Price of Exclusion

7/28/2019 Price of Exclusion

1/24

The price of exclusionEuropean Social Fund: a potential response for those furthest from the labour market


2/24


3/24

The price o exclusionEuropean Social Fund: a potential response or those urthest rom the

labour market

With grate ul thanks to Jamie Thomas o KPMG or his cost bene t analysisand Tamara Flanagan at CSV or making the report happen.

Edited by Andrew MannDecember 2006


4/242


5/24

Contents

1 Executive summary 5

2 Rationale 62. Introduction 6

2.2 Social and economic need 6

2. The Role o the Third Sector 9

3 Strategic ft 10

. European policy 0

.2 National policy

. Regional and Local Policy

4 Objectives 124. Introduction 2

4.2 Aims and objective 2

5 Economic analysis 135. Introduction

5.2 Data analysis

5. Outcomes

5.4 Analysis o potential impacts 4

5.5 Implication 6

6 Conclusion 17

7 Appendix 1 18

8 Appendix 2 19


6/244


7/245

1 Executive summary

There are 2.7 million people claiming IncapacityBene t and probably a urther million othersoutside both the labour market and bene tssystem.

The principal strategy o the government toreduce the attendant social exclusion is toincrease the level o employment rom 7 .7%o the population to 80%, and in the processallow one million people to move o IncapacityBene t.

In support o this strategy the governmentwill continue to align the new programme o European Structural Funds, in particular theEuropean Social Fund element, with domesticprogrammes through the administrativeprocess o co- nancing. In theory, co- nancingallows domestic and European resources tobe brought together to und programmesaimed at improving the employability o those at disadvantage in relation to the labour market and to increase the skills o those inemployment.

Evidence is mounting that the co- nancingprocess implemented since 200 , tendsto target those closest to the labour market, leaving individuals acing multipledisadvantages, with which domesticprogrammes are less success ul, at the marginsand insu ciently supported.

The new Structural Funds programme2007-20 o ers an opportunity to work inboth innovative and proven ways to address theexclusion that continues to be su ered by those

urthest rom the labour market.

Data rom Agenda 2000, the current StructuralFunds programme shows the Third Sector working success ully in the rst part o theprogramme with those experiencing multipledisadvantages.

Though national in ormation is notoriouslydi cult to aggregate due to disparities in theway data is recorded, it is possible to drawsome conclusions rom gures provided bythe DWP or the purposes o this study. O the

60,000 people unded over years to theend o December 200 , 2 ,246 people wentdirectly into work, representing an overall asuccess rate o 5%. In addition 5,9 8 people(22%) gained quali cations.

These DWP gures suggest that the averagespend on these types o programme amountedto ,289 per person, o which 580 wasprovided by ESF, compared with up to ,600 or similar intensive assists in other programmes.

Building on this enhanced e ciency, i thesector is resourced at the existing level,conservative best guess estimates suggest thatnational savings and productivity increasescould amount to 59 million per year.

This paper proposes a di erent approachto working with people who are currentlyexcluded and those acing multiple barriers.

The approach requires three things: A Priority or Inclusion, with measurable and

en orceable targets, in the EnglishOperational Programme and a robustarchitecture to ensure Third Sector partnersare involved in implementation, planning aswell as delivery at national and regionallevel.

The ormation o a dedicated Third Sector Co- nancing organisation to increase thee ciency with which ESF unds are appliedto the domestic inclusion agenda.

Investment in the order o 2.4 millionper annum rom Government or theSectors own match unds (includingvolunteer time and direct bidding) tobe matched with 26.5 million romEurope to provide support or 45,7 4individuals each year.


8/24


9/247

million British men and women o workingage were in non-working amilies relying onsocial security bene ts o one sort or another.Many o them lived in poverty. The likelihoodthat a person was workless is related to thenumber o disadvantages they experienced.Six disadvantages were identi ed as beingparticularly pertinent: single people (especiallylone parents); disabled people; those withlow quali cations and skills; those in their 50s;those living in areas o weak labour demand;and members o certain minority ethnicgroups. Berthoud ound that only 4 per cent o individuals without any o these disadvantageswere non-employed. However, 90 percent o people with all six disadvantages were non-employed It is these people who are includedamongst the hardest to reach and who are

urthest rom employment.

The Government deploys a range o speci callytargeted policy tools aimed at tackling socialinclusion through reducing worklessness. Themajority o these programmes are deliveredby Job Centre Plus and include the New Dealprogrammes or over 50s, young people, 25+,lone parents and disabled people.

Pathways to Work is the Governments principalstrategy aimed at reducing worklessness

amongst people disadvantaged by disability andill health. It is delivered by Job Centre Plus, theNHS and the Third Sector, and, a ter a series o limited, localised trials, is to be rolled out acrossthe country by 2008. In addition, Job Centre Plus

urther supports this group through its Accessto Work, Work Preparation, Job Introduction,

Workstep, and Residential training programmes.

In addition to the domestic programmes, or many years, the European Structural Funds, in

particular the European Social Fund (ESF), haveprovided signi cant unding to the UK to helppeople develop their employability and skills,with a particular ocus on unemployed andeconomically inactive people.O the bene ciaries o ESF Objective inEngland, 2 % o participants experiencedat least 2 labour market disadvantages and6% were severely disadvantaged as they

experienced or more obstacles. Further,8% o disabled bene ciaries experienced threeor more disadvantages. 4

Recent evaluations supported by anecdotalevidence suggest that changes in theadministration o these unds (co- nancing)have skewed delivery away rom those urthest

rom employment. For example, the Update(December 2005) 5 to the Mid Term Evaluationo the Objective ESF Operational Programme

or England and Gibraltar (Dec 200 ) suggeststhat

there has been a slight increase in the proportion o employed and unemployed bene ciaries supported by the programme,.. ( aswell as ).. a slight decrease in support or those ineducation and training prior to joining projects.( There has also been ).. a more substantial decrease in the proportion o economically inactive bene ciaries and there is some evidence to show that support or the proportion o the most disadvantaged has decreased. Evidence shows an increase in support, since the mid-term, or those who experience at least one disadvantage in the labour market, but a smaller proportion o bene ciaries with three or more disadvantages (the so-called hardest-to-help) appear to be participating. This strongly suggests that the

ocus o the programme has moved towards those bene ciaries that are closer to the labour market.

There is little to suggest that the warningsissued by the Third Sector European Network(TSEN) in 2002 have been avoided 6.Despite the theoretical advantages o better regional strategy, better access to unds andless bureaucracy, the practical implementationo co- nancing has resulted in a stifing o activity in support o those people who were

traditionally helped by small communityorganisations the harder to reach.For example, in practice the CFOs only addin a small percentage o match unding asadditional cash. The majority o domestic

unding matched with that rom Europe is romexisting activity. While this might make sensewhere existing mainstream unding is workingon the same issues and with the same cohort

ESF Objective : The 2005 bene ciary survey or England DWP research report No 76 August 20064

Update to the Mid-Term Evaluation o the Objective Operational Programme or England and Gibraltar Final Report December 2005 DWP5 Update to the Mid-Term Evaluation o the Objective Operational Programme or England and Gibraltar Final Report December 2005 DWP p 06 A submission to the House o Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee Inquiry into the administration o EuropeanSocial Funds From the Third Sector European Network 200


10/24


11/249

2.3 The Role o the Third Sector

With an apparent emphasis on economicregeneration and development outcomes,domestic programmes (and there oreprogrammes that are co- nanced) tend tobe targeted at people who are more likelyto succeed in returning to work, leaving asigni cant population where access to thelabour market is a more complex process.This is a wide and diverse group that isnot particularly well served by mainstreamprovision. As alluded to earlier, the Third Sector is recognised to have a track record in meetingthis gap and working with the hardest to reachgroups to bring people along the road to workreadiness.

As ar back as 2000, the (then) D EEannounced its consultation on Post 6 Funding,in which it outlined the vision or Co- nancestating current domestic unding systemshave not maximised the incentives to winEuropean unding This was true o statutoryusers. The VCS had declared minimal under-spends in the previous programmes. Further,It will be important to ensure LSCs andESF unding is accessible to community andvoluntary organisations, who are o ten bestplaced to provide learning in the most socially

disadvantaged communities.One o the ways in which Third Sector organisations may have an advantage over statutory delivery partners may be in the waythey are viewed by the target bene ciaries. For example,

There may exist in workless communities some orm o valid counter-culture, which discounts working or a living. This aversion may extend toorganisations that champion work, especially i

they also seek to challenge the bene t economy on which the counter-culture relies. Thus, it is worth asking whether the delivery organisationmay be so negatively perceived within workless communities as to undermine their ready co-operation with it.

A recent report commissioned by the TSENinto the impact o ESF unding and itsadministration compiled by KBM Partnership 4 concludes that the pattern o ESF support to

projects has changed over the last 2 years. Thisis likely to be as a result o the Mid-term reviewand a range o other evaluations and researchthat pointed to a shi t away rom support toprojects working with the most excluded.Since 2004 CFOs have recognised the need towork more intensively with organisations withstrong links to local, geographic communitiesand communities o interest.

Whilst this has led to a reported recognitiono the important role played by Third Sector organisations in addressing the needs o the most disadvantaged (there is still littlequantitative evidence to in orm the discussion)other bureaucratic trends have impacted onthe ability o Third Sector organisations to workwith those with multiple disadvantages.These are Outcome related unding which still ails

to e ectively respond to those outcomesthat measure movement towardsemployment that are not recognisedquali cations or a job, and

The trend towards increasing administrativee ciency that requires larger tenders, manyoperating at a regional level.

However, the evidence still points to smaller, ocused organisations being the most

e ective at meeting the needs o the mostdisadvantaged. However, little has been doneto assist the sector to build its capacity to allowsuch organisations to be part o larger-scalecontracts.

There is continued support or the e ectivenesso Global Grants that have a signi cant impacton communities despite the relatively small sizeo the grant.

Whilst there is a recognition that the mostdisadvantaged o ten require outreach contactand an in ormal approach at the start, undingappears to be moving once again to projectsdelivering ormal quali cations and jobs as thekey target.

A submission to the House o Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee Inquiry into the administration o EuropeanSocial Funds, the Third Sector European Network.2 Learning to Succeed Post 6 Funding and Allocations First Technical Consultation Paper Jan 2000

Reaching Beyond the New Deal, Employment Studies, Institute or Employment Studies, John Atkinson, July 20054 ESF Structural Funds 2007- , Recommendations or the Third Sector European Network, kbm partnership, August 2006


12/24


13/24

3.2 National policy2 The 2006 Green Paper A new deal or wel are: Empowering people to work outlinesre orms aimed at increasing the employabilityo those in receipt o wel are bene ts.

Based on the earlier work o Berthoud, theGreen Paper identi es groups o people

acing ongoing barriers to labour marketentry because they are inactive rather thanunemployed. These groups are the: disabled,lone parents, minority ethnic groups, peopleaged 50 or over, those with low or noquali cations and those living in the 0 mostdeprived local authority districts.

The governments address to inclusion is basedon achieving an employment rate o 80%o the working age population and therebyreducing the economic and social impact o high levels o inactivity.

As mentioned earlier, it aims to achieve this byreducing the number o recipients o incapacitybene t by million, by helping 00,000 loneparents into work and increasing the number o older workers by million.

The government has identi ed speci c re orms

or each group, mainly through a range o newdeals, and these are detailed in Appendix 2.

Pathways to Work is the principal meansby which the Government is tackling theissue o worklessness among those peopledisadvantaged by disability or ill health. Theprogramme comprises a range o mandatoryand voluntary elements including work ocusedinterviews and a Condition ManagementProgramme, delivered by health pro essionals.

Incapacity Bene t Personal Advisers providesupport to customers in receipt o IncapacityBene t to help them to move closer tothe labour market and into sustainableemployment. This programme is to be rolledout across the country by 2008.

3.3 Regional and Local Policy

At a regional level both Regional EconomicStrategies and Regional Skills Frameworks have

little address to the very excluded. Some tend

to ocus on the equalities agenda, ensuringthat the public and private sectors are awarethat they can not discriminate against peoplesu ering rom disabilities in employmentdecisions or simply set targets to be achievedin terms o having a work orce that isrepresentative. Others make re erence to socialinclusion and broad participation in regionaleconomies but they could be interpreted toapply mainly to those closest to employment asthe ocus is on regional economic development.

Regionally, the Objective Mid Term 22 Review ound that co- nancing organisations involvedin the delivery o programmes to help people

urthest rom the work orce were increasinglyinfuenced in their planning, at the strategiclevel at least, by regional and sub regionalstrategies. However, some stakeholders eltCFOs tended to see them more as re erencepoints than guiding rameworks and that their organisational priorities took precedence. Inaddition, there remains an economic driverather than a social cohesion emphasis on manyo the targets set in this area.

Local Area Agreements (LAAs), whilstoperational in this context, also do notuniversally provide the speci c ocus onindividuals. Addressing worklessness amongst

those most excluded rom the work orce isnot a major priority and where it appears inthe Agreements, tends to be negotiated aspart o Block Four Economic Developmentand Enterprise. Delivery on the issues o worklessness tends to be the responsibilityo Job Centre Plus and while targets can bevery speci c it is unlikely that they will di er markedly rom those statutory per ormancetargets already existing.

2 Ex-Ante Evaluation o the ESF Programme in England 2007 20 Dra t Report June 2006 Department or Work and Pensions22 Third evaluation o European Social Fund co- nancing in England -Research Report No 59- Department or Work andPensions July 2006


14/242

4 Objectives

4.1 Introduction

Previous sections outline the e orts o existingEuropean and domestic programmes ocusingon harder to reach groups. Despite this e ort,

it is demonstrated that there is still unmetneed and to some extent this is increasing asa result o the way existing programmes areimplemented and outcomes measured.

4.2 Aims and objective

The objective o this paper is to argue thecase or an alternative approach to theplanning, administration and delivery o European Structural Fund, particularly the

Social Fund, in England in order to re-engagewith hard to reach groups and thereby enableimprovements in individuals quality o li e andaccess to a range o employment and trainingopportunities. The aim o the work is to establish the case

or a suitable architecture and elements o programme design and mechanisms to ensurea speci c address to inclusion in the newStructural Funds programme 2007-20 ,

speci cally the European Social Fund, as parto the Competitiveness objective. Such anapproach should include:

The ormation o a dedicated ThirdSector Co-Financing Organisation to ocuson programmes speci cally or the mostexcluded, including the development o anoutcome regime which includes progressiontowards participation in the community andthe workplace and the ability to match undusing alternative resources includingvolunteer time.

Ensuring that the role o social partnersworking with the economically inactiveis mainstreamed in the development o priorities and implementation processes o relevant bodies at a national and regionallevel. This inclusion should ensure that apriority is a orded to work with thoseurthest rom the labour market, that anallocation to this end is made and that

targets are set, measured and reportedagainst;

An increased proportion o directbidding and the identi cation o appropriate mechanisms or its coordination.

A priority, in the English NationalProgramme, or work with exclusion thatenables government to measure the impacto European unding on those urthest romemployment

2.4 million pounds per annum to undthe initiatives (to add to 26.5m ESF)

Investment at this level will help to o set thesevere reduction in European unding expectedat the end o 2006 and which will hit smaller Third Sector organisations disproportionatelyhard.

The broader aims o the work with peoplesu ering multiple deprivation and obstaclesto entering the labour market are to generateindividual bene t in respect o sel -esteem,motivation and application. In re-engaging

with people who have become disa ected or marginalised it is envisaged that wider bene tsto society and a tangible contribution to theeconomy will result. The actual costs o bene tpayments as well as the opportunity costso economic inactivity will be reduced. It isrecognised that this will be subject to a time-lagas people move along a scale and closer to apoint that paid employment becomes a reality.The evidence base and parameters or analysisare based on:

The economic costs and bene ts o engaging with hard to reach groups asde ned by evidence rom European SocialFund (ESF) Policy Field 2 20000 , which

ocused on Third Sector interventions.

This data set is empirical evidence collatedby the Department or Work and Pensionsin partnerships with organisations deliveringpractical interventions in the eld.


15/24

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

F u r t h

e r e d u

c a t i o

n

P T e m p l o y m e n t

S e l f e m

p l o y m e n t

V o l u

n t a r y w

o r k

e

U n e m p l o

y m n t

N o t k n o w n

O t h

e r t

F u l l t i m

e e m

p l o y m e n

Source: DWP, ESF data 2006

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

E c o n o m i c a l l y i n a c t i v

e

D i s a b l

e d

E x - o f f e

n d e r s

R e f u

g e e s

o

s r

D r u g

a n d A l

c h h o l m

i s u e s

1

i

3 - 1 7

y e a r s f a

c i n g e x c l u s o n

L o n e

p a r e n t s

5 0 o r o v e r

Source: DWP, ESF data 2006

5 Economic analysis

5.1 Introduction

This section sets out an in-principle analysis o the primary costs o economic inactivity andthe bene ts that can be generated by engaging

with hard to reach groups. While we aremeasuring employment outcomes here, it mustbe recognised that there is a whole range o so ter outcomes which also contribute to socialcohesion and which can have an economicimpact, albeit once removed. For example, the

ull-time carer o someone who enters ull timeemployment becomes ree to seek his or her own alternative employment as a result.

5.2 Data analysis

Analysis o empirical evidence o work withhard to reach groups and people su ering rommultiple deprivation indicates the e ectivenesso interventions in the eld. The evidence baseis drawn rom actual outturns rom investmentwithin European Social Fund Policy Field Two20000 , which ocused on Third Sector interventions. A total o 206 million was spenton the programme with a 45% contribution

rom ESF equating to 92.7 million o

spending. A total o 740 projects engaged with60,000 people. A number o the participantshad more than one obstacle to overcome tore-engage and enter the labour market. Thechart below indicates the range o issues peoplewere acing.

Figure 5-1: Profle o participants on the ESFprogramme

The vast majority o people were economicallyinactive and also experienced a range o other obstacles to entering the labour market.

5.3 Outcomes

On average people were engaged on

programmes lasting 2 weeks at a total cost o ,289 per person, o which 580 representedEuropean Social Funds. The headline outcomewas that 2 ,246 people went into work,representing an overall success rate o 5%.In addition 5,9 8 people (22%) gainedquali cations.

Further analysis o the outcomes indicatesthat 6, 00 ( 0%) o people secured ull timeemployment, with a urther 5,000 in parttime employment and almost ,900 peoplesel -employed. Almost 4,000 people engagedin voluntary work. However, over 6,000people were still unemployed at the end o the intervention. Whilst other outcomes wererecorded or many o the participants - it is notpossible to distil these within this analysis. Theoutcome was not known or over 2,000 o theparticipants, which indicates the di culty inaccurately tracking large numbers o people (andthe urgent need or consistent record keeping).In addition, there was a 9% drop out rate.

Figure 5-2: Outcomes o the participants onthe ESF programme

Overall a positive impact in respect o engaginghard to reach groups into employment , urther training or voluntary work 9% was achieved.


16/24


17/24


18/246

Scenario No. of people

potentiallyre-engaged

in work

Total cost of intensive assist(1,600/person)

Ave. welfarepaymentsavings

Net Benefit()

High 40% 18,286 73,142,857 80,146,285 235,721,142 242,724,571Med. 25% 11,429 73,142,857 50,091,428 147,325,714 124,274,285Low 15% 6,857 73,142,857 30,054,857 88,395,428 45,307,428Low 10% 4,571 73,142,857 20,036,571 58,930,285 5,824,000

(4,383/yr)

AverageGVA

contribution(12,891/yr)

Figure 5-5: Potential economic impacts rom e ectively engaging with hard to reach groups

The costs o intervening with 45,7 4 peoplehave increased to just over 66 million.However, the potential bene ts o success ullyengaging a proportion o these have also risen.Taking into account the potential social securitysavings and the productivity gains and tangiblecontributions to the economy the ollowing

results could be achieved: Net bene ts or the high scenario o

engaging 8,286 people into work o justunder 250 million to the UK economy;

Medium scenario o engaging ,429people into work achieving millionsavings; and

Net bene ts o between 2 and 52million at the lower level o success uloutcomes.

Figure 5-5 suggests success ul outcomes acrossa range o high, medium and low scenarios anda higher cost per assist o 1,600.

The costs o intervening with 45,7 4 peoplehave increased urther to 7 million. However,the potential bene ts o success ully engaging aproportion o these remain signi cant.

Net bene ts or the high scenario o engaging 8,286 people into work o 242

million to the UK economy; Medium scenario o engaging ,429

people into work achieving 24 millionbene t; and

Net bene t o between 5 and 45 millioni low-end outcomes can be achieved.

On rst inspection these gures may appear ambitious. However, the gures are basedupon empirical evidence drawn rom the ThirdSector working with similar groups in recent

ESF programmes and rom other data reportedto parliament. The data has also been subjectto sensitivities in respect o the contribution toproductivity gains. Furthermore, the scenariosset out take into account optimism bias and

indicate that there is value in perusing moredetailed proposals. E ectively engagingjust 4,500 o the economically inactive intopaid employment could generate signi cantnet savings based upon ewer social securitypayments and increased productivity.

Even i an even more cautious assumption ismade around productivity and it is set at 50% o the national average (or 8,594), savings are, onthe whole, substantial (except or the two worstcase scenarios). Furthermore, there are wider indirect costs and bene ts that can be considered.

5.5 Implications

The costs o engaging with the hard to reachare considerable. However, the direct and

opportunity costs o not engaging are deeper and have a cumulative impact to communitiesand amilies over time as they are on going.The analysis set out here indicates that thepotential economic bene ts in a typical year aresigni cant and outweigh the short-term costs.Indeed the impacts are likely to be cumulativeand build over time as part time work becomes

ull time and as salaries increase throughexperience and urther on the job training.

Wider bene ts that could be considered to

individuals, amilies and communities include: Bene ts to people rom improved health

and reduced costs to society resulting romewer visits to doctors surgeries;

The social and economic bene ts o increased community cohesion;

Direct and indirect social and economicbene ts o reduced crime;

Additional impacts through releasing carersto pursue urther economic and socialactivity; and

Multiplier impacts rom increasing economicprosperity and purchasing power indeprived areas.


19/247

6 Conclusion

This paper has set out the European andpan-national inclusion policy environment, theaims o which, uture ESF unding will support.The mechanism used in England to combinedomestic and European resources is co-

nancing. Worryingly however, there appearsto be evidence that, despite many bene ts, co- nancing appears to skew success ul outcomesaway rom those at greatest disadvantage.

This paper argues that ESF resources need to bespent more e ciently to reverse this trend andhelp the government achieve its social inclusionpolicy objectives.

To this end, the paper recommends the ormation o a Third Sector Co- nancingorganisation that will manage the distributiono ESF resources within England. This approachtakes advantage o the bene ts o co- nancing,but importantly, ensures that third sector organisations that are typically better at helpingthose urthest rom the labour market, are ableto achieve more or this group at a lower costper assist.

The paper demonstrates that the administrativecosts o this approach are ar outweighedby the longer-term economic bene ts to thenation, and by the increased contribution tothe governments own inclusion targets.


20/248

7 Appendix 1

Can we speci y ideal types o intervention/projects?

The answer is probably no, such are thecomplexities o local delivery combined with

the combinations o client disadvantages.However, it is possible to identi y a menu o practices which have been observed in many o the better per orming case study projects:

a clear sense o purpose and goal-orientedapproach (employment ocus), which needs tobe shared with clients; active outreach involving personal contact incommunity places or in the premises o other providers;

awareness-raising to generate word-o -mouthre errals; a speci c ocus either on a core target groupor a certain geographic area this helpspromote learning and specialist knowledge butalso supports the development o reputationamong the client group and wider community; cooperation with amilies and carers whereappropriate; sta with empathy, good communication

skills and ability to build trust with their clients; an environment which is perceived as beingnon-threatening by clients but an approachwhich builds the con dence o vulnerableclients and prepares them or the world o work; small caseloads given the intensity o thecontacts (around 0-40); an early identi cation o clients needs and awillingness to market other provision;

an in-depth knowledge o the localorganisational in rastructure and goodnetworking links; practical re erral arrangements in order toensure clients are picked up by other provisionand do not drop out; the option or clients to choose one-to-onesessions as a complement to group work, sothat personal issues can be addressed; action plans as living documents, building onclients aspirations but evolving towards realisticoptions by managing clients expectations;

a ocus on learning rather than training whichhas the stigma o back to school where manyoriginally ailed; an open door policy so that the intensity o support can be increased i the client has a li ecrisis or di cult transition to make; good links with employers to nd work

placements and source vacancies; a ree job-matching service to help reduce theemployers risk and cost o recruitment; support to employers to help themunderstand the strengths and weaknesses o the di erent disadvantaged groups and thevalue o on-the-job mentoring or job coaching/buddying arrangements; an a tercare service, also geared towardsemployers, to build the basis or a long-term

relationship with employers; work placements and in-house workexperience to help overcome concerns thatclients have about leaving behind bene ts andtheir previous li estyle.

Above all, many o the organisations hadnurtured a learning culture. Very ew o thehigher per orming projects had come to their approach by chance most had built ontrial and error and a willingness o their sta

to improve and develop practice to do thebest that they could. This attitude towardscontinuous improvement is perhaps what

undamentally underlies good practice.

Source: ESF Structural Funds 2007-13,Recommendations for the Third Sector EuropeanNetwork, Draft Final Report, kbm partnership,August 2006 p11


21/24


22/24


23/24


24/24

Price of Exclusion

Documents