Project Evaluation

					                                                        City Pride and Stockport Equal Partnership
                                                                    DRAFT Final Evaluation Report




              Valuing Your Views
              Gwerthuso Eich Farn



                                                 Equal External Evaluation
                                                  City Pride and Stockport
                                                  Manchester Sub-Region

                                                               FINAL DRAFT
                                                     Final Evaluation Report




Prepared for:               Manchester Enterprises
Prepared by:                Wavehill Consulting

                                                                                    May 2005




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      1
Contents


Section Title                                                           Page

    1        Concise Executive Summary                                    3
   1.1       List of Recommendations                                      7

    2        Introduction                                                 12
   2.1       The Report and its Context                                   12
   2.2       Methodology                                                  13
   2.3       Structure of the Report                                      13

    3        Background to the programme                                  14
   3.1       EQUAL                                                        14
   3.2       Composition of the Development Partnership                   15
   3.3       Decision Making                                              15
   3.4       Baseline Issues                                              16
   3.5       The Partnership‟s Objectives                                 16
   3.6       The Approved Projects                                        17
   3.7       Transnational Work                                           18
   3.8       Summary                                                      19

    4        Appraisal of management and output data                      20
   4.1       The Partnership‟s Progress Against Objectives                20
   4.2       The Projects Progress Against Output Targets                 26

    5        Stakeholder, Project, and Beneficiary Analysis              31
   5.1       Stakeholder, Transnational, and Appraisal Group analysis    31
   5.2       Projects and Beneficiary analysis                           49
   5.3       Projects Conclusions                                        130

    6        Comparative Partnerships                                    137
   6.1       Approved Development Partnerships                           137
   6.2       Approved Development Partnerships with Common Interests     138
   6.3       Common Issues Between CP&S and Other Partnerships           143

    7        Overall Conclusions                                         148




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                     2
1.       Concise Executive Summary


Introduction

This is the Concise Executive Summary of the external final evaluation of the City Pride &
Stockport (CP&S) Equal Programme. An Extended Executive Summary is also available.

Taken as a whole, this is a very positive evaluation for CP&S, and the fact that some
criticisms and recommendations for change are made should not take away from this overall
positive view.


Background

Equal and the Development Partnership

Equal is an initiative, funded by the ESF, that “tests and promotes new means of combating
all forms of discrimination and inequalities faced by those most disadvantaged in the labour
market, both those in work, and those seeking work, through Transnational co-operation”.

City Pride & Stockport Partnership has chosen to pursue the Employability Pillar, Theme A:
“Facilitating access and return to the labour market for those who have difficulty in being
integrated or re-integrated into a labour market which must be open to all”.

The Partnership lead partner is Manchester Enterprises. Core partners are: the City Councils
of Manchester and Salford and the Metropolitan Boroughs of Stockport, Tameside and
Trafford; the Community Foundation and the Greater Manchester Council of Voluntary
Organisations; the Employment & Regeneration Partnership; The Learning & Skills Council;
Jobcentre Plus; Better Choices. These core partners are distinct from the delivery partners
(i.e. the projects).

This final evaluation comes as the Partnership is completing Action Two.

The Partnership’s Objectives

        To develop new ways of working with employers in order to increase awareness of
         the issues facing disadvantaged groups;
        To provide additional support for beneficiaries to facilitate access to training &
         employment opportunities, especially where target group(s) are under-represented in
         particular vocational areas;
        To develop new partnerships/networks in order to raise awareness of exclusion
         issues and seek new opportunities for target groups;
        To develop new training materials and new approaches to mentoring support;
        To provide support/awareness raising for employers and advice agencies in order to
         positively promote the beneficiaries;
        To establish protocols/develop good practice guidance for recruitment and retention
         of under-represented groups;
        To develop a multi-modal approach to the therapeutic and social/employment needs
         of younger people with early psychosis;
        The continued development of sub-projects;
        To evaluate all sub-projects to assess impact on target groups;
        To evaluate the model over project duration in all areas;
        To work with our chosen Transnational partnership to develop and deliver a project to
         measure the impact of incentives designed to encourage people into work. A second
         phase will transfer good practice via a series of pilot projects within the Transnational
         partnership.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      3
The CP&S Equal programme had a wide array of target groups it proposed to engage with:
Women; Lone parents; Black and minority ethnic people; Older workers; Homeless; Ex-
offenders; Disabled people; Young people otherwise socially excluded; those with health,
drug/alcohol dependency or mental health issues; those facing multiple disadvantage in
deprived areas.

Projects approved

A total of 21 projects were approved as part of the CP&S Equal programme, with one of these
projects being cancelled.

Transnational Work

There are two Transnational partners, based in Catalonia (Barcelona Activa) and Paris (CNA
Ceefag).


Project and Partnership Progress

The Partnership’s progress against objectives

The CP&S programme has made good or satisfactory progress against all of its objectives,
and there have been important lessons learnt, as detailed within the full report.

The Projects’ progress against output targets

In Wavehill‟s opinion, the majority of projects have made average to excellent progress
towards output targets.


Stakeholder, Project, and Beneficiary Interview Analysis

Shaping the Programme to meet local needs

The majority of stakeholders felt that the programme had effectively been shaped to meet
local needs. Wavehill feels that the programme was adequately tailored to meet identified
local needs.

Innovation

An overwhelming majority of stakeholders felt that the programme and the projects displayed
innovation. The majority of the projects also seemed to have a good grasp of the principle of
innovation.

Empowerment

The majority of stakeholders did feel that the programme had empowered people. Wavehill‟s
own beneficiary evaluation indicates that empowerment has occurred across the programme.

The projects all seemed to have a good grasp of the principle of empowerment. Overall,
Wavehill is satisfied that the projects generally had a high level of impact in terms of
beneficiary empowerment.

Equal Opportunities

All stakeholders felt that “Equal Opportunities” was at the heart of everything that the
Partnership did. Wavehill is satisfied that the principles of EO are understood and acted on by
the Partnership.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    4
Mainstreaming

The majority of stakeholders felt that the projects did have mainstreaming potential, although
a wide range of barriers to mainstreaming have been recognised.

Some projects were experiencing difficulties with mainstreaming. This generally related to the
fact that projects felt that there was no money to mainstream their particular service.
Mainstreaming is difficult, as it involves displacing finite funds from elsewhere. Only if a
project displays significant advantages over existing models of delivery – i.e. it displays best
practice – can it be mainstreamed as whole.

Projects will need to be encouraged to think of how the knowledge they have gained during
the lifetime of their project can be used by other agencies if the project in its entirety is not to
carry on. Projects therefore need to develop an Exit Strategy, rather than a Forward Strategy,
in order to ensure that good practice can be disseminated for use by other projects.

Dissemination

The projects all had a good grasp of dissemination and were aware that it needed to occur,
but were waiting for the end of their project before they began dissemination work. Again,
projects need to have a clear focus as to whether their dissemination work is an Exit or
Forward strategy.

Transnational work

There were mixed feelings from some stakeholders on the effectiveness of the transnational
element of the work, but the overall view was generally positive.

Best Practice from the Projects

Many different elements of best practice were identified across the programme delivery.

        Taking a flexible person-centred approach.
        Willingness to change and adapt a project to suit clients.
        Involving employers in the development of the training course content.
        Involving employers / industry representatives on the project’s steering group.
        Holding an event to acknowledge participant’s achievements.
        Employing target groups within the project.
        Linking up isolated communities to transport.
        Providing post entry job support or mentoring support.
        Providing an informal, welcoming and relaxed environment.
        Focussing on areas of skills shortage.
        Using evidence of success stories to overcome negative attitudes.
        Use of staff with local knowledge.
        Linking in with the other service providers.


Lessons for the future

Most stakeholders felt that the key lesson from the Programme would be the ability to inform
the mainstream about projects that had worked as part of Equal, and which could successfully
be transferred to and delivered in the mainstream.

Projects also identified a range of lessons learnt from the process.

        Involve employers early within the project set-up
        Senior management to be involved in monitoring and evaluation
        Continuity for the client
        Partnership working to enhance opportunities


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        5
        Appropriate advertising and promotion
        Independence from the mainstream
        Early assessment of client skills
        Celebrating success
        Vocational activity


Summary of the Projects’ Evaluations

Overall, the quality of the projects‟ own evaluations has been variable.

Beneficiary Interviews

Please note that beneficiary interview data analysis is presented on a project-by-project basis
within the full report, as this individual approach is the most useful in terms of evaluation.

Overall, beneficiary satisfaction across all projects was high, with clear evidence of distance
travelled gathered during Wavehill‟s own consultations.


Comparative Partnerships

Wavehill would conclude that CP&S has performed well in comparison with other partnerships
from a small sample. Innovation, best practice, and empowerment have been clearly in
evidence across several CP&S projects.

In addition, CP&S progress towards output targets was, as a whole, good, and its
transnational work was generally well-received. This would indicate that CP&S has been a
successful partnership that could well provide lessons for the future for other partnerships.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    6
1.1 List of Recommendations

This list draws together all of the recommendations made within the report.


Recommendation One

Issue: Deliverers and stakeholders feel that they would benefit from closer partnership
working within the UK.
Evidence: Project and stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: Using the evidence from the comparative section of this report, select
appropriate national partners, and begin to set up working links with them. These links could
be particularly useful during Action Three, and Wavehill understands that study visits are
already being planned for the future.



Recommendation Two

Issue: Projects did not make full use of the evaluation and monitoring support that was
available from Manchester Enterprises.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s project interviews.
Recommendation: Projects should make full use of the support available from ME during
Action Three. This will help them to plan and co-ordinate their activities, back-up findings with
relevant statistical data, and ensure as wide a dissemination coverage as possible. (Please
also see the recommendations contained within the full project review section of this report).



Recommendation Three

Issue: As projects developed over time, it occasionally became apparent that output targets
were not realistic or achievable. For a project to know that it is going to fail to achieve its
targets can be demoralising. It also takes the focus away from the lessons learned and onto
the fact that the project “failed” in some way. As noted, just because a project performed
badly against targets did not necessarily mean that it was lacking in some way, or badly
delivered. Conversely, if a project significantly exceeds its targets, there could be room for
complacency and, again, a failure to clearly identify lessons learned.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s interviews with projects and stakeholders. Project evaluations.
Wavehill‟s review of project progress.
Recommendation: In future, where it can clearly be shown that output targets are not
realistic or achievable, there should be scope to revise targets to a more realistic level. If
output targets are shown to be too low, they should be revised upwards.



Recommendation Four

Issue: Whilst core stakeholder participation remained at a healthy level, it should be
acknowledged that involvement of some stakeholders in the programme does appear to have
lessened over time. This may be because stakeholders feel that the programme is now
drawing to an end, and their involvement is no longer crucial to the success of the
programme.
Recommendation: Whilst the reduction in involvement is in some ways understandable,
some stakeholders will need to resume their previous high level of involvement with the
process to steer Action Three. This is a crucial part of the programme, and commitment will
be required from stakeholders if it is to work well. ME may be able to use this evaluation as a



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     7
catalyst for rekindling interest and enthusiasm about the programme, and Action Three,
amongst stakeholders.



Recommendation Five

Issue: Stakeholders‟ former high level of involvement needs to be re-instated for Action
Three, in order to ensure the success of this element of the programme. As part of this
process, it will be helpful for Stakeholders to be guided through a process of examining their
role within the Partnership. For example: Who will represent their organisation? What will their
role and responsibilities be? What do they expect to give to the process? What do they expect
to get from the process? What added value can they bring?
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: ME should seek to use this evaluation as a catalyst for generating
additional involvement in Action Three. There should be a workshop or discussion session
with stakeholders to discuss the questions asked above, and to begin the process of moving
forwards. The Partnership must therefore take on an active role within Action Three to move
the projects into a forward or exit strategy, providing steering and direction wherever possible.
This is a strategic responsibility for the Partnership, and the projects must not be left to
attempt mainstreaming activities in isolation. This co-ordinated approach is essential if the
work that has occurred and the lessons that have been learned in Action Two are not to be
wasted.



Recommendation Six

Issue: The majority of Stakeholders felt that the programme did meet local needs, whilst a
minority of stakeholders felt that the programme had not effectively met these needs. This
difference of opinion may be due to the fact that local needs can change over time, or delivery
of projects can change. This highlights the need for building flexibility of delivery to be built
into the projects. In Wavehill‟s opinion, from research, interviews, and its interim evaluation,
the project was built on sound research of local needs.
Evidence: Stakeholder interviews. Wavehill‟s interim evaluation. Wavehill‟s beneficiary
interviews.
Recommendation: As part of Action Three, the original research for the programme could be
revisited. The programme could examine how these identified needs were met by the
projects, being specific wherever possible, and highlight the impact that the projects have had
on the identified groups.



Recommendation Seven

Issue: There were concerns among some stakeholders about the sustainability of the
empowerment that had occurred amongst beneficiaries of the projects.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: If it is possible, it may be useful for some projects to monitor the progress
of their beneficiaries in the future. This could be done, for example, by conducting a brief
telephone interview with the client once every six months for two to three years. This would
build up a picture of the continuing impact of the projects on individuals, and assess the
sustainability of the empowerment that occurred. In addition, this would also enable the
programme to see whether the intervention provided by the projects was successful in moving
beneficiaries on beyond their first entry-level job. Wavehill appreciates that such long-term
monitoring may not be possible due to funding restrictions, but it is a recommendation that
should still be considered wherever possible.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     8
Recommendation Eight

Issue: Stakeholders identified a wide range of different barriers to the successful
mainstreaming of the projects.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: The Partnership, as part of initial Action Three work, needs to clearly
identify the potential barriers to mainstreaming and work as a group to identify possible ways
around them. The Partnership‟s members are, in many cases, mainstream organisations that
could hold the key to overcoming some of these barriers. Clear identification of the barriers,
and discussion of the ways around them, could kick-start the process. Wavehill has begun to
identify these barriers as part of this evaluation, but to explore them more deeply, and to
assess potential solutions, needs the knowledge and expertise of the partners (both
stakeholders and projects) themselves.



Recommendation Nine

Issue: Stakeholders identified a range of important lessons learned from the programme
including, crucially, the ability of the projects to inform the mainstream.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: All of the lessons learned need to be considered by the Partnership at the
earliest possible opportunity, so that they can be taken on board during Action Three. These
include: informing the mainstream about projects that have worked as part of Equal, and how
elements of their best practice can be delivered by mainstream agencies; strengthening links
at local authority level across the sub-region; mainstream agencies providing funding for
innovation not tied to high outputs; and developing initiatives to target the economically
inactive. This discussion could be linked into the recommendation above, as there are
common issues between the two.



Recommendation Ten

Issue: There was a high level of innovation within the projects, which needs to be clearly
recognised and disseminated as part of Action Three.
Evidence: Project and stakeholder interviews. Wavehill‟s interim evaluation.
Recommendation: The projects themselves need to clearly identify the areas of their work
that were particularly innovative, and prepare to share this information with others as part of
the dissemination process. This evaluation has gone some way to identifying innovation, but it
is the projects themselves that hold the detailed knowledge of what worked, how it worked,
and why. Action Three could therefore begin with the projects preparing materials such as
written summaries on innovative practice, which could be brought together into an all-project
“innovation encyclopaedia” for sharing both within and beyond the Partnership.



Recommendation Eleven

Issue: Projects are concerned that their work will not be mainstreamed if their project in its
entirety is not to carry on. Projects therefore need to be encouraged to instead think of how
the knowledge they have gained during the lifetime of their project can be used by other
agencies, rather than their project being picked up as a whole.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder and project interviews.
Recommendation: Some projects, such as Headstart, have taken steps to ensure that they
had mainstreamed lessons learned as they moved through the project, in order to embed
these new activities within the parent organisation. Other projects may be able to replicate
this. In addition, many projects, such as Will to Work and Realise, had developed materials


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   9
that could or are being used by other projects and mainstream agencies. In addition, Gorton
Gateway has now had its activities mainstreamed through a range of agencies working
together to keep up the delivery of the Gateway‟s services. These opportunities, and others
like them as identified within this evaluation, need to be developed within Action Three.



Recommendation Twelve

Issue: This final evaluation has identified that some projects have left the issue of
mainstreaming until the very end of the process, and Wavehill saw little evidence of structured
mainstreaming plans.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s project interviews.
Recommendation: For those projects that have not addressed mainstreaming issues, urgent
action must be taken as part of Action Three to make the most of any remaining opportunities.
It may be possible to facilitate this process through workshops with projects and mainstream
providers, where projects can discuss their options for mainstreaming elements of their work.
This process could be kick-started with a celebratory event to raise publicity.



Recommendation Thirteen

Issue: Again, some projects were waiting for the end of the programme before they began
dissemination, although for some this may be necessary in order to gather final results. Again,
Wavehill saw little evidence of structured dissemination plans.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s project interviews.
Recommendation: The projects now need to address this issue with some urgency, and
develop brief but structured plans for dissemination. The kick off for dissemination activity
could be tied into the celebratory event for mainstreaming, as detailed above. However, it
should be remembered that mainstreaming and dissemination are not just the responsibility of
the projects, and the process should be co-ordinated and led by the core partners.




Recommendation Fourteen

Issue: This evaluation found that the projects displayed a wide range of best practice as
detailed within this section of the report.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder, project, and beneficiary interviews.
Recommendation: That a summary of best practice, using the information produced by
Wavehill as a starting point, is produced. As with the information on innovative practice, this
element needs to be led by the projects themselves. The resulting “best practice
encyclopaedia” could then be used extensively in mainstreaming and dissemination work.



Recommendation Fifteen

Issue: The lack of thorough internal evaluations of each project will be a hindrance in future.
In Wavehill‟s opinion, the evaluation process should have been relatively straightforward and
not too time-consuming if the projects were monitoring their own performance throughout their
delivery, with the final evaluation proforma simply offering a vehicle to bring together these
findings in a relatively concise format. When projects are run using limited staffing and
funding levels, as Wavehill appreciates that many of these projects are, then evaluation has
to be planned into the project from the outset. Compared to other projects Wavehill has
worked on, the final internal evaluation requirements were not particularly onerous.
Evidence: Interviews with projects and stakeholders. Wavehill‟s evaluation experience.



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   10
Recommendation: In future programmes, evaluation requirements must be built into the
delivery of the programme. This could be on a continuous evaluation basis, with sections of
the evaluation being delivered at different stages of the programme. To ensure compliance,
penalties may have to be imposed on those who do not deliver the required element on time.
This may seem heavy handed, but the entire purpose of the Equal programme is to inform the
mainstream so that activities that are proven to work can be carried on. If projects are not
properly evaluated on an individual basis, then this cannot happen, and the sustainability of
the programme is lost. In addition, an evaluation document is also a marketing document and
– if it shows that there is a clear benefit to the approach taken and that the cost per output
analysis is favourable or better than that which agencies are already buying in – then can be
used as the basis for approaching potential mainstream agencies in order to obtain new
funding. In the future, evaluation must be recognised as a cornerstone to sourcing forward
funding.




Recommendation Sixteen

Issue: One external UK partnership was particularly innovative in the way that it enabled
direct beneficiary involvement at the strategic decision making level.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s review of the activities of other partnerships.
Recommendation: That consideration is given to facilitating direct beneficiary feedback to
mainstream agencies during Action Three activities. This could possibly be facilitated through
workshops at celebratory events.



Recommendation Seventeen

Issue: There were few clear examples of best practice from other UK partnerships.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s review of the activities of other partnerships.
Recommendation: Ecotec is currently undertaking a programme-wide review of Equal
activities and evaluations. Wavehill would hope that best practice and lessons learnt will be
identified within this review and, if this is the case, CP&S should be able to identify the issues
that are pertinent to its own activities.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     11
2.       Introduction

2.1      The report and its context

This report is the external final evaluation of the City Pride & Stockport (CP&S) Equal
Programme, which covers the areas of: Manchester, Salford, Trafford, Tameside, and
Stockport.

As part of its Equal programme, the lead partner, Manchester Enterprises (ME), sought an
external evaluator to examine progress towards the Programme‟s 11 key objectives, and to
evaluate levels of innovation, empowerment, equal opportunities, mainstreaming,
dissemination, transnational activities, good or best practice, and lessons learned.

Wavehill Consulting was awarded the contract to undertake the external final evaluation.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                 12
2.2      Methodology

The methodology used to explore the effectiveness of the programme is based on Wavehill‟s
principles of extensive consultation at Strategic, Delivery, and Impact level. This involves the
following elements:

        Preparatory desk-based research, including assimilating the results of the internal
         evaluation work undertaken by project managers in conjunction with programme staff.
        Interviews with the Programme Manager and other staff at ME.
        Interviews with Stakeholders.
        Face to face and telephone interviews with delivery projects.
        Direct beneficiary work, including focus groups, questionnaires and telephone
         interviews.

A breakdown of the completed elements of the research is detailed in the following table:


                                 Activity                              Number Completed

Interviews with staff at ME                                                      2
Interviews with delivery project managers                                       20
Interviews with Stakeholders                                                    11
Interviews with those involved with the Transnational Partnership                2
Interviews with those involved with the Appraisal Group                          2
Desk Research                                                            Research into key
                                                                            documents
Focus groups undertaken                                                          2
Telephone interviews with beneficiaries                                         71
Self-completion questionnaires completed by beneficiaries                       10
Review of additional beneficiary data from the projects                          7
Interviews with project tutors                                                   4

Thus a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used as part of the
assessment.


2.3      Structure of the report

The report is structured in the following way.

The report begins with a Concise Executive Summary, followed by a list of the
recommendations contained within the report. Please note that an Extended Executive
Summary is also available as a stand-alone document.

The introductory and background sections give the context of the report, and explains a little
of the background of Equal programme. The Methodology used by Wavehill is outlined, with
numbers and type of interviews noted. In addition, the composition and the decision-making
processes of the partnership are also outlined, along with an overview of its objectives,
including the transnational element of the work.

This is followed by a full review of the Partnership‟s progress against objectives, along with a
thorough appraisal of the management and output data of the projects. Wavehill then uses its
own extensive consultations with stakeholders, projects, and beneficiaries to provide an a
detailed review of progress, along with recommendations for the future.

Finally, a comparison with other Development Partnerships is undertaken, and the progress
of CP&S reviewed in this context.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    13
 3.       Background to the programme

 3.1      Equal

 Equal is an initiative, funded by the ESF, that “tests and promotes new means of combating
 all forms of discrimination and inequalities faced by those most disadvantaged in the labour
 market, both those in work, and those seeking work, through Transnational co-operation”. In
 that regard it can be thought of in terms of “Action Research”. It operates on a thematic basis,
 based on the four pillars of the European Employment Strategy (EES) (Employability,
 Entrepreneurship, Adaptability, Equal Opportunities/Asylum Seekers).

 An EQUAL programme comprises three Actions:

         Action One: Preparation
         Action Two: Implementation
         Action Three: Dissemination

 Through its EQUAL programme, the City Pride & Stockport Partnership has chosen to pursue
 the Employability Pillar. Within that Pillar, the partnership is implementing its activity through
 Theme A:

 “Facilitating access and return to the labour market for those who have difficulty in being
 integrated or re-integrated into a labour market which must be open to all”.

 This final evaluation comes as the Partnership is completing Action Two (Implementation) and
 moving into Action Three (Dissemination), and covers Action Two work only (please see
 Wavehill‟s interim evaluation for a full review of Action One).


Key CP&S                       Equal Activity              CP&S Activity                   Other1
Action dates

 1      Nov ‟01 –      Setting up Development      DPA successfully set up.         Action 1 & 2 are
        May „02        Partnerships and            Projects considered in three     sequential
                       transnational co-operation. phases.
                       Preparation of activities.

 2       May ‟02 – Implementing the work     Project work is, in the main,
         Dec ‟04    programmes of the        completed, with only a
         (March 05) Development Partnerships handful of projects carrying
                                             some activity through to
                                             March 05.


 3      On going   Thematic networking,            Networking occurred              Action 3 should
        throughout dissemination of good           throughout Action 2.             start at the earliest
        Action 2   practice, and impacting on                                       point that results
                   national policy                                                  are able to be
                                                                                    disseminated.

 4                     Technical assistance to     ME‟s research work was
                       support actions 1,2 and 3   extensive at the start of the
                                                   Programme.




 Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      14
3.2       Composition of the Development Partnership

In accordance with EQUAL guidance, a Development Partnership (DP) was established to
implement the programme in the Manchester Sub-region; this is the City Pride and Stockport
Partnership. The Sub-region itself covers the Metropolitan areas of Manchester, Salford,
Trafford, Tameside and Stockport.

The lead partner is Manchester Enterprises, which is responsible for the strategic
organisation of the programme, the monitoring and external evaluation. The other core
partners are:

         The five relevant local authorities. These are the City Councils of Manchester and
          Salford and the Metropolitan Boroughs of Stockport, Tameside and Trafford;
         Two voluntary sector umbrella organisations, namely the Community Foundation and
          the Greater Manchester Council of Voluntary Organisations;
         The Employment & Regeneration Partnership. Effectively this is a sister organisation
          of Manchester Enterprises and maintains very close links with ME as a result.
          However, it should be noted that ERPs role has focussed very much on delivery
          during the Action Two period;
         The Learning & Skills Council (Greater Manchester);
         Jobcentre Plus
         Better Choices (formerly The Careers Partnership), which provides the Connexions
          Service locally. Again, this is part of the ME Group.

These core partners are distinct from the delivery partners (i.e. the projects).

Within the Interim Evaluation, carried out by Wavehill in December 2003, it was identified that
there was potential to expand the membership of the Partnership, and two recommendations
for possible new members were put forward. These were:

         To include Colleges of Further Education (in order to improves access to Basic Skills
          and IT training)
         To re-include Chamber Business Enterprises – now Chamber Link – (in order to
          increase opportunities for exploring self-employment options).

As neither recommendation was adopted, it seems that the Partnership felt that these needs
were being met adequately from within the existing range of partners and projects.


3.3       Decision Making

A Board, made up of core partners, undertakes the decision-making process on behalf of the
full Partnership. The meetings are facilitated by Manchester Enterprises.

Other relevant bodies within the core partnerships are (or were):

(a)       Appraisal Group: This comprised of representatives of the core partners, but not the
          same ones that represented the partners on the Board. This ensured good separation
          of the appraisal and approval processes.
(b)       Transnational Group: This steered the partnership‟s Transnational activities;
(c)       Mainstreaming Group: This group considers all matters relating to the mainstreaming
          of successful projects.

The delivery of projects themselves was contracted out to Delivery Partners. The delivery
partners were required to submit quarterly monitoring information in a quantitative way, along
with a final report detailing progress against the objectives of the project, both quantitative
and qualitative.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   15
Project officers were encouraged to meet at a Delivery Partners Network, to discuss a range
of issues.

3.4       Baseline Issues

Extensive baseline research was undertaken by ME in order to inform the development of the
Equal programme in the area.

The Baseline Research was undertaken for a number of reasons, but principally:

         To identify and source all information on discrimination and labour market exclusion;
         To provide a profile of labour market exclusion;
         Identify key labour market exclusion issues;
         Provide data to be used to provide baseline measures;
         Identify gaps in the information base.

Wavehill‟s Interim Evaluation of December 2004 looked in detail at the research undertaken,
and confirmed that the research provided an excellent basis on which to build the
programme‟s activities. (Please refer to the Interim Evaluation for the full review of the
research).


3.5       The Partnership’s Objectives

As well as the overall objective implicit within Theme A of the Equal guidance, CP&S also
developed a number of local objectives:

1.        To develop new ways of working with employers in order to increase awareness of
          the issues facing disadvantaged groups;

2.        To provide additional support for beneficiaries to facilitate access to training &
          employment opportunities, especially where target group(s) are under-represented in
          particular vocational areas;

3.        To develop new partnerships/networks in order to raise awareness of exclusion
          issues and seek new opportunities for target groups;

4.        To develop new training materials and new approaches to mentoring support;

5.        To provide support/awareness raising for employers and advice agencies in order to
          positively promote the beneficiaries;

6.        To establish protocols/develop good practice guidance for recruitment and retention
          of under-represented groups;

7.        To develop a multi-modal approach to the therapeutic and social/employment needs
          of younger people with early psychosis;

8.        The continued development of sub-projects;

9.        To evaluate all sub-projects to assess impact on target groups;

10.       To evaluate the model over project duration in all areas;

11.       To work with our chosen Transnational partnership to develop and deliver a project to
          measure the impact of incentives designed to encourage people into work. A second
          phase will transfer good practice via a series of pilot projects within the Transnational
          partnership.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      16
These are the objectives against which the success of the programme will be measured in
terms of “outcomes”.

The CP&S Equal programme had a wide array of target groups it proposed to engage with:

        Women;
        Lone parents;
        Black and minority ethnic persons;
        Older workers;
        Homeless;
        Ex-offenders;
        Disabled people;
        Homeless persons;
        Young people otherwise socially excluded;
        Those with health, drug/alcohol dependency or mental health issues;
        Those facing multiple disadvantage in deprived areas.

A detailed analysis of progress against objectives is presented within the following section of
this report.

3.6      Projects approved

A total of 21 projects were approved as part of the CP&S Equal programme, with one of these
projects being pulled.

The projects approved were:


Project                                      Brief Description
Breakthrough in Tameside                     A series of workshops and training sessions geared
                                             towards healthcare professionals and employers to
                                             acquaint them with the potential of introducing disabled
                                             people into the world of work.
ECHG Accommodating Work                      The project, managed by a social landlord, attempted to
                                             break down pre-conceptions held by employers about
                                             employing ex-offenders.
Crime Doesn‟t Pay                            An opportunity for ex-offenders to work as peer mentors
                                             with at risk groups of young people.
Aspire Textile Recycling                     Provision of transitional paid employment in a recycling
                                             project, along with training and job search support, for
                                             homeless, ex homeless, and ex offenders.
Active Participation                         A project to enable disadvantaged persons in
                                             Wythenshawe, but particularly lone parents, the long
                                             term unemployed and ex-offenders.
Gorton Gateway                               The project offers a range of locally accessible services
                                             to the Gorton community in order to tackle
                                             employability, housing, debt, poverty, and basic skills
                                             issues.
Big Life IAG                                 An information, advice, and guidance programme for
                                             marginalised groups including the homeless and Big
                                             Life trainees.
Big Life Video Diaries                       A programme to record structured interviews with Big
                                             Issue vendors and project trainees in order to measure
                                             personal progression and to reference training, work
                                             experience, and welfare rights issues.
Big Life Childcare Staffing                  A project to provide NVQ training in childcare for
                                             marginalised people, with a focus on making links with
                                             employers in order to move the trainees on to jobs.
Learning Bus                                 A mobile learning and training facility to meet the IT and

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                           17
                                             Basic Skills needs of disadvantaged Salford
                                             communities.
Better Choices                               A project to work with employers and young people,
                                             ensuring that employers expectations are not unrealistic
                                             and that young people are fully aware of what a job
                                             entails.
Bridging The Gap                             A programme to train and find work placements for
                                             disadvantaged groups, mainly ex substance users, to
                                             take advantage of the current staff shortage within the
                                             health and social care field.
Young Persons Transition Project             A project to attract young people who have disengaged
                                             from other service providers, and to assist their
                                             transition from education to employment.
In the Picture Media Training                Training workshops to enable people from
                                             disadvantaged backgrounds (but particularly single
                                             parents and disabled people) to enter media
                                             employment.
HSBP Will to Work                            A project to increase the employability of blind and
                                             visually impaired people, by providing training and
                                             educational opportunities for the visually impaired,
                                             whilst also raising employer awareness.
Headstart Mental Health Best                 A project in Tameside to encourage local employers to
Practice Model                               change attitudes regarding employing people with
                                             mental health problems.
Realise                                      A project to support women by providing training to
                                             develop their potential for employment.
Young People with Early                      Run by Pennine Care NHS Trust, this project works
Psychosis                                    with employers and individual beneficiaries to identify
                                             ways of enabling young people with psychosis to enter
                                             the world of work.
Wheels on Wheels                             A project in Tameside to engage young offenders in a
                                             social enterprise as a means of deterring them from
                                             crime and increasing their employability.
Phoenix SES                                  A project to support college leavers with disabilities to
                                             access the labour market by developing their
                                             employability.
Breakthrough What Benefits                   This project – designed to relay to people on benefits
                                             that they did not have to rely on benefits – was pulled.

A detailed analysis of project progress is presented later within this report.


3.7       Transnational Work – Background

In accordance with Equal principles, Transnational work is an important element of the CP&S
programme. There are two Transnational partners, based in Catalonia (Barcelona Activa) and
Paris (CNA Ceefag). The purpose of the transnational work was to link partnerships – not
projects and delivery – therefore it should be remembered that joint project work was not the
focus.

The Transnational activity has taken a number of different forms, including video
conferencing, seminars, and questionnaires.

The Transnational element has been a challenging part of the programme, with widely
differing views on its effectiveness and usefulness. However, it would seem that those who
gave full attention to the transnational element generally gained the most from the process.
The views of various stakeholders and project deliverers on the Transnational element are
represented in more detail in the appropriate section within this report.



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                          18
Wavehill is pleased to observe that, whilst the process has been difficult and views on the
value of the work are by no-means in concurrence, ME and its partners have treated the
Transnational element as a key component, and have done more than merely pay it token
attention.

Furthermore, the fact that CP&S have two partners for Transnational activity should not
dissuade them from finding other partners in the UK with whom to share good practice and
methods of working. In fact, this request for more UK partnership working was requested by
more than one stakeholder, and seemed to be viewed as being of potentially more value than
some elements of the European Transnational work. Further work with UK partners in now
being progressed under Action Three.

Please note that a more detailed evaluation of the transnational work is contained within the
Stakeholder, Project, and Beneficiary Analysis section of this report.


3.8      Summary

As will be clearly seen within the main body of the report, the progress made by the
Partnership and the projects has been good. The partnership objectives have, in the main,
been met, whilst project outputs have been positive. There has been evidence of best
practice, innovation, and empowerment, and some valuable lessons have been learnt for the
future.

Taken as a whole, this is a very positive evaluation for CP&S, and the fact that some
criticisms and recommendations for change are made should not take away from this overall
positive view.



Recommendation One

Issue: Deliverers and stakeholders feel that they would benefit from closer partnership
working within the UK.
Evidence: Project and stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: Using the evidence from the comparative section of this report, select
appropriate national partners, and begin to set up working links with them. These links could
be particularly useful during Action Three, and Wavehill understands that study visits are
already being planned for the future.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                 19
4.       Appraisal of management and output data

4.1      The Partnership’s progress against objectives

One of the measures of the success of the programme is its progress towards its 11 core
objectives. These 11 objectives are given in the table on the following pages, along with a
review of progress against that objective.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                               20
                                                                                                                                                  City Pride and Stockport Equal Partnership
                                                                                                                                                              DRAFT Final Evaluation Report




Objective                                    Progress                                                              Comment

Obj1. To develop new ways of                 Overall, there has been good progress against this                    Success against this objective has been reasonable with
working with employers in order to           objective. A number of projects have made progress                    some of the projects performing extremely well. The projects
increase awareness of the issues             towards this objective, whilst one or two other have been             that did not succeed as hoped in engaging employers were
                                                                                                       2
facing disadvantaged groups.                 disappointed with their effectiveness in this area. MTNW              able to identify possible solutions to this problem for future
                                             was very effective, with good feedback in its final (and              programmes, so it is evident that lessons have been
                                             thorough) evaluation. HMHBP also worked well with                     learned.
                                             employers and, in Wavehill‟s telephone interviews, there
                                             was excellent feedback from those who attended
                                             HMHBP training. YPEP also began to work closely with
                                             employers, although there were evidently issues with lack
                                             of staff and resources to take this particular process as
                                             far as would have been liked. BIT aimed to engage
                                             employers (along with health / social care professionals),
                                             but Wavehill‟s evaluation interviews indicate that
                                             employer numbers were lower than had been hoped for.

Obj2 To provide additional support           Overall, there has been good progress against this                    Taking into account the levels of exclusion faced by some of
for beneficiaries to facilitate              objective. MTNW and WEVH both undertook work                          the target groups, the progress against this objective has
access to training & employment              towards this objective. BLIAGVD also progressed well,                 been good. However, this is an objective that needs to be
opportunities, especially where              moving a significant number of beneficiaries into                     monitored in the longer term, as these marginalised groups
target group(s) are under-                   employment. BTG moved a significant number of its first               cannot be expected to deliver high numbers of output
represented in particular                    course attendees onto paid or voluntary employment or                 results within this objective in a short spaces of time.
vocational areas.                            further education. P moved about one quarter of its
                                             beneficiaries into employment, with the rest into work
                                             placements with significant chances of gaining
                                             employment in the longer term. BLC also focuses on this
                                             objective, but their evaluation is not completed at this

The projects abbreviated here are: AP (Active Participation); AW (Accommodating Work); BC (Better Choices); BIT (Breakthrough In Tameside); BLIAGVD (Big Life IAG and Video Diaries); BLC
(Big Life Childcare); BTG (Bridging the Gap); CDP (Crime Doesn’t Pay); HMHBP (Headstart Mental Health Best Practice Model); LB (Learning Bus); MTNW (Media Training North West); P (Phoenix
SES); WEVH (Realise/Women’s Electronic Village Hall); WOW (Wheels On Wheels); WTW (Will to Work); YPEP (Young People with Early Psychosis); YPTP (Young People Transition Project).




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                                   21
                                             stage, due to the timescale of their delivery.

Obj3 To develop new                          Overall, there has been average progress against this         Overall, there were some new networks and partnerships
partnerships/networks in order to            objective. No programme-wide networks have been               established due to the programme. The experience of being
raise awareness of exclusion                 established, other than the Delivery Partners Network         part of the main Partnership seemed to be a positive one for
issues and seek new opportunities            and the Partnership itself. Projects themselves, outside of   most stakeholders. In particular, Local Authorities identified
for target groups.                           the centrally organised delivery partnership, were            it as beneficial to them by encouraging them to work with
                                             generally very positive about the relationships they had      each other, sometimes for the first time. The Delivery
                                             with other projects and organisations within their area.      Partners Network was a matter of disagreement for the
                                                                                                           projects – some found it useful, saying that it helped them to
                                                                                                           build bridges with other partners, whilst others felt that it did
                                                                                                           not benefit them, as projects were at different stages or
                                                                                                           issues that the projects were interested in were not covered
                                                                                                           at meetings. The lesson to be learned from this is that, with
                                                                                                           such a range of different projects, a single delivery
                                                                                                           partnership needs to be carefully utilised, possibly by
                                                                                                           holding some sub-meetings of projects with common issues,
                                                                                                           as well as full meetings of the wider group. This use of
                                                                                                           thematically based groups has worked well within other DPs
                                                                                                           (for more information, please see the comparative section of
                                                                                                           this report).

Obj4 To develop new training                 Overall, there has been good progress against this            The programme has progressed reasonably well towards
materials and new approaches to              objective. LB has made good use of IT, using satellite        this objective, with several of the projects developing new
mentoring support.                           technology to provide internet based training for             training materials. New approaches to mentoring were less
                                             beneficiaries. WEVH also used IT effectively, and has         in evidence, although aspects such as continuing support
                                             developed new training materials that can be used by          when in work or work placements were provided by several
                                             other organisations. MTNW also made excellent use of          projects. (Many of these projects employed members (or ex-
                                             technology to develop training materials. WTW also            members) of the target group within the project itself, and if
                                             developed new training materials that can be accessed         that person provided the support to the beneficiary, it could
                                             and used by other organisations. BLIAGVD used                 be interpreted as mentoring).
                                             technology to develop its materials to good effect. WEVH
                                             also tried an innovative approach to mentoring which
                                             unfortunately was not successful, although valuable
                                             lessons have been learned. CDP sought to introduce




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                           22
                                             mentoring as a core part of its work, but the effectiveness
                                             of this cannot be monitored at the current time due to a
                                             lack of internal evaluation information.

Obj5 To provide                              Overall, there has been good progress against this            Progress towards this objective has been good, with
support/awareness raising for                objective. MTNW, HMHBP, WTW, YPTP, AP, BC, and                feedback from employers and other organisations showing
employers and advice agencies in             YPEP have made good progress with employers. These            considerable distance travelled in terms of understanding
order to positively promote the              projects also worked well with other agencies, and BIT        the needs of client groups. Some projects, such as BIT,
beneficiaries.                               has impacted upon health and social care professionals.       found it difficult to engage employers, and there are lessons
                                                                                                           to be learned here for future activity. Awareness raising
                                                                                                           among employers needs to be a key feature of Action
                                                                                                           Three, and the MTNW event demonstrates the type of
                                                                                                           activity that could be organised.

Obj6 To establish                            Overall, there has been limited progress against this         There has been limited progress towards this objective, as
protocols/develop good practice              objective. HMHBP have prepared information for                the majority of good practice guidelines will be developed as
guidance for recruitment and                 employers.                                                    part of the mainstreaming and dissemination activities of
retention of under-represented                                                                             Action 3. However, it should be noted that this objective
groups.                                                                                                    could have been dealt with as an ongoing task during the
                                                                                                           lifetime of the projects – it will now be more difficult to simply
                                                                                                           bolt the objective on at the end of the process, than if it had
                                                                                                           been an integrated and ongoing element for each project.

Obj7 To develop a multi-modal                Overall, within limited confines, there has been good         This is a very specialised area of work, which can only be
approach to the therapeutic and              progress against this objective. The YPEP and, to             delivered by a very limited number of projects. Taken in this
social/employment needs of                   some extent, the HMHBP projects are tackling this issue       context, the Partnership has progressed well against this
younger people with early                    directly.                                                     objective as YPEP and MHBP have both achieved good
psychosis.                                                                                                 feedback during the evaluation process.

Obj8 The continued development               Overall, there has been good progress against this            The Partnership, mainly through the work of ME, has made
of sub-projects.                             objective. The Manchester Enterprises Equal team              good progress towards this objective. Interviews with
                                             appears to deliver an effective service to its delivery       projects revealed that many were happy with the support
                                             partners.                                                     they had received from ME, and praised ME‟s efficient and
                                                                                                           helpful attitude to requests for information or support.
                                                                                                           However, a smaller number of projects expressed their




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                           23
                                                                                                            dissatisfaction with ME – particularly relating to the final
                                                                                                            evaluation process, where projects felt that too much
                                                                                                            information was required at too short notice. From its
                                                                                                            external evaluation, Wavehill feels that ME supported
                                                                                                            projects to an appropriate level during the evaluation
                                                                                                            process. The key problem appears to be the failure by some
                                                                                                            projects to embed evaluation into the development of the
                                                                                                            project from the very earliest stages, which left them with
                                                                                                            too much ground to catch up on at the end of the process.
                                                                                                            There may also be an element of move-on by projects,
                                                                                                            some of who felt that their involvement in Equal had ended,
                                                                                                            and therefore did not anticipate further demands on staff
                                                                                                            time. There are valuable lessons to be learned here, which
                                                                                                            are discussed in greater detail later within the report.

Obj9 To evaluate all sub-projects  Overall, there has been reasonable progress against                      Taking a very broad overall view, the Partnership has made
to assess impact on target groups. this objective. All projects were required to undertake a                reasonable progress towards this objective. However, there
                                   satisfactory level of internal evaluation with the                       were marked variations in the quality and usefulness of the
                                   beneficiaries. The effectiveness of and extent to which                  evaluations undertaken by projects, which are discussed at
                                   internal evaluation has been undertaken varies from                      length within the report.
                                   project to project.

Obj10 To evaluate the model over             When the final evaluation is complete, this objective
project duration in all areas.               will have been met. An interim evaluation was
                                             undertaken, and this report constitutes the final evaluation
                                             of the programme.

Obj11 To work with our chosen                This objective has been completed. An extensive                The project to measure the impact of the incentives was
Transnational partnership to                 exercise was completed to design and circulate a               undertaken, and a report produced, so progress towards
develop and deliver a project to             questionnaire based on the theme of Motivation, with 102       this objective is complete.
measure the impact of incentives             responses were received from the UK element of the
designed to encourage people into            Transnational partnership. This “quantitative”
work. A second phase will transfer           questionnaire was backed up by a “qualitative” focus
good practice via a series of pilot          group.
projects within the Transnational




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                            24
partnership.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011   25
                                                              City Pride and Stockport Equal Partnership
                                                                          DRAFT Final Evaluation Report




In conclusion, the CP&S programme has made good or satisfactory progress against all of its
objectives. There have been important lessons learnt against some of the objectives, and
these are discussed in detail within the report.


4.2      The Projects’ progress against output targets

EQUAL is a test-bed programme, designed to test new methods of working. As such,
measuring numerical outputs is less important than in “traditional” regeneration initiatives
such as the Single Regeneration Budget.

Nevertheless, the number of beneficiaries involved and other outputs do give a very useful
indicator as to the extent to which projects are working. Under- or over-performance against
output targets can give clues as to the success of the project in terms of engaging with
clients.

Wavehill is pleased to report that internal evaluation, particularly work involving beneficiaries,
was taken very seriously by the CP&S Equal partnership. It is a requirement of all Equal-
funded projects and as an issue had a high profile within the partnership. To develop the
capacity of projects a member of Manchester Enterprises staff made himself available to meet
with projects on a one-to-one basis to support and assist with evaluation techniques, and
support with statistical and other research was also made available if needed.

It must be noted that outputs are taken from the final evaluations produced by the projects
themselves, and as such Wavehill was reliant on the information provided. The outputs of the
individual projects are noted in Section 5 of this report, and reasons for variance discussed.
There are some issues regarding the effectiveness of the evaluations undertaken by the
projects themselves, and this is also discussed in more detail in Section 5 of the report.

The following pages show the overall outputs of all projects in summary format.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                           26
                                                                                                                                    City Pride and Stockport Equal Partnership
                                                                                                                                                DRAFT Final Evaluation Report




Project                              Description of Output Target                                                    Total Output     Original            Progression
                                                                                                                     Achieved to      Lifetime Output     Against Lifetime
                                                                                                                     Date             Target              Target
Breakthrough in Tameside             Beneficiaries attending training                                                       80               113                  71%
ECHG Accommodating Work              Beneficiaries unemployed at start and receiving new information and guidance.         143               130                 110%
                                     Beneficiaries into jobs                                                                12                13                  92%
                                     Beneficiaries into work placements                                                     11                13                  85%
                                     Beneficiaries trained                                                                  76                52                 146%
                                     Jobs created                                                                           2                 2                  100%
                                     Companies supported                                                                    0                120                  0%
                                     Firms in social economy supported                                                      0                 30                  0%
Crime Doesn’t Pay                    Number of jobs created by the project                                                  4                 4                  100%
                                     Number of beneficiaries placed into employment                                         3                 10                  30%
                                     Number of people trained                                                               40                30                 133%
                                     Number of new information and guidance services                                        2                 2                  100%
                                     Number of people supported in the target groups                                        85               100                  85%
                                     Number of qualifications gained by ex-offenders                                        8                 12                  67%
Aspire                               Number of companies supported                                                          1                 6                   17%
                                     Number of firms in the social economy supported                                        1                 6                   17%
                                     Number of qualifications achieved (NVQ 1-5 or equiv)                                   7                 29                  24%
                                     Number of unemployed beneficiaries                                                     18                29                  62%
                                     Number of jobs created                                                                 18                29                  62%
                                     Number of new business start ups                                                       1                 6                   17%
                                     Number of homeless people supported                                                    8                 9                   89%
                                     Number of ex-offenders supported                                                       4                 11                  36%
                                     Number of refugees supported                                                           7                 9                   78%
                                     Number of beneficiaries under 25                                                       0                 15                  0%
                                     Number of beneficiaries over 25                                                        18                14                 129%
                                     Number of male beneficiaries                                                           14                15                  93%
                                     Number of female beneficiaries                                                         3                 15                  20%
                                     Number of white beneficiaries                                                          6                 15                  40%
                                     Number of non-white beneficiaries                                                      12                14                  86%
Active Participation                 Number of companies / employers supported                                              11                6                  183%
                                     Number of unemployed beneficiaries                                                     89                60                 148%
                                     Number of new information and guidance services                                        1                 1                  100%
                                     Number of long-term unemployed people supported                                        63                30                 210%
                                     Number of lone parents supported                                                       20                22                  91%
                                     Number of ex-offenders supported                                                       8                 8                  100%
                                     Number of ethnic minorities supported                                                  15                18                  83%
Gorton Gateway                       Companies supported                                                                    44                10                 440%
                                     Unemployed beneficiaries engaged                                                      363               300                 121%
                                     Employed beneficiaries engaged                                                        132                50                 264%




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                                    27
                                     Jobs created                                                                               12     4        300%
                                     Referred to learning activity                                                             307     75       409%
                                     Information and guidance services                                                          4      1        400%
                                     Women (number supported)                                                                  307    250       123%
                                     Asylum seekers (number supported)                                                          42     20       210%
                                     Disabled (number supported)                                                                94     5       1,880%
                                     Older workers (number supported)                                                           15     20        75%
                                     Homeless (number supported)                                                                3      5         60%
                                     Ethnic minorities (number supported)                                                      144     20       720%
                                     Ex-offenders (number supported)                                                            14     5        280%
                                     Young people (number supported)                                                           152     30       507%
                                     Health / drug / etc problems (number supported)                                            9      5        180%
                                     Multi-disadvantaged (number supported)                                                    565    350       161%
                                     Trainers trained                                                                           3      3        100%
Big Life IAG and Video Diaries       Beneficiaries into jobs                                                                    40     10       400%
                                     Beneficiaries into external education and training courses                                 86     25       344%
                                     Work experience placements on employer premises                                           188     8       2,350%
                                     Qualifications achieved (NVQ 1-5 or equiv)                                                 31     30       103%
                                     Number of unemployed beneficiaries                                                        183    150       122%
                                     Number of unemployed beneficiaries                                                         3      0         N/A
                                     Beneficiaries participating in Video Diaries steering group                                14   Not set     N/A
                                     Beneficiaries on tape                                                                      54   Not set     N/A
Big Life Childcare staffing          Companies supported                                                                        4      8         50%
                                     Firms in social economy supported                                                          3      2        150%
                                     Qualifications achieved                                                                    20     10       200%
                                     Unemployed beneficiaries receiving positive job outcomes through the agency                35     35       100%
                                     New business start-ups                                                                     1      1        100%
                                     Work placements                                                                            20     8        250%
                                     People supported in each target group                                                      15     4        375%
The Learning Bus                     Number of learners trained                                                                 39    500        8%
                                     Number of learners receiving information and guidance                                      51    200        26%
Better Choices                       Project staff jobs created                                                                 2      2        100%
                                     Unemployed beneficiaries                                                                  300    325        92%
                                     People supported in each target group (young people)                                      300    300       100%
                                     Increase the number of employers using the Connexions Service to place vacancies by 60%   256    182       141%
Bridging the Gap                     Applications to the project                                                               412    120       343%
                                     Interviews for the project                                                                 85     80       106%
                                     Students starting the project                                                              54     50       108%
                                     Graduating students                                                                        19     40        48%
Young Persons Transition             Total number of beneficiaries                                                              28     45        62%
                                     Number of beneficiaries offered full or part time employment                               20     25        80%
Media Training North West            Number of beneficiaries trained to industry standard                                       8      10        80%




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                                 28
Will to Work                         Taster sessions for visually impaired people               12    12   100%
                                     People attending taster sessions                           25    12   208%
                                     Jobs retained                                              1     1    100%
                                     Volunteers trained                                         3     3    100%
                                     Companies undertaking VIAT                                 34    25   136%
                                     Total number of beneficiaries                             109    86   127%
                                     Staff trained                                              21    0     N/A
Headstart                            Number of companies supported                              4     5     80%
                                     Number of accredited qualifications achieved               18    40    45%
                                     Number of individuals attending a taster course            52   160    33%
                                     Number of employed beneficiaries                           70   200    35%
                                     Number of people trained                                   70   200    35%
                                     Number of new information and guidance services            0     1     0%
                                     Number of trainers trained                                 0     5     0%
Realise (WEVH)                       Number of beneficiaries                                    54    50   108%
                                     Number of employed beneficiaries                           36    10   360%
                                     Number of unemployed beneficiaries                         18    20    90%
                                     Number of BME beneficiaries                                23    4    575%
                                     Number of students trained                                 48    20   240%
                                     Number of students attaining work                          13    8    163%
                                     Number of lone parents                                     3     5     60%
Young People with Psychosis          Companies supported                                        17    24    71%
                                     Unemployed beneficiaries                                   20    34    59%
                                     Employed beneficiaries                                     2     4     50%
                                     Beneficiaries into Further Education                       2     3     67%
                                     People with serious mental health issues supported         25    41    61%
                                     Beneficiaries gaining paid work                            7     10    70%
                                     Beneficiaries accessing voluntary work                     7     10    70%
Wheels on Wheels                     No outputs available
Phoenix SES                          Personal and social development                           23    25    92%
                                     Work ethic guidance                                       23    25    92%
                                     Work placements                                           23    25    92%
                                     Work preparation courses                                  23    25    92%




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                29
                                                             City Pride and Stockport Equal Partnership
                                                                         DRAFT Final Evaluation Report




Summary

Again, it should be stressed that Equal is not an output driven programme, but progress
against outputs does give some indication of lessons that may need to be learnt for the future.
The majority of projects have made average to excellent progress towards output targets.

However, it should be noted that just because the progress towards outputs by a minority of
projects was poor, it does not necessarily follow that the projects themselves were badly
delivered or lacking in some way. In fact, one of the projects that performed badly against
output targets displayed best practice in many other ways, and progress towards targets was,
to some extent, out of their control. This does again raise the issue of revising output targets
when they can be shown to be unrealistic.

A more detailed and holistic analysis of project output and progress is presented within
Section 5 of this report.



Recommendation Two

Issue: Projects did not make full use of the evaluation and monitoring support that was
available from Manchester Enterprises.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s project interviews.
Recommendation: Projects should make full use of the support available from ME during
Action Three. This will help them to plan and co-ordinate their activities, back-up findings with
relevant statistical data, and ensure as wide dissemination coverage as possible. (Please also
see the recommendations contained within the full project review section of this report).




Recommendation Three

Issue: As projects developed over time, it occasionally became apparent that output targets
were not realistic or achievable. For a project to know that it is going to fail to achieve its
targets can be demoralising. It also takes the focus away from the lessons learned and onto
the fact that the project “failed” in some way. As noted, just because a project performed
badly against targets did not necessarily mean that it was lacking in some way, or badly
delivered. Conversely, if a project significantly exceeds its targets, there could be room for
complacency and, again, a failure to clearly identify lessons learned.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s interviews with projects and stakeholders. Project evaluations.
Wavehill‟s review of project progress.
Recommendation: In future, where it can clearly be shown that output targets are not
realistic or achievable, there should be scope to revise targets to a more realistic level. If
output targets are shown to be too low, they should be revised upwards.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                          30
5.       Stakeholder, Project, and Beneficiary Interview Analysis

5.1      Stakeholder Interviews

As part of its evaluation, Wavehill undertook a series of interviews with partners and other key
stakeholders to determine (amongst other things); their understanding of Equal‟s principles,
the level of their involvement, how they through the programme had addressed issues such
as innovation and equal opportunities, and what they could bring to bear in terms of
mainstreaming activity.

Interviews were undertaken with eleven stakeholders, along with an additional four interviews
with stakeholders with a specific role in the transnational work. Also interviewed were an
additional two stakeholders who had played a role in the appraisal process in order to judge
more clearly how the project had been shaped to fit local needs. Finally, two staff from ME
were also interviewed, and their responses have been incorporated into this section where
relevant.


Please note that the responses each group are colour coded as follows:
Stakeholders – Turquoise
Appraisal Group – Lavender
Transnational Group – Yellow

Representative responses to the most important questions are examined below.

5.1.1    Level of involvement in the Partnership

Q. How active would you describe your involvement to date?

Very Active:
“Very active.”

“We've been very active at the strategic level and we've also been involved in the
transnational work, where we actually helped to organise one of the conferences and
attended 2 others.”

“I was very active at the beginning, but this has decreased over time due to other work
commitments, although I am still involved on the Core Partners Group.”

Fairly Active:
“It has been fairly active because of the appraisal involvement, where I got to know about the
practical needs of the projects and the strategic needs of the Partnership. We now make sure
that we maintain our involvement on the Steering Group.”

“I was quite involved when I did take part, but I stopped working on Equal about a year ago.”

“When I was attending core partner meetings, I played a quite active role.”

Not very active / limited:
“We haven't been particularly actively involved.”

“My involvement has been limited.”

“It has been a bit limited, but I did go to the final transnational summit in France.”

Other:
“My involvement has been mainly advisory - one of the issues we have is that we don't attract
a huge amount of regeneration funding so we can't match fund projects, so we don't do


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   31
anything on the delivery side. We undertake promotional work and have also taken part in
appraisal and assessment. We feed in local needs research where appropriate.”

“I've been most involved with the Crime Doesn't Pay project as working with offenders is part
of my main role.”


Summary: Wavehill found that over half of Stakeholder interviewees felt that they had been
actively involved in the Equal process. This generally included organisations such as Local
Authorities, Jobcentre Plus, and the LSC, who were key players all along. This means that
just under a half said that they were not actively involved at the moment, perhaps because
they felt their role was less key to the process. This may reflect the fact that the Equal
programme is drawing to an end and Stakeholders have been scaling down their involvement,
which could negatively influence how they view their level of involvement over the lifetime of
the programme as a whole. However, now is an appropriate time for stakeholders who have
been involved from the start to revisit and reconsider their roles in the Partnership in time for
Action Three. In addition, some stakeholders carried out specific roles within the process,
such as initial appraisal, and as such their involvement had a finite duration. It should also be
noted that several other DPs have found that, as the programme draws to an end,
stakeholders sometimes apply their energies elsewhere, so CP&S are by no means alone in
this instance.



5.1.2    Added value brought to the Partnership

Q. What in the way of added value do you think that your organisation brings to the
Equal initiative?

Local Knowledge:
“We've been able to look closely at local needs, and use this to inform the direction of Equal.
We're able to see things from the Partnership level right through to the local level. We can act
as a "critical friend" to the sub-regional running of the project. We bring expertise that can
assist the core team.”

“We've been looking for ideas from different areas, and have tried to push the opportunities to
our partners in the Stockport area, and let them know that this is a new opportunity to get
people involved in the world of work - in other words, we've used our local knowledge. We
can also act as a supportive friend, and push for the projects to return things such as
monitoring forms.”

Client Group Knowledge:
“We were there to represent young people, so we brought specific skills and knowledge
around this 16 to 18 age group.”

“We brought along expertise and experience of working with offenders for the last 8 years -
we work with offenders right through from sentencing to release, with support given by the
same person all the way through.”

Strategic or Programme Knowledge:
“We bring a strategic view of the employability agenda, and we offer up our experiences and
our priorities as a local authority.”

“We bring a commitment to working in partnership at the sub-regional level. We have a lot of
employability knowledge within our team and can bring all this in and use it to help the
projects. Personally, I have a background in European funded projects so understand how
match funding etc works.”

Miscellaneous / Mixture:



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    32
“We bring knowledge of the local needs of disadvantaged groups and we filter in comments
from our partners on what they think are the local issues - feeding in grass roots issues is key.
We try to ensure that social and economic inclusion remains the focus in our area. I have
previous experience of European programmes so this is useful knowledge that can be
shared.”

“We're delivering a Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy in our area, so we're tackling some of
the same issues as Equal and can link together. We have a robust community infrastructure,
and we can use this involvement of residents to the benefit of Equal.”

“We bring knowledge and our own experience from our past work in the area - for example
our client cohort tend to be below NVQ Level 2 and many have English language problems -
we can feed all of this knowledge in and bring added value.”

“We already provide similar services to a wide range of people, so we bring this experience
in.”

“We brought a lot - we helped ME to set things up originally, and I personally had a lot of
experience of ESF which was very useful earlier on. We consulted the right people internally
about the different beneficiary groups, and we clearly understood their needs.”


What special knowledge or skills do you think you brought to the appraisal group?
“As a local authority we provide the secretariat for the LSP so we are the only organisation
that's aware of everything that's going on in the borough.”

“Our team brings knowledge of employment and training issues to the Partnership.”

“We bring knowledge of the way that ESF works which can be useful to this Partnership.”

“We bring a geographical knowledge of the area - we can get to know projects and represent
our area.”

“I'm involved on other partnerships and boards so have a breadth of knowledge.”

Summary: Stakeholders seemed to be very clear about the added value that their
organisations brought to the Equal partnership. Very often, this sense of bringing added value
centred around local knowledge of client groups and projects, which stakeholders seemed to
feel was a key area of expertise. There appears to be a wide range of experience and
expertise brought to the partnership by the stakeholders, and this will remain useful as the
programme moves into Action Three.



5.1.3     Success of partnership working, and barriers experienced.

Q. What have been the main lessons learned from working in partnership? What has
worked well, and not so well? Have you experienced any barriers – what were they?

Encouraged Local Authorities to work together:
“Equal has got Local Authorities working together.”

“Partnership working through Equal has generally been a positive experience even though we
as a borough have not benefited directly. It is good to link in with other local authorities and
see what type of problems they face. Partnership working gives us some idea of where we
can share common issues when this round of funding comes to an end. The action planning
process assured funds and activity across the Manchester area, and a break away from
standard projects.”



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    33
“It's been a good process that has facilitated more partnership working across Local
Authorities and between service deliverers - we now work with people that we otherwise
wouldn't have done, and this is the case for other projects, not just for Equal.”

Miscellaneous:
“We've been quite strong on partnership working and this has been quite a "feel-good"
partnership with a good forum for sharing ideas, although it has tailed off a bit now at the end
of the programme.”

“Compared to other European partnerships I've been involved with, the transnational
partnerships side of Equal has been a lot better organised.”

“Equal has worked well by bringing the projects together to network with each other.”

“We have had doubts about the way that the Partnership has operated in terms of getting
people to bid for Equal funding - there was good work done in terms of the barriers to work
research and we could have used this to identify projects to work with, it was good work and it
should have been used more. As it was, we had so many projects come forward that it was
difficult to see how they had all addressed the priorities of Equal.”

“We still hit barriers when we try to work in partnership with some organisations such as
Jobcentre Plus - I think they needed to be involved earlier on in the process to ensure their
buy-in to the programme.”

“Partnership working often depends on individual personalities rather than organisations -
some people are more open than others. Things have got better over time, and I think we all
share best practice now.”

“The partnership was an active one and worked quite well. There was always tension for the
public sector partners - we are not comfortable with something that is "allowed" to fail. The
partnership didn't really look at mainstreaming issues enough.”

“You realise that each organisation has its own strengths, and this kind of understanding is
really increased by things such as transnational working. Inertia, especially within large
organisations, can be a problem, and also each organisation has its own targets that it has to
meet which isn't always compatible with the wider Partnership's needs.”

“We work closely with ECHG, and always try to take a multi-agency approach as this is what
is needed by offenders. Some partners you never see, and some partners have their own
agenda.”

“It has been especially interesting to find out what happens in other countries through the
transnational partnership working and it has helped us to see opportunities for different ways
of working.”

“We've learned that you win some, you lose some - the innovation aspect of Equal
encourages us to take risks, and you have to accept that some won't work out.”

“Our attention to innovation is our key strength; lots of partnerships just applied for funding to
carry on things that they were already doing.”

Summary: The only lesson identified by more than one stakeholder was the fact that the
Equal process had facilitated more partnership working between Local Authorities, who
otherwise may not have worked together, and that this co-operation had gone on to extend
beyond the Equal programme itself – this is obviously a very positive outcome. There was
also a very wide range of other answers to this question, with several interviewees identifying
a different lesson learnt from partnership working. These other lessons identified included the
fact that the transnational working was well organised, innovation was a key strength of the
partnership, that each organisation could bring its own strengths to the process, and that
partnership working had improved over time.

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     34
A positive “feel-good” partnership is important for future success, not just within Equal. As the
DWPs 2004 “Welfare to Workforce Development” report impacts on policy, the lessons learnt
from partnerships dealing with employability issues will be key. The report highlighted the
need for such partnerships to work together to help to resolve tensions between the
objectives of different organisations – for example, the objective of LSCs to increase skills,
and the objective of the Jobcentre Plus to get people into work. Lessons learnt through
partnerships such as Equal may therefore be invaluable as the welfare to work agenda
gathers pace in the future.



5.1.4    Shaping the Programme to meet local needs

Q. In your opinion, how effective has the Partnership been in shaping the programme
to meet local needs?

Effective
“The process we have gone through to get the projects running has been based on an
understanding of local needs.”

“Yes it's been quite effective, it undertook the research at the beginning to make sure we
understood local needs. Smaller organisations may have got disillusioned with the process
after they kept failing with their bids, and I think this means there is a danger that some
groups didn't get catered for. I went to one of the national conferences, and I think
Manchester were definitely ahead of a lot of other Equal projects in terms of getting the
research done and getting the projects off the ground.”

“It has been effective, although we got off to a slow start due to the fact that the core partners
tried to involve a lot of groups in the area - so the start was slow as this took a lot of time, but
it was worth it.”

Moderately effective
“From our perspective it has been reasonably effective - it has helped us to look more closely
at the needs in our local area.”

“The research at the beginning was very good, but I'm not entirely convinced about how well
that research has been used to shape the programme.”

“If you can allay local needs with the strategic objectives then things will work - you must have
these links into the grassroots level.”

“I think it would have been more effective to use the research to identify needs first, rather
than just looking for bids to come forwards - by doing this, we could more effectively have
addressed local needs.”

“It's been OK, but it hasn't had as big an impact locally as I'd have thought.”

“It's been quite effective, but there has been a low volume output, which is a shame. There is
a diverse range of projects, and some have done well, and some not so well at addressing
local need.”

“From the projects I know about it's been pretty effective, because of the local knowledge we
had and because of the flexible funding which has helped us to work effectively with
individuals by identifying their needs.”


How far do you think the projects selected went towards meeting the wide range of
local needs?


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       35
“We determined what the target groups were and then there was a general call for
applications - we should have got representatives of the target groups together and asked
them what the needs of their groups were - this would have meant that similar groups would
have liased with each other from the beginning.”

“Overall, I don't think we shaped it properly to meet local needs, we could have done better.”

“They didn't meet local needs as they should have done and perhaps we needed a more local
perspective - we had geographical representation but if someone didn't attend a meeting then
that was lost, and the people on the group tended to be from the strategic level so they didn't
always have the grass roots knowledge that I would have liked.”

With hindsight, is there anything that you would have done differently at the appraisal
stage?
“I would involve the target groups earlier so that we could better shape the project to meet
local needs.”

“I'd try to get more representatives from the grassroots level on the appraisal group.”

“Meetings were a bit "as and when" - they should have been planned in advance, but instead
we would get a couple of days notice so we didn't always have time to prepare.”

“There was no real terms of reference for the group and we didn't know the background of the
other members, we had to build that up over time. We didn't get feedback from the main
group on what we were doing, so we could have done with improved internal
communications.”

Summary: the vast majority of stakeholders felt that the programme had effectively, or
moderately effectively, been shaped to meet local needs, whilst one stakeholder felt unable to
comment on this issue. Most stakeholders recognised the extensive research that had been
undertaken at the outset, but one then questioned whether or not the research had then been
used to shape the programme‟s delivery. However, members of the original appraisal group
(who were not necessarily the same as the later members of the partnership, although the
same organisations were still represented) were less convinced that local needs had been
met, and felt that more input from the grassroots level was needed. It is unfortunate that
Wavehill was unable to carry out interviews with more members of the appraisal panel, as this
would have given more conclusive evidence of the level to which the programme was tailored
to meet local needs. However, the majority of interviewees overall felt that the original
research undertaken was extensive, and that this research was then used to appraise the
potential projects. In this way, without further evidence to the contrary, Wavehill feels that the
programme was adequately tailored to meet identified local needs.

Again, the DWPs drive to move those on welfare into work has an impact here. The Welfare
to Workforce report highlights the need to expand the provision of basic skills training, but
also emphasises the need for these skills to be relevant to local areas. The mapping of local
needs carried out by Equal, and the lessons learnt by the projects in delivering skills training
on the ground, will again therefore be invaluable in future skills training development in the
area.



5.1.5    Innovation

Q. What do you think is innovative about the programme? In your opinion, are the
projects demonstrating innovative methods of reaching and working with their target
audiences?

It is innovative:
“It is innovative - as much as anything can be innovative these days. It has given projects the
wherewithal to try new things and to not be afraid to fail.”

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     36
“Compared to other Partnerships, this one is quite innovative and we do look at non-
traditional methods, especially in the way that we link our projects in with other providers and
organisations.”

“There are projects which have demonstrated innovation. In other ways, things have been
steered by the management team who have advised using projects that have been used in
other areas but not here - so how innovative this is is questionable, it's a bit sketchy - but it is
difficult and not always necessary to be re-inventing the wheel.”

“The projects that works with Young People with Early Psychosis seems to be innovative and
seems to have worked well.”

“The ability to look at very localised issues and at very specific target groups has filled a gap
in provision, so that is innovative. The flexibility within Equal to address issues across the
whole geographical area is also innovative. For the projects themselves, it was difficult to
come up with a definition of innovative as you can't expect people to be coming up with
something radically new all the time.”

“There seemed to be a bit of a hang-up about innovation at the start and the Partnership was
very picky about it, but this eased off towards the end because it appeared that the money
wasn't going to be spent. The partnership itself very much focussed on joint effort and getting
all the Authorities to work together at a sub-regional level - this joint role is quite innovative as
you usually get one organisation taking the lead.”

“The focus of Equal on client progression and distance travelled is quite innovative and I like
the fact that Equal recognises the importance of intensive support. Equal recognises that it is
important to get people stable and to deal with their background issues before moving them
forwards.”

“Yes, I think there is some real innovation in the Manchester projects, especially in the
Wheels on Wheels project.”

“The programme is innovative - the projects all had to be innovative to get through the
selection procedure.”

Innovation levels are mixed:
“Some are, some aren't - it's a mixed bag.”

Not innovative:
“I personally feel that a large number of projects had already had the idea for the project and
simply brought it forward when they realised that Equal funding was available - I would have
to say that I think most projects were just looking for a funding source rather than coming up
with something new and innovative.”


How innovative do you think the chosen projects have been?
“Yes the projects are innovative - we were very thorough on this - local authorities are often
quite jealous of each other, so we questioned each other quite hard and sent things back if
we weren't happy with them.”

“The projects that were chosen were the best of what was there - some just took a bit of a
different slant on things, but I don't think they were particularly innovative – I found that there
was no one understanding of innovation, it was personal to everyone.”

Summary: An overwhelming majority of interviewees felt that the programme and the
projects displayed innovation. Those that felt the projects were lacking in innovation did
recognise how difficult it was to constantly devise completely new ideas. Those who
expressed an opinion that projects were just looking for a funding source were in a small
minority. Wavehill‟s interim evaluation indicated that the Partnership had initially taken a

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        37
strong line on the interpretation of innovation, and, on the guidance of ECOTEC, this had
eased over time. This change of emphasis perhaps explains the slight differences of opinion
regarding levels of innovation.



5.1.6    Empowerment

Q. How do you think the Equal programme empowers its target groups into sustainable
employability?

“The projects have been able to be more supportive of their target groups, which empowers
them. It's too early to tell how effective Equal has been on sustainable employment.”

“I prefer to use the word "enable" - sometimes people are told that they'll never work again,
but we can turn that round. We can also affect the perspective of employers, which helps
enable people back into work.”

“The projects I have seen have supported people to overcome their barriers to employment
but I haven't really seen many of them making that step on into sustainable employment - I
hope that this will happen as it is early days, but I would like to see evidence of it. Also, what
will happen in 6 to 12 months time - will that person still be in a job?”

“Equal seems to empower people - it's one of the key principles.”

“My impression is that the focus is on basic entry level skills which don't necessarily make
employment sustainable - the clients are enabled to start or re-enter work but they need to
develop further skills within the job to ensure sustainability.”

“Equal provides a pathway for groups that otherwise wouldn't have such sustained and
intensive support, but I don't think it actually empowers them, as clients are always led within
a group, and only the delivery agent is really empowered.”

“Yes, the projects do empower people, but some client groups are probably harder to help
than others.”

“I think this hinges very much on the customer group that you're working with, but I do think
that it has had a reasonable impact.”

“From our point of view it's been done through intensive one-to-one work, advocating on the
client's behalf, building up a relationship with them, helping to pick up the pieces when things
go wrong.”

“I can't really say.”

“Equal reaches the beneficiaries that mainstream organisations can't reach, and the test bed
non output-driven approach is vital.”

Summary: The majority of stakeholders did feel that the programme had empowered people.
Empowerment is a key principle of Equal and it is vital that the programme delivers in this
area. Those interviewees that expressed reservations were generally more concerned about
the sustainability of the empowerment, rather than a lack of empowerment itself. Wavehill‟s
own beneficiary evaluation indicates that empowerment has occurred across the programme,
and this is discussed in more detail within the beneficiary section of this report.



5.1.7    Equal Opportunities

Q. How seriously does the partnership take the issue of equal opportunities?

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     38
“The Partnership takes it very seriously - it's around everything we all do.”

“The Partnership itself takes EO very seriously. The Programme does not have a disabled
representative on the Steering Group, but all the projects have to take into account disability
issues when planning their projects.”

“The Partnership has encouraged projects that work with under represented groups such as
women returners and Black Afro-Caribbean groups.”

“The Partnership takes the subject of EO seriously and works with a wide variety of
vulnerable groups.”

“The Partnership takes Equal Opportunities very seriously, the people on the Partnership
understand the concept of EO in the broadest sense because their jobs are all about working
with the most marginalised groups, and this meant that a broad range of excluded groups
were recognised. Access to employment is also recognised, such as in deprived pockets
within relatively affluent areas.”

“The Partnership takes EO very seriously, it cross-cuts everything the Partnership does.”

“The partnership looked at Equalities in the widest sense and recognised the many different
aspects that affect all of the different hard to reach groups.”

“The Partnership took EO very seriously - when there were issues raised by one person on a
course who felt they were being discriminated against, the Partnership handled the situation
quite well.”

“The Partnership took EO very seriously - the whole nature of the programme is EO.”

“EO is very much at the fore of everything the Partnership does, and they look at a very
diverse range of people.”

“The Partnership took EO very seriously, it was at the core of everything.”

Summary: All stakeholders felt that Equal Opportunities was at the heart of everything that
the Partnership did. What is interesting to note is that many respondents focussed in on
specific areas of EO issues, perhaps areas that are their particular field of interest. However,
this may simply indicate the breadth of specialist knowledge within the Partnership, and
Wavehill is satisfied that the principles of EO are understood and acted on by the Partnership.



5.1.8    Mainstreaming

Q. Do you think any of the 20 projects have real mainstreaming potential? Are there
any barriers to mainstreaming these projects? If so, what?

Yes, there is potential for mainstreaming:
“Yes, a lot of projects have mainstreaming potential and ours certainly does.”

“The projects do have mainstreaming potential - our three projects certainly do, and I think
most of the others do too. However, mainstreaming may not mean that the project itself
carries on in its entirety, it may mean that a mainstream agency changes what it does
because of what a particular project has done.”

“A number of the projects have mainstreaming potential.”




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   39
“I think the Media Training programme has huge mainstreaming potential - they have
succeeded in breaking into a very middle class profession, and there are more opportunities
now that the BBC has moved some of its programming to Manchester.”

“Wheels on Wheels has great potential in the area.”
“The projects do have mainstreaming potential - this is the kind of stuff that organisations like
Connexions should be doing in this area.”

“There is mainstreaming potential”

Not sure about their potential for mainstreaming:
“I'm not sure, but Jobcentre Plus may be able to pick some things up in future.”

“I don't know enough about all of the projects to be able to make a fair comment.”

“I can't really comment on this as I don't know enough about all of the projects.”

“I can't really say.”

Barriers to mainstreaming:
“The barriers to mainstreaming are different for each project, but the lack of funding is
probably a common barrier for several projects.”

“If mainstream organisations can't incorporate a project's ideas, then funding may be
necessary - but we don't know about the funding situation post 2007 and a lot of available
funding is now tied up with the LSC and Jobcentre Plus through co-financing. I would say
that a lot of the barriers are institutional.”

“Whether or not they become mainstreamed depends on whether or not the statutory and
mainstream organisations pick them up and fund them, which they will only do if the projects
fit into the priorities of those mainstream organisations.”

“Mainstreaming will be difficult as the projects can't be delivered as a one-size-fits-all across
the area.”

“There is a barrier to mainstreaming though, as people like the media won't pay for it, so there
is a definite funding issue to contend with.”

“I don't know that larger agencies have the depth of understanding of specific client groups
that is needed.”

“The lack of measurable outputs is a barrier - people need to understand that just getting
these groups to engage in the first place is a success, never mind getting them into education
or employment.”

Summary: The majority of stakeholders felt that the projects did have mainstreaming
potential, although a significant minority were unsure of the potential due to their lack of
knowledge of the specific projects. Despite this generally positive outlook regarding
mainstreaming, a wide range of barriers have been recognised, from a simple lack of funding,
to institutional barriers, to a lack of measurable outputs which would prevent larger
organisations picking up the projects. These barriers are crucial as the programme moves
into Action Three, and it may be worth the Partnership exploring these barriers in more depth,
and identifying possible ways to overcome them in future. The Partnership must therefore
take on an active role within Action Three to move the projects into a forward or exit strategy,
providing steering and direction wherever possible. This is a strategic responsibility for the
Partnership, and the projects must not be left to attempt mainstreaming activities in isolation.
This co-ordinated approach is essential if the work that has occurred and the lessons that
have been learned in Action Two are not to be wasted.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    40
This is the essence of Action Three, and is one of the most important parts of the programme.
Only by identifying forward funding for the successful projects and by effectively
disseminating good practice does the real value of the Equal funding become apparent. For
example, if one project moves 100 beneficiaries into work 20% faster then traditional routes,
this could generate a saving to the public purse of say, £10,000. If this project is then
mainstreamed for 5 years, dealing with 200 beneficiaries per year, the cost benefit becomes
£100,000. If the project is also picked up and mainstreamed by regional policy makers in the
northwest, and assists 100,000 beneficiaries, the cost benefit jumps to £10,000,000. Whilst
Wavehill appreciates that this is a theoretical model, the principle remains valid, and
illustrates the key role – and vital importance – of Action Three.



5.1.9    Transnational work

Q. Would you say that you personally or your organisation got anything from the
transnational work? What was effective? What was the least effective?

We learnt from the process:
“I did a presentation to the transnational partners on what we do, and I learnt from what other
countries were doing. It would have been useful to have more background information on the
countries' policies at the outset, as it took a lot of time to put things into context and to
understand the set-up they were working within.”

“We've learned about how things are done transnationally, but I think we've yet to see any
really good comparisons. The least effective aspect was the variations in engagement of the
partners. When they were well organised, the transnational conferences were very good.”

“It was very useful to go on the trip to Barcelona. There were some things that we learned
there that can't be replicated here as things stand at the moment, but it was still useful to
learn about it. They have a much more resettlement focussed attitude.”

“The conference events and trips were very interesting, I don't think there was anything
missing from them. I think the transnational work was the best thing about the process and it
was good to see what was going on in other countries.”

“We learnt that within the Manchester conurbation we are doing some good work. The
transnational partners were amazed at the level of employer involvement that we had, and
also at how much we worked in partnership with each other.”

“The transnational work has impacted on people, although I'm not sure what the tangible
benefits are for everyone - those who really entered into the ethos of it seemed to get the
most benefits.”

We didn’t really learn from the process:
“I didn't get a lot out of this - I think the transnational partners probably got more out of it than
we did, they tended to be more organisation-led and I think they learnt from our Partnership-
led approach. I would like to have heard more about our transnational partners national
initiatives, not just their local projects - for example what does their equivalent of Jobcentre
Plus do?”

We weren’t involved in the process:
“We were going to host a transnational visit but it was cancelled, and we haven't done
anything since.”

“I wasn't involved in the transnational work at all.”

“We weren't involved in the transnational network.”

“We weren't involved in it and I don't really think the Partnership put too high a value on it.”


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         41
Q. How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in helping you to exchange
information and experience, getting to know each other’s ideas, strategies, and
activities?
“It was useful - it gave us an understanding of their way of thinking, and seeing things in place
gave us an understanding of how they do things.”

“It was quite useful, although they were working with a less excluded client group than ours,
and they also seemed to have a lot more money available to them, so there was a bit of a
contrast. The motivational questionnaire was not relevant to our clients, they need much more
of a package of support, not just a questionnaire. Overall, the transnational work was well
structured and well thought out.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in using international experience
and expertise to test and improve existing courses, materials and methods, and to
develop new products?
“It gave us an insight into what we could do differently. Knowing what we were going to be
doing on the trip in advance helped us to prepare questions and get the most out of it.”

“Yes, it was helpful, although we were quite a way apart on a lot of things.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in experimenting in areas of
common interest and enhancing mutual business opportunities?
“Yes - their young people face similar problems to our own, but you do have to take cultural
differences into account, along with their different rules and regulations.”

“We were all looking at employability, but overall the French were probably most sympathetic
to what we were doing.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in encouraging you to use new
approaches (individually or your organisation) based on work tested elsewhere in the
TNP?
“It definitely encourages a different outlook.”

No, not really.

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in increasing your
understanding of how other countries’ labour markets and labour market policy /
interventions work?
“It definitely broadened my horizons and gave me and understanding of what they have to
work with.”

“Yes.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in giving a higher profile for your
Partnership in the eyes of fellow professionals and important decision-makers?
“Yes, I think they were more aware of what we were doing.”

“Yes.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in extending your personal and /
or your team’s experience, language, communication and other skills, and gaining a
wider European perspective?
“It helps you to stop and realise that not everyone sees things the same way and that you
have to communicate clearly - you need to think before you open your mouth so that you don't
cause confusion or offence.”

“Yes, it was good to go and represent the company and to network with other organisations.”



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    42
How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in terms of:
(a) The length of time taken to set up and develop the transnational partnership
“Yes, it was fine.”

“I don't know how long it took to set things up, so I can't say.

(b) The dedication required to set up and develop the transnational partnership
“It was OK, it didn't take too much out of us.”

“I think it was time consuming for what we got out of it.”

(c) The financial and human resources needed to set up and develop the transnational
partnership
“It was fine.”

“We could have done with more money for this element of the work.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in terms of the levels of risk
involved in working transnationally, and particularly in being creative and innovative?
“We all like to think that we're creative and innovative all the time, but it does help to take you
one step further.”

“No, not really.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been in continuing transnational
working? Would you stop? Continue? Change?
“I've done transnational work before an always felt it was worthwhile, and I don't think I'd
change anything about this particular transnational programme.”

“If we had the resources we would continue with it - we find linking up with European partners
on the Street Newspaper Network very useful, so maybe we would do more of it.”

How effective has the Transnational Partnership been at encouraging wider national /
international dissemination of good practice?
“Organisations don't always have the time for dissemination - to be done properly it needs
more time and money.”

“Yes, but there needs to be resources to do it”

Summary: For those interviewees who had been involved in the transnational element only
(i.e. they were not involved in the core partnership group), there was a recognition that the
transnational work was generally useful in showing how things could be done differently.
Those on the transnational group felt that it expanded their horizons and helped to develop
understanding of other countries‟ work. Both members of the transnational group felt that they
would continue their involvement with the transnational work if funding was available. In
addition, one of the transnational partners has adapted best practice and lessons learnt from
the work of CP&S, and had incorporated these into its own delivery, thereby clearly showing
the success of the transnational work.

There were mixed feelings from other stakeholders on the effectiveness of the transnational
element of the work, with some being very positive about the process, and a smaller number
feeling that it was of limited value. To a greater extent, Wavehill found that those who had
become involved with the transnational work with a very clear idea of what they wanted to find
out or gain from the process, and who went into the process with a range of questions that
they wanted answers to, were the people who got most from it. In other words, the
transnational work was very much a case of only getting out what you put in. In addition, a
significant minority of stakeholders were not involved in the transnational work at all.


5.1.10 General success of Equal

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      43
Q. Do you think the Partnership and the Equal programme in this area have been
successful? Has Equal affected policies and ideas in your or other organisations?

Yes, it’s been effective:
“We've taken on board a different way of working with employers as a direct result of Equal.”

“Yes, it's been effective. I think it has affected different organisations at different levels - for
example, in the health service it has affected senior managers, while in the Jobcentre Plus I
think it will affect front-line staff.”

“It has had an impact in terms of supporting projects that otherwise would not have been
funded. It helped to prompt us to think about our own plans and so has impacted on us and in
how we approach employability issues and partnership working.”

“Yes, it's been successful and the money has generally been used effectively. The emphasis
at looking at different ways of tackling exclusion through pilot activities and different
approaches is the key.”

“Yes, on the whole - Equal has added value to what we do and informed what we do.”

“I don't know how the projects are doing against their targets, but from my perspective it
seems to have been successful.”

“Yes, it's been a successful programme. I think Equal has impacted on us as an organisation,
through things like the motivational research, although the effect may be at the edges rather
than the core. We would get involved with Equal again in the future.”

“It has been successful and it has influenced how I see things - it has definitely given food for
thought, and there are things that we would change in future because of Equal.”

“As far as I have seen it is a very good programme.”

“Yes, it has been generally successful, and certainly the partnership working ethos has
carried over into other areas of activity. Equal has given deliverers in Tameside an
opportunity to re-assess what they're doing and take a few more risks, and to modernise
things in areas such as social services.”

Its effect has been limited:
“From my perspective I think it's had a limited impact. I think it's been lacking in
communication and promotion, and people in fields like employment training or in the Primary
Care Trust probably wouldn't know what was going on in the programme.”

Summary: Overall, the stakeholders view the Programme in a positive light, and there is a
strong feeling that ways of working have been influenced by Equal. This is obviously an
important output for the programme, and one that could be monitored in future to see how
these changes in working practices develop over time.


5.1.11 Good and Best Practice from the Projects

Q. What do you see as good or best practice from the Projects?

Can’t Comment:
“I don't know enough about the other projects to comment.”

“I don't know enough about the projects to say.”

“I can't really comment on this as I don't know enough about the projects.”


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       44
“Aspire seems to be a good project that could move into other areas, but apart from that I
don't really know enough to comment.”

“I don't know enough about the projects to answer this.”

“I don't know enough about all of the projects to comment.”

Miscellaneous:
“Best practice is where a project links with several different organisations to deliver – it gets
people out of their silos.”

“The good practice is flexibility, individual one-to-one work, the length of time given, and the
measuring of distance travelled.”

“The projects that have tried to work directly with employers have been most successful, and
this is the case for Equal as a whole, not just this Partnership. We need to know what
employers want, and tailor the projects to fit.”

“The theory of projects like Headstart shows good practice, but I'm not sure if they've made
the progress they wanted to, so I don't know if you could call them best practice.”

“Media Training and Wheels on Wheels seemed to show best practice.”

Summary: Whilst the identification of good practice is part of the role of this evaluation, it is
still worth noting that so few stakeholders could talk about any of the projects in any detail,
and indicates a need to bring partners back into the process once this evaluation is complete.
This will be essential if the dissemination action is to be undertaken effectively. The best
practice examples that were highlighted covered different issues, and need to be taken in
conjunction with the findings from the range of other interviews that were undertaken as part
of this evaluation. Best practice, including examples, is discussed in more detail elsewhere
within this report.


5.1.12 Lessons for the future

Q. What do you think are the lessons for the future?

Use the Equal programme to shape future planning in the mainstream:
“We need to take individual lessons from the projects and use them to inform planning.”

“We need to evaluate the programme, find out what has worked, and get those successful
elements into the mainstream.”

“We need to involve the mainstream agencies to get them to fund or almost "host" a project -
they could take a mentoring approach and offer technical and organisational support for
smaller organisations, which would bring sustainability to the projects.”

“It would be a great shame if all the projects were to end - we need to learn lessons and carry
these forward into the mainstream.”

“We're going to mainstream our project.”

Get rid of bidding:
“It would be better not to have the open bidding situation again - we should use Equal to
identify innovative opportunities to get people into work, but we should use the research to
inform this.”

“Rather than engage in bidding rounds we need to identify local needs and then work with
organisations to deliver solutions - i.e. work on a tendering rather than a bidding system - in a
bid system good bid writers rather than good projects are successful.”

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    45
Miscellaneous:
“Any sub-regional programme needs good links into the local authority area in order to be
delivered effectively.”

“On future occasions, I would ensure that the transnational partnership was sorted out quicker
and that the needs analysis was sorted out earlier on.”

“I think we've learned that there is a need for future revenue funding for innovation, not tied to
high outputs - in effect, we now have zero unemployment, so what we are trying to do is to
get to the economically inactive - you have to be innovative to do that.”

“Jobcentre Plus needed to be involved earlier on in the process.”

“The action planning stage of Equal was useful, and we should retain this in future as it gives
people time to crystalise their ideas.”

“I wouldn't radically re-vamp anything but the transnational element needed more planning
time and needed more scoping out to overcome the language barriers, but this is just
practicalities - the overall emphasis is fine.”

“The Programme needs to be longer - 5 years might give a better capacity to analyse the
impact of the activity on government targets and such.”

“Future programmes need to allocate more resources to research, administration, and
dissemination.”

“I think we had a good approach, we identified the needs, and we wouldn't really do anything
differently next time.”

“This project has cemented stuff that I already knew, and being able to compare to another
culture really helped. In the future, I would look for more flexibility of funding to provide more
intensive support.”

“There needed to be more consultation and getting people on board prior to the bid going in -
that's why it took so long to get going.”

Summary: Most stakeholders felt that the key lesson from the Programme would be the
ability to inform the mainstream about projects that had worked as part of Equal, and which
could successfully be transferred to and delivered in the mainstream. This is one of the key
principles of Equal, and it is reassuring to see that stakeholders feel that the test-bed
approach has reaped dividends. For other lessons learned, a wide range of miscellaneous
issues were identified, which the stakeholders may wish to consider in turn during Action
Three. Wavehill would consider that the issues of: links at local authority level across the sub-
region; additional revenue funding for innovation not tied to high outputs; and targeting the
economically inactive are ones that could be addressed by some partners during future
activities, and ways to take these lessons on board and make appropriate changes need to
be explored as a Partnership.


Recommendations


Recommendation Four

Issue: Whilst core stakeholder participation remained at a healthy level, it should be
acknowledged that involvement of some stakeholders in the programme does appear to have
lessened over time. This may be because stakeholders feel that the programme is now
drawing to an end, and their involvement is no longer crucial to the success of the
programme.

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     46
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: Whilst the reduction in involvement is in some ways understandable,
some stakeholders will need to resume their previous high level of involvement with the
process to steer Action Three. This is a crucial part of the programme, and commitment will
be required from stakeholders if it is to work well. ME may be able to use this evaluation as a
catalyst for rekindling interest and enthusiasm about the programme, and Action Three,
amongst stakeholders.



Recommendation Five

Issue: Stakeholders‟ former high level of involvement needs to be re-instated for Action
Three, in order to ensure the success of this element of the programme. As part of this
process, it will be helpful for Stakeholders to be guided through a process of examining their
role within the Partnership. For example: Who will represent their organisation? What will their
role and responsibilities be? What do they expect to give to the process? What do they expect
to get from the process? What added value can they bring?
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: ME should seek to use this evaluation as a catalyst for generating
additional involvement in Action Three. There should be a workshop or discussion session
with stakeholders to discuss the questions asked above, and to begin the process of moving
forwards. The Partnership must therefore take on an active role within Action Three to move
the projects into a forward or exit strategy, providing steering and direction wherever possible.
This is a strategic responsibility for the Partnership, and the projects must not be left to
attempt mainstreaming activities in isolation. This co-ordinated approach is essential if the
work that has occurred and the lessons that have been learned in Action Two are not to be
wasted.



Recommendation Six

Issue: The majority of Stakeholders felt that the programme did meet local needs, whilst a
minority of stakeholders felt that the programme had not effectively met these needs. This
difference of opinion may be due to the fact that local needs can change over time, or delivery
of projects can change. This highlights the need for building flexibility of delivery to be built
into the projects. In Wavehill‟s opinion, from research, interviews, and its interim evaluation,
the project was built on sound research of local needs.
Evidence: Stakeholder interviews. Wavehill‟s interim evaluation. Wavehill‟s beneficiary
interviews.
Recommendation: As part of Action Three, the original research for the programme could be
revisited. The programme could examine how these identified needs were met by the
projects, being specific wherever possible, and highlight the impact that the projects have had
on the identified groups.



Recommendation Seven

Issue: There were concerns among some stakeholders about the sustainability of the
empowerment that had occurred amongst beneficiaries of the projects.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: If it is possible, it may be useful for some projects to monitor the progress
of their beneficiaries in the future. This could be done, for example, by conducting a brief
telephone interview with the client once every six months for two to three years. This would
build up a picture of the continuing impact of the projects on individuals, and assess the
sustainability of the empowerment that occurred. In addition, this would also enable the
programme to see whether the intervention provided by the projects was successful in moving


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    47
beneficiaries on beyond their first entry-level job. Wavehill appreciates that such long-term
monitoring may not be possible due to funding restrictions, but it is a recommendation that
should still be considered wherever possible.



Recommendation Eight

Issue: Stakeholders identified a wide range of different barriers to the successful
mainstreaming of the projects.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: The Partnership, as part of initial Action Three work, needs to clearly
identify the potential barriers to mainstreaming and work as a group to identify possible ways
around them. The Partnership‟s members are, in many cases, mainstream organisations that
could hold the key to overcoming some of these barriers. Clear identification of the barriers,
and discussion of the ways around them, could kick-start the process. Wavehill has begun to
identify these barriers as part of this evaluation, but to explore them more deeply, and to
assess potential solutions, needs the knowledge and expertise of the partners (both
stakeholders and projects) themselves.



Recommendation Nine

Issue: Stakeholders identified a range of important lessons learned from the programme
including, crucially, the ability of the projects to inform the mainstream.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder interviews.
Recommendation: All of the lessons learned need to be considered by the Partnership at the
earliest possible opportunity, so that they can be taken on board during Action Three. These
include: informing the mainstream about projects that have worked as part of Equal, and how
elements of their best practice can be delivered by mainstream agencies; strengthening links
at local authority level across the sub-region; mainstream agencies providing funding for
innovation not tied to high outputs; and developing initiatives to target the economically
inactive. This discussion could be linked into the recommendation above, as there are
common issues between the two.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                 48
5.2      Project interviews and analysis

As part of our programme-wide evaluation, Wavehill undertook face-to-face and telephone
interviews will all projects to discuss their work and progress. The key results of these
interviews are represented in this section.

In addition, this section also draws extensively on the internal evaluations produced by the
projects themselves, including their output data.

By considering the results of both internal and external research, it is possible to pull together
an overview of the innovation, mainstreaming, best practice etc from the projects. This
overview is presented within in the next section of this report.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     49
Breakthrough in Tameside

(a) Background

The project was designed to bring together employers and health care professionals in order
to raise awareness of the barriers faced by disabled people in entering work, and to then
deliver the employment support needs of disabled people.

The work included providing advice on the Disability Discrimination Act, signposting to
specialist agencies that provide guidance on disability employment issues, and bringing
together health care professionals and local employers to jointly explore the barriers to
employment for disabled people. The work was based on the social model of disability, and
consisted of training sessions and social activities.

The objectives of the project were to provide improved services to support disabled people to
enter the world of work, to provide information to disabled people and employers, and to
establish links with employers.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

The project successfully attracted health care professionals to the courses, and feedback
from them in Wavehill‟s external evaluation was very positive, and individuals often displayed
significant distance travelled from the start to the end of the course.

However, some of the interviews carried out by Wavehill indicated that the number of
employers attracted to the course was lower than had been hoped for. It is difficult to assess
the extent to which health care professionals outnumbered employers, as outputs have been
recorded only as gross numbers attending training courses, with no breakdown of the status
of the attendees. A lower than expected number of employers would not be surprising, as it is
difficult to attract employers to such training.

If the anecdotal evidence on low employer numbers is correct, then this is a lesson learned
for the future, and indicates that, from the outset, greater emphasis needs to be placed on
communicating to employers the benefits of attending such training sessions.

(c) Innovation

The Breakthrough project as it was designed was innovative for the following reasons:
     Targeting those who are responsible for caring for disabled people rather than the
        disabled people themselves.
     Training included informal activity sessions as well as more traditional learning.
     Attempting to bring together health care professionals with employers.
As noted in (a) above, the third of these elements was not wholly successful, but the
innovative ideas underpinning the project remain sound.

(d) Empowerment

The project enabled health care professionals to be empowered to make informed
judgements regarding the disabled people that they support. This increased knowledge
should then have (sometimes indirectly) empowered more disabled people into employment.
From the interviews with beneficiaries that were undertaken by Wavehill, the increased
knowledge and confidence of the health care professionals is very apparent, and as such the
project has directly empowered this specific group.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project‟s ongoing internal evaluations were well organised, with beneficiaries evaluating
their training sessions on standard evaluation forms, which have been kept by the project. In
some cases, evaluations were also recorded on tape, and again these records have been
kept by the project.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                  50
A final evaluation was also undertaken by the project at the completion of its activities. This
final evaluation does contain a brief overview of the beneficiary evaluations, with a focus on
qualitative impacts. However, this is poorly evidenced and Wavehill felt it was necessary to
back up these findings with its own interviews with beneficiaries (which, as indicated in (d)
and (g) generated very positive feedback).

(f) Outputs

                                                                   End date Dec 03

                                                        Total
                                                                     Original      Progression
            Breakthrough In Tameside                 achieved to
                                                                 Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                        date

Beneficiaries attending training                         80            113             71%

These figures were provided by the Breakthrough project, and cover the period to December
2003, when the project ended. Beneficiaries attending training was the only output recorded
within the final evaluation prepared by the project, and there is no explanation for the variance
between the target and the final output. This is unfortunate as there may have been important
lessons to be learnt that could have been of benefit to other projects in the future.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill undertook interviews with a sample of beneficiaries that had attended the
Breakthrough training. Of fifteen names and contact details supplied by the project, Wavehill
was able to interview seven beneficiaries. The results were extremely positive, as detailed
below.


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                    "Raising awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act." X2
                    "Better knowledge of people with disabilities."
                    "Wasn't sure what to expect."
                    "As a wheelchair user myself it helped the team pull together."
                    "Information."
                    "Not sure."


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                    "I attended awareness raising sessions, and there was good networking with
                     other providers and employees."
                    "Yes, it was extremely informative and supportive."
                    "DDA refresher, and the networking was great."
                    "Very good, informative, inspiring."
                    "Networking and group discussions."
                    "Exactly what I expected – lots of information."
                    "Good information on the DDA."


Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (7)



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      51
               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       1       2       3   4   5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (7)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       1       2       3   4   5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated and confident? (7)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       1       2       3   4   5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (7)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0       1       2   3   4   5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project. (7)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                            52
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0                5               10               15

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project. (6)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    1       2       3       4        5       6    7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say. (7)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0        2               4                6        8

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly. (7)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0        2               4                6        8

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project. (7)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     53
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0      2         4        6   8

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "The information sessions and networking."
                  "Up to date information and networking opportunities."
                  "Networking."
                  "Training, networking sessions."
                  "Meeting up with other organisations, very interesting feedback."
                  "Helped me to get a different perspective and to take it on board and use it."
                  "Good information given, and everyone could put their point forward."


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “Nothing.” X 4
                  "It could have been better attended."
                  "A greater variety of organisations was needed in the project."
                  "Too large a gap between meetings."



If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  "Don't know." X 2
                  "We‟d have had to find out the information ourselves."
                  "I would have found out more information."
                  "I would have done something similar."
                  "I would have used in-house links."
                  "I would have struggled to find information."



Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

                  "No." x 5
                  "Yes. On this one, the knowledge was excellent, the networking wonderful,
                   the whole project was well presented."
                  "Yes. There was probably a good effort to network on this project. It was
                   good and appropriate that the tutor was disabled."


So, overall, beneficiary responses were very positive, showing that the project has met the
needs of this particular target group. In particular, beneficiaries felt that they were provided
with the useful, up-to-date information that they required.



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         54
(h) Mainstreaming

Tameside Council are taking forward some of the activities of the Breakthrough programme,
and these activities can therefore be considered to have been mainstreamed.

(i) Dissemination

From the project‟s final evaluation, it is not clear if any dissemination work was undertaken.

(j) Best practice

The project itself did not identify any areas of best practice. In Wavehill‟s opinion, the
objective of bringing together employers with health care professionals is something that
could be transferred to other projects within this field. However, the lessons need to be
learned from the low numbers of employers that were successfully engaged by the project.

(k) Lessons learnt

Unfortunately, the project‟s internal evaluation did not contain any information on lessons
learned and, due to staff changes since the end of the project, it was difficult for Wavehill to
identify lessons for the future from this particular project. However, if concerns about low
employer numbers are valid, then this is a lesson learned for the future, and indicates that,
from the outset, greater emphasis needs to be placed on communicating to employers the
benefits of attending such training sessions.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       55
 ECHG Accommodating Work

 (a) Background

 The project was designed to provide a range of advice and guidance to ECHG supported
 housing residents who are either ex-offenders, or at risk of offending. The project was part of
 an ongoing ECHG initiative to research ways of encouraging supported housing residents into
 meaningful work or occupations. The advice and support offered covered a range of subjects,
 from housing and benefits issues, through to education and training advice.

 (b) Issues in delivering the project

 ECHG identified that there was an uneven response from some of its housing projects, with
 some becoming very involved and some not engaging with the process. In addition, there
 were some serious organisational issues identified at the end of the project, which have
 hampered performance, which ECHG itself is investigating further.

 (c) Innovation

 The area in which the project displayed innovation was in delivering wide-ranging advice,
 guidance, and support services to a client group that had previously not benefited from these
 services, and which is very difficult to get into work. In addition, the fact that the training and
 advice is delivered in the clients‟ place of residence is innovative, as it removes the formal
 training setting that accompanies most mainstream provision.

 (d) Empowerment

 Where the project engaged residents, it did succeed in empowering them. Wavehill‟s own
 interviews with beneficiaries indicated that they felt they were listened to, given good advice,
 and as a consequence their confidence and self-belief increased. A key element of this
 empowerment was brought about by the fact that the training and advice was delivered in the
 clients‟ own place of residence.

 (e) Internal evaluation

 Internal organisational issues meant that ECHGs internal evaluation was not produced by the
 project manager, but by another member of ECHG staff. This inevitably led to some gaps
 within the evaluation, and some brevity of answers. However, most importantly the key
 lessons learned from the running of the project, along with possible ways to overcome
 problems in future, were identified and recorded within the evaluation.

 (f) Outputs

                                                                   End date Dec 04

                                                         Total
                                                                      Original      Progression
          ECHG Accommodating Work                     achieved to
                                                                  Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                         date
Beneficiaries unemployed at start and receiving new
information and guidance                                 143            130            110%
Beneficiaries into jobs                                   12             13              92%
Beneficiaries into work placements                        11             13              85%
Beneficiaries trained                                     76             52             146%
Jobs created                                               2              2             100%
Companies supported                                        0            120               0%
Firms in social economy supported                          0             30               0%
                                                                                     Exceeded by
                                                          30            20
Early leavers                                                                            50%


 Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        56
There were some serious issues surrounding the project management and the final
evaluation of the ECHG project, which were identified only towards the end of the lifetime of
the project. The final evaluation then proved difficult, as it was completed by a member of
staff who had not had responsibility for the day-to-day running of the project. The issues
identified have given the project much pause for thought and have enabled it to reconsider
how it monitors and reviews progress against targets internally in future. The key actions that
could prevent the situation happening again in the future include:

        Where staff are working almost entirely off-site, insist on evidence of planned work
         activities on a day-to-day basis
        Hold regular project review meetings with the staff and the funding body.

Other projects may wish to take on board these simple safeguards when monitoring projects
in future.

In the final evaluation that was submitted to ME, the project indicated that the two outputs
against which no progress was made had proved to be unachievable in practice due fairly
practical reasons of not being able to access specific data. If this was the case, the target
needed to be amended during the lifetime of the project and reasons for the amendment
recorded at that point. Otherwise, progress towards outputs was good overall, with the
exception of the early leavers target, which showed higher numbers than anticipated leaving
the project before completion.

(g) Beneficiary data

As detailed above, there were problems surrounding the final evaluation of the project.
Wavehill assisted by carrying out a Focus Group, face-to-face, and telephone interviews with
beneficiaries of the project. Of the Focus Group attendees, it was not clear who had accessed
the services of the Accommodating Work project. Therefore, the responses recorded below
are from the telephone and face-to-face interviews only.


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                  “I wasn't expecting anything, but I got advice on benefits and stuff.”
                  “I didn't know they gave advice before I came here, but there is a worker here
                   who can tell you about benefits and things.”
                  “Brilliant.”
                  “Electronics course.”
                  “Get me to study but I wasn‟t sure what.”
                  “Didn‟t know but I wanted to improve myself.”
                  “Job search / interviews.”
                  “Not sure.”
                  “Conservation work.”
                  “Too see if I was able to do a job.”


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                  “I got more than I expected.”
                  “I got advised by them to go to college rather than get a job because then I
                   could get my rent paid - I didn't know that.”
                  “Always there to help, make me more confident.”
                  “Yes, but I wanted part time.”
                  “Information on computers a course to make me IT literate.”


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        57
                  “Computer course, which I am really enjoying.”
                  “Yes.”
                  “A lot of good advice, computer course, good support.”
                  “6 weeks conservation work, the transport was paid for to Scotland.”
                  “Advice on jobs I could do. Really helpful people too their time to talk and
                   listen to me.”


If you don’t have a job now, are there still things that are stopping you from getting a
job? If so, what are they?

                  “I'm at college now, doing hairdressing.”
                   “Mental Health and my medication.”
                  “I‟m disabled so I‟m stigmatised.”
                  “Mental Health.”
                  “Health, I can‟t lift heavy goods.”
                  “Not sure what to do, need more skills.”
                  “My health, I‟m off sick until 2006, I‟ve been getting blackouts so I can‟t
                   operate machinery.”
                  “I'm doing a fashion course at college”
                  “Mental Health, limits me to what I can do.”
                  “My age as I‟m 63 and mental health and I can‟t read or write.”


Did you get feedback from the project on your progress? How?

                  “Yes, verbally.” X 2
                  “Yes letters.” X 2
                  “Yes.” X 2
                  “Yes, very helpful.”
                  “Yes, very good.”
                  “Not really.”
                  “Through a key worker that I had to meet with once a month.”


Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (10)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0     2     4       6      8   10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (10)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        58
               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0           2           4       6           8       10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated and confident? (10)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0           2           4       6           8       10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (10)

                             N/A


                    They were ok


            They were very good


                                       0       1           2       3   4       5       6    7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (10)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0           2           4       6       8       10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project (10)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      59
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0            2               4           6            8

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project (10)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    1           2       3       4   5           6    7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say (10)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0        2           4           6           8       10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly (10)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0        2           4           6           8       10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project (10)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        60
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    2       4       6    8   10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  “Very accommodating and progressing.”
                  “Motivation and self esteem.”
                  “The support and co-operation the way its run.”
                  “Can‟t say, most of it wasn‟t good.”
                  “Having the encouragement to go forward after so long out of school.”
                  “The helpfulness they put themselves out for you, helped me overcome my
                   fears.”
                  “Sociological infrastructure.”
                  “They would put themselves out for you, very approachable normal human
                   beings.”
                  “I met loads of new people, and got to go on activities in Wales.”
                  “The best thing was that I grew up a lot - I learnt a lot about myself, and I
                   learnt to live independently. I was surprised at how nice it was here
                   sometimes.”


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “Nothing, it‟s fine as it is.” X 7
                  “Sharing a bathroom and kitchen with loads of other girls, and the furniture
                   and stuff wasn't very homely.”
                  “Sharing a bathroom and kitchen, it could get really horrible. We had curfews
                   and could only stay out until a certain time for a certain number of nights. It
                   could get depressing being here sometimes, stuck in all day with no money
                   and nothing to do (in the summer before I started college).”
                  “More time per person, maybe 1 ½ hour sessions.”


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  “I had my name down for the Manchester Foyer, so I probably would have
                   gone there.”
                  “I would have tried to get into the Foyer.”
                  “Don‟t know probably nothing.”
                  “No idea, I would have been lost, hopefully a part time course.”
                  “Nothing.” X 2
                  “Go to job centre and keep looking.”
                  “Can‟t really say.”
                  “Don‟t know, voluntary work.”
                  “Nothing, gone on from day to day.”




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     61
Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

                  “N/A.” x 9
                  “This is best of the lot.”


Overall, the beneficiary feedback is again extremely positive. In particular, the direct support
and encouragement provided by project staff seems to be the element that stood out most for
beneficiaries.


(h) Mainstreaming

Towards the end of ECHG‟s project, it was discovered that a government-funded pilot project
was being delivered in the Manchester area by a national organisation, providing the same
services to the same client group. ECHG has now formed a close working relationship with
this organisation, which is now continuing the Accommodating Work service.

(i) Dissemination

The lessons learned for the Accommodating Work project have been incorporated into the
joint working protocols now established with the government-funded project, and in this way
valuable information has been disseminated. There may be scope under Action Three to
disseminate lessons learned further afield.

(j) Best practice

ECHG felt that, as an organisation, they displayed best practice by employing ex-offenders on
the Accommodating Work project.

(k) Lessons learnt

ECHG identified that it would have been appropriate to have had one person in every
accomodation project as a designated link into the Accommodating Work project, so that the
project could have been supported from the inside. In addition, ECHG identified that greater
involvement with monitoring and review of the project and staff at senior management level
would have been beneficial.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   62
Crime Doesn’t Pay

(a) Background

The project was devised to work within the prison service offering offenders the opportunity to
develop new skills through various methods, such as mentoring and training, in order to offer
their experiences through paid employment to young people at risk of offending. It was
envisaged that this engagement of offenders / ex-offenders would help to strengthen
community cohesion and address social exclusion.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

Overall the project has delivered well against its objectives, but the project itself identified that
its impact on employers was not as substantial as had been hoped.

(c) Innovation

The project is innovative in that it employs ex-offenders to deliver to ex-offenders or those at
risk of offending.


(d) Empowerment

The project identified how a number of ex-offenders were interested in the opportunity to
become mentors, and so meetings were arranged with the local college to discuss what
would be involved in training to be a mentor. The vast majority of those who met with the
college went on to take part in the mentoring course, which involved leaving the supportive
environment of the project and entering a more formal educational set up. This shows real
distance travelled and empowerment for the client group.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project‟s final internal evaluation was patchy. However, it did identify some important
lessons learned, such as the fact that clients preferred to use the service as and when they
required it, thereby setting their own pace. In addition, the project itself took active steps to
work in partnership with mainstream agencies, acting as a kind of intermediary, as the client
group often did wish to engage with these agencies. Finally, the project felt that working in a
non-judgemental manner was essential to the success of the project. .

(f) Outputs

                                                                End date – March 04

                                                     Total
                                                                  Original      Progression
                Crime Doesn’t Pay                 achieved to
                                                              Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                     date

Number of jobs created by the project                   4               4               100%
Number of beneficiaries placed into employment          3              10                30%
Number of people trained                               40              30               133%
Number of new information and guidance services         2               2               100%
Number of people supported in the target group         85             100                85%
Number of qualifications gained by ex-offenders         8              12                67%

For all outputs, the project is confident that it can achieve or surpass the target by the end of
the programme. If this proves to be the case, then the project will have performed well against
its output targets. The project must make sure to collate these final outputs to inform any
activities under Action Three of the programme.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        63
(g) Beneficiary data

As part of its evaluation, Wavehill undertook additional consultation with nine beneficiaries of
the Crime Doesn‟t Pay project. Wavehill were unable to make contact with the client group
directly, but were able to send evaluation questionnaires to the beneficiaries via the project
itself. All questionnaires were then self-completed by the beneficiaries.


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                  "I expected it to be an employability course, and yes it was"
                  "Yes."
                  "I would like them to do their best at getting me a job."
                  "I expected to get advice on a job."
                  "I expect to get advice on how to apply for jobs."
                  "I have only just started the project so I haven't done much."
                  "I expect help with housing, training courses, advice, training and help in job
                   searches, and help to write a CV."
                  "Considering that I have been in prison for a while, it will help. I have got all
                   the help I expected."
                  "I thought it would be about housing and probation stuff as well as job search.
                   It would be useful to have help with accommodation in order to apply for jobs,
                   it is difficult to get employment while homeless."


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                  "Yes I think it has helped – with phone calls, housing benefits, probation."
                  "Yes, advice with housing, CVs, jobs, and training courses."
                  "N/A."
                  "Yes, got advice on CV's and job applying."
                  "Advice on CV's and job applying."
                  "Help to get me a job, key skills, qualifications, probation, housing."
                  "It's made me feel comfortable, confident, they've rang housing, social,
                   probation."
                  "Talked to probation, made a CV."


If you don’t have a job now, are there still things that are stopping you from getting a
job? If so, what are they?

                  “Being in jail.” X 2
                  “Criminal record.” X 2
                  “No.”
                  “N/A.”
                  "No. I have a job working with The Big Issue in Birmingham, but if I leave this
                   (which I won't) prejudice from criminal record."
                  "Criminal record and prejudice from employers."


Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (9)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        64
                             N/A

               No it hasn't helped

            Yes it's helped a little

              Yes it's helped a lot

                                       0       1           2           3       4       5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (9)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       1       2           3       4       5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated? (9)

                   Don't know yet

               No it hasn't helped

            Yes it's helped a little

              Yes it's helped a lot

                                       0       1       2           3       4       5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (9)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0       1           2       3       4       5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (9)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     65
            They weren't very good


                      They were ok


               They were very good


                                     0       2           4       6   8       10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project. (9)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                         0           2       4       6        8

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project. (9)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                         0       2       4       6       8   10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say (9)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                         0       2       4       6       8   10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly (9)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                            66
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0     2      4       6    8   10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project (9)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0     2      4       6    8   10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "Good advice." X 2
                  “N/A.” x 2
                  "Tutors"
                  "Getting me a job, phoning people to help."
                  "Good advice and opportunities."
                  "All was good as I only just started the time I had spent made me feel like a
                   person again."


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “N/A.” x 5
                  "All good so far."
                  "Some information is boring."
                  “Only 2 afternoons a week, could do with more sessions."


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  "Not sure." X 2
                  “N/A.” x 2
                  "Slept all day."
                  "Nothing."
                  "Probably not get a job."
                  "Worked on wings or stayed in my room."


Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         67
                  “Haven‟t been on any.” X 8
                  "Yes, prison ones, this is better."

Overall, this small sample showed satisfaction with the Crime Doesn‟t Pay project. Most
importantly, the questionnaire showed increased confidence and motivation amongst
beneficiaries, and these are key areas of development for this particular client group.


(h) Mainstreaming

Wavehill is not aware of the project‟s plans for mainstreaming.

(i) Dissemination

Wavehill is not aware of the project‟s plans for dissemination.

(j) Best practice

The project uses appropriate methods, such as street work using mentors who share
experiences with the target groups, to engage hard-to-reach groups such as disaffected
young people.

(k) Lessons learnt

Perhaps the key lesson learned from the project is the fact that continuity is essential when
working with offenders and potential offenders, as dependability and familiarity is often
missing from their social networks. In addition, the importance of a non-judgemental
approach, coupled with a service that can be accessed as and when required by the client,
are also seen to be key elements.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                68
Aspire

(a) Background

The Project provided paid transitional employment and training together with one-to-one
personal and job search support, to enhance the employability of homeless and ex homeless
people (including refugees) and ex-offenders, through the operation of a textile recycling
collection service.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

The project took on lower than expected numbers of beneficiaries, leading to a failure to
achieve its output targets. In addition, the project found that its administration and monitoring
arrangements were not appropriate for the size of the project, which subsequently struggled
to keep up with monitoring and reporting demands. Finally, the project had aimed to develop
recycled products for the market but, due to an under-estimation of the time required, was
unable to do this within the lifespan of the project.

(c) Innovation

The original idea to set up a social enterprise focussing on recycling was innovative, and
tapped into a huge potential growth area. The aim to develop products through recycling
techniques was also innovative, but there was insufficient time during the life of the project to
develop and market-test recycled textile products.

(d) Empowerment

The project worked with hard to reach groups, including ex-offenders and asylum seekers,
thereby seeking to empower significantly marginalised groups. Unfortunately, due to the low
numbers of beneficiaries involved and the fact that many had moved on and were not
contactable, Wavehill were only able to interview two beneficiaries as part of this evaluation.
Feedback from these two beneficiaries was positive.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project itself recognised that it failed at the planning stage to take account of the extent of
administration and monitoring requirements of the programme. There was therefore
insufficient administration and monitoring time and support built into the project, which shows
in the brevity of the project‟s final internal evaluation.

(f) Outputs

                                                                    End date Dec 04

                                                          Total
                                                                       Original      Progression
                         Aspire                        achieved to
                                                                   Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                          date

Number of companies supported                               1             6             17%
Number of firms in the social economy supported             1             6             17%
Number of qualifications achieved (NVQ 1-5 or equiv)        7            29             24%
Number of unemployed beneficiaries                         18            29             62%
Number of jobs created                                     18            29             62%
Number of new business start ups                            1             6             17%
Number of homeless people supported                         8             9             89%
Number of ex offenders supported                            4            11             36%
Number of refugees supported                                7             9             78%
Number of beneficiaries under 25                            0            15              0%


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       69
Number of beneficiaries over 25                          18              14               129%
Number of male beneficiaries                             14              15                93%
Number of female beneficiaries                            3              15                20%
Number of white beneficiaries                             6              15                40%
Number of non white beneficiaries                        12              14                86%

In its internal evaluation, the project identifies that the reasons for the significant shortfalls are
as follows:

         Output shortfalls are due to the lower number of total beneficiaries registered on the
          project than was forecast.
         An additional 7 beneficiaries took part in the project but were not registered as they
          would attract no additional funding
         The number of beneficiaries forecast was over ambitious.

Again, the project needed to monitor progress against output targets during the lifetime of the
project and identify any major shortfalls as they became apparent. This would enable the
project to identify the reason for the shortfall, tackle it if possible, or revise the output target if
necessary. This does not appear to have happened, leaving the target with some significant
shortfalls in the final evaluation. The project has itself identified that it has not demonstrated
its full potential, and closer monitoring during the lifetime of the project may have been able to
shape its activities in a positive way.


(g) Beneficiary data

Of the total eighteen beneficiaries who took part in the Aspire project, Wavehill was provided
with seven contact names and numbers by the project. Unfortunately, we were unable to
contact all but two of the people listed for a one-to-one interview. Therefore the following
answers cannot be considered to constitute a full review of beneficiary impact.


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                   "How to use computers."
                   "To improve my computer skills."


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                   "As I was computer literate it gave me a good chance to get more IT skills."
                   "Yes, very helpful, lots of advice."


Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (2)

                No it hasn't helped


             Yes it's helped a little


               Yes it's helped a lot


                                        0   0.5   1    1.5     2      2.5



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                          70
          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (2)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0        0.5              1             1.5     2       2.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated? (2)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       0.2         0.4           0.6     0.8       1   1.2

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (2)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0         0.5             1         1.5     2       2.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (2)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0         0.5             1         1.5     2       2.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project. (2)


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                           71
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    0.2    0.4       0.6     0.8       1   1.2

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project. (2)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    0.2    0.4       0.6     0.8       1   1.2

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say. (2)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    0.2    0.4       0.6     0.8       1   1.2

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly. (2)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0     0.5         1         1.5     2       2.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project. (2)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                72
                     Strongly disagree
                             Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                                Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                         0   0.5     1      1.5   2   2.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "Advice when needed."
                  "Having the help there, you could ask and it was explained, you don't feel a
                   fool."


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “The course should have been a bit more specific."
                  "Nothing."


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  "Tried to find another course."
                  "Don't know."


Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

        “No.” x 2

So, although the results from these two interviews were positive, and again show increased
confidence and motivation, these responses cannot be considered to provide a thorough
evaluation of the beneficiary impact.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project‟s mainstreaming potential is dependent on its ability to generate a commercially
sustainable income from textile recycling sufficient to continue the project. The project
estimates that this will be possible from September 2005, although Wavehill has not seen any
detailed plans for continuation in the meantime.

(i) Dissemination

So far, all dissemination has been undertaken through Aspire‟s own national network.

(j) Best practice

The project shows best practice in that it targets hard-to-reach groups and, when fully
functioning, will provide them with a range of different opportunities for remaining in
employment. In addition, the choice of the recycling field is important, as this is an area of
huge potential growth.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        73
(k) Lessons learnt

The project has not succeeded in demonstrating the full potential of the recycled textile sector
and recognises that, in order to do this, greater time and resources than originally estimated
were necessary. In addition, the project has learnt the importance of adequately resourcing
administration and monitoring support.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   74
Active Participation

(a) Background

The project was set up to offer both pre and post employment support for unemployed people
in the Wythenshawe area. Pre employment support prepared people for the employment
market so that they were familiar with the needs of the workplace and the expectations of
employers, and were equipped to compete effectively for job opportunities. Post employment
support gave the individual additional support during the first eight weeks in work to reduce
the risk of drop-out as many clients, often entering employment for the first time, tended top
drop out after 4-6 weeks. The target groups include long term unemployed people, Lone
parents, those eligible for New Deal for Disabled People, and ex-offenders.

Interestingly, part of the project was also about transportation issues, and actively linking up
services in an area that is isolated in terms of access to transport. This is a common barrier to
employment, but few projects set out to tackle it directly.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

Overall, the project delivered well against its objectives, and there were no major problem
areas. However, the project itself did identify some areas that were more difficult to tackle
than others. For example, the project found that the expectations of employers and others
could be too high, with a lack of appreciation for the fact that the client group could be two or
three generations unemployed, and as such needed a significant length of time to get back
onto the road to employment. In addition, the benefit trap meant that people had become
acclimatised to the way that they lived, and were drawn in to the informal economy, resulting
in them not wanting to take up low paid jobs.

Bearing in mind the issues described above, the project itself identified that -it would have
deployed more staff on the project from the beginning as the workload was too extensive for
the initial one member of staff.

(c) Innovation

The post employment support role was an innovative aspect of the project, and at the time
that the project began, there was no other provision of this type in the area. Interestingly,
other Equal-funded projects have now taken on similar post entry support roles, which would
indicate that this aspect of the programme is viewed as being very successful. In addition,
post-entry support is a part of the DWPs plans for continued welfare to work development,
and as such is very much moving on to the mainstream agenda. There is therefore potential
for the relevant Equal funded projects to capitalise on this change in emphasis.

In addition, the fact that issues around public transport and accessibility for isolated
communities are being tackled is also innovative.

(d) Empowerment

The empowerment from the project came in the form of the mentoring and post-entry support
given to the client. Wavehill‟s own beneficiary evaluation indicated increased confidence and
motivation across the project‟s clients. In addition, the improved access to public transport
would also have given clients an increased sense of control over their access to the job
market.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project‟s own internal evaluation was quite thorough, with some good work undertaken
on researching customer satisfaction, including brief case studies. In addition, the evaluation
shows good partnership links, including those developed with transport operators, and also
identified potential areas where an increased focus would be needed in future, such as in
working with those who are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    75
(f) Outputs

                                                                 End date Dec 04

                                                      Total
                                                                   Original      Progression
                Active Participation               achieved to
                                                               Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                      date

Number of companies / employers supported              11              6             183%
Number of unemployed beneficiaries                     89             60             148%
Number of new information and guidance services         1              1             100%
Number of long term unemployed people supported        63             30             210%
Number of lone parents supported                       20             22              91%
Number of ex-offenders supported                        8              8             100%
Number of ethnic minorities supported                  15             18              83%

From the output data provided by the project it appears that progress towards the targets has
been excellent.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill carried out interviews with beneficiaries of this project, as it felt that the post-entry
job support element of the project displayed best practice, and was also innovative. Wavehill
was provided with twenty-three contact names by the project, and aimed to carry out one-to-
one interviews with them all. Unfortunately, several numbers were unobtainable, whilst others
did not wish to take part in the evaluation. Therefore, Wavehill managed to interview only six
beneficiaries. However, the project‟s own beneficiary evaluations were informative, and as
such conclusions can still be drawn from the data gathered by Wavehill and the project.

What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                   "First aid certificate."
                   "Literacy and numeracy course."
                   "English, Maths, CLAIT, Health and Safety, CV's, telephone techniques etc."
                   "City and Guilds, IE regulations."
                   "Not sure, but I hoped I would get a job from it."
                   "Advice."


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                   "Hands on training."
                   "Yes, help to fill in forms, job applications, help with spelling."
                   "Yes, I'm more confident to apply for a job now."
                   "Yes, expenses helped and the interaction and information was great."
                   "It was a good course and lots of help."
                   "I already had a job but they were very helpful."


If you don’t have a job now, are there still things that are stopping you from getting a
job? If so, what are they?

                   “N/A.” x 3
                   "Depression."

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     76
                  "No vacancy."
                  "Just need the right job."


Did you get feedback from the project on your progress? How?

                  "Verbally" x6


Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (6)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0     1     2        3     4   5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (6)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0     1     2        3     4   5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated? (6)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0     1     2        3     4   5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (6)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                          77
            They weren't very good


                      They were ok


               They were very good


                                     0       1               2           3           4       5       6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (6)

            They weren't very good


                      They were ok


               They were very good


                                     0       1           2           3       4           5       6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project (6)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                         0       1               2       3           4           5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project (6)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                         0           1               2           3           4       5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say (6)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                               78
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    1       2       3       4       5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly (6)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    1   2       3       4       5   6   7

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project (6)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    1       2       3       4       5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "The informality."
                  "They listened to me and I felt comfortable."
                  "They listened and helped me, I felt welcome and comfortable."
                  "I only had to ask for help and it was there."
                  "Easy to ask for help."
                  "Meeting other people to discuss things."


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “N/A.” x 5
                  "Travelling, it was 2 bus journeys away."


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                             79
                  “Don‟t know.” X 5
                  "Nothing."


Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

                  “No.” x 6


Therefore, Wavehill‟s beneficiary consultation indicates high levels of satisfaction with the
services delivered by the project. In addition, the project‟s internal evaluation indicated that
almost 90% of the project beneficiaries were completely satisfied with the overall service that
they received. Unfortunately, the satisfaction expressed tended to be in general terms, so it is
difficult to separate out the post-entry job support, and how important it was to beneficiaries.
With such a limited number of interviews, it was not possible to test this best-practice further.


(h) Mainstreaming

There are no plans for mainstreaming at the moment and, due to the success of the project,
any available options need to be carefully considered under Action Three. The fact that the
future focus will switch to those who are on Incapacity Benefit, or otherwise considered
economically inactive, indicates the potential for further work with Jobcentre Plus.

(i) Dissemination

The project itself has passed on details of its own best practice to Jobcentre Plus and the
Local Authority, who may be able to utilise this information. In addition, the good practice and
successes of the project will be useful in any wider dissemination carried out by Manchester
Enterprises under Action Three.

(j) Best practice

In Wavehill‟s opinion, the two core activities of the project both represent best practice. These
are: linking up isolated outlying communities to transport, and post entry support. These are
activities that could be replicated to good effect by other projects and, in the case of post-
entry support, this is already proving to be the case.

(k) Lessons learnt

The project itself identified that it would have benefited from having more staff available to
engage employers. In addition, the project also identified the importance of forging
partnerships with appropriate organisations in order to enhance opportunities for marginalised
groups.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     80
Gorton Gateway

(a) Background

Gorton Gateway was originally set up through a RSL in November 2002, beginning with a
remit to tackle financial exclusion. However, demand from the public and feedback from
mainstream providers led to an expansion of the role into employability issues. It was found
that several barriers had to be overcome before beneficiaries could realistically begin to
engage with the labour market. The project therefore took a holistic approach to social
inclusion and employability issues by offering a wide range of advice and support including
housing, debt, poverty, financial exclusion, basic skills, education, and business support.

The project used outreach workers to encourage those who were hardest to reach to use the
services it offers, while the establishment of a visible and accessible “shop front” allowed
people to drop in as and when they found it convenient.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

As the project developed, it found that many of its beneficiaries came as referrals from other
agencies, and therefore the Gateway‟s influence over those agencies extended only as far as
ensuring that its own services were well publicised so that other agencies could signpost on
to them effectively. In addition, the project found that its premises were not of sufficient size
for the range of activities being undertaken, and were also insecure as there was a possibility
of redevelopment of the site in the future. Finally, the project felt that the mainstream could be
slow to respond to requests for support and information, and often had to be pushed to
deliver.

(c) Innovation

The project itself, as a one-stop advice shop, is not particularly innovative. However, the
outreach element of the work is innovative, especially in the way that it employs local people
who already have established links within the community as outreach workers.

(d) Empowerment

The project itself gathered feedback from those that used its services, which showed that
many beneficiaries had gained in confidence and self esteem, both of which would have long-
term benefits. However, the project also recognised that it was difficult to assess its impact on
the empowerment of hard-to-reach groups, and that this was an area that needed further
examination.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project‟s interim internal evaluation was satisfactory, and indicated excellent progress on
all targets. Wavehill and ME felt that appropriate monitoring measures were in place, and no
additional work with beneficiaries was required. However, it should be noted that, whilst the
interim evaluation was satisfactory, and updated final outputs have since been received from
the project, a final full evaluation has not yet been received by Wavehill.

(f) Outputs

                                                                End date Dec 04

                                                    Total
                                                                 Original      Progression
                 Gorton Gateway                  achieved to
                                                             Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                    date

Companies supported                                   44              10             440%
Unemployed beneficiaries engaged                     363             300             121%



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     81
Employed beneficiaries engaged                       132             50             264%
Jobs created                                          12              4             300%
Referred to learning activity                        307             75             409%
Information and guidance services                      4              1             400%
Women (number supported)                             307            250             123%
Asylum seekers (number supported)                     42             20             210%
Disabled (number supported)                           94              5            1,880%
Older workers (number supported)                      15             20              75%
Homeless (number supported)                            3              5              60%
Ethnic minorities (number supported)                 144             20             720%
Ex-offenders (number supported)                       14              5             280%
Young people (number supported)                      152             30             507%
Health / drug / etc problems (number supported)        9              5             180%
Multi-disadvantaged (number supported)               565            350             161%
Trainers trained                                       3              3             100%

From the output figures provided by the project, progress towards the majority of outputs has
been excellent, with many being exceeded by some distance. The only areas of shortfall are
in the categories of:

          Older workers – the project felt that they may not be able to access the services of
           the project due to being in work during the hours that the office was open, or not
           needing the Gateway‟s services as they had built up their own skills in finding work
           and training opportunities.
          Homeless people – the project felt that other agencies were likely to intervene with
           this client group before Gorton Gateway.

In both cases, the reasons that the project gives for the shortfall are indeed likely to have an
effect on the output and, bearing in mind the excellent progress with other outputs, these two
areas of shortfall do not give real cause for concern. The only lesson to be learned for the
future involves the appropriateness of targeting these specific groups with other similar
projects, or possibly changing the method of delivery so that these groups can have
increased access to the project.

(g) Beneficiary data

As briefly noted above, a range of different monitoring and evaluation methods was in place
at the project. These included telephone surveys and follow-ups with all clients,
questionnaires that were carried out both face-to-face and self-completion, and the gathering
of case studies. Wavehill‟s review of these methods indicated that the project was evaluating
effectively, and Manchester Enterprises agreed that no further direct beneficiary work was
necessary as part of this evaluation.

(h) Mainstreaming

Final mainstreaming activity under Action Three had yet to be undertaken. However, the
project had established working partnerships with mainstream agencies and had been able to
source funding and equipment from them. This is a positive indicator for the future
mainstreaming potential of the project, but it must be remembered that the project‟s apparent
independence from the mainstream is one of its key assets, and should not be lost as
mainstreaming takes place behind the scenes.

(i) Dissemination

The project planned on disseminating through seminars and other types of networking events.
This should be successful due to the effective networks established by the project. At the time



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   82
of producing the interim evaluation, the project had not yet started on its dissemination
activities.

(j) Best practice

As with innovation, the stand-out element of best practice is the use of local staff with pre-
established links into the local community, linked to a visible local office presence. The
project‟s distance from the mainstream providers also helped it to appear approachable and
non-threatening, and this was found to be the case when Wavehill visited the project.

(k) Lessons learnt

The evaluation identified some pertinent lessons learnt from the process that could easily be
of use to other projects, such as the importance of appropriate methods of advertising and
promoting tailored to local circumstances, and the importance of appearing separate from the
mainstream in order to attract hard-to-reach client groups.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                 83
Big Life – Information, Advice, and Guidance and Video Diaries

(a) Background

The project was set up to provide an information, advice, and guidance service – linked to
education and training – for marginalized groups. In particular, homeless people have multiple
disadvantages in the labour market as many have not worked for a long time, they often lead
chaotic lives, many have alcohol and drug problems, suffer poor physical and mental health,
have few qualifications or relevant skills and lack confidence and self esteem. The objectives
of the project were therefore to provide practical and motivational one-on-one support, to
promote employment, education and training opportunities, and to work with local employers
and education and training providers to tackle barriers to working with people from
marginalized groups.

The target group for the IAG service was the unemployed / disadvantaged of Manchester.
Sub-groups of this category included: the homeless, women, ethnic minorities, people from
disadvantaged areas within Manchester, ex-offenders, and those with health, drug/alcohol
dependency, mental health difficulties.

The Video Diaries project was originally established as an innovative method of evaluating
the various services offered by Big Life Employment. Its main objectives were to establish a
thorough tracking system for beneficiaries, to measure beneficiaries milestones both in
personal development and career progression during a 12 month period, to create an informal
forum in which beneficiaries have a comfortable platform to air their experience, to develop a
catalogue of the beneficiaries over the last five years and structure an interview with as many
as possible, in order to measure absolute distance travelled both professionally and
personally, to create a steering group of current beneficiaries and ex-beneficiaries to oversee
the project and have an input into the format of the process, to help identify gaps in provision
within BLE, and to identify levels of accessibility.

The target group of the Video Diaries project was current and ex beneficiaries of Big Life
Employment.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

For the Video Diaries project, there were no major issues identified, and the project performed
well in terms of outputs. In fact, it is a measure of the success of the project that it moved
from being an evaluation tool into a project in its own right, as it seemed to meet the needs of
the client groups so effectively.

For the IAG project, there was a recognition that the services provided were sometimes
difficult to access for a significant number of homeless clients. The project felt that this was
because of the additional and sometimes enduring issues faced by homeless people, such as
chaotic and chronic drug use, which left clients feeling that they were not yet ready to access
the services provided by the project. The project took steps to tackle this by introducing
measures such as a breakfast club that attracted homeless people, and reinforced their
awareness of the project by physical presence. Again, the DWP is promoting the importance
of IAG services through its “Welfare to Workforce Development” report, and Big Life and
others need to capitalise on its increased profile within central policy.

(c) Innovation

The Video Diaries project was innovative in its use of technology to bring homeless clients
into contact with the services provided by Big Life. The video diaries produced constitute a
powerful tool that clearly identified – and made human and personal – the numerous issues
faced by homeless people.

The IAG project demonstrated innovation by providing support across a range of individual
issues, not just training and employment, thereby meeting the specific and individual needs of



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   84
the client group. This provided a holistic approach to support, which is essential for large
elements of the client groups targeted.

(d) Empowerment

In the Video Diaries project, the clients were empowered by themselves taking a key role in
the design of the project through structured focus group meetings. These focus group
sessions enabled them to plan the project, but also gave them skills in working as part of a
team.

The IAG project enabled clients to assess their own needs, and to discuss their options for
move-on. It also provided valuable work-placements and training opportunities for some
clients, who then showed considerable distance travelled during their time with the project.

(e) Internal evaluation

The written (joint) evaluation of the two projects was sufficient, with progress against outputs
being positive, and some well-planned evaluations with beneficiaries being undertaken. One
of the principal evaluation tools for the two projects was the content of the Video Diaries
themselves, and Wavehill felt that these were a high-impact method of evaluation that could
be used extensively in the future to publicise the work of the projects.

(f) Outputs

                                                               End date – Video Diaries Dec 04 and IAG
                                                                              March 05

                                                                 Total
                                                                              Original      Progression
       Big Life – I.A.G. and Video Diaries                    achieved to
                                                                          Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                                 date

Beneficiaries into jobs                                           40            10             400%
Beneficiaries into external education and training courses        86            25             344%
Work experience placements on employers‟ premises                188             8            2,350%
Qualifications achieved (NVQ Level 1-5 or equiv)                  31            30             103%
Number of unemployed beneficiaries                               183           150             122%
Number of employed beneficiaries                                   3             0              N/A
Beneficiaries participating in Video Diaries steering group       14          Not set           N/A
Beneficiaries on tape                                             54          Not set           N/A

These projects were monitored together due to their close links with each other – indeed, the
Video Diaries project began simply as an evaluation tool for the work of Big Life Employment
in general, so the two have been inextricably linked since the start, and share the same target
groups.

Progress against the output targets has been excellent, with all targets exceeded. The reason
given by the projects for this is a merger with another company – Diverse Resources – that
opened up access to additional opportunities. However, the projects feel that they would have
exceeded their targets (were set) without this merger. Bearing in mind the merger with
Diverse Resources, and how it changed the capacity of the projects, in future instances
Wavehill would recommend revising the projects‟ outputs in order to take this into account.
This would ensure more relevant output data, which could help to clearly identify lessons
learnt for the benefit of other projects. With such high rates of success as shown here, it is
difficult to identify any lessons learnt from the targets themselves.

(g) Beneficiary data

The projects were unwilling to supply contact details of beneficiaries to Wavehill due to data
protection issues. In addition, as a significant proportion of the project beneficiaries were

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                               85
homeless, there were other difficulties with accessing clients to ascertain their views. It was
therefore agreed that Wavehill would undertake a desk-based review of the beneficiary data
collected by the project, and this review took place in the projects‟ own offices.

From this review, Wavehill found that the Video Diaries were an excellent, high-impact,
method of evaluating and recording beneficiary progress, and over one hundred Video Diaries
were recorded by Big Issue vendors and project trainees. The Video Diaries were structured
using three different sets of interview questions, which, if the beneficiary attended all three
recording sessions over the 12-month period, showed the individual‟s progression over their
time with the project.

The IAG project used a more traditional method of evaluation, by asking vendors and other
beneficiaries to fill in questionnaires. The questionnaire responses showed a relatively low
level of vendors accessing the IAG project. The project has correctly identified that this is
because vendors need a considerable period of time working with the Big Life projects before
they feel ready and able to access the IAG services. Conversely, the IAG project was well
used by trainees, and all of the questionnaire responses that Wavehill saw from this particular
group gave very positive feedback.

(h) Mainstreaming

At the time of producing this evaluation, the projects had not been mainstreamed. However,
the strength of the Big Life parent company is such that the projects may have a chance of
becoming mainstreamed in future. This mainstreaming may not be in the exact format that
has been seen so far, due to practical considerations such as the cost and time implications
for the recording of video diaries, but it is possible that some of the positive outcomes from
the projects could be replicated within the parent company.

(i) Dissemination

The projects have attended a conference to publicise their work, and used the video diaries
as part of this promotional effort. The video diaries are an effective method of raising
awareness, and every effort should be made to utilise them in further dissemination work
undertaken under Action Three.

(j) Best practice

The IAG project displayed best practice by working with a challenging group of clients and
providing for their individual needs. In addition, Wavehill felt that the IAG project provided an
informal environment where clients were able to drop in and access services, or just chat with
a member of staff in a relaxed setting. This accessible and non-threatening environment is
essential if the homeless section of the client group are to be attracted and retained.

For the Video Diaries, Wavehill considers that the approach itself is innovative enough, and
has a high enough impact when viewed, to be considered good practice in itself.

(k) Lessons learnt

Linking IAG services to work and training placements has worked well for the IAG project, and
it is recognised that there is room to expand the service to increase its accessibility still
further.

For the Video Diaries project, it has been identified that the technical nature of the work is
time consuming, and this needs to be taken into account when planning and scheduling any
similar project.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    86
 Big Life – Childcare Staffing

 (a) Background

 The project provides a rolling programme of NVQ training in childcare and playwork, in order
 to develop a move-on agency for marginalised people to help them develop appropriate
 employability skills to access jobs. The agency markets its service – i.e. a bank of trained and
 work-ready staff – to childcare providers in the statutory and voluntary sectors to help them to
 fill hard-to-fill vacancies.

 (b) Issues in delivering the Project

 Perhaps one of the biggest issues faced by the project is the fact that childcare is a
 competitive field, where other agencies are often able to charge less for their staff as they pay
 lower wages. The Big Life agency feels it is important to pay higher than average wages for
 the sector as childcare is, in general, low paid.

 (c) Innovation

 The project has displayed innovation by targeting regeneration areas and seeking to provide
 wrap around care for the socially excluded members of those communities.

 (d) Empowerment

 The project seems to take an individual approach to all of its clients, and has a flexible
 approach to working hours. This ensures that clients can fit their work and training into their
 lives, and ensures maximum participation.

 (e) Internal evaluation

 At the time of writing, no internal evaluation had been produced by the project.

 (f) Outputs

                                                                     End Date – Dec 04

                                                              Total      Original   Progression
            Big Life – Childcare Staffing                  achieved to   Lifetime     Lifetime
                                                              date        Target       Target

Companies supported                                             4            8            50%
Firms in Social Economy supported                               3            2           150%
Qualifications achieved                                        20           10           200%
Unemployed beneficiaries receiving positive job outcomes
through the agency                                             35           35           100%
New business start ups                                          1           1            100%
Work placements                                                20           8            250%
People supported in each target group                          15           4            375%

 As can be seen from the above, progress against all targets (with the exception of companies
 supported) has been excellent.

 (g) Beneficiary data

 Wavehill visited the project‟s training premises and conducted a small Focus Group with five
 project beneficiaries. Rather than provide group answers, beneficiaries were asked to
 “interview” each other using the beneficiary questionnaire, to then discuss their opinions as a
 pair, and then to record their own individual answer to the questions. This ensured that



 Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     87
beneficiaries could bounce ideas off each other, whilst still being able to give their individual
point of view. The following information was therefore collected at the focus group.


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                  “I am expecting the project to improve my chances of getting a job in
                   childcare and I am expecting to gain more experience through this placement
                   and course, and to hopefully move higher.”
                  “I expect to get a job.”
                  “Training to get a job.”


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                  “I've got a lot of help and support and I've gained experience.”
                  “I get all the support and training that the project covers, with best support
                   from Dorcas and Anthonia.”
                  “I have got a lot more support than what I expected - I am gaining a lot of
                   experience working in the Zion centre, and working here has helped me to
                   realise that I want to work in childcare.”
                  “Yes, I did get the type of training needed for the job.”
                  “Yes, and I'm still getting training and support.”


If you don’t have a job now, are there still things that are stopping you from getting a
job? If so, what are they?

                  “I'm in a job.” X 2
                  “There is nothing that can stop you from getting a good job because after
                   having all the NVQ training and getting a qualification you are entitled to any
                   kind of job you want with the project.”


Did you get feedback from the project on your progress? How?

                  “I get feedback from our supervisor, Elaine.”


Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (5)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0   1    2      3          4   5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (5)



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     88
               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       1           2           3       4   5       6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated and confident? (5)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       1           2           3       4   5       6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (5)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0           1           2       3       4       5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (5)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0       1           2       3       4       5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project. (5)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     89
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0     1            2         3           4         5    6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project. (5)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    0.5       1       1.5       2       2.5       3   3.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say (5)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0          1           2             3         4        5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly (5)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    0.5       1       1.5       2       2.5       3   3.5

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project (5)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                           90
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    1    2      3        4   5   6

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  “Everything! It is a friendly environment.”
                  “Everything in general - friendly staff and a friendly environment of work.”
                  “The people are friendly and the atmosphere is great compared to a lot of
                   other placements I've been on.”


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “The only not so good thing about the project was that the placement should
                   secure you a new job after finishing your 6 months.”


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  “Nothing.” X 2
                  “Maybe carried on with art and design at college.”
                  “I would still have finished a childcare course and found a job because I was
                   looking for a better future.”


Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

                  “N/A.” x 3
                  “Not been on anything else.”
                  “I've been in other projects and this is much better.”

Whilst the focus group provided a relatively small beneficiary sample, it did provide positive
feedback on confidence, motivation, and the quality of the course. However, it will still be
essential for the project to complete its own internal final evaluation, which should detail its
own methodology for evaluating beneficiary progress, and a summary of findings.


(h) Mainstreaming

This project has real potential for mainstreaming. It provides work-ready staff in an area
where there are skills shortages, and has already begun to impact noticeably on mainstream
childcare providers. In addition, the project envisages that it will be self-sustaining after its
initial 12 month development and incubation period. Again, the project ties in with DWP plans
in that its focus on an area of skills shortages clearly links training to local employment
opportunities.

(i) Dissemination


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         91
As the project was not finishing until March 2005, no dissemination work had been
undertaken. As the project has shown some real successes, it will be important to
disseminate best practice and lessons learned as widely as possible under Action Three.

(j) Best Practice

The fact that the project offers flexible training and working hours for clients is evidence of
good practice. In addition, by concentrating on an area of skills shortage, the project provides
its previously marginalised clients with very real chances of entering the workplace.

(k) Lessons learnt

Without a final internal evaluation, it is difficult for Wavehill to identify the lessons learned from
the project. It will be important for the project to go through the process of identifying lessons
learnt at the earliest possible opportunity.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         92
The Learning Bus

(a) Background

This project provided a mobile learning and training facility, equipped with seven computer
terminals with satellite internet access. Training included IT training and Basic Skills training.
The aim of the project was to improve ICT and other educational access in the disadvantaged
communities of Salford, thereby removing barriers to training and ultimately employment.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

From a fairly early stage it became apparent that the project would not be able to meet its
target in terms of numbers of beneficiaries using the service, as the original target of 500
learners trained was over-optimistic. With only seven places available on the bus, the project
was never likely to achieve this target over the year that the programme ran, and indeed
managed to train only 39 learners. In addition, the bus was time consuming to set up and
dismantle each day and, once at its designated site, was difficult to move. Unfortunately, the
high target was not revised to a more realistic level, so it is difficult to measure how the
project really performed in terms of beneficiary numbers.

(c) Innovation

The innovation lies in the method of working, where the learning is taken to learner. The use
of satellite technology to provide internet access and training is also innovative.

(d) Empowerment

From Wavehill‟s own beneficiary evaluation, it appears that the project did empower those
who it trained (please see (f) below). The fact that the training was taken out to disadvantaged
communities also helped to engage those who would never have accessed training through a
mainstream provider.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project‟s internal evaluation was brief, and was perhaps overshadowed by the significant
shortfalls in achieving targets. There was insufficient evidence provided of beneficiary
distance travelled, and transferable and pertinent lessons learnt were not identified.

(f) Outputs

                                                                    End Date – Dec 04

                                                           Total
                                                                        Original      Progression
                The Learning Bus                        achieved to
                                                                    Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                           date

Number of learners trained                                  39           500              8%
Number of learners receiving information and guidance       51           200             26%

The project‟s outputs fall considerably short of those projected at the outset. The reason given
by the project for the variance is that only seven computers were available on the bus, with an
estimated length of attendance of 34 weeks per beneficiary. This means that beneficiary
numbers would always be considerably lower than those forecast.

In such cases, Wavehill would recommend revising the output targets as early as possible
within the programme to ensure that they remain realistic, and that the projects outputs can
be measured in a meaningful way. As the outputs stand at the moment, there is too much of a
discrepancy to draw any lessons for the future.



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        93
In addition, Wavehill‟s own evaluation indicated that sufficient time and resources were not
allocated to raise awareness in advance of the Bus locating in a particular area, meaning that
the Bus was not filled to capacity during training sessions. This is a useful lesson for the
future for other projects.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill was able to carry out one-to-one interviews with thirteen of the thirty-nine project
beneficiaries. This is a reasonable sample size, and as such can be used to form some
conclusions on the impact of the project. The question concerning how the beneficiaries
heard about the project has been included here, as there were concerns expressed about
how well the project was promoted in the local area.

How did you hear about the project?

                  “Tesco car park.” X 3
                  “A friend.” X 2
                  "Learn Direct.”
                  "Poster on the bus." X 2
                  "Saw it shopping." X 2
                  "Observer advert (local paper)."
                  "Word of mouth."
                  "Neighbour encouraged me."


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                  "Computer skills."
                  "Computing skills as it was all new to me."
                  "I wanted to be able to use a computer."
                  "Improved skills with computers, just for home use as I already have a job."
                  "To improve my computer skills and to do something with my management
                   skills."
                  "Learn computers to forward myself."
                  "I had just got a new computer and I needed to learn how to operate it."
                  "To learn computers, but I don't work now as I'm retired."
                  "Extra computer skills to brush up for my work exams."
                  "Computer skills. I hoped it would help my job prospects."
                  "Not sure, just basic computer skills."


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                  "Yes, computer skills, it was a very good course."
                  "Good computer skills, but I won't get a job as I am retired."
                  "Brilliant, with individual tuition at your own speed – it made learning easy."
                  "Wonderful, so helpful. It's given me more confidence to go for a job with
                   computers."
                  "I've just started."
                  "They were so accommodating. My shift work would not enable me to do
                   night classes so this was great for me to be able to learn in my own time."
                  "CDL Level 4 was achieved, it was a great course, and a great team put me
                   in the right direction with computers and employment."
                  "Yes, it was great as I can now us the computer with my children."



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                        94
                  "Janet was extremely helpful and made me feel comfortable and relaxed.
                   Nothing was too much and she was encouraging all the time. Joha the bus
                   driver was great as well."
                  "Yes it was marvellous. I look forward to every Wednesday - they are so
                   helpful and encouraging."
                  "Helpful, and so easy to learn. The tutor was wonderful."
                  "Yes, it was very good and helpful."
                  "It was great and they were very helpful. I learnt so much that now I'm doing a
                   maths and English course."


If you don’t have a job now, are there still things that are stopping you from getting a
job? If so, what are they?

                  “N/A.” x 5
                  "Retirement." X 3
                  "I need more skills."
                  "Just finding one."
                  "More training in computers."
                  "I need to learn more."
                  "I need more training."


Did you get feedback from the project on your progress? How? (13)



                                8%



                                                                  Verbally
                                                                  N/A



                                           92%


          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone Interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (12)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0   2     4     6      8      10      12

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (12)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     95
               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       2       4       6       8        10       12

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated and confident? (12)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       2       4       6       8        10       12

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (12)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0       2       4       6            8        10

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (12)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0   2       4   6       8       10       12   14

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project. (12)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    96
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    2       4       6       8        10   12

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project. (12)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    2   4       6       8       10   12   14

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say (11)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    2       4       6       8        10   12

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly (12)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    2   4       6       8       10   12   14

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project (12)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                              97
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0    2   4    6     8     10   12   14

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "Learning new skills so I can get a job."
                  "Convenience as it was close to home."
                  "You can go at your own speed."
                  "The easy way we were taught so you don't feel silly."
                  "The way it was presented - you can go at your own pace."
                  "Friendliness, and it was easy to learn."
                  "N/A."
                  "You were made to feel at ease, which made it easy to learn."
                  "It helped me to learn about computers so they can be part of life today. The
                   course leaves me wanting more each week."
                  "We have a good laugh, and the tutors are great. They make it easy to learn."
                  "I enjoy the social atmosphere together with the educational side – the
                   teacher was excellent."
                  "The helpfulness of the teacher."
                  "The teacher – she made you feel you could ask any questions at any time,
                   she was great."


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “Nothing.” X 8
                  "It was too short, need further funding to continue the course."
                  "Problems with the internet. I would have liked to have learnt more about
                   this."
                  "A bit more internet use for downloading information."
                  "Access to the toilet as we have to walk to the health centre if we needed it."
                  "Needs to run for longer as I am missing it – please come back to Marble
                   Road."


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  “Don‟t know.” x6
                  "I‟d have found another course."
                  "Struggled somehow."
                  "I don't know; it was the bus service there that encouraged me."
                  "I‟m not sure, but the bus gave me the push I needed."
                  "A Learn Direct course.”
                  "Another computer course."


Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       98
                  “No.” x 10
                  "This was helpful, and convenient for all age groups."
                  "I'm doing Sage at the moment - but the Learning Bus project was great - it
                   broke down the barriers."

Overall, the main area of client satisfaction centred on the flexible and relaxed nature of the
training provision, and this approach obviously worked well for this client group. The question
on how beneficiaries heard about the project indicates that many saw the bus whilst going
about their daily business. On the one hand, this shows that the physical presence of the bus
is an effective marketing tool, but this method is also slow and area-specific. If the Bus is to
continue, additional marketing in target areas in advance will be necessary.

(h) Mainstreaming

The Bus itself will remain as a Salford resource, so this particular element has been
mainstreamed by default. However, the running of training courses from the Bus will be
dependent on other sources of funding.

(i) Dissemination

The project has already undertaken some dissemination work via a brochure publication, and
at the time of this evaluation was investigating other opportunities for further dissemination
work.

(j) Best Practice

In Wavehill‟s opinion, the fact that the learning is completely flexible and tailored to the
individual is evidence of best practice that could be utilised by other projects.

(k) Lessons Learnt

The project itself felt that a longer period of funding and delivery was required in order to
attract higher numbers of learners. In addition, Wavehill feels it is important to learn the
lesson of revising unrealistic targets, as the failure to achieve targets by such significant
margins appears to have had a negative effect on the morale of those involved in the project,
perhaps leading to a perception of a lot of effort for limited gain.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       99
 Better Choices

 (a) Background

 This project began in October 2003, with the aim of increasing awareness of the services it
 could offer to employers, and also to ensuring that employers expectations of young people
 were not unrealistic. The project also worked with clients to produce CVs and to complete
 application forms, whilst also ensuring that they were fully aware of what the job entailed and
 if it was right for them. Once the client gained employment, a Personal Advisor offered
 ongoing support, maintaining contact until the young person was settled in the job. The
 nominated person in each Connexions office also maintained contact with the employer to
 ensure that there were no other difficulties.

 (b) Issues in Delivering the Project

 The project itself identified that, before the work began, there was little baseline information
 gathered about job seeking clients, and consequently the vacancies canvassed at the
 beginning of the project were not always accessible to the client group. In addition, despite
 the work of the project, some employers maintained their unrealistic expectations of young
 people, and the project needed to develop further innovative strategies to address this.
 Overall, the project found it was easier to meet the objectives concerning its own ways of
 working, rather than the ones concerning external organisations such as employers.

 (c) Innovation

 The project consistently redeveloped its materials and ways of working as it moved through
 the process, and this willingness to grow and change, and to develop new tools such as a
 website, could be seen as innovative. In addition, the post-entry support that the project
 provides is still scarce within the mainstream and other organisations, and so could be
 considered innovative.

 (d) Empowerment

 The project sought to work with clients on areas such as job search, CVs, and job
 applications. However, the aim was always to move the client to a position where they were
 able to undertake these tasks independently, which shows empowerment of the client group.

 (e) Internal evaluation

 The project completed a good evaluation, with clear identification of progress and impacts of
 the project, especially around those areas that worked well. Areas that were perhaps lacking
 in detail were the beneficiary and lessons learnt sections, which could have been
 strengthened.

 (f) Outputs

                                                                    End Date – Dec 04

                                                           Total
                                                                        Original      Progression
                    Better Choices                      achieved to
                                                                    Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                           date

Project staff jobs created                                  2              2             100%
Unemployed beneficiaries                                    300           325             92%
People supported in each target group (young people)        300           300            100%
Increase the number of employers using the Connexions
                                                            256           182            141%
Service to place vacancies by 60%

 Progress against output targets, where available at the time of writing, has been good.



 Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      100
(g) Beneficiary data

As the beneficiary area of the evaluation form was perhaps the weakest, Wavehill and
Manchester Enterprises were keen to carry out additional beneficiary consultation work. In
addition, Wavehill felt that the willingness of the project to adapt to the needs of the individual
and to be as flexible as possible in its delivery displayed best practice. However, due to the
nature of the client group (young people), and associated data protection issues, the project
was reluctant to allow access to beneficiary contacts. It was therefore agreed that the project
itself would produce five case studies of beneficiaries, using the questions from Wavehill‟s
standard beneficiary questionnaire. At the time of writing this evaluation, the case studies had
not been received.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project had achieved permanent status by the time of this evaluation, although with a
slight change to its objectives. This permanency will give the project the ideal platform from
which to ensure that its work begins to impact on mainstream providers.

(i) Dissemination

At the time of this evaluation, the project had not begun dissemination work, but expected to
do this under Action Three. It may be useful for the project to look in more detail at lessons
learnt and beneficiary progress before this process begins, as this may be of benefit to other
projects and mainstream organisations.

(j) Best Practice

The adaptability of the project shows good practice, with staff willing to make changes as the
need became apparent. In addition, the focus on empowerment – enabling clients to move on
to undertaking various task unsupported – was also good practice, as it will ensure
sustainability of impact in the long term (although Wavehill would hope that this is an
established principle of all projects). Unfortunately, the fact that the case studies have not
been received means that Wavehill is unable to closely examine the best practice area of
adaptability from the beneficiaries‟ perspective.

(k) Lessons Learnt

As previously noted, the project needs to further examine lessons learned from the process.
Identifying areas that were problematic or that did not work as well as had been hoped, so
that other projects can learn from these lessons, is as important as identifying good practice.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     101
Bridging the Gap

(a) Background

The project was set up to recruit suitable individuals in the Tameside area to enrol onto a
programme providing training and work placement opportunities in substance misuse work.
The project aimed to enable beneficiaries to take advantage of the current and anticipated
staff shortage within this field. The project was based on six to twelve months of theoretical
training of substance misuse work linked to practical work based placements.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

There were no major issues in delivering the project.

(c) Innovation

The project was innovative in that it tapped into a gap where there was significant need but no
existing joined up working. In addition, the targeting of this specific client group (i.e. those with
a previous drug or alcohol background themselves) to work in this field was also innovative.

(d) Empowerment

The project effectively empowered people from a marginalised group to take up valuable roles
in an area of significant skills shortage. Illustrating this, the outputs, showing beneficiaries into
work or work placements, were extremely positive.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project produced a thorough internal evaluation, with care taken to show links between
the project and national strategies. The beneficiary evidence section was perhaps a little
lacking in detail, and so Wavehill undertook a review of the beneficiary evaluations from those
who had attended the first course.

(f) Outputs

                                                                End date – March 05

                                                      Total
                                                                   Original      Progression
                   Bridging the Gap                achieved to
                                                               Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                      date

Applications to the project                            412             120              343%
Interviews for the project                              85              80              106%
Students starting the project                           54              50              108%
Graduating students                                     19              40               48%

At the time of writing the report, Wavehill had only been supplied with the figures for students
graduating from the first course. Wavehill understands that another 25 students are expected
to graduate in March 05, which will result in the target being exceeded. Therefore,
progression against all targets has been excellent, and has exceeded expectations, as there
was initially some concern that, considering the needs and issues of the client group, targets
were too high.

(g) Beneficiary data

The project has delivered good results on its first course, which finished in 2004. Wavehill
was able to examine the beneficiary review forms from this first course, which were collated
by the project. These forms were completed in a structured manner at different points
throughout the course, and showed the beneficiary‟s progress whilst with the project.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       102
Beneficiaries were able to add their own comments to the review forms, but many did not, due
in some cases to literacy problems. Wavehill is satisfied that the project monitored the
progress of its beneficiaries throughout their time on the course, and helped them to
overcome the barriers to participation that occurred.

(h) Mainstreaming

Given the undoubted success of the project, and future changes in strategy, there is certainly
potential for it to be mainstreamed. Through the National Drug Strategy there will be
requirement for a 100% increase in numbers in treatment, and the demand for trained
workers will therefore be immense. This gives the project, as a proven method of training up
new staff, an excellent chance of moving into the mainstream.

(i) Dissemination

The project has generated significant media coverage during its lifetime, and this can be built
on during Action Three.

(j) Best Practice

One area of notable best practice was the fact that employers had an input into the content of
the training course. This enabled the project to develop workers that employers felt were job
ready and had all of the skills that the employers felt they required. This is an element that
should be reproduced by other projects where possible. Again, the project ties in with DWP
plans for welfare to work development in that its focus on an area of skills shortages clearly
links training to local employment opportunities, and ensures that those employers have a
chance to significantly influence the training.

(k) Lessons Learnt

As noted in (j), the involvement of employers in developing course content is a significant
lesson for the future.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                  103
Young Persons Transition Project

(a) Background
The project supported care leavers and young disabled people in the transition from school to
employment or training, and aimed to attract individuals who had disengaged from / were at
risk of disengaging from other services. The project worked with other support agencies and
with employers to maximise employment opportunities for young people who were
disadvantaged.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

There were no specific problem issues in the delivery of the project.

(c) Innovation

The stand out element was the project‟s evaluation, which was aimed at young people as well
as partner and other agencies. This was particularly innovative, and would be of real interest
to other projects working with similar client groups.

(d) Empowerment

The project focussed on working with each client individually, and developing a personal
development plan with each. This empowered the young person to assess their own skills,
ambitions, and achievements, and to identify how to move towards their goals.

(e) Internal evaluation

As previously noted, the project‟s evaluation was innovative in that it was fun, colourful, easy
to read, and contained several detailed case studied which “humanised” the project. The
evaluation therefore provides an excellent template for other projects working with similar
client groups.

(f) Outputs

                                                                           End Date – Dec 04

                                                                  Total
                                                                               Original      Progression
       Young Persons Transition Project                        achieved to
                                                                           Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                                  date

Total number of beneficiaries                                      28            45             62%
Number of beneficiaries offered full or part-time employment       20            25             80%

The beneficiary target was not achieved due to the late start of the project, and problems with
staffing levels.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill and Manchester Enterprises were happy with the beneficiary monitoring and
evaluation that was undertaken by the project. This included regular monitoring for each
individual beneficiary on a one-to-one basis, and the preparation of detailed individual case
studies as part of the final evaluation.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project has clear ideas of how its services should be maintained, and these are detailed
within its evaluation.

(i) Dissemination


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                              104
The project felt that, once its evaluation was complete, it would engage in dissemination work.
The fact that the project recognises the need to use a wide variety of media to communicate
success stories will be useful under Action Three.

(j) Best Practice

Best practice was displayed in the provision of mentoring support for young people as they
entered work, thereby enabling them to determine the pace at which they progressed.

In addition, the project also recommended using evidence of success stories to overcome
negative attitudes, and to use a variety of methods to get the message across.

Of all the projects, the Young Persons Transition Project spent most time identifying and
recording best practice, and full details of all that it identified are contained within its
evaluation. These are not repeated verbatim here, as they will not all be relevant to all
projects.

(k) Lessons Learnt

Lessons learnt were also detailed fully within the project‟s evaluation. Lessons that could be
relevant to other projects included developing early interventions wherever possible, and
developing a feeling of shared ownership of the project amongst stakeholders. The project
also identified the need to assess clients‟ key skills as early in the process as possible, so that
this information could be used to inform vocationally based learning plans, which would
improve clients‟ employment prospects.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     105
Media Training North West

(a) Background

This project was managed by Media Training North West (MTNW), and its objective was to
encourage people from disadvantaged groups to enter employment within the media industry.
There is an under-representation in the media of certain groups, and this project was set up to
address this issue. The two groups that were specifically targeted by MTNW were disabled
people and single parents.

The project was training-based, and clients attended a twenty-week course for one day per
week. The course taught basic elements regarding the industry, with specialised modules on
production, research, journalism, and multi-media.

(b) Issues in developing the project

The project experienced some problematic issues relating to recruitment of suitable students,
and felt that it did not have the expertise in-house to deal with some of the difficult issues that
arose. With hindsight, the project felt that it would have changed some of its recruitment
policies if it had known the problems that would arise.

(c) Innovation

The media industry is not known for its engagement with marginalised groups, so this element
of the project is both brave and innovative. In addition, the project adopted innovative
methods of learning. For example, due to the nature of the client groups and the problems
they face, “traditional” learning was not always possible, and so each student was provided
with an internet connection which allowed distance learning.

(d) Empowerment

The modules of the course enabled clients to develop a range of practical and theoretical
skills, which increased feelings of confidence and self-esteem. The work placement element
of the project also empowered clients, as many would previously not have experienced the
world of work, let alone work within the media industry. In addition, the training was employer
led, and devised and driven by the industry itself, which ensured that the project trained
clients in the way that was required by the industry, thereby significantly improving their
employment chances on exit.

(e) Internal Evaluation

MTNW commissioned an external consultant to complete its final evaluation. The evaluation
is thorough, and contains both qualitative and quantitative information. In addition, the course
beneficiaries completed evaluation forms every two weeks, and diaries of personal learning
every week, meaning that the project has been left with a wealth of useful beneficiary
information.

(f) Outputs

                                                                End Date – Feb 04

                                              Total
                                                           Original      Progression
In The Picture (Media Training North West) achieved to
                                                       Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                              date

Number of beneficiaries trained to industry standard   8              10               80%

The majority of the outputs of the MTNW project were not numerical, and instead centred in
the main on identifying best practice, delivering new learning materials in a new format, and
setting up new networks between the industry and disadvantaged groups. Good progress was

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     106
made on these non-numerical outputs, and as detailed in full within the project‟s own
evaluation.

(g) Beneficiary data

As noted above, beneficiary evaluation throughout the project was thorough, and an excellent
record has been kept in the form of the final evaluation. Wavehill and Manchester Enterprises
therefore agreed that further beneficiary work was not necessary, and would have been
extremely problematic to undertake due to the time lapsed since the end of the project.

(h) Mainstreaming

The view of MTNW is that it is not best placed to run the course in the longer term, and that it
is something that the media industry locally needs to develop. This is because the project
works with low numbers of people at high cost, and is therefore seen as being difficult to
sustain. Mainstreaming can only occur if organisations such as the BBC take forward some of
the lessons learned by the project. However, there may be reason to be positive as there is a
shortage of creative staff in the industry, which will increase in the future as more
programming is re-located to Manchester. This could open up opportunities for the
mainstreaming of some elements of this project.

(i) Dissemination

As well as regular means of dissemination (including the course website and direct
communication with the local media industry), a celebratory event was held at the end of the
course, and was extremely successful in attracting attention and in recognising the
achievements of the beneficiaries.

(j) Best practice

The project displayed best practice by ensuring that its training was developed “face-on” with
the industry i.e. the training was employer led and devised and driven by the industry itself. In
addition, the project‟s steering group was made up of people from within the industry. These
measures ensured that the project – as with the Bridging the Gap project – was training
clients in the way that was required by the industry, thereby significantly improving their
employment chances on exit. Again, the project ties in with DWP plans in that its focus on an
area of skills shortages clearly links training to local employment opportunities, and ensures
that those employers have a chance to significantly influence the training.

(k) Lessons Learnt

As an individual project, the biggest lesson learned was to improve selection practices at the
start of the project to ensure that only clients that would benefit from the project were
accepted onto the course. This was a hard lesson for the project to learn, and caused some
difficulties for them.

In general terms, the project felt that it would be useful for other projects to commission
independent evaluations at the end of their programme, as it enables the project to learn
clearly from what it has done. Bearing in mind the poor quality of some of the internal
evaluations, Wavehill would agree that all lessons learned have not been clearly identified
and this is certainly an opportunity missed. Whilst external evaluations do not guarantee a
good evaluation, there certainly needed to be improvement of many of the internal
evaluations.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   107
Will to Work

(a) Background

The project was set up to increase the employability of visually impaired people in the Greater
Manchester area. The project sought to do this by addressing the lack of appropriate
educational and training opportunities for visually impaired people, and by raising employer
awareness about the abilities and needs of visually impaired people.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

The project had to double the number of delivery sessions it ran, which unexpected additional
demands on staff time. In addition, the project became aware that it had insufficient
knowledge of the whole Disability Discrimination Act – beneficiaries felt that the project should
know everything about the Act and about every type of disability and advise accordingly, but
in fact the project was a specialist in the specific area of visual impairment.

(c) Innovation

The project is innovative in that it encourages employers to think about their own recruitment
practices in relation to visually impaired people, and to change these practices after the
training. The project also involves visually impaired volunteers in delivering the training, and
uses innovative methods such as simulation spectacles to give employers an idea of what it is
like to be visually impaired.

(d) Empowerment

Those with visual impairments have been empowered to examine their own aims and
objectives, and have then been able to move on to the next stage of their own personal
development. In addition, the visually impaired volunteers who have helped with training have
also been empowered.

For employers, they have been encouraged to review their own good practice in terms of
employing someone with a visual impairment, and feedback forms show that a significant
number have greatly increased their understanding of the issues, and now feel more
confident about employing someone with a visual impairment.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project undertook extensive evaluations with beneficiaries throughout the project, and
these have been made available to Wavehill. In addition, the project produced a good interim
internal evaluation, which clearly identified beneficiary distance travelled, and also contained
a SWOT analysis of the project. At the time of writing this report, the project‟s final evaluation
was not yet available, as the project ran until the end of March 2005.

(f) Outputs

                                                              End date – March 05

                                                    Total
                                                                  Original      Progression
                     Will to Work                achieved to
                                                              Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                date (Dec 04)

Taster sessions for visually impaired people          12              12              100%
People attending taster sessions                      25              12              208%
Jobs retained                                          1               1              100%
Volunteers trained                                     3               3              100%
Companies undertaking VIAT                            34              25              136%
Total number of beneficiaries                        109              86              127%


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    108
Staff trained                                           21               0               N/A

At the time of writing this report, the project had not yet collated all of its final output figures.
For those outputs that were available, progress against targets has been excellent. Will to
Work expects to meet all of its output targets by the end of the project.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill was able to carry out a desk-based review of the project‟s internal evaluations.
These were thorough and clearly presented, and included work with businesses and
employers, as well as beneficiaries with visual impairments. Reviews took place regularly,
and the project obviously allocated significant staff time to these internal evaluations. The
result is robust beneficiary data that will be useful to the project in Action Three and in its
mainstreaming activities.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project will now be delivered across four regions in the north of England from April 2005
onwards, so mainstreaming has already taken place to some extent. In addition, the project
feels that there may be opportunities for pan-disability working in future and, if this proves to
be the case, it could open up additional opportunities for mainstreaming through these new
partner organisations.

(i) Dissemination

The project has already undertaken some dissemination work. For example, one if its key
resources – the Employers Pack – is now available on the internet so that it can be accessed
by all. The project aims to ensure that all of its information, ideas, lessons learned etc are all
accessible via a range of methods in the future. In addition, the project is already planning
additional dissemination work under Action Three funding.

(j) Best Practice

Linking employers with visually impaired tutors is best practice, in that it enables an employer
to attain first-hand experience of working with someone with a visual impairment. The impact
of this is reflected in the significant distance travelled recorded in the extensive employer
evaluations.

(k) Lessons Learnt

There were no major issues throughout the running of the project. However, the project did
identify that it needed to allocate more staff time for monitoring and evaluating throughout the
lifetime of the project. Whilst Will to Work itself still managed to produce a good interim
evaluation, this is a lesson that needs to be learnt by many of the other projects.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       109
Headstart Mental Health Best Practice Model

(a) Background

The project aimed to work directly with employers to reduce the stigma and discrimination that
surrounds mental health issues at work, and to reduce absenteeism and assist in devising
support strategies so that employers could recruit and retain people with mental health
problems. Employers were also encouraged to look at mental health in a holistic sense,
including the issue of stress-related mental illness amongst existing staff. The overall aim was
then to produce a best practice model in relation to stress and mental health issues in the
workplace.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

The project found that commitment from employers was essential to the success of the
project. This commitment to the training needed to come from high up within the company in
order to make things happen. The project realised that it needed to quickly identify motivated
“champions” within companies, who would prioritise the training, and ensure changes then
happened throughout the organisation.

(c) Innovation

The project is innovative in that this method of working with employers around the issue of
mental health, and providing tailored training to suit the employer‟s need, has never been
tried before. Put simply, the whole issue of a mentally healthy workplace is unique and
groundbreaking.

(d) Empowerment

The training helps participants to identify changes that they can make within their company,
thereby empowering them to take control of what happens in their own workplace. The
project‟s own evaluation, and Wavehill‟s interviews with beneficiaries, clearly showed a
change in attitude about mental health issues. In addition, the training left clients more
confident about dealing with people in distress. Finally, there was a strong focus on self-help
(eg stress management) within the course, which participants could use themselves, as well
as pass on to others.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project carried out beneficiary evaluation throughout the project, which enabled it to
clearly identify the changes in the participants. In addition, the project produced an excellent
comprehensive final evaluation, which clearly identified stronger and weaker areas, and the
main lessons learned from the project.

(f) Outputs

                                                             End date – March 05

                                                     Total
                                                                  Original      Progression
   Headstart Mental Health Best Practice          achieved to
                                                              Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                     date

Number of companies supported                          4             5              80%
Number of accredited qualifications achieved          18            40              45%
Number of individuals attending a taster course       52           160              33%
Number of employed beneficiaries                      70           200              35%
Number of people trained                              70           200              35%
Number of new information and guidance services        0             1               0%
Number of trainers trained                             0             5               0%

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                  110
The outputs supplied by the project fall some way short of those projected. Within the
project‟s internal evaluation, and from Wavehill‟s external evaluation, the reasons for this
variance have been identified as:

        Lack of engagement and commitment from employers – the project found that it was
         not possible to secure the involvement of five companies, due to internal issues within
         those companies.
        When companies were involved, again, due to internal reasons, it was difficult for
         them to maintain the required level of commitment.
        Some of the output targets – specifically the taster sessions target and the
         information and advice target – were discovered to be unrealistic as the project
         progressed.

Wavehill recognises the valid reasons for the output variance in this case, but would again
stress the importance of revising the outputs during the project so that they offer a realistic
measure of progress. Without such revision, the targets do not clearly help to identify lessons
for the future.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill wished to carry out additional work with this group of beneficiaries, as it felt that the
project displayed best practice throughout its entire set up (ie the whole purpose of the project
was to develop a best practice framework for managers and employers). Wavehill carried out
one-to-one interviews with fifteen project beneficiaries. The questionnaire for this project was
tailored to suit, as the project worked with employers and managers (especially those with a
human resources or equalities role) rather than hard-to-reach or marginalised groups. The
results of these interviews were as follows.


How did you hear about the project?

        “My manager.” X 7
        “Though work.” x 2
        "Headstart manager gave me the information."
        "A colleague."
        “HR Colleagues.”
        "Through Groundwork."
        “Though a conference.”
        “Through Kate Reed, whom I met a couple of years ago - she presented a Stress
         Awareness seminar where I work.”


What factors influenced (or continue to influence) your decision to work with this
project?

                  "I worked previously with Social Services."
                  "It related to my job as I work with people with disabilities."
                  "Mainly because I have several members with mental health problems and I
                   wanted to know how to handle certain situations, also outside I have friends
                   with mental health problems."
                  "The fact I am a HR Manager would help me convey to other members of
                   staff the right approaches to mental health in work."
                  "Curiosity, a desire to learn about mental health issues."
                  "Working in HR, I need to address the issues in mental health."
                  "These things needed to be addressed."
                  "It‟s a new and interesting project."
                  "Previous experience and personal interest."
                  "I was new to the council was not familiar with mental health issues."

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    111
                  "I wanted more information on mental health."
                  " I wanted to have a bit more understanding."
                  "It sounded like an interesting project."
                  "I'm a team manager, so thought it would help me to understand mental
                   health issues in employees."
                  “My involvement has now finished.”


What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project?

                  "Initially I was not sure what to expect."
                  "I expected new information and clarification of information, especially the
                   new act of Parliament."
                  I was not quite sure what to expect but they gave me insight to detect stress
                   factors and mental health issues in employees, and prevent absence."
                  "Direction on how to support mental health issue employees, and greater
                   understanding about mental health issues."
                  "More ability to help people with mental health problems."
                  "I went with an open mind."
                  "My knowledge was very minimal so I had no expectations of project."
                  "Information on mental health, stress levels, and related problems."
                  "Correct use of terminology."
                  "A rundown of mental health issues."
                  "A wider understanding of mental health."
                  "Basic training in mental health issues."
                  "Advice on mental health."
                  “I don‟t know.”
                  “An insight into mental health.”


Did you get the kind of help / support / training that you expected?

                  “Yes.” X 2
                  "It was a refresher course on metal health."
                  "It‟s the best training course I've been on, interesting, interactive and
                   informative."
                  "I actually received more information which was very helpful, as I can now
                   treat staff fairly."
                  "Yes absolutely."
                  "A lot of reinforcement on the DDA, and the importance of pro-active work
                   before crisis points occur."
                  "I increased my knowledge of mental health issues, it made things stand out
                   in my mind, and made me more aware."
                  "Very helpful, approachable, informative."
                  "Disability Discrimination Act information was great. It covered stress
                   reduction techniques."
                  "80% was covered, it was extremely helpful."
                  "I got the information I expected."
                  "In depth information and good interaction."
                  "Excellent and well presented."
                  "Given reassurance and support - interactive team work was excellent."


Do you think the project has helped you or your organisation? If so, how?

                  "It was great, it helped me to organise colleagues working together to match
                   up the right working partners, and to defuse situations."



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    112
                  "Yes, we are now in the process of feeding the information down though the
                   organisation."
                  "It helped us to network with other businesses to deal with situations – this
                   gave us invaluable information."
                  Yes, how to dismiss some of the myths about mental health issues in
                   employees, and how to help deal with them."
                  "Yes, it's something that‟s needed, it helped us to look at out own policies."
                  "Disclosure and how to use it in organisations."
                  "Yes, if people deal with these issues on a day to day basis it is better for the
                   management and employees."
                  "In terms of work, there have been improvements with staff benefiting, and
                   increased staff and management awareness of early stress symptoms and
                   how to eliminate the problems."
                  "Yes, it made us all aware of the term mental health and its degrees."
                  "It made it more inclusive. It has taken away the fear and prejudice and just
                   made people aware."
                  "Yes, to see the diversity of mental health problems in the workplace."
                  "It raised the awareness of the management team and support network."
                  "In the long term it will help to identify problems before they occur."
                  "Gave a greater awareness of mental health, and support for managers
                   coming into the job."
                  “As a manager I have a better understanding of mental health and the
                   difficulties people face when returning to work after illness.”


Will what you have learned with the project help to change the way you (or your
organisation) work in the future?

                  "We will be more aware of other people, more observant of situations, and
                   deal with things before they become out of hand."
                  "We took on board the new DDA and now pass it down to other members of
                   staff."
                  "I learnt that mental health issue employees should be treated as normal
                   employees, not with kid gloves. I am able to understand how to deal with
                   mental health employees in the workplace."
                  "To recruit mental health employees into a good and understanding work
                   environment."
                  "How to help people in the work place, and disclosure within our own
                   company.”
                  “Review our policies and refine them."
                  "It has helped us to reduce absence by supporting employees and reducing
                   stress, and has given pointers to rehab for people coming back into work."
                  "How to protect the workforce and management by reducing stress levels."
                  "How stress is a major factor in the workplace and if it can be identified, less
                   long term sickness would occur."
                  "It will affect the way in which we recruit people, and make us more
                   accessible to a wider group. It will affect the way we support our own staff,
                   and reduce stress etc."
                  "We are more and more willing to look at things in a different way, and
                   employ people with mental health issues more readily."
                  "Awareness of mental health issues and how to deal with employees."
                  "My understanding of people‟s views of stress, and attitude to people under
                   stress has changed. Learnt to foresee situations before they are allowed to
                   occur."
                  "It has helped me to overcome the stereotype of mental health problems and
                   how to work with these people normally."
                  "It highlights many points already in place with the company, but made us
                   aware of the situations that these points are in place to prevent or help."


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       113
                  “As an individual it has made me more confident and aware of the issues
                   surrounding mental health, both on the work front and home life.”


If you are an employer:-

(a) Has the project helped you with recruitment? If so, how?
       “N/A.” x 13
       "Being aware of questions in the recruitment process and not discriminating on
        mental health."
       "To change interview techniques or conditions to suit the candidate."

(b) Has the project helped you to solve skills difficulties? If so, how?
               “N/A.” x 13
               "Yes, we‟re able to look at staff with skills and with mental health issues."
               "By adjusting our interviews."

(c) Has the project helped you to improve staff management? If so, how?
               “N/A.” x 13
               "It made me feel more understanding about my levels of support."
               “Yes, by foreseeing situations."

(d) What, if any, are the skills or qualities that are missing from the project
beneficiaries (i.e. the people who undertake the training programme and then come to
work for you)?
               “N/A.” x 13
               "They were not aware that stress is a mental health problem."
               "It needs a little more interaction."


What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "Just being involved, it was a great opportunity."
                  "The in-depth forms of mental health issues, and making people aware of the
                   varying degrees of mental health problems."
                  "Networking with managers helped us to work better. It was good to have
                   someone to answer all of our questions."
                  "Additional knowledge of mental health made me more confident in all
                   situations."
                  "Doing the project with other companies (e.g. Asda) gave us a better insight
                   as to how other companies handle things."
                  "There was practical advice, and sharing knowledge and expertise with other
                   companies."
                  "How it changed my perception of mental health and the varying degrees,
                   and how it affects so many people."
                  "Getting together with people, and the stress questionnaire that we could take
                   away."
                  "Comparisons with other organisations was great, it gave us ideas that could
                   be implemented in our workspace."
                  "It left me feeling I want more, and it was well presented."
                  "The general rundown of disorders."
                  "The presentation was excellent."
                  "Good information, well delivered, in a nice size group."
                  "Our interaction with the assessors – we were made to feel comfortable."
                  “The entire project was extremely beneficial to me. It brought me in contact
                   with other managers who deal with similar issues giving us the opportunity to
                   share experiences.”



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      114
What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  "Nothing." X 7
                  "It was so enjoyable, that it wasn‟t long enough."
                  "If the expert is sick, please cancel the project session – the person covering
                   was good but we would prefer to wait for an expert and re-schedule.”
                  "Medical information – as in treatment – not sure that this was necessary."
                  "People must implement what they‟re learned after the project, so maybe a
                   little follow up, but I don't know how."
                  "More advice should be given as to how to build up a portfolio."
                  "There should be a follow up course."
                  "Nothing, but some people may have found it intense."
                  "It was a little too basic."


Is there anything else about the project that you think could have been improved?

                  "No." x 9
                  "Legal implications – would like handouts to take away."
                  "More senior managers should be put on this course as it would benefit
                   them."
                  "Collation should have been done at each session instead of at the end."
                  “No, the delivery was great.”
                  "More interaction."
                  "Have their own case studies and examples of situations that can happen."


Would you recommend the project to someone else in your situation?

                  “Yes.” X 12
                  "Yes, but it was a little long, maybe 2 days not 3. The accreditation may not
                   be necessary – the knowledge and hands on are more important."
                  "Yes, it was easy to understand."
                  "Yes, it was inspiring."


Have you been involved in any other similar programmes? How did this project
compare?

                  “No.” x 12
                  "Yes, within social services. Maybe we could see things on video to prepare
                   for situations."
                  "Yes, this was extremely good – the best training course I have ever been on,
                   well explained, enjoyable, good information."
                  "Yes, diversity training, but could not compare the two."

The beneficiary feedback from the project was therefore favourable, with 100% of attendees
saying that they would recommend the course to someone in a similar situation. These results
coupled with the robust final evaluation, means that Wavehill is happy with the overall level of
beneficiary evaluation.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project has not been mainstreamed as such, although the project leader's post has been
made permanent, and the trainer will continue to link with and work with the companies. In
this way, the impact of the project will be sustained and, due to the size of the NHS,
mainstreaming may go on to develop in future.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      115
(i) Dissemination

So far, the project‟s dissemination work has been limited. However, an open day was held to
enable companies to exchange ideas, and the project felt that this was successful. In addition,
the project plans to produce written material, such as a news-sheet, in future. These plans for
dissemination need to be taken forward under Action Three.

(j) Best practice

The very essence of the project was to produce a best practice model – a process and
framework – which companies could use to move forwards. This has happened within the
companies trained, although the project acknowledges that the best practice model is
something that needs to be built upon as time goes on.

(k) Lessons Learnt

The project itself identified several lessons learned. These included the fact that it was difficult
to compare progress between the organisations trained, as they were so different in size and
in the structures that they had in place prior to training. The project also came up against
some issues regarding accreditation, and would approach this differently next time. The
importance of a celebratory event was also recognised, as it helped to acknowledge an
organisation‟s achievements, and inspired them to carry on the work. Finally, the issue of full
commitment form an organisation, as previously discussed, was also identified. There were
other lessons also identified by the project, and these are contained within the project‟s own
final evaluation.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      116
Realise

(a) Background

The project was set up to address the fact that women are currently significantly
underrepresented within the ICT sector and within ICT occupations in other sectors. The aim
of the project was therefore to support students at the Women‟s Electronic Village Hall to
realise their potential for employment in ICT occupations, and to raise the awareness of
employers regarding the benefits of employing women who have achieved qualifications and
skills through non-traditional routes. The delivery consisted of direct employer involvement in
training, outreach and awareness raising with employers and potential employers, and
mentoring for students. The focus of the course was very much on developing employability
skills, and not just basic IT skills.

(b) Issues in delivering the project

The project found that the profile of the women attending the course was not what had
originally been envisaged. The course attracted graduates and those with qualifications, when
the original targets had been those with no qualifications, and groups such as ethnic
minorities and lone parents. The project recognised that, to attract these groups, outreach
and marketing - but we can't get to these groups because we work was necessary, but this
had not been budgeted for.

In addition, the project had difficulty in delivering one specific element of the project – namely
the mentoring element. The project found that this did not develop as planned, and consisted
of considerably more work then had been envisaged. This mentoring element was therefore
removed from the project, and with hindsight, the project would not attempt to repeat the
process in future.

(c) Innovation

The most innovative aspect of the project was the way in which it linked IT skills training with
employability training. When the project was established, this was not being done by any
other IT project.

(d) Empowerment

The course was empowering in that it allowed the beneficiaries a great deal of control over
how, what, and when they learned. Beneficiaries made these decisions, and the project then
responded to their needs. This gave beneficiaries a sense of ownership, control, and
empowerment.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project undertook some good internal evaluation, and was careful to measure distance
travelled by its clients. The project also produced a thorough final evaluation, with clear
identification of project by project issues, and overall lessons learned.

(f) Outputs

                                                              End date – March 05

                                             Total
                                                          Original      Progression
REALISE (Women’s Electronic Village Hall) achieved to
                                                      Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                             date

Number of beneficiaries                               54             50              108%
Number of employed beneficiaries                      36             10              360%
Number of unemployed beneficiaries                    18             20               90%


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    117
Number of BME beneficiaries                            23               4              575%
Number of students trained                             48              20              240%
Number of students attaining work                      13               8              163%
Number of lone parents                                  3               5               60%

From the outputs provided by the project, performance has exceeded expectations in all
areas but one. For this variation (lone parents attending) the project recognised that the
shortfall was due to the lack of crèche facilities, and the lesson from this has already been
learned, and a crèche provided.

However, due to the fact that outputs have far exceeded targets, Wavehill would again
recommend that outputs are revised throughout the life of the project, as this may enable
lessons for other projects to be more clearly identified.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill asked to undertake additional work with beneficiaries of this project, as it felt that the
project displayed good practice in terms of its willingness to be adaptable and flexible to suit
each client. The results of Wavehill‟s beneficiary evaluation are shown below.

What kind of help / support / training did you expect to get from the project? If you did
not already have a job, did you expect the project to improve your chances of getting a
job?

                  "To get more knowledge at Level 3."
                  "Progression with web design." X3
                  "I expected plenty of support."
                  "I was looking for a change of direction, and a women only environment is
                   better."
                  "IT skills."
                  "It interested me."
                  "I expected it to assist women with IT Skills."
                  "I just expected a little bit of encouragement."
                  "I‟m not sure."
                  "To gain a deeper understanding of software OS Commerce."
                  "I wasn't sure, I just wanted to learn something new."
                  "Some volunteer work so that “web designer” (as my title now is), could
                   become a reality not just a dream."
                  "I was just exploring work opportunities."


Did you get the type of help / support / training that you expected? What did you get
from the project – did it help you to feel that you could get a job?

                  "They were very supportive, with lots of information and guidance."
                  "Yes – it gave me confidence when everything else had gone wrong."
                  "Yes – it was very good."
                  "There was so much support, it was wonderful."
                  "Knowledge of teaching methods and also computer maintenance.”
                  "I have a much better knowledge of OS Commerce, and the course is
                   confidence building."
                  "There was a good amount of information, it was comprehensive, and there
                   was plenty of help."
                  "Emailing."
                  "The support was great, especially because it was all women, and you could
                   relax and it as easy to learn."
                  "Mentoring."
                  "I wanted legal advice on copyright laws."


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      118
                  "Database training was great."
                  "Level 3 was a good course, but I am looking forward to Level 4."
                  "I hoped to get work experience."
                  "Yes, it was wonderful and I got contacts, advice, information, and guidance."
                  "Yes and no - I have had mental health issues and I did not know how to
                   approach them, so I did not put in 100% to the project."


If you don’t have a job now, are there still things that are stopping you from getting a
job? If so, what are they?

                  "N/A." X 9
                  "I need more qualifications." X 2
                  "I still need training and knowledge."
                  "I‟m studying."
                  "I need more knowledge."
                  "I don't drive."
                  "My confidence."


Did you get feedback from the project on your progress? How?

                        I didn't
              Through tutorials
            Verbally & Written
                        Written
                       Verbally

                                   0         2        4            6    8

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to develop skills and knowledge that could be
used in future in jobs or on training courses? (16)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0         5            10       15

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to increase your confidence? (16)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    119
               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       2   4       6   8    10   12   14

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Do you think the project has helped you to feel more motivated? (16)

               No it hasn't helped


            Yes it's helped a little


              Yes it's helped a lot


                                       0       2   4       6   8    10   12   14

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What did you think of the training and learning materials that you used? (16)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0           5           10         15

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What is your opinion of the tutors? (16)

            They weren't very good


                       They were ok


               They were very good


                                           0           5           10         15

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I was encouraged to ask for help - if I needed it - while I was on the project. (16)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                             120
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0           5             10        15

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Things were always explained clearly to me while I was on the project. (16)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0           5             10        15

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



The people who ran the project listened to what I had to say. (16)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0       5        10            15   20

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



Everyone on the project was treated equally and fairly. (16)

                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0       5        10            15   20

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



I enjoyed my time with the project. (16)




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                       121
                    Strongly disagree
                            Disagree
            Neither agree or disargee
                               Agree
                       Strongly agree

                                        0       5        10       15   20

          Source: Wavehill Consulting Telephone interviews 2005



What do you think was the best thing about the project?

                  "The environment, the staff, the tutor – everything."
                  "Because it‟s done in small groups, there can be good feedback and
                   interaction."
                  "It was a stepping stone for my confidence after an accident. The fact it was
                   women only was wonderful, as it made me relax."
                  "The speakers were very interesting. Also the food!"
                  "It was a very warm atmosphere."
                  "Support I was given, which helped my confidence and self-belief."
                  "The variety of opportunities, and the speakers."
                  "You don't feel silly asking questions with a female tutor."
                  "The fact it was all women, and a woman teaching us. There was good
                   information."
                  "There were inspirational speakers, and encouragement."
                  "Meeting people."
                  "It gives you self confidence, and work experience."
                  "It was all women (especially mature women)."
                  "It helped me with software."
                  "The fact that it was women only, it was a very supportive environment as
                   technology with men around can be intimidating."


What do you think was not so good about the project?

                  “There wasn‟t anything not so good about the course.” X 10
                  "Feedback at the end of the course was needed."
                  "It was too early for me, it should have been more flexible."
                  “Need to know what the present course will lead to – I need a follow-up
                   course."
                  "More information on courses."
                  "More to follow would have been great."
                  "More focus on individual help – be aware of people‟s needs."


If you hadn’t been involved with this project, what else do you think you would have
done?

                  “Don‟t know.” X 10
                  "I‟d be in adult education."
                  "I would not have managed the technology."
                  "I would maybe have done a Photoshop class."
                  "I would have looked for something to do, something different."
                  "Looked for something else."
                  "I would have worked in administration, to pay the bills."


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   122
Have you been on any other similar projects? How does that compare to your
experience on this project?

        “No.” x 10
        "Yes, they have all been equally good."
        "Yes, on short training courses, but his one was far more supportive, great with
         confidence building."
        "Yes, a similar course but it was so disorganised – this course was supportive,
         informative and inspiring."
        "Yes, but it was not my type of course."
        "Yes. This project was great, you got the knowledge and practical skills; it has been
         the bridge to my future.”
        "Yes. The course being women only means there are familiar issues."

From Wavehill‟s interviews, it is apparent that the beneficiaries were particularly comfortable
in a women only environment. They found this environment supportive and unthreatening,
which helped to build confidence and speed progress. These positive findings, along with the
project‟s own beneficiary review as part of its internal evaluation, indicate that the project was
well run, well received, and well monitored. The best practice element of adaptability and a
client-centred approach was also borne out by the beneficiary interviews.


(h) Mainstreaming

There is potential for mainstreaming some elements of the project, especially those that are
delivered by virtual learning and tutor groups. In addition, the project has been careful to
design all of its materials so that other projects can use them, and has in fact already
established links with other organisations to ensure that the materials are passed on. All of
the training materials are accredited, and are available on the project‟s web site, providing a
useful resource that will continue beyond the life of the project.

(i) Dissemination

The project was planning its dissemination at the time of this evaluation. Some of the
materials detailed above in (h) will be invaluable during any dissemination that is undertaken
during Action Three, as they have been proven to work, and can be passed on to other
organisations in a useable and accredited format.

(j) Best practice

The project was very much designed around the target groups – they had a clear influence
over what was delivered and how. In addition, the project was monitored the whole way
through, and clients could effect change in the delivery if they wished. Therefore, this
responsive and client centred approach can be considered best practice. It is also worth
noting that the lifetime evaluations carried out by the project were well-presented, and clearly
showed distance travelled by the clients – something that other projects could learn from.

(k) Lessons learnt

The project identified lessons learned on each of the different aspects of its work. These were
numerous, and included: being clear about expectations, encouraging students to share
problems with each other; and ensuring communications between beneficiaries and outside
clients were supported by project staff. Wavehill does not wish to simply repeat all of the
lessons learned here, as they are clearly stated within the project‟s own internal evaluation.
Instead, we would advise that other projects take note of the structure and content of the
lessons learned section of this project‟s own evaluation.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     123
Young People With Early Psychosis

(a) Background

The project was designed to provide early intervention and appropriate support for young
people experiencing serious mental illness who wish to access and/or retain employment.
The project also offered support, mediation, and awareness training for employers with staff
with mental health problems. The project therefore had a social inclusion focus, by promoting
social and economic activity and reducing stigma.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

The project experienced recruitment difficulties early on, which prevented it from operating at
full efficiency, or from undertaking elements of work on the employer consultant side. This is
probably a reflection of the short-term nature of the contract, which made it difficult to find
appropriately qualified and experienced staff.

(c) Innovation

The project was innovative in the way in which it worked with both employers and young
people through outreach work. This work was tailored to suit the individual, and this was
particularly important when trying to engage with young people who were disengaged from
the mainstream and lacking in motivation and confidence.

(d) Empowerment

The project has increased the employability of young people with early psychosis by a
considerably greater margin than that achieved by the previous support model, and client
evaluations show a positive change in confidence and motivation.

(e) Internal Evaluation

The project used quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluating impact on its target group,
and has identified some useful lessons from this. The rest of the project‟s own internal
evaluation was adequate.

(f) Outputs

                                                                End Date – March 05

                                                        Total
                                                                     Original      Progression
     Young People with Early Psychosis               achieved to
                                                                 Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                        date

Companies supported                                      17            24             71%
Unemployed beneficiaries                                 20            34             59%
Employed beneficiaries                                    2             4             50%
Beneficiaries into Further Education                      2             3             67%
People with serious mental health issues supported       25            41             61%
Beneficiaries gaining paid work                           7            10             70%
Beneficiaries accessing voluntary work                    7            10             70%

The project indicated in its evaluation that targets had increased due to an extension of
funding, and that the original targets had been more realistic. Indeed, the project performed
extremely well against the original objectives, exceeding all but one. However, overall the
project has still performed satisfactorily against the increased output targets.

(g) Beneficiary data



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    124
Wavehill conducted a desk-based review of the project‟s internal beneficiary evaluations.
These included an initial assessment undertaken with the client, along with notes on the
actions undertaken to identify areas of interest and to secure work, education, or a placement.
These notes then follow in some detail the progress of the client in their new placement or
job.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project took a pragmatic line on mainstreaming, attempting to ensure that good practice
was mainstreamed within the parent organisation as the project moved on. This was done
through regular summaries of lessons learned and meetings with senior managers within the
parent organisation. For many projects, embedding good practice within the parent or host
organisation is the most realistic way of mainstreaming, as projects are unlikely to be picked
up and funded in their entirety, and this could be a valuable lesson for other projects to learn.

(i) Dissemination

At the time of this evaluation, the project had concentrated on raising awareness internally
(see (h) above) rather than externally, and this should be undertaken as part of Action Three

(j) Best Practice

The project displayed best practice by working with young people in a way that enabled them
to access the service. This included visiting the clients in their chosen environment, and
progressing only at the pace set by the client. This flexible approach was recognised and
appreciated by clients in the project‟s internal evaluation.

(k) Lessons Learnt

The project identified some structural and practical lessons learnt, including the scope of
particular roles, and some internal management issues. The project also felt that vocational
activity should be seen as a top priority in the future for this client group, as this was the most
beneficial element of the programme.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     125
Wheels On Wheels

(a) Background

The project was based on a partnership between Tameside Youth Offending Team and a
Tameside social enterprise. The project offers work experience for young offenders,
developing their employability by helping to break the cycle of re-offending and providing a
route to employment and further skills training opportunities.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

The main issues for the project was that sometimes, mid way through the project, a client
could be taken into custody. When the client was eventually released, the project then had to
deal with some serious barriers in restoring motivation and confidence in the individual.

(c) Innovation

The project is innovative in that it focuses on the development of an entirely new product i.e.
the brand new invention at the heart of the project.

(d) Empowerment

The main area of empowerment comes in terms of giving focus and responsibility to a group
of people who may have had neither of these before. By the project‟s own estimation, it has
been successful in truly empowering about half of its clients. Bearing in mind the problems
faced by the client group, this seems like a good rate of success.

(e) Internal evaluation

At the time of writing, no final internal evaluation material had been produced by the project.

(f) Outputs

                                                              End Date – March 05

                                                    Total
                                                                 Original      Progression
               Wheels On Wheels                  achieved to
                                                             Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                    date



At the time of preparing this report, Wavehill had received no evaluation material from the
Wheels on Wheels project.

(g) Beneficiary data

Due to the timing of this evaluation, Wavehill were unable to undertake any beneficiary
interviews, as the course had not yet finished. It had been hoped that the project would
organise an informal internal focus group to generate some interim findings, but at the time of
writing this report, not details had been received from the project.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project appears to have definite mainstreaming potential as other similar provision is now
beginning to be developed elsewhere, showing a need for the services of the project. The
project has identified that moving its clients (when they are ready) from its own programme
onto one of the newer accredited programmes could be a successful way of operating in
future.

(i) Dissemination

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    126
Wavehill is unaware of any dissemination proposals that the project has at present.

(j) Best Practice

The project displayed best practice in that it linked in with the other service providers such as
the Youth Service and Connexions, and enabled these organisations to come in and work
with the young people when they were actually on site at the project. This prevented the need
for home visits or other meetings, and showed real joined-up working between organisations.

(k) Lessons Learnt

As no final evaluation material has been received from the project, it is difficult to identify
lessons learned at this stage.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   127
Phoenix SES

(a) Background

The project aimed to support college leavers with disabilities to access the labour market. The
project had a one-to-one focus, identifying and addressing specific needs around
employability issues. Support for clients included such practical steps as accompanying them
to interviews and familiarising them with travel arrangements.

(b) Issues in Delivering the Project

The key issue for the project was that time was occasionally wasted on setting up placements
that, over time, turned out to be not right for the individual student. The project rightly
identified that this could be overcome in future by use of “job tasters” so that students could
see if what they thought they wanted to do was what they really wanted to do before a full
placement was set up.

(c) Innovation

The level of one-to-one support that was provided by the project was innovative, and probably
outside of the scope of the mainstream.

(d) Empowerment

The entire focus of this project was about empowering the individual move on and increase
their independence.

(e) Internal evaluation

The project‟s final internal evaluation was a little patchy, and Manchester Enterprises asked
for expansion on some sections. At the time of writing, these expanded sections had not been
received.

(f) Outputs

                                                               Expected end date

                                                    Total
                                                                 Original      Progression
                      Phoenix SES                achieved to
                                                             Lifetime Target Lifetime Target
                                                    date

Personal and social development                       23             25               92%
Work ethic guidance                                   23             25               92%
Work placements                                       23             25               92%
Work preparation courses                              23             25               92%

The project‟s outputs indicate that good progress has been made against all targets. The
reason for the slight shortfall is identified as the fact that two students left the course before
completion.

(g) Beneficiary data

Wavehill carried out a desk-based review of the project‟s beneficiary evaluations. These
consisted of Impact Statements, which are written statements from the beneficiary describing
their experiences on work placement, and how they developed over the period of the
placement. These statements, though brief, were effective in showing the progress that the
client had made over time, particularly with regard to the dramatic increase in confidence that
a successful first work placement could give to a person with disabilities. These Impact
Statements were complemented by fairly detailed Work Placement Monitoring Forms, which


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    128
were completed by the employers who took the beneficiaries on work placements. Finally, the
project also completed Project Evaluation Data Capture Forms for each beneficiary, which
assessed improvements over the beneficiary‟s time with the project, in the areas such as
employability skills, social interactive skills, and personal development. Taken as a whole,
these monitoring forms add up to a complete picture of the beneficiary‟s progress over time.

(h) Mainstreaming

The project aimed to kick-start the mainstreaming process by holding a conference in June
2005. Wavehill does not know what format this conference will take, or how much
mainstreaming work has been undertaken already, but would add that mainstreaming needed
to be considered throughout the life of the project, and cannot be delivered solely through an
end-of-scheme conference.

(i) Dissemination

The project feels that its June conference will kick-start the dissemination process.

(j) Best Practice

The person-centred approach of the project, with the individual as the focus of a bespoke
service, displays best practice.

(k) Lessons Learnt

The key lesson learned by the project would appear to be the importance of organising job
taster sessions before full work placements, linked and matched to an initial assessment of
the vocational skills of the client.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                129
5.3      Projects: Concluding Remarks

The following section considers the main points from the individual project evaluations, and
brings them together to provide an overview of innovation, empowerment, mainstreaming,
dissemination, and best practice. There are then also concluding remarks regarding the
projects own internal evaluations overall.


Innovation

The majority of the projects seemed to have a good grasp of the principle of innovation – i.e.
trying a new idea or approaching something differently or developing new resources. Another
interpretation of innovation was the idea that a project should capture people‟s imagination.
Some projects also saw person centred or needs led training with the ability to adapt to the
individual‟s needs as innovative, and some saw the local knowledge of their project as
innovative.

This good understanding of innovation – including a range of different interpretations of the
term “innovation” – and the relatively high level of actual innovation within the projects,
reflects Wavehill‟s positive findings during the Interim Evaluation. The detailing of the
innovative aspects of the work, along with an indication of how that innovation could be
transferred into the more traditional mainstream, needs to be a key component of Action
Three. The projects themselves need to take the lead on this element, identifying where and
how they were innovative, and the impacts it had on the client group, and then explaining this
clearly as part of the dissemination and mainstreaming process.


Empowerment

The projects all seemed to have a good grasp of the principle of empowerment. This was
sometimes defined as clients developing the ability to shape their own training or support, or
increasing their self esteem, self-reliance, and confidence. Increased motivation was also
identified as an indication of client empowerment.

Overall, Wavehill is satisfied that the projects generally had a high level of impact in terms of
beneficiary empowerment. This is backed up by Wavehill‟s own interviews with beneficiaries.


Mainstreaming

Some projects were experiencing difficulties with mainstreaming. This generally related to the
fact that projects felt that there was no money to mainstream their particular service. In
addition, short term funding was seen as a barrier to effective mainstreaming. Several
projects felt that if the funding stopped, their project would come to an end, and partner
organisations would not have the funding to take the activities of the project forwards.
Mainstreaming is difficult, as it involves displacing finite funds from elsewhere. Only if a
project displays significant advantages over existing models of delivery – i.e. it displays best
practice – can it be mainstreamed as whole.

This may be the reality of the situation, and projects will need to be encouraged to think of
how the knowledge they have gained during the lifetime of their project can be used by other
agencies if the project in its entirety is not to carry on. For example, one project had taken
steps to ensure that they had mainstreamed lessons learned as they moved through the
project, in order to embed these new activities within the parent organisation.

A significant number of projects felt that their work would be useful to other organisations who
could use the materials they had developed, meaning that key objectives, with some
changes, could be carried on beyond the lifetime of the individual project. One or two other
projects had been successfully mainstreamed by securing additional funding from outside of


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   130
the Equal programme, and this had made their activities sustainable in the long term. Projects
therefore need to develop an Exit Strategy, rather than a Forward Strategy, in order to ensure
that good practice can be disseminated for use by other projects.

Wavehill‟s Interim Evaluation identified that projects were effectively leaving the issue of
mainstreaming until the very end of the project, and advised that it is never to early to give
consideration to a forward strategy. This finding has been replicated for some of the projects
within this final evaluation.

To pull together some of the key issues around mainstreaming, and to identify which projects
should take which actions regarding either Exit or Forward strategies, it may be possible to
review each project in turn to assess its best options for the future. This could be done using
a simple table format, in order to assess their plans for mainstreaming, their levels of best
practice, their potential sustainability, the transferability of the lessons learned, the
transferability of their materials, and whether they are best suited for Exit or Forward
strategies. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but does start to identify some of the areas
that need to be considered in detail within Action Three.

Finally, it is worth noting that since the interviews for this evaluation took place, some projects
may have begun or expanded their mainstreaming plans. These can be shared with other
projects and the partnership as a whole during Action Three.


Dissemination

The projects all had a good grasp of dissemination and were aware that it needed to occur.
However, many deliverers were waiting for the end of their project before they began
dissemination work, and would only begin the process in the coming months – these projects
may now need to step up the pace of their dissemination plans.

Other projects had already begun to disseminate through seminars and other types of
networking and were considering brochures and newssheets to raise their profile.

Wavehill‟s Interim Evaluation identified that projects were lacking in ambition in terms of
dissemination. This final evaluation has found that projects have now begun to think about
mainstreaming, but have perhaps left this a little late in the process.


Best practice

Different elements of best practice – as understood by the projects themselves – were
identified by each deliverer. From the projects‟ own evaluations, and from Wavehill‟s
research, we would highlight the following as general lessons that could be passed between
projects. It is important that this section is read in conjunction with the lessons learnt section
that follows after.

        Taking a flexible person-centred approach – wherever possible, when dealing with
         hard-to-reach client groups, it is important to adapt the programme to meet the needs
         of those clients. This can vary from going out to see clients in their own homes to
         delivering a pick-and-mix approach to training.

        Willingness to change and adapt a project – it is important for projects to be willing
         to change their provision, if needed and at all possible, in light of client feedback.
         Fortunately, Equal is a flexible test-bed programme, and projects were able to make
         these changes where the need arose. This is the very essence of the best of Equal –
         adapting and refining delivery before passing on the lessons learned to the
         mainstream.

        Involving employers in the development of the training course content – this
         enables projects to develop workers that employers feel are job ready and have all of


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     131
         the skills that the employers feel they require. This builds progression and “move-on”
         into the project, and adds sustainability, moving the beneficiary from training into
         work. This is an element that should be reproduced by other projects wherever
         possible.

        Involving employers / industry representatives on the project’s steering group –
         this again helps to ensure that projects train clients in the way that is required by the
         industry, thereby significantly improving their employment chances on exit.

        Holding an event to acknowledge participant’s achievements – those projects
         that held celebratory events to recognise the achievements of their beneficiaries
         reported increased confidence and motivation, as well as extra publicity generated.
         Celebratory events can provide additional links that can move the beneficiary from
         training and into paid work.

        Employing target groups within the project – those projects that employed
         members of their target groups (eg ex-offenders) within the project set-up felt that this
         showed commitment to the group, and built up communication and trust.

        Linking up isolated communities to transport – whilst this was an element of one
         particular project, the principle of integrating transport issues into a wider project set-
         up can be transferred. It can easily be forgotten that, just because a population is
         urban, it does not necessarily have access to transport links.

        Providing post entry job support or mentoring support – this element of best
         practice, originally the provision of one project, is already being reproduced by
         additional projects, proving that it is transferable.

        Providing an informal, welcoming and relaxed environment – this can be
         enhanced by providing a drop-in element, where clients are able to drop in and
         access services, or just chat with a member of staff in a relaxed and non-threatening
         setting. This is particularly important for those groups who may experience chaotic
         lifestyles.

        Focussing on areas of skills shortage – by doing this, a project can provide its
         clients with an increased chance of entering the workplace.

        Using evidence of success stories to overcome negative attitudes – when
         dealing with marginalised groups, all projects experienced negative attitudes from
         some employers. Having prepared case studies and success stories to hand, and
         promoting them widely, can help to start to overcome these barriers.

        Use of staff with local knowledge – several projects found that utilising the skills
         and knowledge of local staff with pre-established links into the community helped to
         open up doors and gain acceptance for the project. However, it is accepted that this
         may not be possible in all cases.

        Linking in with the other service providers – this enables partners to join up their
         working, by enabling organisations to come in to a project and work with the client
         group while they are on site. This prevents multiple visits to or sessions with one
         client, and provides a more cohesive service. It also ensures better communication
         between partners in relation to the client, preventing possible misunderstanding,
         duplication, etc.


Lessons Learnt

It should be remembered that some of the lessons learnt as detailed below could also be
considered best practice, and the two sections need to be considered in conjunction with
each other.

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      132
        Involve employers early within the project set-up
         Projects sometimes found it difficult to engage employers. Those that recognised this
         now recommend that greater emphasis should be placed on communicating to
         employers the benefits of attending training sessions. In addition, it was recognised
         that involving smaller employers in such projects is often difficult and needs to be
         directly addressed.

        Senior management to be involved in monitoring and evaluation
         One project identified that greater involvement with monitoring and review of the
         project at senior management level would have been beneficial. In addition, other
         projects also recognised the importance of adequately resourcing monitoring and
         evaluation activities.

        Continuity for the client
         One project identified that continuity is essential when working with hard-to-reach
         groups, as this is something that may be lacking in their lives.

        Partnership working
         Projects identified the importance of forging partnerships with appropriate
         organisations in order to enhance opportunities for marginalised groups. This could
         further extend to developing a feeling of shared ownership of the project amongst
         stakeholders.

        Appropriate advertising and promotion
         More than one project felt that it had not used appropriate methods of advertising and
         promoting tailored to local circumstances, and would only use tried and tested
         methods in future.

        Independence from the mainstream
         One project recognised the importance of appearing separate from the mainstream in
         order to attract hard-to-reach client groups.

        Early assessment of client skills
         It is important to assess clients‟ key skills as early in the process as possible, so that
         this information can be utilised during the rest of their time with the project. This could
         include selection practices at the start of the project to ensure that only clients that
         would benefit from the project were accepted onto the course.

        Celebrating success
         The importance of celebratory events was recognised by more than one project, as it
         helped to acknowledge both organisations‟ and beneficiaries‟ achievements, and
         inspired them to carry on the work.

        Vocational activity
         One project felt that vocational training should be seen as a top priority for
         marginalised groups, as this was the part of the programme that was most beneficial
         to them. In addition, another project identified that it was important to organise job
         taster sessions for beneficiaries before sending them onto full work placements, as
         this would save time on placements that did not work out.


Summary of the Projects’ Evaluations

Overall, the quality of the projects‟ own evaluations has been variable. Some, such as
Realise, Big Life Video Diaries, Will to Work, Headstart, and Active Participation provided
good evaluations that made an attempt to monitor distance travelled by beneficiaries. Other
projects provided the bare minimum of information, with no attempt at measuring distance
travelled for beneficiaries. Some projects failed to provide any output or evaluation
information at all, as detailed within the individual project output summaries.

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      133
It is interesting to note that only one project – Media Training North West – appointed a fully-
independent external evaluator to undertake their final evaluation. The result is a
comprehensive evaluation with a good mix of qualitative and quantitative measures included.
Whilst it was by no means required that projects appointed external evaluators, the fact that
MTNW budgeted for such an exercise indicates the high value that they placed on the
evaluation process.

The other project that could be singled out is the Young Persons Transition Project. The
project produced a colourful, fun, informal, and innovative final evaluation document that,
whilst aimed at young people, also contained information of interest to audiences of all ages.
Throughout the document, the project also focussed on case studies to give a real insight into
the benefits of the activities undertaken. The final result is a document that can be used by all
ages and abilities, and taken as a whole or in individual parts.

It is unfortunate that some projects did not produce detailed output information and
evaluations, showing reasons for output variance and lessons learned etc. As the programme
moves into Action Three – dissemination and mainstreaming – the lack of thorough internal
evaluations of each project will be a hindrance. The absence of extensive information also
means that projects are unable to learn lessons from each other in the way that would be
better facilitated by thorough internal evaluations. Of course, Wavehill‟s own views of the
projects, contained within this report, will provide some evaluation information, but a thorough
review by the project itself – closely examining best practice and lessons learned from the
project‟s own point of view and experience – would have made an invaluable tool for the
future.

However, Wavehill would also recognise that not all staff have particular strengths in
evaluation and monitoring, and that the Equal-funded projects were all about working on a
one-to-one basis with disengaged groups. If a member of staff has these one-to-one and
motivational skills – i.e. they can really impact on a client, motivate and involve them, move
them forwards, and make a difference to their life – then it does not necessarily follow that the
member of staff will also have evaluation skills, and vice versa. The strengths of individuals
within an organisation must therefore be taken into account when planning evaluation
activities.

From Wavehill‟s own evaluation interviews with projects, many felt that not enough time was
given for the final evaluation process. In Wavehill‟s opinion, the evaluation process should
have been relatively straightforward if the projects were monitoring their own performance
throughout their delivery, with the final evaluation proforma simply offering a vehicle to bring
together these findings in a relatively concise format. Indeed, from other evaluations seen by
Wavehill, the proforma supplied was fairly straightforward and identified the minimum amount
of information needed for a thorough evaluation. During the course of the programme,
projects should be aware at all times of the things that are working well, and the areas where
performance has not been up to the standard expected, and there should not need to be a
rush at the end of the process to bring this information together.

Overall, it would seem that a minority of the projects did not fully commit to the evaluation
process internally. Perhaps many underestimated the importance of the process, and failed to
timetable it into their activities, meaning that a hurried evaluation was submitted. Wavehill
appreciates that projects are often run with a minimum of staff, but if evaluation had been
planned into the project from the outset, then the necessary hours may have been easier to
allocate. In addition, consultative assistance was available from ME to assist with the
evaluations, to advise on measuring distance travelled, and to help with research and data
analysis and review statistical information, but it seems that not all projects made use of this
opportunity. Whilst Equal is not an output-driven programme, the evaluation process is still
vital for future activities, particularly for dissemination, and it is unfortunate that some projects
did not take the opportunity to participate fully.


Recommendations


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       134
Recommendation Ten

Issue: There was a high level of innovation within the projects, which needs to be clearly
recognised and disseminated as part of Action Three.
Evidence: Project and stakeholder interviews. Wavehill‟s interim evaluation.
Recommendation: The projects themselves need to clearly identify the areas of their work
that were particularly innovative, and prepare to share this information with others as part of
the dissemination process. This evaluation has gone some way to identifying innovation, but it
is the projects themselves that hold the detailed knowledge of what worked, how it worked,
and why. Action Three could therefore begin with the projects preparing materials such as
written summaries on innovative practice, which could be brought together into an all-project
“innovation encyclopaedia” for sharing both within and beyond the Partnership.




Recommendation Eleven

Issue: Projects are concerned that their work will not be mainstreamed if their project in its
entirety is not to carry on. Projects therefore need to be encouraged to instead think of how
the knowledge they have gained during the lifetime of their project can be used by other
agencies, rather than their project being picked up as a whole.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder and project interviews.
Recommendation: Some projects, such as Headstart, have taken steps to ensure that they
had mainstreamed lessons learned as they moved through the project, in order to embed
these new activities within the parent organisation. Other projects may be able to replicate
this. In addition, many projects, such as Will to Work and Realise, had developed materials
that could or are being used by other projects and mainstream agencies. In addition, Gorton
Gateway has now had its activities mainstreamed through a range of agencies working
together to keep up the delivery of the Gateway‟s services. These opportunities, and others
like them as identified within this evaluation, need to be developed within Action Three.




Recommendation Twelve

Issue: This final evaluation has identified that some projects have left the issue of
mainstreaming until the very end of the process, and Wavehill saw little evidence of structured
mainstreaming plans.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s project interviews.
Recommendation: For those projects that have not addressed mainstreaming issues, urgent
action must be taken as part of Action Three to make the most of any remaining opportunities.
It may be possible to facilitate this process through workshops with projects and mainstream
providers, where projects can discuss their options for mainstreaming elements of their work.
This process could be kick-started with a celebratory event to raise publicity.




Recommendation Thirteen

Issue: Again, some projects were waiting for the end of the programme before they began
dissemination, although for some this may be necessary in order to gather final results. Again,
Wavehill saw little evidence of structured dissemination plans.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s project interviews.



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                 135
Recommendation: The projects now need to address this issue with some urgency, and
develop brief but structured plans for dissemination. The kick off for dissemination activity
could be tied into the celebratory event for mainstreaming, as detailed above. However, it
should be remembered that mainstreaming and dissemination are not just the responsibility of
the projects, and the process should be co-ordinated and led by the core partners.




Recommendation Fourteen

Issue: This evaluation found that the projects displayed a wide range of best practice as
detailed within this section of the report.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s stakeholder, project, and beneficiary interviews.
Recommendation: That a summary of best practice, using the information produced by
Wavehill as a starting point, is produced. As with the information on innovative practice, this
element needs to be led by the projects themselves. The resulting “best practice
encyclopaedia” could then be used extensively in mainstreaming and dissemination work.




Recommendation Fifteen

Issue: The lack of thorough internal evaluations of some projects will be a hindrance in future.
In Wavehill‟s opinion, the evaluation process should have been relatively straightforward and
not too time-consuming if the projects were monitoring their own performance throughout their
delivery, with the final evaluation proforma simply offering a vehicle to bring together these
findings in a relatively concise format. When projects are run using limited staffing and
funding levels, as Wavehill appreciates that many of these projects are, then evaluation has
to be planned into the project from the outset. Compared to other projects Wavehill has
worked on, the final internal evaluation requirements were not particularly onerous.
Evidence: Interviews with projects and stakeholders. Wavehill‟s evaluation experience.
Recommendation: In future programmes, evaluation requirements must be built into the
delivery of the programme. This could be on a rolling basis, with sections of the evaluation
being delivered at different stages of the programme. To ensure compliance, penalties may
have to be imposed on those who do not deliver the required element on time. This may
seem heavy handed, but the entire purpose of the Equal programme is to inform the
mainstream so that activities that are proven to work can be carried on. If projects are not
properly evaluated on an individual basis, then this cannot happen, and the sustainability of
the programme is lost. In addition, an evaluation document is also a marketing document and
– if it shows that there is a clear benefit to the approach taken and that the cost per output
analysis is favourable or better than that which agencies are already buying in – then can be
used as the basis for approaching potential mainstream agencies in order to obtain new
funding. In the future, evaluation must be recognised as a cornerstone to sourcing forward
funding.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                  136
6.        Comparative Partnerships

6.1       Approved Development Partnerships

In the first round of Equal bidding, 85 Development Partnerships (DPs) were approved in
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Of those 85 approved DPs, approximately
30% dealt with Pillar 1 (Employability), Theme A (Facilitating Access).

Theme A centred on “facilitating access and return to the labour market for those who have
difficulty in being integrated or re-integrated into a labour market which must be open to all”.
The strategic objectives of Theme A were:

         To combat discrimination faced by individuals and promote equality in the workplace
         To test support mechanisms to help target groups integrate/re-integrate into the
          labour market

The full list of Pillar 1 Theme A DPs was as follows:



Development Partnership                          Lead Partner

Action for Carers and Employment (ACE            Carers UK
National)
Bettercup Childcare                              London Borough of Camden
Common Ground Development Partnership            Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Cornwall Inclusive Learning Partnership          Cornwall County Council - c/o Cornwall
                                                 EYDCP
Creative Renewal                                 Metier
Development Employability Equal                  Welsh Development Agency
Partnership (DEEP)
Embracing Diversity                              Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Equal Partnership - City Pride                   Manchester Enterprises Limited
Forward                                          Learning and Skills Council Birmingham and
                                                 Solihul
IMPACT- Innovation Means Prisons And             HM Prison Service
Community Together
Kent Equal Employability Partnership (KEEP)      Kent County Council
Leeds e-Employability Development                Leeds City Council
Partnership
NewLIFE (New London Initiative for Ex-           London Action Trust
offenders)
North East Midlands Wales EQUAL -
CYFARTAL Development Partnership                 Wrexham County Borough Council
Positive Futures - The Way Forward               The UK Coalition of People living with HIV
                                                 and AID
PRISE (Planned Resettlement Into                 RPS Rainer
Sustainable Employment)
Refugee Women's Empowerment                      Refugee Women's Association
Partnership
SEQUAL                                           University of Surrey
The Now! Partnership                             Connexions Lancashire Ltd
TyneWear Employability Development               City of Sunderland
Partnership
Voices Without Frontiers/Community Media         Community Media Association
DP
WOMEN INTO WORK                                  SOVA


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    137
6.2      Approved Development Partnerships with Common Interests

Of the approved DPs listed above, Wavehill has identified those that have areas of
commonality with the CP&S Partnership. From this group, Wavehill has then attempted to find
those that have completed interim and/or final evaluations. This information has been difficult
to access, and has limited the number of comparisons presented below.


DP Name               Forward
Lead partner          Learning and Skills Council Birmingham and Solihul
Regions covered       West Midlands
Summary               The Forward Development Partnership aims to address issues related to
                      access, retention and progression in the labour market for three groups of
                      people. These are: people with low levels of basic skills; people with
                      disabilities; and older workers. Within these groups, priority will be given to
                      BME communities and those living in the most disadvantaged wards.

Additional            The programme is currently in Action Two, and this is due to finish in May
Information           2005. Wavehill has therefore had access to the Partnership‟s interim
                      evaluation (produced in February 2005 by the CSR Partnership), which
                      provided initial views and feedback on the work of the partnership, and
                      considered a number of areas where changes could be made for the
                      remainder of the programme.

                      Forward covers the areas of Birmingham and Solihull. The core partners
                      are Birmingham and Solihull LSC, Birmingham City Council, Birmingham
                      Voluntary Service Council, Widening Participation Group (FE),
                      Birmingham University, Core Skills Partnership and Birmingham Race
                      Action Partnership. The core group is chaired by the LSC.

                      Specific objectives include: research into the hidden barriers to access,
                      retention, and progression in employment; the development of an
                      inclusive empowerment model; to establish a range of sustainable
                      intervention models for the target groups; to establish an evaluation format
                      which enables the effective dissemination of activity.

                      Forward activities to be undertaken include: research, capacity building,
                      training the trainers, in-company training; vocational training; diversity
                      training, materials development, mentoring activity, development of
                      training methodologies and programmes.

                      Outputs will include: creation of jobs, new inter-agency networks;
                      databases, reports, materials development, new training models; in
                      company resources, website, joint product development; ICT-based
                      intervention models; changes in company policy/practice development;
                      new training methodologies; achievement of qualifications; and quality
                      standards attainment.

                      Forward has both a pre and post employment focus.

Transnational         Forward‟s transnational partners are in Germany, Finland, and Italy. The
Work                  interim evaluation recognised that the Forward partnership had been
                      involved in transnational working at all levels, not just programme
                      management, and had also included local partners that had not received
                      funding from the Equal programme. Activities have included work
                      shadowing between partnerships, and joint development of projects.

                      It is interesting to note that the LSC does not steer the transnational work
                      – responsibility for this is taken by the European and International Division
                      of the City Council. The interim evaluation indicated that this split of

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                       138
                      responsibility had benefited the development partnership.

                      Generally, the partnership found the questioning of their own approach
                      that was brought about by the transnational work was challenging and
                      helpful.

Projects       and    The outputs of the programme are split between the three target groups.
Outputs
                      Within the basic skills group they include: the trialling of new basic skills
                      delivery approaches, the provision of a development centre for literacy
                      and numeracy, the engagement of 40 employers, and support to 50
                      beneficiaries. Within the disability group the outputs include: 6 disability
                      audits of learning providers premises, a website offering support in finding
                      work and training, support to 100 employers / employees, and a feasibility
                      study into the creation of a business agency operated by people with
                      disabilities. Finally, within the older workers group the outputs include: 200
                      people receiving training, 50 people finding work, and 10 people achieving
                      NVQ Level 2 or above.

                      Progress so far by the disability group has been particularly noteable, with
                      projects being set up quickly and producing beneficiaries, and targets
                      already being met or exceeded.

                      Overall, the interim evaluation found that it was likely that targets would be
                      exceeded across the board.

Programme             The levels of involvement of the partners in the three groups have been
management            variable.
issues
                      The process of project approval has been lengthy in some cases, and has
                      caused delays in the delivery timetable.

                      Individual projects have not always supplied adequate monitoring and
                      evaluation information.

                      There is a need for improved communication between the three groups.

Innovation            The interim evaluation found that some aspects of the Forward
                      programme were more innovative than others, and the Partnership
                      needed to identify which projects had been most innovative, and consider
                      how they should continue.

Empowerment           The interim evaluation found that improving people‟s employment
                      prospects would help them to be empowered, whilst actions such as
                      improving basic skills would have an impact beyond just employability
                      issues.

Mainstreaming         N/A to an interim evaluation
Dissemination         N/A to an interim evaluation
Best practice         N/A to an interim evaluation
General               The interim evaluation found that “the work of the partnership is
                      impressive in the range of different activities being undertaken”.

Relevance to the      There is a fairly good match between the objectives of this Partnership
City Pride and        and those of CP&S. In addition, some of the issues regarding programme
Stockport             management may be particularly relevant to CP&S. This includes the
Partnership           variable involvement of different partners, and the lack of adequate
                      monitoring and evaluation information from some projects.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                      139
DP Name               Kent Equal Employability Partnership (KEEP)
Lead partner          Kent County Council
Regions covered       South East
Summary               KEEP aimed to develop and transfer new methods of supporting people
                      from several disadvantaged groups to gain and retain employment. The
                      partnership focussed on the 7 most deprived districts in Kent, and worked
                      with specific disadvantaged groups, including people with learning and
                      physical disabilities, people with mental health problems, long-term
                      unemployed people, ethnic minorities and refugees, and people
                      recovering from addiction. KEEP aimed to promote the employability of
                      disadvantaged groups through three types of services: pre-vocational
                      training, support through transitions into employment, and development of
                      social firms.

Additional            The programme has been through a final evaluation, which was published
Information           in July 2004 by the Department of Educational Studies at the University of
                      Surrey.

                      The specific objectives of KEEP were: to engage 772 people from the
                      target disadvantaged groups in the activities of the partnership, to help
                      70% of beneficiaries move at least one step along the pathway to work, to
                      help 30% of beneficiaries to move two or more steps along the pathway to
                      work, to support 315 beneficiaries into paid employment, and to help 70%
                      of beneficiaries who achieve employment to retain their job for at least 6
                      months.

                      There were 8 recognised “steps” along the path to employment. These
                      were: unemployed (not ready for training), unemployed (no qualifications),
                      unemployed (pre-vocational qualifications), unemployed (NVQ Level 1),
                      unemployed (NVQ Level 2), work experience, entry to a paid job, retention
                      of a job for more than 6 months.

Transnational         The evaluation found that KEEP participated in an effective transnational
Work                  partnership. No clear evidence as to why this statement is made is
                      recorded within the evaluation seen by Wavehill.

Projects       and    KEEP supported 689 beneficiaries in all, and 106 of those beneficiaries
Outputs               were still unemployed at the end of the programme. All 689 obtained a
                      formal qualification.

                      The evaluators had difficulty in getting beneficiaries to engage in the
                      evaluation process, with low numbers of questionnaire returns.

                      Soft or qualitative outputs were seen as being as important as hard
                      quantitative ones.

Programme             The evaluation identified problems between individual projects around
management            “ownership” of beneficiaries.
issues
                      There were difficulties with the allocation of financial resources at the
                      beginning of the programme, and these continued to cause problems such
                      as lack of trust between partners during Action Two, which hindered the
                      Partnership‟s development. The evaluators felt that the Partnership never
                      really developed its own identity or clarity of purpose.

Innovation            The evaluation noted that “Equal is a pilot programme and
                      experimentation and testing should have been given more prominence”.
                      This would seem to imply that innovation was not high enough on the

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                   140
                      agenda.

Empowerment           Empowerment is mentioned, but it was difficult to pick out any elements
                      that would be pertinent to CP&S.

Mainstreaming         The evaluation notes that the Partnership has generated media coverage,
                      but otherwise refers to mainstreaming only in that it will happen in the
                      future under Action Three.

Dissemination         The evaluation notes that the Partnership has generated media coverage,
                      but otherwise refers to dissemination only in that it will happen in the
                      future under Action Three.

Best practice         Best practice from the projects was not recorded explicitly within the
                      individual write-ups of each. It is therefore difficult to pick out elements of
                      best practice from the project as a whole.

General               Nothing to note of relevance to CP&S.

Relevance to the      This evaluation is limited in its detail, and as such it is difficult to pick out
City Pride and        the overlaps with the experiences of the CP&S Partnership, with the
Stockport             exception of the simple fact that there are some similar target groups
Partnership           involved.




DP Name               CYFARTAL Development Partnership
Lead partner          Wrexham County Borough Council
Regions covered       Wales
Summary               CYFARTAL aims to test support mechanisms to help individuals facing all
                      forms of discrimination. It is hoped that the new structures put in place
                      within the project will allow the target groups to benefit first hand from any
                      impact or benefits arising from the changing attitudes and perceptions of
                      policy makers, decision makers and local employers. The full involvement
                      of the target groups will deliver the outcomes required, such as higher
                      levels of confidence, levels of skills and sense of inclusion for those
                      currently excluded.

Additional            Wavehill Consulting produced the interim report for the Partnership at the
Information           beginning of 2004. The final evaluation is still underway.

                      The target areas are pockets of deprivation that are flanked by job rich
                      areas, with the focus being on the most deprived wards the involved local
                      authority areas (Wrexham, Denbighshire and Flintshire). There are also
                      activities taking place that will affect the wider geographical area via
                      seeking change or challenge employers‟ attitudes regarding equal
                      opportunities.

                      The targeted groups were: people with Mental Health issues (many
                      relating to social disadvantage), people with Physical Disabilities, Youth
                      Issues, and people facing Social Disadvantage (including ageism).

                      Action 2 aimed to address the deficits in skills and participation in training
                      of the target groups by the provision of alternative methods of inclusion.
                      The Partnership hoped that the involvement of the target groups would
                      enlighten and alter perceptions of the issues they face, resulting in a more
                      targeted approach to their needs.

                      The Partnership aimed to develop personal development programmes for

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         141
                      beneficiaries, to develop an accredited comprehensive equal opportunities
                      training framework for employers and co-workers, to pilot ways of
                      improving dependent care (including for young carers), to address the
                      needs of those parents who have disabled children but who wish to re-
                      enter the labour market, to develop models for supporting sustainable
                      childcare provision in deprived communities, and to develop new methods
                      and frameworks for measuring distance travelled.

Transnational         The Partnership established links with a parallel Partnership - P@rson -
Work                  which has members in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, in order to identify
                      common activities that could be developed on a Europe-wide basis. The
                      work undertaken by Jobcentre Plus in working directly with beneficiaries to
                      change its ways of working has been recognised as an easily transferable
                      best practice model, which could be replicated by transnational partners.

Projects        and   As this was an interim evaluation, outputs were not included. However,
Outputs               the methodology for monitoring outputs had been established and agreed.

Programme             The evaluation identified that partner organisations were fully committed
management            to the principles underpinning the project, but had encountered a steep
issues                learning curve in identifying the ways in which the project could contribute
                      to practical change, both within their own and other organisations.

                      At the time of the interim evaluation, the project was experiencing match
                      funding problems, which were hampering progress significantly.

Innovation            The Cyfartal Partnership was particularly innovative in the way that it
                      enabled beneficiaries to directly participate in forming solutions at the
                      strategic level.

Empowerment           The Partnership moved beyond its boundaries, and enabled beneficiary
                      groups to meet directly with partners and service providers. This appeared
                      to empower the beneficiaries, and increased their understanding of the
                      role of the agencies, and the restrictions and frustrations that they
                      sometimes face. This led to joint working between beneficiaries and
                      partners, to make ways of working within agencies such as Jobcentre Plus
                      more welcoming.

Mainstreaming         Conclusions on mainstreaming had not been reached within the interim
                      report, although the project had initial plans in place.

Dissemination         Conclusions on dissemination had not been reached within the interim
                      report, although the project had initial plans in place.

Best practice         As a final evaluation has not yet been produced, there is no overall
                      identification of best practice available. However, as mentioned above the
                      work undertaken by Jobcentre Plus in working directly with beneficiaries to
                      change its ways of working (The Job Centre Forum) has been recognised
                      as an easily transferable best practice model, which could be replicated by
                      transnational partners.

General               No general points to note.

Relevance to the      If CP&S wish it, Wavehill can ensure that lessons from the final evaluation
City Pride and        of Cyfartal are passed on at the appropriate time. As there are similarities
Stockport             between the target groups, CP&S may find this useful.
Partnership




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    142
DP Name               Development Employability Equality Partnership (DEEP)
Lead partner          Welsh Development Agency
Regions covered       Wales
Summary               The principal objective of DEEP is the mainstreaming of equal
                      opportunities into the policy making process affecting employability in
                      Wales.

                      The DEEP Partnership focuses on the integration / reintegration of
                      excluded groups of people into employability. Primarily, DEEP looks at
                      issues relating to gender, race, older workers and all those covered by the
                      Disability Discrimination Act, and other socially excluded groups of people.

                      DEEP focuses on three fields: self-identification and personal barriers to
                      employability; the value of volunteering; and achieving diversity, through
                      analysing employer practices in developing and monitoring diversity.


Additional            The final evaluation of the DEEP has been completed, and was
Information           undertaken by Menter a Busnes in January 2005.

                      Whilst the work of DEEP may not be as directly relevant to CP&S as some
                      other DPs, the theme of examining employer practices may prove
                      interesting for the Manchester partnership. In addition, the final evaluation
                      points to some key issues regarding commitment and enthusiasm for the
                      process, and these will definitely be of interest to CP&S as it moves into
                      Action Three.

Transnational         The DEEP Partnership identified two transnational partners for Action 2.
Work                  The first of these was Westmeath Equal Development Partnership in
                      Ireland, where work aspects included joint development and a multi
                      agency approach to mainstreaming equality into policy at all levels. The
                      second was Opportunita Diritti Eguaglianza Abilitza in Italy, where work
                      aspects include parallel working, exchange of information tools and skills,
                      and focusing on the development of policy around the integration and
                      retention of excluded groups of people in employment.

                      The final evaluation noted that partner expectations of the transnational
                      work had not been met, and there was some disillusionment with the
                      process. Whilst this was not exactly the case with CP&S, there were
                      questions from some partners regarding the relevance and effectiveness
                      of the transnational work.

Projects       and    The three project areas are: focusing on the personal barriers that exist to
Outputs               employment and the retention of employment by excluded groups of
                      people; focussing on the cultural, geographical and social values of
                      volunteering in Wales, and the aspect of volunteering leading to / from
                      employment; and finally focusing on employer practices in developing and
                      monitoring diversity at all levels.

                      The main outcome is to affect policy at a Regional, National and European
                      level, on equality and equal opportunities issues surrounding
                      employability. Other outputs should include development of non-
                      stereotyping careers packs, new qualifications, and new roles for equality
                      agents.

Programme             The evaluation found that the partners had a good understanding of the
management            aims, values, and principles of the project. However, capacity of partners
issues                to maintain involvement at an appropriate level was an issue, and
                      attendance and involvement had decreased substantially. The evaluators
                      felt that this may be due to the perception amongst partners that the

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     143
                      project was “winding down” and Wavehill have found potentially similar
                      issues within CP&S. the decline in attendance had serious impacts on the
                      partnership, including not being quorate or making any meaningful
                      decisions.

                      At the end of the programme, partners felt that there remained question
                      marks over the desire of policy makers to engage with the project, as they
                      were generally unaware of the project‟s existence and objectives. This
                      emphasises the need for CP&S to have robust mainstreaming and
                      dissemination strategies in place.

                      In general, the evaluation found that partners‟ expectations of the project
                      as a whole had significantly dwindled over time.

Innovation            The DEEP in itself is innovative, being composed primarily of voluntary
                      organisations including Chwarae Teg, Disability Wales, Age Concern,
                      Scope, and others representing the target groups that it aims to empower.

Empowerment           The project evaluation noted empowerment of “Change Agents” but there
                      was little additional detail.

Mainstreaming         Partners felt that initial expectations for impacting on the mainstream were
                      perhaps unrealistically high.

Dissemination         The evaluation found that not all partners were aware of the dissemination
                      strategy, whilst some raised questions over the value of developing a
                      strategy at such a late stage of the programme.

Best practice         Positive changes brought about by the projects were noted, but these
                      were not presented within the framework of best practice i.e. their levels of
                      transferability to other projects were not discussed explicitly.

General               There are no other general point to add.

Relevance to the      The key issues for CP&S arising from this evaluation are those regarding
City Pride and        commitment to and enthusiasm for the process. The lack of impact at
Stockport             policy level, and lack of general awareness outside of the Partnership
Partnership           itself, are also key issues that will definitely be of interest to CP&S as it
                      moves into Action Three.




6.3       Common Issues Between CP&S and Other Partnerships


General Aims, Objectives, and Activities
There are several partnerships in existence that have similar aims and objectives to those of
CP&S, although none that mirror their activities exactly. Ideas and activities such as research,
vocational training, development of materials, creation of jobs, creation of networks,
development of best practice models, measuring distance travelled, and impact on employers
/ change in employer practice were all seen in other partnerships. Areas of similar activity
would therefore seem to indicate that there were areas of common need amongst the target
groups of the different partnerships, no matter where in the country they were located.


Transnational
During transnational working, some partnerships were able to involve their beneficiaries in
activities, and were also able to involve partners that had not received funding from Equal. In
addition, work shadowing between partnerships was sometimes arranged, although it was

Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     144
recognised that there were problems with this, and this activity would not necessarily be
appropriate for CP&S. In one partnership, the lead responsibility for the transnational working
was not taken by the lead partner, it was taken by another member of the group (in this case
the local city council). This is an unusual step but seems to have worked for the partnership in
question. Another partnership had seen elements of its own best practice replicated by one of
its transnational partners. This is also the case for CP&S, and shows that its transnational
partnership is working well. Finally, another partnership had indicated that it was disappointed
in the way that the transnational work had developed, and expectations had not been met.
Whilst some stakeholders within CP&S were a little disappointed with the transnational
element, there was general satisfaction with the process so far, indicating that the CP&S
transnational partnership element has been relatively successful.


Outputs
Two of the partnerships reviewed had not yet reached the end of their programmes, and had
therefore not produced final details on outputs. Of these two partnerships, one was expecting
to exceed its targets by the end of the programme, whilst another had no current view on its
outputs, but had established and agreed a framework for measuring them in the future. One
of the programmes that had completed its activities recorded that it fell just fell short of its
output targets. Finally, another programme had aimed to impact at the policy level, and its
outputs were focussed in this area. The final evaluation for this partnership recorded that the
DP was disappointed with the level of impact it had had at policy level, and was also
disappointed at the general lack of awareness of the partnership and its aims outside of its
immediate membership.

This would indicate that CP&S should be satisfied with its progress towards target outputs.
The majority of CP&S projects performed well against targets, and those that struggled were
generally able to identify the reasons for falling short of their goals. This has not been the
case for all partnerships and, whilst Equal is not output driven, this should still give some
cause for satisfaction to the CP&S partnership.


Project Management Issues
In the other DP evaluations that Wavehill reviewed, it was apparent that some of them
experienced similar project management issues to those experienced by CP&S. For example,
more than one partnership indicated that stakeholder involvement could be variable
depending on the levels of activity of the partnership and the project at that particular time.
Another indicated that projects did not always supply adequate monitoring information, and
CP&S has also, on occasion, found this to be the case.

However, other projects were also experiencing delays in approvals and in securing match
funding, and this did not appear to be a particular problem for CP&S. In addition, one
partnership noted that it was never really able to establish any clear individual identity or
clarity of purpose for itself, and that there were significant trust issues between partners.
Fortunately, this was certainly not the case for CP&S. Finally, another partnership noted that
the expectations of partners as to what could be delivered by the programme significantly
dwindled over time. Despite occasionally variable levels of involvement, this was not the case
with CP&S, and during all of Wavehill‟s interviews, stakeholders remained positive regarding
the impact of the projects and the lessons that could be learned from their activities.


Innovation
Overall, it would seem that CP&S was at least as innovative as the other DPs whose
evaluations were reviewed by Wavehill, and considerably more innovative then some. For
example, two evaluations indicated that innovation was either patchy or generally not high
enough on the agenda, whilst another did not identify any particular project activities as being
innovative, but rather cited the make-up of the DP itself. This is very different to the activities
of CP&S, in which Wavehill found that many projects undertook activities that could be
considered innovative.



Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     145
However, one area of innovation from another DP that Wavehill would like to highlight is the
partnership that enabled direct beneficiary involvement at the strategic decision making level
– this is a bold step that worked well for the partnership in question, and was even recognised
as best practice, and copied by its transnational partners.


Empowerment
Two of the evaluations reviewed by Wavehill were limited in the specific information that they
gave on empowerment. Others recognised that the work of the DP had improved employment
prospects, which empowered the beneficiary, whilst it was also correctly identified that
improving a beneficiary‟s basic skills level had considerable empowerment impact beyond
employability issues alone. This could be an interesting area for CP&S projects to explore
further. Finally, one partnership found that additional beneficiary empowerment occurred
through enabling beneficiaries to meet with agencies such as Jobcentre Plus and directly
impact on their decisions.


Mainstreaming and Dissemination
Most of the evaluations reviewed by Wavehill did not give specific details about either
mainstreaming or dissemination activities. For two or three projects, this was because the
evaluations were interim only. However, it is interesting to note that only one of these
partnerships indicated in their interim evaluation that they had future plans in place – this
would seem to show that partnerships are leaving their mainstreaming and dissemination
planning until late in the process. Another partnership noted that mainstreaming expectations
at the beginning of the programme had been too high, and had had to be revised towards the
end of the process, whilst awareness of dissemination activities was not sufficiently high
amongst all partners.

CP&S has experienced some similar problems, in that projects have struggled to get to grips
with mainstreaming and dissemination issues. However, as detailed previously within this
report, there is now significant evidence from some projects that mainstreaming is starting to
take place, and is happening successfully. Dissemination remains lower on the list of
priorities, but this should change as the partnership moves into Action Three. Overall, CP&S
has performed well compared to other partnerships, although it has to be recognised that this
is a very small sample and so is by no means conclusive, and there are areas where CP&S
could still improve.


Best Practice
Wavehill found it very difficult to assess best practice form projects within other DPs. This was
mainly due to the fact that two of the evaluations were interim, and as such contained no final
information. In other final evaluations, best practice was not picked out explicitly, and so it
was difficult to clearly identify and single out best practice activities. The exception to this was
the innovative work mentioned previously, in which beneficiaries were directly involved in
influencing policy, and which was clearly recognised as best practice. At this point, Wavehill
can only refer to the Equal programme-wide work being undertaken by Ecotec, in the hope
that best practice will be explicitly identified within their review. In the meantime, it is clear that
CP&S showed several different aspects of best practice across a range of projects, and as
such has been successful in identifying transferable activities.


Summary
Taken as a whole, Wavehill would conclude that CP&S has performed well in comparison
with other partnerships. Innovation, best practice, and empowerment have been clearly in
evidence across several projects and, whilst CP&S did have some programme management
issues to report, they were not particularly serious in nature, but instead reflected the changes
in the programme over time. In addition, CP&S progress towards output targets was, as a
whole, good, and its transnational work was generally well-received. This would indicate that
CP&S has been a successful partnership that could well provide lessons for the future for
other partnerships.


Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                         146
Recommendations



Recommendation Sixteen

Issue: One external UK partnership was particularly innovative in the way that it enabled
direct beneficiary involvement at the strategic decision making level.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s review of the activities of other partnerships.
Recommendation: That consideration is given to facilitating direct beneficiary feedback to
mainstream agencies during Action Three activities. This could possibly be facilitated through
workshops at celebratory events.




Recommendation Seventeen

Issue: There were few clear examples of best practice from other UK partnerships.
Evidence: Wavehill‟s review of the activities of other partnerships.
Recommendation: Ecotec is currently undertaking a programme-wide review of Equal
activities and evaluations. Wavehill would hope that best practice and lessons learnt will be
identified within this review and, if this is the case, CP&S should be able to identify the issues
that are pertinent to its own activities.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                    147
7.       Overall Conclusions

Please note that conclusions, summaries, and recommendations are presented on a section-
by-section basis within the report, and this section serves merely as a very brief reminder of
some of those issues. However, certain elements have come through strongly, and can be
repeated here.

These include:

        Progress made by the Partnership and the projects has been good. The partnership
         objectives have, in the main, been met, whilst project outputs have been positive.
         Taken as a whole, this is a positive evaluation for CP&S, and the fact that some
         criticisms and recommendations for change are made should not take away from this
         overall positive view.

        The delivery of the programme was geared to meet local needs.

        Important lessons have been learned – both at stakeholder and project level – and
         these can be successfully used to inform the mainstream.

        Levels of innovation were high across the projects.

        Projects have, in almost all cases, successfully empowered the beneficiaries they
         worked with.

        Many projects displayed significant elements of best practice.

        There are a range of barriers to the successful mainstreaming of the projects,
         and the Partnership needs to be clear on what these are, and how best to overcome
         them.

        The Partnership must take an active part in helping to develop the exit and
         forward strategies for the projects.

        The projects own evaluations were somewhat inconsistent across the board, and
         some did not make use of the support provided by ME, but it was still the case that
         some projects produced thorough and thoughtful evaluations, which could
         provide useful pointers for other projects.

        CP&S has performed well in many areas when compared to other DPs.

        This evaluation provides an opportunity for the Partnership to move forward
         positively and with renewed focus into Action Three, knowing that it has many
         elements of best practice and innovation to share with other DPs.


For an explanation in full on the above points, please refer to the main body of the report.




Prepared by Wavehill Consulting 12/07/2011                                                     148

				
DOCUMENT INFO