. In these areas, several stakeholders argued that there was scope for local initiatives and progress that link into the sub‐regional ESB:

Links with local initiatives

Hampshire and Isle of Wight are focusing efforts to build links with initiatives based at the local level to make sure their needs and priorities are represented at the sub-regional level. What the partnership hopes to do is to engage with initiatives such as those driven by LAs or local business forums to support future ESB arrangements.

5.24 Most employment and skills partnerships have shown effective working to deliver local priorities through supporting initiatives such as: skills programmes, for example the UB50 project supported by JCP and the University of Surrey; and the Liverpool City Growth ‘Grot Spots’ strategy to regenerate pockets of deprivation seen in ‘travel to work areas.’ The support for this delivery focus has been from employers where they are ‘able to see the benefits of their involvement’ both for their business and their communities:


26 Findings Paper

May 2008

At this level, you are able to discuss business and local needs more which will attract greater support from employers.


UB50 Leadership & Management Projects

Within the area of Surrey, figures released in October 2006 stated there were 2000 former managers signed up to JCP services despite the high demand for these skills. These managers had obtained ‘higher level qualifications and therefore sat outside the national priorities’ (Surrey JCP Representative) and were often excluded from mainstream employment and skills agendas.

The Surrey partnership promoted and facilitated the collaboration of work between the University of Surrey, Surrey Economic Partnership, JCP and Surrey County Council to research and develop programmes specifically for this target group. The partners involved have joined with SEEDA to fund a pilot programme of Leadership and Management training courses, based on existing successful projects by the University of Surrey

The UB50 project is in its early days, but one of its achievements so far has been to promote closer working between the partners by building on previously successful training programmes: ‘[The partnership] had successfully brought together organisations that normally work with quite different employment agendas’ to effectively meet local needs (Partnership Manager).

Conclusion

5.25 The flexibility within existing governance arrangements regarding ESBs has allowed the sub‐regional level in many areas to effectively identify where ESBs can add value to exiting arrangements. Where the need for ESBs have been identified or explored, they have been seen as a valuable partnership to complement and oversee funding and initiatives directed at the sub‐region, such as City Strategy.

5.26 However, to support this activity, important roles were also identified for national and regional levels to ensure that where an ESB is established, it is accountable and governed effectively to meet the needs of wider sub‐regional and regional economic development when articulating local employment and skills needs.


Findings Paper 27

May 2008

Policy Considerations ‐ Governance

To ensure a transparent and joined‐up approach to governance we would suggest:

1. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills to provide clarity on the role of ESBs particularly regarding their expected remit, linking effectively with DWP, DIUS, BERR and CLG to promote a joined‐up strategy and single voice from the national level.

2. As part of the RDA’s regional coordination role (linking with JCP and LSC), the RDA should in particular provide advice on the development of ESBs, share good practice, create opportunities for discussions between partnerships at the sub‐regional level and ensure a clear and transparent link between the RES and ESBs. Consideration should also be given to performance management arrangements.

3. The sub‐region to ensure clear links to policy developments including the RES and the LAA/MAA covering their area and to scrutinise services provided by agencies such as the LSC and JCP to facilitate them in delivering local priorities. This would ensure local initiatives met local needs and were delivered effectively. This role could be undertaken by the partnership manger.


28 Findings Paper

May 2008

6 Membership Overview

6.1 ESBs and other demand‐led employment and skills partnerships varied greatly in their membership. Most strived for greater employer engagement, having encountered challenges in recruiting employers. However, those ESBs or similar partnerships who were most effective had secured strong buy‐in from senior public sector representatives, had the support of a dynamic and enthusiastic private sector chair, and were managed by an independent partnership manager who provided dedicated support to the partnership ensuring the Terms of Reference and remit of the group were clear and supported by all members. The most successful partnerships used innovative techniques to secure private sector buy‐in, such as work place visits, virtual memberships, newsletters and forums. This section discusses membership issues in relation to ESBs and similar partnerships.

Current membership

6.2 The membership of ESBs varied greatly depending on the partnership. Leitch promoted demand‐led boards to be achieved through leadership of a private sector chair. In reality a range of approaches have developed among ESBs. The approach will necessarily differ depending on the area and the circumstances. Some boards have engaged a private sector chair and strong private sector involvement from the outset, for example, Enterprising Doncaster, others have moved forward with a predominantly public sector presence, for example, the Manchester Skills Board (as part of the Core Cities agenda).

Private sector

6.3 Partnerships appear most successful when a private sector representative takes on the role of Chair and ‘advocate’ of the board, with a small number of additional private sector representatives. However, there is also evidence of other models of private sector engagement designed to promote a demand‐led model, often used to complement the role of a private sector Chair.

Senior level

6.4 The role of the employer is most effective when individuals are at a senior level within their organisation, with a broad understanding of their sector and current and future recruitment and training needs:


Findings Paper 29

May 2008

There is a high quality of debate drawing on all the range of skills in the room. We didn’t agree on everything, but we did have a good debate, drawing on our experiences, to come to a common and strong conclusion.

NW Employer

Enthusiasm

6.5 Many of the public sector respondents mentioned that working with enthusiastic employers adds great value to arrangements. ‘Personality’ and a ‘passion for policy’ were identified as important attributes of employers involved in ESBs to effectively ‘challenge’ and ‘scrutinise’ public services, feeling able to express their thoughts and ‘confidently say’ where they ‘feel an issue has slipped’ (SE Employer):

We had so many ideas that we wanted to put forward and work towards within our strategy.


Leadership skills

6.6 Both public and private sector stakeholders were in agreement that in order to be a successful private sector Chair an employer needs strong leadership skills matched with their enthusiasm to provide the board with ‘momentum’ and ‘drive’:

[The partnership] had a proactive leader... a dynamic, entrepreneurial leader. He was very different to a normal committee‐like Chairman that you will get in the public sector… The messages you need to give about these initiatives are what value you feel employers can make, a clear definition, and good leadership.

NW Employer

6.7 One North West employer described the role of the Chair as an ‘advocate of their vision’ at events to share with other businesses. This appeared important to raise the profile of the work of the board, highlighting to employers that their involvement in such initiatives was making a difference:

[The private sector Chair] should be tasked more directly to engage with other employers. We are missing a trick where we should be using them as advocates.

LSC Representative

Business size

6.8 The size of business did not appear to make a difference to the contribution that an employer could make, however as one RSP manager argued ‘the


30 Findings Paper

May 2008

involvement of the ‘big players’ could be important to raise the profile of the employment and skills agenda amongst those ‘hard‐to reach’ employers’. This inspiration needs to come from establishing a role and vision that ‘business champions will want to be part of.’ Large companies also allow for greater flexibilities for individuals to take on the commitment of a Chair. They are also most likely to be able to participate in any initiatives or partnerships set up to meet local needs, such as an ESB.

Business sector

6.9 Some demand‐led partnerships have focused on key sectors in establishing the membership of their boards. The Merseyside Coalition has representatives covering 12 different sectors. ‘Sector champions’ represent ‘key growth sectors’ in the area the Coalition covers. They look to deliver sector‐focussed projects to promote employment amongst disadvantaged people such as ex‐offenders and Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities. The sector approach has proved effective in some areas, particularly in delivering sector specific delivery projects. However, this does not appear necessary to achieve a successful ESB.

Defined roles

6.10 Evidence suggests that where members have clearly defined roles, the board is more likely to have ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘drive’ to achieve agreed actions. Without these defined roles and a strong leader employers can become ‘disillusioned’ with their involvement:

The original board had a lot of energy and drive. The change of leadership made the original board members lose enthusiasm for the board.

NW Employer

The change of leadership changes the direction of the board… many employers became disillusioned.

NW Employer

6.11 Where employers felt that their role was not clearly defined or that they were not making a difference, the boards were often described as ‘talking shops’. One employer mentioned ‘there were fruitless discussions where the public sector had already made their mind up.’ Another employer said, ‘the meetings were very political, and long… not really producing any results… people were rolling their eyes as meetings took so long.’

Benefits to the partnership

6.12 Involving private sector representatives provides a number of benefits to the ESB. Their presence promotes a demand‐led approach ensuring local needs are articulated, they allow the partnership to gain influence over funding directed to the private sector, they provide an important critique of current


Findings Paper 31

May 2008

arrangements and they allow the partnership to tailor programmes to the individual area for the benefit of local employers and the wider community:

ESH Group and the North East Employer Coalition

Fit for Employment works with young people, providing meaningful work experience to Year 10 and 11 students at a school in the North East. The ESH Group have guaranteed to offer a full time job to 20% of the participants if they achieve 5 GCSEs or more.

The Tyneside Cyrenians: Self Builders project provided real work experience to a group of 13 homeless men with the aim to achieve core units of NVQ in construction, and a foundation course in Health and Safety. The training was delivered in partnership with local training providers, such as Newcastle College. The Employer Coalition facilitated key partners to work effectively together in delivering and supporting these initiatives.

Benefits to the employer

6.13 Where ESBs or similar partnerships are operating effectively, and have good representation from the private sector, employers feel able to influence the strategy and delivery of the employment and skills agenda across their area:

I work in the security industry where you need level 2 to enter it. So we are actually excluded from Train to Gain. It is difficult to get funding for level 3 and [Continuous Professional Development] programmes. On the [partnership], we are saying this to the key players… Over 50 per cent of the representatives on the [partnership] are employers and you are able to challenge the partners to address employer needs on a local basis. This is what skills and employment is all about.

SE Employer

My involvement goes back 15 years. I have always had a passion about education and skills. I had just built up a company during a time of high unemployment. I had a lot of tradesmen who were formerly unemployed so I got involved with various organisations and sub‐groups to help me.”

SE Employer

Defined roles

6.14 Employers felt most satisfaction when it was clear what their role was, and what expertise they could offer to add value. Lessons could be learnt from the City Growth initiatives made up of a ‘board of experts’ with each employer looking at a specific area to promote regeneration in their sub‐region:


32 Findings Paper

May 2008

I was brought in as I had an awareness of corporate social responsibility and how to engage with employers… My skills were a part of why I was approached. Each employer brought something different to the table…


Engaging the private sector

6.15 There is little pooled knowledge to guide successful employer engagement methods and many partnerships encountered challenges in successfully engaging employers. However, there are examples of good practice that can be learnt from.

6.16 Employer engagement at different levels is important to achieve a demand‐led approach which extends beyond the views and opinions of the members of the board. This aspect of employer engagement has been particularly important to engage with those hard‐to reach employers:

A wide range of methods should be used… through our research we carried out, we managed to engage with 1000 employers and raise issues of work‐ready skills needs, and sector clusters with them.


6.17 Methods such as focus groups, forums and employer networking events were found to be important to gain an understanding of the wider employer voice beyond the board members. Within the SE one partnership had successfully recruited virtual members identified through websites, who were included in the dissemination of newsletters and event details, etc. They found that this method raised interest with employers becoming more involved in the partnership. Learning can also be taken from the work of Employer Coalitions and the work now being undertaken by Working Ventures UK.

6.18 Both the public and private sector respondents also suggested the importance of ‘one to one’ contact between the ESB and an employer. As one partnership manager explained ‘through direct engagement with employers’, they had identified ‘a shopping list of skills needs’ asking individual employers what they needed for their business and taking the list away to see what support was available for them. It was through one to one discussions that private sector chairs were most often recruited. The independent partnership manager was key to achieving this, being able to identify with employers, speaking their language and explaining the benefits of their involvements. This has been achieved through partnership managers undertaking site visits and discussing issues on a one to one basis.


Findings Paper 33

May 2008

6.19 Examples of engaging wider numbers of employers include:

City Growth Luton

The key to City Growth lies in the idea of developing geographic industry clusters. On the website, links are included to promote businesses to join a cluster network, stating the benefits of their involvement for their business. Although City Growth agendas are based around a wider economic development agenda, there are benefits for employers to get involved where the sharing of training is encouraged, particularly amongst SMEs.

North East Employer Coalition

In partnership with key agencies working within the employment and skills agenda, Passionate about Employment: North East (April 2007) has published a 12 page guide to employability in the North East aimed at regional employers to highlight the potential of the North East’s vast labour market pool of 250,000 jobless residents. It highlights key issues for employers, such as skills shortages and the importance of training for future demands, but also explains some of the initiatives that are taking place to support employers with contact details given to find out more.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight LSPA

An example of a recent event held in the area was Revitalise your Training Plans this New Year in December 2007, which supported ‘[local authority managers] in getting the most from [their] training budget and improving the skills of [their] people.’ In order to fit in with employers, a session was held between 7:30 – 9:30am and also for lunch between 1:00 – 3:00pm. The event attracted 30 local authority managers.

We have organised events, and we have been getting a good attendance at these meetings... These were organised through the [local partnership’s]… contacts from Business Link has played an important part in engaging with SMEs.

SE Employer

Public sector

6.20 The influence that ESBs can have on sub‐regional strategy appears determined by the level of senior public sector buy‐in. Those boards that have achieved greater public‐sector buy in have greater impact on LAAs and the proposed MAAs; can influence spending of funding initiatives such as LEGI and ESF; and have the seniority to make decisions quickly and agree actions at meetings without having to consult colleagues:

If you don’t get senior‐buy in from the outset, it will be difficult to get buy‐in from below in the organisation. It will be important to get this aspect right from the start.


6.21 A clear Terms of Reference is essential to outline the importance of senior public sector buy‐in and define their role on the board within the context of their own priorities. It is important to involve senior public sector


34 Findings Paper

May 2008

representatives from the outset in defining the Board’s remit to gain genuine buy‐in:

The employers on board are very sector driven… LAA targets keep them driven…senior buy‐in is important.

South Yorkshire Public Sector

Nottingham Skills & Employment Board

The membership consists of significant senior public-sector buy-in which influences a varied agenda. Their remit covers initiatives such as the methods to:

…maximise demand within the employment and skills agenda; influencing their City Strategy as a pathfinder; feed into LAAs, promoting the welfare to work initiatives; and representing the employer voice.

LSC Representative

The partners involved include the LSP, LSC, JCP, Local Authorities and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), all whom have a great commitment to the board. Regional bodies such as the RSP, the RDA and Government Office are observers on the board to oversee developments in the sub-region.

6.22 The presence of public sector representatives as significant employers within many sub‐regions was also seen as important for the memberships of ESBs or similar partnerships.

Partnership manager

6.23 ESBs that have managerial and administrative support are able to undertake tasks on behalf of the board members and ensure agreed actions are completed between meetings. The managerial support has a wider role to play to ensure a successful demand‐led model by engaging with employers and senior public sector representatives and representing the partnership at events within the area, as well as at the regional level linking directly into the RES:

The Partnership manager has real passion – that is what’s got the employers really locked in.

SE Public Sector Partner

6.24 The independent status of a partnership manager is important in facilitating joined‐up working. The partnership manager’s role is placed between the public and private sector as one respondent discussed: ‘when I’m out engaging with employers it is good to be independent from the [public sector partners].’ However, to make progress and achieve results ‘it is useful to have [public sector partners] backing me.’ The Partnership manager is also most effective where they have ‘a good understanding of who the companies are in the area.’ (Yorkshire and Humber Partnership Manager)


Findings Paper 35

May 2008

6.25 This role is well established within several of the South East partnerships:

South East Partnership Managers

The key responsibilities of the SE Partnership Managers are:

• ‘Development of the partnership/Board’- to include developing the strategic vision, ‘supporting’ the leadership and members, ‘build strong working relations’ with members and to ‘map and engage with the appropriate business forums’ in the area;

• ‘Coordination of the partnership/board meetings’ - to include planning and organisation of the meetings and ‘to ensure papers are produced;’

• ‘Development of the Delivery Framework’ - through consultation with the board members and advisors. The partnership manager must ‘ensure actions from the Delivery Framework are implemented;’

• ‘Communications strategy’ – to ensure the ‘Chair, Vice Chair and Key Partners are will briefed and their feedback shapes further development of the partnership/board and its strategy’. They are also tasked to ‘ensure good communications between the local and regional level, and externally; and

• Provide ‘links to the [RSP] and other local partnerships/boards’ – to ‘contribute to the development of the Regional Alliance’ and to ‘network and share best practice with the other partnership/board leads.’

Partnership Manager Job Description

The [Partnership] Managers in these arrangements add great value to the structures in place for both the public and the private sector.

SE Employer

I was visited by the [Partnership Manager] who informed me of their work. I came along to the meeting and I liked what I saw.

SE Employer

[The Partnership Manager] is very personable, not ‘salesy’ at all.

SE Public Sector Representative

6.26 The partnership managers appear most successful where they have senior level experience and a good understanding of the public and private sector, as well as local skills and employment policy and issues:

I have worked in the locality for a long time. I grew up here, and I know the issues well. I have had a background in business so have a good understanding of how employers work.



36 Findings Paper

May 2008

6.27 A dedicated partnership manager is able to provide the ‘customer service’ that employers demand. Their role is solely dedicated to the success of the board and ensuring it works effectively. The wider role they play in employer engagement and trying to raise the profile of skills and employment needs is important across all partners involved with this agenda.

Conclusion

6.28 This chapter has presented ways in which membership can add value to established and emerging ESBs. The contribution of the private sector has been important to highlight areas outside of national priorities and challenge the agendas of partners, such as the LSC and JCP. The private sector membership does not necessarily have to represent the sector make‐up within a region as it appears that individual characteristics such as enthusiasm and strong leadership add the greatest value to the boards.

6.29 Strong private sector representation also helped raise the profile of an ESB when engaging with employers more widely. There were examples of ESBs and similar partnerships that had successfully gained a representative view of employer needs.

6.30 Where there was strong senior public sector buy‐in and support (in particular, from LSC and JCP) ESBs were found to be effective in influencing strategy at a sub‐regional level.

6.31 For the Boards’ wider role in economic development and linking in with other initiatives, an independent partnership manager was found to be a valuable way to raise awareness of the ESB’s vision as well as supporting the members and their roles both within and outside of the Board.


Findings Paper 37

May 2008

Policy Considerations – Membership

To achieve a balanced membership and buy‐in from public and private sector, the following could be considered in future policy developments:

1. Senior public sector posts responsible for employment and skills within JCP, LSC and LAs to include a requirement to engage in ESBs and ensure links to current initiatives.

2. Clear Terms of Reference for the partnership, with defined roles for its members.

3. LAAs and MAAs to collaborate with ESBs in identifying local needs and priorities.

4. Independent partnership managers to be put in place for all ESBs, coordinated by RDAs.

5. To supplement the role of the private sector chair, ESBs should look to broaden employer engagement through innovative techniques such as virtual membership, focus groups and forums.

6. Regional Ministers to raise the profile of ESBs to encourage public and private sector buy‐in and engagement.


38 Findings Paper

May 2008

7 Strategy and delivery Overview

7.1 ESBs and similar partnerships focus on different parts of the strategy‐delivery spectrum with some partnerships exclusively focused on delivery issues, and others involved mainly in the development of strategy within their area. To be successful these partnerships need to have a balance between strategy and delivery and potentially different mechanisms for consulting on each, in order to maximise interest and maintain senior public sector and private sector buy‐in and engagement. This section summarises current activity on the strategy‐delivery spectrum.

Current practice

7.2 Employers identified the benefits they gained from informing delivery issues but also in influencing the wider employment and skills strategy at sub‐regional level:

[The Board had] drive and energy, particularly in the brainstorming stage. We had so many ideas that we wanted to put forward from our area of expertise and work towards within our strategy.

NW Employer

7.3 Nevertheless, without a clear responsibility over strategy, one employer described the board as ‘a solution looking for a problem.’

7.4 Balancing the role that employers have in influencing strategy and delivery is important to keep a range of employers engaged and maintain interest in the work of the boards. One partnership described themselves as a strategic body ‘with a delivery arm for the local level’ (Partnership Manager):

It will be important for future ESBs to consult with us on strategy. We have wide areas of expertise that are not being used... Employers like to comment when strategy affects them.

NW Employer

We are largely delivery focused, but it is important to have the strategic vision… change takes a long time happen, and where employers are saying ʺI have 40 vacancies, I need to fill them now. What are you going to do about it?” Itʹs important for me to tell employers “why donʹt you sponsor


Findings Paper 39

May 2008

some graduates or offer apprenticeships?” Itʹs important for me to challenge views to get them thinking about strategy


7.5 However, it is important to note that not all employers have such a wide ranging interest in strategy, and a majority of employers interests lay in influencing delivery within their area:

It is a certain type of employer who is interested in strategy… those that are enthusiastic about getting involved… those that are frustrated by policy.

Partnership Manager

7.6 There was evidence of Employer Coalitions adapting their approach to strategy and delivery to meet this need, allowing the employers who have a broader interest to influence the strategic agenda at the sub‐regional and regional level, whilst a wider employer voice is engaged at the local level within delivery projects:10

We are strategic at the sub‐regional and regional level. However, we deliver local projects targeting specific groups of people or sectors, such as our construction skills project for ex‐offenders.

Employer Coalition Project Staff

7.7 The use of delivery groups attached to the ESB or partnership such as employer forums may help to bridge the gap between strategy and delivery within employment and skills arrangements.

7.8 There was evidence of other partnerships bridging the gap between strategy and delivery in different ways:

The LSP sub‐groups work closely with the Coalition to deliver our priorities; developing the strategy is the duty of the LSP sub‐group outcomes and the Coalition has the delivery aspects about it… As the Coalition engages with employers, we are able to use this resource.


We see that there will be an employer group of some sort of which we will consult with on delivery. Strategic discussion may stay within the public sector.

NE LA Representative

10 Working Ventures UK have good practice examples of this work available on their website


40 Findings Paper

May 2008

An Executive Group is important to provide momentum…. producing outputs…Employers need to see this.

EM LSC Representative

7.9 There needs to be a balance between delivery for employers to see results on the ground, and strategy to ensure the partnership is able to influence real change across the area they cover and effectively link to the RES. This balance is important to establish, and make clear within the Terms of Reference to ensure maximum buy‐in from senior public sector and private sector representatives, and give clear direction to the ESB.

Conclusion

7.10 ESBs were seen to be both strategic and delivery focussed and the appropriate balance appear will differ according to the sub‐region, board members and local priorities. It would be useful to clarify the scope and responsibilities of ESBs at the national and regional level. Where the balance between strategy and delivery was defined and the role of the ESB clear their activity was most effective. A clear Terms of Reference allowed Board members, and the organisations that they originate from, to understand the remit of the Board and where their strategic and delivery responsibilities lie.

Policy Considerations – Strategy and delivery

In order for ESBs to work effectively across all spatial levels it will be important to consider:

1. The balance between strategy and delivery, setting this out clearly in the partnership’s Terms of Reference.

2. A framework from the national level regarding the scope and remit of ESBs complemented by direction and support to partnerships in developing their TOR from the regional level.

3. Maximise the benefits in using the ESB to focus on a balance between strategy and delivery issues with employer forums to take forward specific delivery issues to promote private and public sector buy‐in.


Findings Paper 41

May 2008

8 Funding Overview

8.1 Funding for ESBs and other employment and skills partnerships again varied greatly. In some areas, the partnership was supported by sub‐regional and regional partners who funded a partnership manager and sometimes additional administrative support. However, funding was often short‐term and not guaranteed, presenting challenges in what the partnership could commit to deliver in the long‐term.

8.2 Most ESB members (both public and private sector) felt that having influence over funding directed to the area, and being able to ‘bend the spend’ from mainstream funding, was more important than securing a separate funding pot for the ESB. However, some called for a small allocation of funds to cover the long‐term costs of the partnership manager and administrative support, payment of the Chair and possibly other private sector members. A small discretionary funding pot was also suggested by some which may enable the ESB to gain some ‘quick wins’, encouraging the support of its members.

Partnership manager and support staff

8.3 As shown in Chapter Six, partnership managers provided added value and enabled many ESBs or similar partnerships to gain drive and momentum, achieving real success. However, funding for these posts is often drawn together with contributions from a number of regional or local organisations such as the LSP, LSC, JCP and the RDA. Some areas have secured additional external funding to fund their administrative posts.

8.4 However, most of these posts across all regions are temporary and attract only short‐term funding making it difficult to commit to longer term projects:

It’s difficult to develop long‐term strategies when arrangements change.

Partnership Manager

8.5 With the lack of funding available for the managerial positions, administrative support has not been available to all partnership managers. Administrative tasks may take priority over important tasks such as engaging with employers and developing the Terms of Reference and action plan. This can constrain the value that these positions can have:

There is no support staff. I try and spend 40 per cent of my time on employer engagement and 60 per cent on working through the action plan. There is just me so Iʹm having to be quite strict with what I have to do as there is so much.... Iʹm


42 Findings Paper

May 2008

very conscious when I meet with employers that I donʹt want to raise aspirations that I wonʹt be able to meet. We are trying to seek additional funding to get administrative support.

Partnership Manager

Chair

8.6 Views on paying private sector board members were mixed. Some felt that this wasn’t necessary, whilst others believed many board members, particularly the Chair, devoted a significant proportion of their time to the partnership and payment for their time or expenses may become necessary:

..it would be useful to have the funding to be able to be pay them for their time.

RSP Manager

8.7 Payment was considered most appropriate where the Chair had contributed to events or conferences and undertaken work as an advocate; this aspect of their work was highly valued by the public sector representatives promoting the work of the partnership. Many of the respondents felt that contributing towards their time spent as advocates could maintain buy‐in.

Influence v discretionary funding pot

8.8 Views were split regarding the funding of ESBs and similar partnerships. A majority of members from both the public and private sector believed that it was more important for the board to have influence over the funding directed to an area for employment and skills:

It’s about having influence over the funding, not necessarily having the funding.

NE Public Sector Member

Having the ability to ‘bend the spend’ and access discretionary funding outside of national priorities.

NW Public Sector Member

8.9 Employers valued the role they play in influencing spending within employment and skills arrangements. This has been particularly evident where local priorities were outside of those set at the national level:

We are able to push the agenda forward on higher level skills. We are able to put forward a case where funding can be spent.

SE Employer


Findings Paper 43

May 2008

One business champion mentions:

Some funding for bricklaying qualifications are restricted to post codes. I wrote an evaluation of the impact of this initiative and some flexibility was allowed here.

Influencing funding streams

There are examples of ESBs and other partners successfully influencing funding streams such as:

• The Alliance Employment and Skills Board have supported and influenced Local Enterprise for Growth Initiatives (LEGI) projects such as the local ‘Making the Connection’ enterprise support strategy.

• The London Skills and Employment Board (LSEB) is to set the framework for the spending of over £400m (pa) through the London LSC adult skills budget.

• The South Yorkshire Work and Skills Boards arrangements have been supported through access to the DAF as City Strategy Pathfinders.

8.10 Other boards have also accessed or established discretionary pots of funding from various partners to support the delivery of bespoke projects in their area to meet local needs for example:

[The RDA] are interested in funding these initiatives as they meet the targets within the RES.

RDA Representative

I can access funding streams that are being fed into Liverpool. There is no central pot, but there are a lot of streams to tap into.

NW ‘Business Champion’

Accessing local discretionary funding pots

HGV Driver Training Programme

This programme was important to pursue as there was a lack of ‘suitable training schemes to boost future driver numbers.’ Employers were encouraged to take part in the recruitment training and driving modules which resulted in a substantial amount of qualified drivers. The project was initially funded by the local LSC and SEEDA. The [local partnership] was then able ‘to secure additional finance through the European Social Fund to train a further 70 drivers from June 2006.’

8.11 However, some stakeholders called for a discretionary pot allocated specifically to an ESB. These partnership members from both the public and private sector believed that much of the progress made by ESBs and similar


44 Findings Paper

May 2008

partnerships was short‐term as it was difficult to commit to long‐term projects with uncertain funding. They also argued that many of the funding streams available had targets attached to national priorities for example DAF funding has to be used in the most deprived wards. A LSC representative commented ‘there is very little we can do outside of the main programmes’.

8.12 There were calls for a small discretionary pot accessible by the ESB or similar partnerships to support specific projects and achieve ‘quick wins’, for example a partnership manager explained that £6000 was required for a specific small project ‘which is a small amount of money on the scale of things, nevertheless, it was difficult to get hold of..… it would be nice to have a small discretionary pot of money to use.’

Conclusion

8.13 Valuable contributions were made by the private sector Chair and the partnership manager in ensuring that boards add value to the employment and skills landscape. Where the region was able to pull together funding to support these important roles, awareness and effectiveness of the employment and skills partnerships was maximised.

8.14 Access to funding has also allowed the boards to direct funding to local delivery projects to provide ‘quick wins’ which provide immediate outputs that private sector representatives see as direct outcomes of their involvement. However, the ability to ‘bend the spend’ in influencing funding for employment and skills across the sub‐region was seen as most important by partnership members.

Policy Considerations – Funding

To appropriately support members of the board and allow ESBs to effectively direct funding to local needs, future policy developments could consider:

1. Partnerships managers, with the support of RDAs, to draw together a discretionary funding pot from sub‐regional and regional stakeholders which can be used for payment of the partnership manager, any necessary administrative support and small scale ‘quick win’ projects.

2. RDAs to consider ways of securing long‐term funding for partnership managers.

3. Partnerships to focus on influencing current funding arrangements where they can make the greatest impact.


Findings Paper 45

May 2008

9 Conclusion 9.1 In conclusion, Employment and Skills Boards provide the opportunity for sub‐

regions and regions to identify local needs and priorities and build upon and streamline current arrangements, ensuring effective links with current policy developments irrespective of the funding they currently receive and the initiatives they are part of.

9.2 However, as discussed throughout this paper, there needs to be flexibility at the sub‐regional level for arrangements to develop that are most appropriate for their area, increased confidence to move ahead with making changes, and a number of actions at the sub‐regional, regional and national level to facilitate ESBs in becoming as effective as possible. These suggested actions are outlined within our policy considerations below.

Landscape

To promote streamlining and ensure ESBs add value to the current landscape future policy development could consider:

1. The national level to play a championing role – supporting ESBs and clarifying the links to national policy. This will provide regions and local areas with the confidence to move forward with plans for ESBs. This role could be taken on by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

2. The regional level to play an active coordination role – having an overview of what exists in the region and advising local areas on potential gaps and overlaps as well as facilitating communication and the sharing of good practice to drive quality and accountability. This role could be taken on by the RDA. Consideration should also be given to appointing independent sub‐regional partnership managers.

3. The local ESB partnership manager or Chair to take a lead role in looking across their sub‐region to ensure they are joining‐up effectively with other partnerships in their area. In particular ensuring links with the local LSC, JCP and the LA.

4. The sub‐regional level to identify local priorities and needs working with the Local Authority to ensure a fit with the LAA/MAA and the proposed new economic duty to undertake an economic assessment of their area.


46 Findings Paper

May 2008

Governance

To ensure a transparent and joined‐up approach to governance we would suggest:

1. The UKCES to provide clarity on the role of ESBs particularly regarding their expected remit, linking effectively with DWP, DIUS, BERR and CLG to promote a joined‐up strategy and single voice from the national level.

2. As part of the RDA’s regional coordination role (linking with JCP and LSC), the RDA should in particular provide advice on the development of ESBs, share good practice, create opportunities for discussions between partnerships at the sub‐regional level and ensure a clear and transparent link between the RES and ESBs. Consideration should also be given to performance management arrangements.

3. The sub‐region to ensure clear links to policy developments including the RES and the LAA/MAA covering their area and to scrutinise services provided by agencies such as the LSC and JCP to facilitate them in delivering local priorities. This would ensure local initiatives met local needs and were delivered effectively. This role could be undertaken by the partnership manger.

Membership

To achieve a balanced membership and buy‐in from public and private sector, the following could be considered in future policy developments:

1. Senior public sector posts responsible for employment and skills within JCP, LSC and LAs to include a requirement to engage in ESBs and ensure links to current initiatives.

2. Clear Terms of Reference for the partnership, with defined roles for its members.

3. LAAs and MAAs to collaborate with ESBs in identifying local needs and priorities.

4. Independent partnership managers to be put in place for all ESBs, coordinated by RDAs.

5. To supplement the role of the private sector Chair, ESBs should look to broaden employer engagement through innovative techniques such as virtual membership, focus groups and forums.

6. Regional Ministers to raise the profile of ESBs to encourage public and private sector buy‐in and engagement.


Findings Paper 47

May 2008

Strategy and delivery

In order for ESBs to work effectively across all spatial levels it will be important to consider:

1. The balance between strategy and delivery setting this out clearly in the partnership’s Terms of Reference.

2. A framework from the national level regarding the scope and remit of ESBs complemented by direction and support to partnerships in developing their TOR from the regional level.

3. Maximise the benefits in using the ESB to focus on a balance between strategy and delivery issues with employer forums to take forward specific delivery issues to promote private and public sector buy‐in.

Funding

To appropriately support members of the board and allow ESBs to effectively direct funding to local needs, future policy developments could consider:

1. Partnerships managers, with the support of RDAs, to draw together a discretionary funding pot from sub‐regional and regional stakeholders which can be used for payment of the partnership manager, any necessary administrative support and small scale ‘quick win’ projects.

2. RDAs to consider ways of securing long‐term funding for partnership managers.

3. Partnerships to focus on influencing current funding arrangements where they can make the greatest impact.


48 Findings Paper

May 2008

Bibliography National publications

Leitch Review of Skills, Prosperity for all in the Global Economy (March 2007) HM‐Treasury: London

Lyons Inquiry into Local Government ‐ Place‐Shaping: A shared ambition for the future of local government (March 2007) HM‐Treasury: London

Review of Sub‐National Economic Development and Regeneration (July 2007) HM‐Treasury: London

Strong and Prosperous Communities: Local Government White Paper (October 2006) Department for Communities and Local Government, London

World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England (July 2007), HM‐Treasury: London

Regional web resources

East of England Skills and Competitiveness Partnership (2007) Regional Profile, http://www.eescp.org.uk/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?art_id=4922&sec_id=2291 [ accessed December 2007]

East of England Skills and Competitiveness Partnership (2006) Work Programme http://www.eescp.org.uk/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?id=4896&sec_id=2284 [accessed December 2007]

Employment, Skills and Productivity Partnership (2007) Employment, Skills and Productivity Partnership Plan available at www.esppartnership.org.uk [accessed November 2007]

Government Office London (2007) Regional Economic Performance http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Economy/Regional_economic_perf/ [accessed November 2007]

London Skills and Employment Board (2007) Draft Strategy available at www.london.gov.uk/lseb/strategy.jsp [accessed December 2008]

Northwest Regional Development Agency (2006) Northwest Regional Economic Strategy available at www.nwda.co.uk [accessed November 2007]

One North East (2006) Leading the Way: Regional Economic Strategy 2006‐2016 available at www.onenortheast.co.uk [accessed September 2007

South East England Development Agency (2007) About the South East http://www.seeda.co.uk/Work_in_the_Region/About_the_South_East/ [accessed November 2007]


Findings Paper 49

May 2008

South East England Development Agency (2006) The Regional Economic Strategy 2006‐2016 Implementation Plan available at www.seeda.co.uk [accessed October 2007]

South West Observatory (2007) South West England Regional Economic Profile, available from South West of England RDA at http://www.southwestrda.org.uk/region/economy/regional‐economic‐pr.shtm [accessed November 2007]

South West Regional Skills Partnership (2007) RSP Priorities http://www.swrsp.org.uk/strategy/priorities/rsp_priorities.asp [accessed December 2007]

West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership (2007) Skills in the Region; http://www.wmskillspartnership.org.uk/skills‐in‐the‐region.html [accessed December 2007]

West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership (2007) Invest in Skills, Improve your Bottom Line available at www.wmskillspartnership.org.uk [accessed December 2007]

Yorkshire Forward (2006) Regional Economic Strategy for Yorkshire and Humber 2006‐2015 available at www.yorkshire‐forward.com [accessed December 2007]

Websites

DWP, www.dwp.gov.uk

BERR, www.berr.gov.uk

DIUS, www.dius.gov.uk

CLG. www.communities.gov.uk

European Social Fund, www.esf.gov.uk

Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. www.neighbourhood.gov.uk

Government Office, www.gos.gov.uk/national

National Employment Panel, www.nationalemploymentpanel.gov.uk

ONS Geography, www.statisticslgov.uk/geography/

They Work for You, www.theyworkforyou.com

Working Ventures UK, www.wvuk.co.uk

One North East Regional Skills Partnership, http://www.onenortheast.co.uk/page/rsp.cfm,


50 Findings Paper

May 2008

North West Regional Skills Partnership, http://www.nwda.com/publications/skills‐and‐education/northwest‐regional‐skills‐part.aspx

Yorkshire and Humber Regional Skills Partnership, http://www.yhrsp.com/

London Skills and Employment Board, www.lseb.gov.uk

Employment, Skills and Productivity Partnership (East Midlands RSP), http://www.esppartnership.org.uk/

The West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership, http://www.wmskillspartnership.org.uk/

East of England Skills and Competitive Partnership, http://www.wmskillspartnership.org.uk/

South West Regional Skills Partnership, http://www.swrsp.org.uk/

Regional Skills for Productivity Alliance, (South East) http://www.seeda.co.uk/Work_in_the_Region/Learning_&_Skills/Skills_for_Productivity/


Findings Paper 51

May 2008

Appendix A Comparative chart of employment and skills partnership models


52 Findings Paper

May 2008

Employment and Skills Board

Employer Coalitions & Fair Cities Board

City Growth Skills and Productivity Alliances

LSP 4th Block Sub-Groups

Spatial level Sub-regional (within and across LA boundaries)

Regional & Sub-regional Sub-regional Sub-regional In line with LAAs

Chairman Private sector (with exceptions)

Private sector Private sector (local business champions)

Private sector (with exceptions)

Largely public sector (Local Authorities)

Membership Dependent on locality Membership ranges from

private sector-led to lack of private sector presence

Membership includes key agencies e.g. JCP, LSC, LA and other main public sector players

Employer chair and presence

Strong employer engagement

Representatives from public sector e.g. JCP

Business champions from each industry cluster (sector focus)

RSP coordinated Public and private sector

presence

Key public partners e.g. LSC, JCP

Representatives from large employers

Representatives from supply side

Funding Key partners e.g. LSC, JCP, LAs

Working Ventures UK Previously funded by the Phoenix Fund which ceased in March 2006.

Now funded by Regional and Sub-regional partners

Regional partners Key partners

Role Mainly strategic – range in influence over employment and skills agenda and role in LAAs/MAAs

Evidence that some Employer Coalitions and Fair Cities Boards have been streamlined into ESBs in some areas e.g. E.Mids, W.Mids

Initially delivery – ECs are more recently strategic e.g. North East

Informing delivery, less strategic

Strategic and delivery Strategic – linked to LAAs/MAAs


Findings Paper 53

May 2008

Employment and Skills Board

Employer Coalitions & Fair Cities Board

City Growth Skills and Productivity Alliances

LSP 4th Block Sub-Groups

Key principles Engage local employers Articulate local market

needs Scrutinise local services Recommend

improvements in integrating labour market and training support

Employer engagement to articulate local skills needs to JCP/ LSC

Develop ‘joined up’ approach to employment and skills objectives

‘Welfare to Work’ – focus on disadvantaged. FCBs focus particularly on ethnic minority communities

ECs are developing sector emphasis/focus

Employer networks for promoting sector collaboration

Desk-based analysis to provide local area information in relation to employment and skills

Focus on business growth and entrepreneurship

Engage local employers Promote skills needs Coordinate public sector

support for delivering programmes at local level

Coordinating and ensuring the LAA is implemented

Outlines responsibilities for the targets

Good practice Development stages have shown robust consultation periods

ESB challenge public sector partners in delivering joined-up approach

Project Support Staff and Implementation teams

Forums for employers to engage with public sector

Focus on disadvantaged

Research into local economy, ‘industry clusters’ and promoting networking amongst private sector

Regional coordination Achievements in

delivering across all skills levels e.g. work with HEI/ HEFCE and JCP with long term unemployment

Coordination of the Economic Development Network.

Directing funding Developing City

Employment Strategy

Examples London Skills and Employment Board (LSEB)

Alliance Employment and Skills Board (Alliance ESB)

Nottingham Skills Board

North East Employer Coalition

Fair Cities Birmingham

Plymouth Business Growth

Luton Business Growth Manchester Knowledge

Capital

Kent and Medway Local Skills for Productivity Alliances

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Skills for Productivity Alliance

Salford Employment and Skills Group

Blackburn and Darwen Employment and Skills Group

CFEPhoenix YardUpper Brown StreetLeicesterLE1 5TE

0116 229 3300

www.cfe.org.uk

employment and skills boards- current and potential role

Documents