Welfare Reform Team Evaluation of European Social Fund pilot project 2014-2015

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Data from the feedback forms The first question asked how people heard about the job fair. The highest response here was 50 people being referred by Job Centre Plus. The posters seem to have a had a positive effect with 22 people saying they’d been attracted by the poster and similarly the local press with 21 people saying they’d seen it in the newspaper. Leaflets apparently brought it to the attention of 17 people with Daily Info being slightly higher at 18. Direct Mail/invitation accounted for 12. In the “Other” category which accounted for a total of 18 the biggest referrers were friends and neighbours with 5, children’s centres with 4 and Barton Job Club with 3 attendees. Over and above the obvious success of having Job Centre with 50 referrals it would seem the local press, leaflets and posters worked effectively as did Daily Info. It’s very likely that people will have seen at least two sources of information, it’s quite possible for example that many of those who listed a leaflet, poster or local press were also referred by the Job Centre. We have to consider therefore would they have attended having already noticed the event was taking place via publicity if they hadn’t then also had it brought to their attention by the Job Centre? Attendees were then asked to answer five questions about the event and its location. a) Was the location accessible? Of the 165 who replied 77% (127) agreed it was accessible, with 16% saying they slightly agreed. Only 3 people disagreed that it was accessible. b) Was the day of the week suitable? A total of 86% (141) agreed that the day of the week was suitable with less than 4% either disagreeing or slightly disagreeing. c) Was the time convenient? Of all respondents 88% agreed that the time was convenient d) Was the information/help/advice appropriate? Only one attendee disagreed with this statement whereas 128 (78%) agreed and 26 (16%) slightly agreed. e) Did the event meet your individual needs? In all 57% (92) agreed saying it met their expectations, with 25% (41) slightly agreeing. A total of 10 people disagreed (6%) and 19 (12%) slightly disagreed. The full response figures are shown at appendix 2 2
General comments on the above feedback Clearly the feedback is very positive in relation to the event location, timing and convenience. That level of agreement reduces slightly in relation to the appropriateness of the advice/information/help provided but reduces significantly when it comes to the question did the event meet attendees individual needs. Overall in terms of execution and attendance the event can be seen as a success, but given the relatively modest levels of satisfaction in terms of meeting individual need there is clearly room for improvement. Obviously the main aim of the event was to help people into employment and if their needs in that respect aren’t being met then this aspect needs to be discussed in some depth before the next event. Listed at appendix three are the comments written by attendees on their feedback sheets which may throw some light on why needs weren’t met in some cases. A rough thematic analysis of those comments coupled with verbal feedback on the day would suggest the main failings were; • Employers didn’t engage enough • There were very few basic administration roles on offer • A high proportion of the jobs required some degree of specific qualification or recent relevant experience. • Lack of obvious or previously provided information about jobs/employers • Long queues and lack of seating may have resulted in people not being overly positive when they then met employers The job/employer related aspects above show a mismatch between what employers had on offer and how they presented it, and the skills, experience and confidence of many of the clients who attended. This mismatch is however a gap that could be bridged over time if more extended introductions were made to employers with, and on behalf of clients and if employers were helped to be more flexible in terms of their recruitment criteria. This mismatch of people and jobs was also illustrated by some of the employers both verbally and on their feedback forms. Verbal feedback on the day, having spoken to other staff in attendance, would also suggest that rather than coaching attendees at workshops before the event it may in future be worth coaching employers as to how to effectively engage with the client group. Certain employers didn’t create an air of approachability and with many of our client group lacking confidence particularly in group situations barriers of this nature have to be broken down. It was also felt that a more relaxed approach from the employers, i.e. dressing less formally and perhaps standing in front of their tables not behind, might have helped put 3
Page 1 and 2:
Welfare Reform Team Evaluation of E
Page 3 and 4:
The project in numbers 230 particip
Page 5 and 6:
found very difficult to cope with,
Page 7 and 8:
Partnerships This section outlines
Page 9 and 10:
• the setting up of the Welfare R
Page 11 and 12:
• two Welfare Reform Project Offi
Page 13 and 14:
Project milestones and changes to p
Page 15 and 16:
• ESF Department made an on the s
Page 17 and 18:
3. Marketing & Communications The t
Page 19 and 20:
The team has an active Twitter acco
Page 21 and 22:
4. Partnerships A key aim of the ES
Page 23 and 24:
nominated JCP work coaches, and a s
Page 25 and 26:
Customer selfrefers through DHP app
Page 27 and 28:
Customers gave lack of experience,
Page 29 and 30:
40 Confidence in finding work in th
Page 31 and 32:
DHP in future 11 . For project cust
Page 33 and 34:
Customer stories The best way to il
Page 35 and 36:
When Richard was benefit capped in
Page 37 and 38:
Ayesha Ayesha is a single parent wi
Page 39 and 40:
Laurence We helped Laurence as part
Page 41 and 42:
Mel and Ian agreed to follow both o
Page 43 and 44:
6. Performance & Documentation Meas
Page 45 and 46:
People on JSA who have not found wo
Page 47 and 48:
50% 45% 43% Confidence in ICT skill
Page 49 and 50:
Management information There was a
Page 51 and 52:
The team should consider whether da
Page 53 and 54:
There were 38 responses to the cust
Page 55 and 56:
“Want to do permitted work and ne
Page 57 and 58: Appropriateness of referrals “Yes
Page 59 and 60: “We supplied members of staff fro
Page 61 and 62: We met with our Communications team
Page 63 and 64: Status on leaving the project 6 6%
Page 65 and 66: funded by ESF to deliver the projec
Page 67 and 68: we felt least likely to engage with
Page 69 and 70: Appendices Appendix 1 Communication
Page 72 and 73: Questionnaire Summary Results This
Page 74 and 75: Questionnaire: Partner survey - Wel
Page 80 and 81: Respondent Name esfp18 Respondent E
Page 82: Appendix 4 DWP Unit Cost Savings fo
Page 85 and 86: | UnemployedMonths Gender | 12 - 23
Page 87 and 88: RECODE of | LeavgStat | (LeavingSta
Page 89 and 90: -------------------+---------------
Page 91 and 92: CHI SQUARE TESTS OF ASSOCIATION . t
Page 93 and 94: . tab LeavgStat2 Ethnicity3, row co
Page 95 and 96: . tab LeavgStat2 debt, row col exac
Page 97 and 98: Questionnaire Summary Results This
Page 99 and 100: The Job Fair was useful to encourag
Page 101 and 102: Questionnaire: Customer survey - We
Page 103 and 104: Questionnaire: Customer survey - We
Page 105 and 106: Respondent Name Respondent Email Ad
Page 107: Barton Neighbourhood Job Fair 15 th
Page 111 and 112: Barton Job Fair July 2015 - Appendi
Page 113 and 114: Barton Job Fair July 2015 - Appendi
Page 115 and 116: Barton Job Fair July 2015 - Summary
Page 118: Welfare Reform Team Oxford City Cou
show all

Welfare Reform Team Evaluation of European Social Fund pilot project 2014-2015

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?