Supplementary memorandum from Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills
Many thanks for your letter of 23 November in
which you asked for some additional information on Train to Gain.
When I gave evidence to the hearing on 11 November,
I argued that any fair conclusion about value for money in the
Train to Gain programme would need to take account of the long
term benefits of training to the UK economy, based on the evidence
that a 1% increase in the proportion of employees trained is associated
with an increase in productivity of 0.6%, worth around £6
billion to the UK economy. This is a significant contribution
at any time, but in the current economic climate demonstrates
just how important it is to have the right training provision
in place, to support growth after the recession.
However, these benefits are difficult to capture
both within the short lifetime of the programme so far and through
the evaluation data captured to date. During the evidence session,
I agreed to confirm details of some of the evaluation evidence
which demonstrates some of the benefits of the programme. I can
confirm that:
— 66% of employers reported that the programme
had helped long-term competitiveness; and
— 91% of employers were satisfied with
the training.
These statistics are from the "Train to
Gain Employer Evaluation: Wave 4 Research Report", which
evaluated the experiences of new users of the service between
May and October 2008. Fieldwork for the Employer report involved
telephone interviews and was undertaken between January and March
2009.
In addition, I can confirm that 61% of employers
in the Employer Longitudinal Survey 2 reported increased productivity.
This study looked at the longer term impact of training by re-interviewing
employers between 13 and 20 months after initial contact. Fieldwork
was undertaken between January and March 2009, with employers
who used the brokerage service between May and October 2007.
Both the new employer (Wave 4) data and the
second longitudinal survey data are reported in the Train to Gain
Employer Evaluation: Sweep 4 Research Report, published in June
2009.
The Train to Gain programme has brought about
significant reform in the way in which learning is delivered in
the workplace. If we are to realise the potential benefits of
the programme, it is critical that we deliver learning of the
kind that employers need and that we continue to improve the quality
of delivery. The Learning and Skills Council (the Skills Funding
Agency from April 2010) is committed to addressing poor performance
and to reducing or withdrawing contracts where appropriate. Mr
Russell agreed to provide further details, which are as follows.
For 2009-10, the LSC either terminated or reduced
a total of 268 contracts due to poor provider performance during
the 2008-09 academic year. Of these, 29 were terminated and 239
were reduced from an overall total of 897 providers.
Satisfaction ratings for Train to Gain are very
strong, with over 90% of employers saying they are satisfied with
provision. Train to Gain was developed as a different model for
delivery of workplace learning, removing barriers to participation
and enabling more employers to engage in learning. This includes
learning providers working directly with employers on their own
premises rather than in the classroom and delivering relevant
and appropriate learning through on-the-job activities. These
are inherent elements of the Train to Gain model.
All learning programmes include an assessment
of an employee's existing skills and the additional learning required
to complete a qualification. This includes identifying any prior
learning and achievement that could form appropriate evidence
for completion of the qualification. From August 2009, providers
have been required to identify those learners who achieve more
than 50% of their qualification through recognition of prior learning.
It is too early for this data to be available.
Up to and including 2008-09, the Learning and
Skills Council paid a lower rate for very short courses of 15
hours or less, where accreditation is likely to be a higher proportion
of the total course. Based on LSC data for learning delivered
either entirely or mainly in the workplace, 24% of all Level 2
provision and 23% of Level 3 provision was paid the lower rate.
Train to Gain has been successful in reaching
employers who do not normally engage in training and the skills
brokerage service has exceeded expectations with 75% of engagements
being with employers defined as hard to reach compared to a target
of 51%.
The breakdown by corporate size of organisation
for all learner starts on the programme was as follows:
| Employer Size |
% |
| A 1-49 | 44 |
| B 50-249 | 27 |
| C 250-4,999 | 20 |
| D 5,000+ | 9 |
| Grand Total | 100 |
| |
Based on analysis of the latest available data for 2008-09,
the proportion of learner starts by employees from micro-businesses
with six or fewer employees was 12% of the total.
Brokers do not recruit learners directly to programmes and
we have not previously tracked this performance measure. We estimate
that around 20% of learners starting Train to Gain have done so
as a result of a brokerage engagement with an employer. Based
on the total number of learner starts, that equates to around
280,000 starts coming through skills brokerage to April 2009.
However, the service offered by skills brokers includes advice
and support on a range of solutions and is not confined to referrals
to the Train to Gain programme. For example, 27% of brokerage
engagements resulted in a referral to a skills solution other
than learning funded through the Learning and Skills Council.
I hope this additional information is useful in clarifying
the evidence we provided in the session.
Simon Fraser, Permanent Secretary
17 December 2009
| 
