Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn preliminary findings Mark Stuart, Hugh Cook, Jo Cutter and Jonathan Winterton Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change at Leeds University Business School

July 2010

Contents Foreword

1

Executive summary

2

Introduction

5

Learning activities and the learning environment

7

Building supporting infrastructure and capacity for

12

learning activity Employer engagement, outcomes and the formalisation

14

of workplace learning Barriers to ULF activity

17

Additionality and sustainability

18

Conclusions

20

2

Foreword The TUC established unionlearn in 2006 to provide a robust framework for union-supported learning including TUC Education and the Union Learning Fund (ULF). Considerable union and government resources have been invested in unionlearn’s activities since then. That is why the TUC commissioned the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change at Leeds University Business School to measure its impact. The final evaluation will cover all unionlearn activity and will be published for our Congress in September.

The purpose of this interim report is to measure the impact of rounds 8–11 of the ULF (2005/6 to 2008/9) on unions and employers as well as to provide an overview of learning agreements and learner characteristics. The union-led projects have helped individuals access over 600,000 learning opportunities since the Fund was established in 1998. The evaluation has found that the projects have had considerable impact on individuals, unions and employers.

The ULF is inclusive. The evaluation has found that over nine in ten projects opened learning opportunities to non-union members. Almost threequarters address equality and diversity issues.

The ULF gives added value. In many of the workplaces, learning would not have taken place or the quality would have been poorer without the projects.

The ULF is effective. More than two in five of union project officers surveyed claimed that their project had actually exceeded their objectives.

Key factors in sustaining union-supported learning are union learning representatives (ULRs), learning centres and learning agreements signed with employers. The ULF has been pivotal in driving these.

However, there are barriers to maximising the effectiveness of the projects. The biggest hurdle is securing time for learning from employers or for learners themselves to make time available. This can be addressed through unions securing more formal learning agreements providing paid time off for employees to study. There is also a need for employers to provide cover for ULRs while carrying out their functions.

ULF has also strengthened unions’ remit over learning and skills. Well over half of the projects had helped unions establish joint workplace training and learning committees with employers.

Unionlearn activity has had a major impact on employers. Over half of the employers involved in union learning projects stated that the take-up of employees attaining qualifications had increased and that basic skills gaps had been addressed. Of most significance is that the greatest impact is in workplaces covered by a learning agreement signed with the employer.

There is strong evidence that this positive impact will be sustained in the future. The findings suggest that employers, to some extent, may have ‘bought’ the added value that union learning can offer them.

Nearly nine in ten employers stated that they will continue to be involved with union learning activities.

The challenge for the future is therefore to extend this good practice into more workplaces through continued government funding for the ULF and increased support from unions and employers.

Tom Wilson Director, unionlearn

1

Executive summary Background 1. A major initiative to help unions support innovative learning has been the Union Learning Fund (ULF). It was established in 1998 and has been administered by unionlearn (the TUC’s learning organisation) since 2006. Over the first 11 rounds of the ULF, union-led projects have helped unions to support more than 600,000 learning opportunities, sign 1,557 learning agreements with employers, establish 847 learning centres, and support some 22,000 union learning representatives (ULRs), who were trained by TUC Education. The ULF has drawn in significant funding, mostly from employers.

Approximately £100m has been dispersed through the ULF to help unions set up innovative projects that help their members into learning.

There has also been a reported additional £50m of levered-in funds.

Inclusion 2. The evaluation of rounds 8–11 of ULF projects (2005/6–2008/9) has revealed a high level of inclusion: almost nine out of ten (89 per cent) of union project officers (UPOs) reported that projects were open to all employees and not just union members. More than two in five (43 per cent) reportedly targeted specific ethnic, migrant or minority worker groups as part of their activities to raise demand for learning.

Wide learning 3. The major training offered in the projects was: ULR training; information, advice and guidance sessions (IAG); Skills for Life assessments; and further education programmes. Across all types of provision, UPOs reported that demand for learning was met by at least three in five (60 per cent) of the projects. There was, however, some unmet demand – for example for various types

2

of ICT and English as a second language provision, with courses often over-subscribed and some challenges following changes or funding cuts.

4. Almost three in five (59 per cent) of the 415 employer respondents to the evaluation survey were currently involved in ULF projects or had been involved in them. The highest level of involvement was in providing facility time for ULRs (reported by 88 per cent of employers), funding employees to take part in work-related courses (78 per cent) and addressing skills gaps (77 per cent).

Learner progression 5. A sample of union learner records (based on learndirect learners in union learning centres and those supported through programmes funded by the European Social Fund or ESF) found that half are female and 60 per cent are aged 40 or over. Significant progression is evident, with individuals taking up on average 2.5 learning opportunities. Over three-quarters (76 per cent) of those with previous qualifications at Level 2 or below are learning at a level higher than the qualification level at which they came into union learning.

Building union learning infrastructure 6. The ULF has contributed to unions establishing processes and frameworks to support union learning. ULF reporting for rounds 8–11 reveals that on average each project trained 91 ULRs, established seven new learning centres, and signed seven learning agreements with employers and seven partnership agreements with providers.

7. The ULF has helped to embed union-led learning within union structures. Nearly two-thirds (63

Executive summary

per cent) of UPOs reported that as a result of projects ULRs were working more effectively with their union branch. In 28 per cent of cases, UPOs stated that the role of ULR had been written into their rule book during the course of the project. Union officers with specific roles for learning had been established in 39 per cent of projects.

Learning agreements 8. Engagement with employers is a key part of ULF activity and on average each project involved 27 employers. Learning agreements had been signed in over half (53 per cent) of workplaces, with joint management–union learning committees established in three-quarters of workplaces with an agreement. The top issues covered by learning agreements were ULR facility time, equality of access to learning, staff time off for learning and the terms of reference for joint learning committees. Around seven in ten union project officers reported that learning had been incorporated into collective bargaining as a result of their project to some extent.

Impact on the workplace 9. Findings from the UPO survey suggest that ULF activities have contributed to positive union– employer relations. Over four in five (82 per cent) felt that company policy on learning had improved with 70 per cent stating that senior management was more supportive of learning.

10. The employer survey also revealed impact across a range of learning practices. Most notably, equality of access to learning/training opportunities has increased in over half of workplaces. More widely, there is extensive employer support for the union effect on the number of employees attaining qualifications, positively addressing basic skills gaps and the take-up of job-related training. Of particular significance is that all the reported increases attributed to union learning activity are higher still in those workplaces that have established learning agreements.

11. There is also evidence that union learning is influencing organisational outcomes. At least three in ten employers report that union learning has led to increases across a whole range of employee indicators, performance measures and industrial relations concerns. In terms of performance, 54 per cent of employers reported that union learning activity has contributed to addressing skills gaps; 42 per cent reported increasing levels of trust between management and unions; and around one-third of employers (34 per cent) noted improving service/quality indicators and organisational performance.

Employers who had signed learning agreements also reported significantly higher increases in organisational indicators compared with surveyed employers overall.

Barriers to ULF activity 12. The main barriers as perceived by the union project officers related to securing time for learning from employers, for learners themselves to make time available, and time pressures on ULRs. Further employer constraints related to the signing of formal learning agreements with employers. These challenges had all become more significant during round 11 projects, as recessionary conditions started to hit.

Additionality and sustainability 13. The majority of UPOs appeared to be satisfied with the success of their projects, with 47 per cent noting that their ULF projects had either exceeded or met objectives. In terms of added value, 76 per cent of UPOs reported that a needs assessment would not have taken place without ULF funding. Almost six in ten (58 per cent) reported that the same learning would have taken place but with fewer learners, while 44 per cent stated the quality of learning would have been poorer in the absence of the ULF project.

14. Employers have recognised the added value that union learning can offer them. Nearly nine in ten employers (87 per cent) stated that they will 3

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn: preliminary findings

continue to be involved with union learning activities, with 63 per cent stating that there was a benefit to the organisation and four in five that there was a benefit to individuals taking part.

Nine in ten (91 per cent) stated that unions should continue to develop their role in the learning agenda.

15. A large minority of employers (43 per cent) stated that union learning activities would take place even without external funding. However, a small but sizeable minority (28 per cent) noted that their engagement with union learning would not take place without such funding..

4

Introduction The Union Learning Fund (ULF) was established in 1998 and is now in its thirteenth round.

Approximately £100m has been dispersed through the ULF to help unions establish innovative projects that help their members into learning. There has also been a reported additional £50m of levered-in funds. The achievements of the ULF have been significant. The main outcomes from the first 11 rounds of the ULF are detailed in Table 1. Over the first ten years of the ULF, more than 600,000 learning opportunities were accessed and some 22,000 union learning representatives (ULRs) were recruited/supported through ULF projects and trained through TUC Education. In addition to helping members into learning, ULRs often focus their activities on establishing workplace learning centres and signing learning agreements with employers. ULF records show that 847 learning centres and 1,557 learning agreements with employers have been established. These outputs underestimate the true extent of what has been achieved, as additional activity takes place outside the formal provision of the ULF. From 2006 the formal administration of the ULF has been the responsibility of unionlearn. Unionlearn is

responsible for overseeing the development and delivery of the ULF and provides extensive support for individual unions. The activities of unionlearn are not limited to the management of the ULF, as it supports a range of additional learning activities nationally and regionally. Unionlearn itself has developed out of the earlier TUC Learning Services and has sought to develop a new strategic role in the area of union-led learning. A decade or so ago TUC learning activity was focused predominantly on working directly in workplaces to recruit, train and support ULRs and to engage employers. The focus within unionlearn is now much more on providing support for unions themselves to undertake this work. At the national level unionlearn encourages unions, under the remit of the ULF, to develop national learning strategies and relationships with skill bodies. At the regional level, unionlearn works closely with affiliate unions’ regional teams and learning organisers to identify and support their needs.

To date no systematic evaluation of the activities of unionlearn and the operation of the ULF under its jurisdiction has been conducted. Evaluations were undertaken of earlier rounds of the ULF, but often

Table 1: The extent of union learning achievements under ULF rounds 1–11 Levered in funding (£) million

Total funding (£) million

No of learning ULRs opportunities trained accessed

Learning centres

Learning agreements

Round 1 (1998) Round 2 (1999) Round 3 (2000) Round 4 (2001) Round 5 (2002) Round 6 (2003) Round 7 (2004) Round 8 (2005) Round 9 (2006) Round 10 (2007) Round 11 (2008)

ULF funding (£) million (contracted budgets) 1.02 2.78 4.73 6.49 9.16 10.34 13.86 7.69 19.39 5.39 21.05

0.45 0.56 1.64 3.23 0.29 6.98 9.86 4.61 10.37 1.75 11.37

1.47 3.34 6.37 9.72 9.45 17.32 23.72 12.30 29.76 7.14 32.42

2,172 4,460 7,322 14,330 8,800 62,087 67,657 107,219 99,854 116,782 113,092

734 882 1,640 1,540 2,724 2,383 3,799 2,169 3,102 865 2,171

11 15 40 66 62 49 229 104 118 8 145

No data No data No data No data 204 134 500 196 245 73 205

Total rounds 1–11

101.9

51.11

153.01

603,775

22,009

847

1,557

Source: Rounds 1–4 are taken from formal, independent evaluations of the ULF. Rounds 5–11 are derived from the ULF database and unionlearn financial data.

5

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn: preliminary findings

suffered from methodological problems that limited the robustness of some of their key findings. This report presents some preliminary findings from the largest evaluation of union-led learning conducted to date. The evaluation has been led by the Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change (CERIC) at the University of Leeds and aims to assess the added value of unionlearn and the ULF in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

The evaluation has drawn from an extensive set of data sources. These include interviews with unionlearn staff and strategic stakeholders, secondary analysis of workplace learning agreements, ULF management information and learner records, qualitative case studies and two original surveys. The first survey was of union project officers (UPOs) responsible for projects funded under ULF rounds 8–11. In total 98 projects were funded under this round, with 84 returns to the survey (86 per cent response). Second, the largest ever survey of employers’ views on union-led learning was undertaken, achieving 415 returns (43 per cent response).

6

Learning activities and the learning environment Unionlearn has three basic targets against which it assesses progress: number of ULRs trained (initial target was 22,000); number of learners (250,000 per year); and number of Skills for Life courses (target 30,000 courses per year). In practice, union activity covers a much wider range of learning opportunities. This can be explored through a number of different sources.

UPO perspectives on learning activity The ULF database and UPO survey allow us to examine the number of learners achieved against target, the composition of learners and the methods used by projects to engage learners. A starting point is the degree of inclusivity of union-led learning.

Given its nature, should it be available to all relevant employees or just union members? For rounds 8–11, the level of inclusion was high. In total, 89 per cent of UPOs indicated that project activities were open

to all employees and not just union members. Just over one-third of projects (43 per cent) targeted specific ethnic, migrant or minority worker groups as part of their activities to raise demand for learning.

Over eight in ten projects (82 per cent) also included some other specific action to address equality and diversity issues with regard to learning. This included actions such as recruiting specific groups of projects workers or ULRs (such as blind ULRs, Polish ULRs or Asian project workers), or specific concerns relating to learning and education needs, for example in terms of dyslexia or disability. More detailed information on the demographical profile of learners was not possible via the UPO survey, but is illustrated via learner records in Table 4b.

Table 1 showed the volume of learning opportunities accessed by learners through ULF projects. Table 2 shows the range of learning activities offered by ULF projects, and the proportion of projects offering

Table 2: Type of learning offered (%) ULR training IAG sessions SfL assessments FE programmes Other ICT Introductory ICT CPD programmes ICT Level 1 ICT Level 2 NVQ Level 2 HE programmes Numeracy tests NVQ Level 3 ULR follow-on training Literacy tests ESOL ICT through learndirect e-learning NVQ Level 1 Informal learning Apprenticeships

Percentage 96 91 85 84 78 77 74 73 73 73 72 67 65 64 64 59 51 53 49 28 22

Already offered 26 26 28 35 27 28 26 29 25 32 31 35 28 25 37 29 32 28 40 57 39

New 22 34 42 29 44 41 35 41 41 32 35 40 40 30 39 39 39 42 30 35 39

Enhanced 53 40 30 35 29 31 40 31 34 36 35 25 32 45 25 33 29 30 30 9 22

Demand met 67 99 86 91 78 78 96 83 79 84 82 85 84 62 86 60 63 87 78 90 83

Source: UPOs’ survey, base: 84 UPOs

7

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn: preliminary findings

each type. ULR projects were most likely to offer ULR training (96 per cent); information, advice and guidance sessions (IAG, 91 per cent); Skills for Life assessments (85 per cent); and FE programmes (84 per cent). Reported levels of various forms of ICT provision were also high. The least likely offer was for apprenticeships, which was reported by just 22 per cent of projects. Nonetheless, of those projects that covered apprenticeship, the majority were focused on enhancing existing provision. The other forms of learning that were not reported by at least half of respondents were NVQ Level 1 (49 per cent) and informal learning (28 per cent). Informal learning was, however, only reported by respondents from round 11 projects. ULF project managers were asked to indicate whether the learning provision was new, enhanced (compared to the provision available for learners during previous union learning projects), or already offered. This question aimed to identify whether projects were offering more of the same or additional types of learning. The results indicate a degree of qualitative additionality, with an average of two-thirds of projects developing a new or enhanced learning offer. The top areas during rounds 8-11, where the provision developed was new, related to basic skills provision, various forms of ICT provision and Skills for Life assessments.

The survey also explored the extent to which the actual demand for learning was being met. The findings show that unions were meeting demand for learning to rather high levels. Across all types of learning, demand for learning was met for at least 60 per cent of UPOs. The lowest reported level of demand by UPOs was with regard to ESOL courses, where demand for learning had been met for just six in ten UPOs. There also seems to be some unmet demand for various types of ICT courses and ULR training and follow-on training. Across these offers, demand is not met in around one-third to one-fifth of cases. For IAG, FE programmes and CPD demand was met to very high levels (for more than nine in ten respondents in all cases). Many reasons were given by UPOs for not being able to meet demand for learning. A number of respondents noted that the demand for ICT was ‘massive’ and, as a result, courses for ICT were often oversubscribed. There was also an issue with ESOL in terms of changes to 8

Case study Migrant Workers Project, London, UNITE The project promotes learning with migrant and other vulnerable workers in the contract cleaning sector in London, building on the Justice for Cleaners campaign, and covers workers from over 25 countries. With an estimated 25,000 migrant workers involved in cleaning services in the capital, the project has sought to organise these workers to promote labour rights, using education as a means of giving them access to trade union representation. It started with 15 learners on a Saturday English class, but demand soon grew. Over 1,000 vulnerable workers have received learning and 1,479 IAG. Currently 240 learners attend sessions on Saturdays and Sundays at premises provided by Syracuse University; employers provide no facilities. Twenty-seven new ULRs have also been trained, the majority of whom are migrant workers.

“This project has opened people’s eyes to migrant workers and its multicultural aspect has had an impact on the union as well as making the union more attractive for migrant workers. It would not have happened as quickly without the project but it will continue because it is member-led”.

(National Union Learning Organiser) the funding regime. A number of respondents also noted more generally that there was a challenge trying to meet massive levels of demand in the context of changes to or cuts in funding. This did not just relate to ESOL funding, but funding through Train to Gain as well. In terms of ULR training, a couple of projects stated that there were problems with the provision of TUC courses, due to course cancellations.

One possible means to identify the demand for learning is through an assessment of learning needs. This was most typically undertaken through workplace surveys conducted by ULRs (76 per cent) or through Skills for Life assessments conducted by

Learning activities and the learning environment

external learning providers (71 per cent). A number of other survey methods were also widely used, though to a lesser extent than the activities of ULRs or external learning providers. Employers conducted such assessments through company-wide surveys in a surprisingly small majority of cases (59 per cent), while generic surveys of members by unions were reported by 37 per cent of UPOs. Other methods included confidential surgeries and one-to-one assessments.

Employers’ perspectives on learning activity Just under one-half of employers responding to our survey (45 per cent) reported that they were currently involved in ULF projects, with 14 per cent reporting that they had been involved with three or more ULF projects historically. The nature of employer involvement with unions on learning is presented in Table 3. That involvement is most likely to relate to the provision of facility time for ULRs (88 per cent). More widely, effort has concentrated on tackling skills gaps and building qualification levels.

Nearly eight in ten employers report that they have worked with unions to provide funding for employees to take work-related courses (78 per cent), to address basic skills gaps (77 per cent) or to introduce qualifications (71 per cent). Less attention has been directed to participation in non-work related training (46 per cent) or the development of learning centres (54 per cent). The lowest level of engagement was again around apprenticeships, supporting the findings from the UPO survey, and perhaps indicative of the historic neglect of apprenticeship training across the British economy until very recently.

The focus of training has predominantly been directed at those with less historical experience of learning and appears to have been successful in increasing employee demand. Just over two-thirds of employers (68 per cent) reported that their engagement with union learning has increased demand for learning among those employees with little history of learning, with even higher levels (71 per cent) for those with poor basic skills. This does not mean that employees with higher levels of skills are excluded. Union learning has increased demand for learning among those with high skill levels by 28 per cent.

Learner characteristics The evaluation sought to assess the extent of learner outcomes in terms of inclusion, employability and progression. Data on individual learners is collected regionally through unionlearn network (U-Net) learning centres (delivering learndirect provision) and via those unionlearn regional teams providing European Social Fund (ESF) programmes. U-Net provision is located in union learning centres, which may be based in workplaces, colleges or union offices. ESF learners are engaged by predominantly workplace-based learning projects. The analysis of UNet and ESF data represents an estimated 15 per cent of learning activity reported by unionlearn, with observations relating to 12,683 individuals and 30,653 learning opportunities. Half of all learners are female (50.1 per cent) and 85 per cent are aged 40 and over. Fewer than one in ten is from an ethnic minority (7.4 per cent), though the number of nonwhite British learners increased by almost 30 per cent between 2008/09 and 2009/10. The majority of learners engaged via U-Net and ESF provision have

Table 3: Employer involvement with unions on learning (% – employers’ survey) Development of a learning centre Funding employees to take work-related courses Funding employees to take part in non work-related courses Facility time for ULRs Employee time off to discuss learning with ULRs Action plan to meet the skills pledge Addressing basic skills gaps Introducing qualifications Apprenticeships

Yes 54 78 46 88 69 49 77 71 44

Base total 415 406 403 399 396 374 392 398 393

Source: Employers’ survey, base 415 employers

9

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn: preliminary findings

Table 4a: Unionlearn learner data (1):

Learning opportunities Individuals Average no. of learning opportunities

Management information records U-Net 2006–10 and ESF/LSC funded programmes 2008–10 U-Net (n) ESF (n) Total (n) 19,784 10,779 30,563 5,898 6,785 12,683 3.4 1.6 2.4

Table 4b: Unionlearn learner data (2): Learner Profile Management information records U-Net 2006–10 and ESF/LSC funded programmes 2008–10 U-Net (%) ESF (%) Total (%) Gender Female 46.50 51.2 50.1 Male 53.50 48.8 49.9 Age Under 20 1.4 1.3 1.3 20–29 16.3 15.3 15.8 30–39 24.1 21.5 22.7 40–49 34 35.4 34.8 50–59 19.4 22.8 21.2 60+ 4.8 3.7 4.2 Ethnicity White British 92.6 92.6 Other 7.4 7.4 Disability Yes 7.5 7.5 Previous qualification Below Level 2 70.4 54.9 Level 2 13.7 17.7 Level 3 or higher 15.9 27.4 Employment sector Public 43.2 68.3 52.0 Private 56.4 29.7 47.0 Vol 0.5 1.1 0.7 Self-employed 0.1 0.9 0.4 Unemployed 14.1 0.1 Multiple learning opportunities None (1 only) 11.5 32.7 2 episodes 18.3 30.2 3 or more episodes 70.2 37.1 Learning aim – first opportunity IAG initial assessment 58.7 Non-vocational 0.2 48.1 Entry Level 14.5 2.3 Level 1 45.5 11.1 Level 2 39.8 32.3 Level 3+ 0.1 6.3 Contact source – top five Union/ULR 50.3 .

50.3 Word of mouth 14.2 .

14.2 Employer 10.9 .

10.9 College 7.2 .

7.2 Learndirect 3.1 .

3.1

prior levels of qualification. The type of learning activity supported through the two learning routes (UNet and ESF) differ in that ESF supports a higher proportion of non-vocational or non-accredited learning, often with the aim of engaging learners into learning for the first time. Across the ESF projects, 58.7 per cent of learners have been engaged in IAG 10

sessions or undertaken an initial assessment for basic skills. Learndirect offers accredited provision with a focus on basic skills and IT up to Level 2: 68 per cent of U-Net learners’ first learning was in basic skills and 31 per cent was in IT learning. Of this learning, 14.5 per cent was at entry level; 45.5 per cent at Level 1; and 39.8 per cent at Level 2. Across the ESF

Learning activities and the learning environment

learner group, 48.1 per cent participated in nonvocational learning; 11.1 per cent in vocational learning at Level 1; 32.2 per cent in vocational learning at Level 2; and 6.3 per cent at Level 3 or higher, including 1 per cent accessing HE programmes.

In terms of progression, individuals take part in an average of 2.5 learning opportunities. For U-Net this average is 3.4. This shows the extent of multiple learning activity. One indicator of progression is to look at the proportion of learners who are participating in learning at least one level higher than their prior level of learning. Of those with previous qualifications at Level 2 or below, 76 per cent are learning at a level higher than that at which they came into union learning. However, 80 per cent of those learners with prior levels of learning at Level 3 or more are taking courses at a level below this (mainly skills for life and IT courses), reflecting the extent to which union learning provides opportunities for learners to refresh or widen their learning as well as to raise their qualification level.

11

Building supporting infrastructure and capacity for learning activity In addition to specific types of learning activity and learner outcomes, the ULF has contributed to the building of wider processes and frameworks to assist developments in learning. This can be understood in terms of the extent to which ULRs are trained, learning centres established and agreements with learning providers signed. As a result of such activity, unions themselves are also looking to embed policies for learning within wider union activities.

Supporting processes and frameworks ULF reporting for rounds 8–11 reveals that 8,307 ULRs were trained and 375 learning centres were opened. These data can be further explored through the findings of the UPO survey. UPOs reported 323 new learning centres opened as a direct result of projects funded under rounds 8–11, with a further 384 significantly enhanced. On average each ULF project resulted in the establishment of seven new learning centres and nine that were enhanced. In terms of new courses, on average eight are customised per project and a further nine new courses are enhanced. The training of ULRs has been, and remains, a key concern of ULF activity.

Those UPOs responding recruited and trained 6,529 new ULRs, with an average of 91 per project. In addition projects provided, on average, further training for 64 ULRs per project, making a total of 2,624 receiving further training across all projects.

Finally, in ensuring and identifying learning opportunities, ULF projects dedicate a fair amount of attention to the formalisation of written partnerships with learning providers. For rounds 8–11, responding UPOs had established 385 such written partnerships with providers were concluded. On average, this means that each project signs seven partnership agreements with providers. These aggregate findings were further examined to establish the extent to which results achieved were still active.

Across all indicators this was pretty much confirmed.

All the learning centres established or enhanced 12

were still considered active. The only indicator where there was notable variation was in terms of partnership with providers, where 13 per cent of UPOs reported that written partnerships were no longer considered to be active.

Embedding learning into wider union structures Table 5 explores the extent to which union-led learning has become embedded within union structures during the course of ULF projects. This was notable in terms of the extent to which ULRs worked more effectively within their branches as a result of ULF projects. Just 11 per cent of UPOs stated that ULRs were working effectively with their branches prior to projects and just 3 per cent noted that this was an issue they were not looking to work towards. In contrast, nearly two-thirds of UPOs (63 per cent) reported that, as a result of projects, ULRs were working more effectively within their union branch and around a further quarter (24 per cent) were working towards more effective ULR working within branches.

There was also some indication of a greater degree of formalisation of learning within union structures.

In just over a quarter of cases (28 per cent) the role of ULRs had been written into rule books during the course of ULF projects, with union officers with specific roles for learning established in 39 per cent of projects and written learning policies established according to 38 per cent of respondents. Union officers with a specific role for learning were most likely to have already been established prior to ULF projects – as noted by 41 per cent of respondents..

In terms of more traditional union activity, a major challenge for union-led learning is how it links to wider imperatives around union organising and negotiating. There is clear evidence that the ULF is making an impact. Nearly two-thirds of UPOs (62 per cent) claimed that learning had become increasingly linked to the union organising agenda during the

Building supporting infrastructure and capacity for learning activity

Table 5: Embedding of union-led learning within unions (%)

ULR role written into rule book ULRs working more effectively within their branch Union officers with a specific role for learning Written learning policy established Learning become more linked to union organising Learning/skills formed part of union negotiating

Existed before project 27 11 41 30 12 20

Established during project 28 63 39 38 62 50

Working towards 26 24 8 8 16 20

Not working towards 19 3 13 24 10 11

Source: UPOs’ survey, base: 84 UPOs

Table 6: ULF impact on unions (%)

Improved employee attitudes to the union ULF has contributed to increased union membership Increased enrolment on other union courses Increased member involvement in union activities Increased interest in taking union roles Increased ULR interest in union roles Increased capability of workplace reps

Strongly agree 48 21 27 31 20 33 26

Agree

Neither

Disagree

43 48 56 51 59 45 56

9 25 13 17 19 14 17

0 6 5 1 3 9 1

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: UPOs’ survey, base: 84 UPOs

course of the project, with 16 per cent working on this. Similarly, 50 per cent of UPOs identified learning and skills as issues that during the project had become established as part of the union’s negotiating agenda; one-fifth were working on this.

The findings in Table 6 explore the perception of UPOs of ULF impact on unions. In general, UPOs hold a positive view of the impact of the ULF on unions. A large percentage generally agreed across the indicators, with some 91 per cent agreeing that the ULF had led to improved employee attitudes to the union; 79 per cent that the ULF had led to increased interest in taking union roles; 82 per cent that it had increased capability of workplace reps; and 69 per cent that it had increased union membership.

13

Employer engagement, outcomes and the formalisation of workplace learning The evaluation explored from both union and employer perspectives the ways in which ULF activity was affecting employer policy, how this might be contributing to learning and organisational outcomes, and the ways in which unions and employers have sought to formalise joint activity through workplace learning agreements.

Engagement with employers is a key part of ULF activity. On average, respondents to the UPO survey worked with 27 employers per project.

Learning agreements According to ULF reporting data presented in Table 1, 719 learning agreements were signed across rounds 8–11: roughly seven agreements per project. There is further support for this from the employer survey.

Learning agreements had been established in 53 per cent of workplaces. In addition, joint management– union learning committees had been established in half of all cases. There was a strong correlation between the existence of a learning agreement and a

learning committee – three-quarters of workplaces with an agreement also had a committee. Just under four in ten (39 per cent) of all workplaces had both a learning agreement and a learning committee. The issues covered by learning agreements as reported by employers cover ULR facility time (95 per cent) and activities (91 per cent), equality of access to learning opportunities (93 per cent), staff time off for learning (86 per cent) and the terms of reference for joint learning committees (84 per cent). More generally, rather little is known about learning agreements. The evaluation explored the nature of learning agreements through the first systematic content analysis of learning agreements. In total, 258 agreements were analysed, and their constituent elements are detailed in Table 7.

Impact on employer policies and organisational outcomes Findings from the UPO survey suggest that ULF activities have contributed to union–employer

Table 7: Constituent elements of learning agreements: base 258 agreements (evaluation) Aims of agreements Commitment to partnership Learning culture Learning outcomes Roles and responsibilities of union of employers of ULRs Establish joint learning committee With terms of reference Stated membership Stated frequency of meetings Establish support for learning centre With resources for centre Identify learning needs ULRs identify needs Joint identification by committee Management identify needs Covers organisational learning plan

14

% reporting 95 81 54 41 N/A 46 52 50 78 70 69 59 58 22 79 26 47 8 41

Time off for learning Paid time off Time for vocational training Time for Skills for Life Time for Information, Advice and Guidance Employer contribution to costs Reference to training budgets Incentives for learners/achievement Monitoring of agreement Joint monitoring Union monitor Management monitor Equality opportunities clause ULR support for facility time Reference to ACAS code Guarantees Confidentiality of individuals Used for learning only Safeguards existing bargaining Grievance procedures

% reporting 61 53 28 26 33 18 5 2 60 54 3 4 79 68 48 54 18 34 35 34

Employer engagement, outcomes and the formalisation of workplace learning

relations. The ULF was seen to contribute to union– management relations with regard to learning to a major extent for 19 per cent of respondents and to a large extent for just under one-third of respondents (30 per cent). ULF projects also had some impact on the wider terrain of collective bargaining. Around seven in ten UPO respondents reported that learning had to some extent been incorporated into collective bargaining as a result of the ULF. Less than a quarter (23 per cent) stated that the ULF had not led to learning being incorporated into collective bargaining at all; 4 per cent reported that learning already was.

Table 8: ULF impact on employer policies Company policy on learning has improved Senior management are more supportive of learning Joint workplace training and learning committees established Joint funding of other training initiatives Middle management more supportive of learning Joint application for funding from non-ULF sources Employer has signed the skills pledge Employer has an action plan to meet Skills Pledge Other impacts on employer training

% 82 70 62 57 53 49 46 43 25

Source: UPOs’ survey, base: 84 UPOs

While a key challenge for unions is to engage employers in collective bargaining around learning, unions can also help to shape workplace practice around learning by influencing wider employer policies. This is explored in Table 8. The ULF has had most impact on company policy and support from senior management: 82 per cent of UPOs reported improvements in company learning policy, while just over two-thirds (70 per cent) reported senior management were supportive of learning. A small majority (62 per cent and 57 per cent respectively) reported that the ULF had led to the establishment of joint workplace training and learning committees and initiatives for the joint funding of other training. Fewer UPOs saw middle management as supportive (53 per cent), compared to senior management. The lowest degree of impact related to the Skills Pledge. UPOs reported that the ULF had influenced employers to sign the Skills Pledge in 46 per cent of cases.

The views of UPOs are encouraging in terms of the impact of the ULF on employer policy. Whether this is so can be further verified with findings from the employers’ survey.* As Table 9 indicates, employers themselves report that union learning initiatives have affected a range of learning practices. Most notably, equality of access to learning/training opportunities has increased in 56 per cent of workplaces. More widely, there is extensive employer support for the union effect on the number of employees attaining qualifications (55 per cent), positively addressing basic skills gaps (46 per cent), the take-up of job related training (41 per cent) and the take-up of nonjob related training (37 per cent). Reported increases are less visible for apprenticeships (15 per cent) and employer expenditure on employee training/learning (23 per cent). Given the relatively low number of apprenticeships during the survey's time frame compared with other provision and the extent to which apprenticeship budgets are seen as an area of management prerogative, these reported levels of impact are still very positive. Of particular significance is that all the reported increases attributed to union learning activity are higher still in those workplaces that have established learning agreements. Learning agreements appear to matter in terms of the terrain of organisations’ learning practices.

There was also evidence that employers were providing additional resources and contributions to union learning activity. Four in ten employers reported providing a financial contribution to union learning activities. Few respondents were prepared (or able) to quantify this. Of those that did, the average investment was approximately £23,000.

Employers were much more likely to provide an inkind contribution, reported for three-quarters of workplaces. In-kind contributions included: equipment (69 per cent); office space (71); learning centres (52 per cent); ULR time (77 per cent); management time (58 per cent); and, employee time (73 per cent).

These findings offer grounds for optimism for the wider value of union learning activities. But, to what

* While the employers’ survey is the largest conducted to date, the response rate (43 per cent) and lack of information about the population of employers means that the survey findings should be treated as indicative rather than necessarily representative of all employers.

15

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn: preliminary findings

Table 9: Impact of union learning on organisational learning practices (% employers’ survey) Take-up of job-related training Take-up of non-job-related training Number of employees attaining qualifications Continuing professional development Positively addresses basic skills gaps Number of apprenticeships Equality of access to learning/ training opportunities Employer expenditure on employee training/learning

Increased 41 (52)* 37 (51)* 55 (70)* 31 (40)* 46 (58)* 15 (21)* 56 (65)* 23 (31)*

Stayed the same 59 60 44 69 39 83 43 72

Decreased 0 3 1 0 16 2 1 6

Base total 404 397 401 380 403 390 399 396

Figures in brackets relate to where there is a learning agreement; * the difference between the overall percentages and percentages for employers with a learning agreement is significant (␹2 of at least .01).

Table 10: Impact of union learning on organisational level indicators (% employers’ survey) Organisation performance Service/quality indicators Health and safety Staff turnover Addressing skills gaps Staff morale Employee commitment Levels of trust between management and unions Negotiation on learning/ training issues Consultation on learning/ training issues

Increased 32 (42)* 34 (44)* 39 (42) 4 (5) 54 (68)* 42 (52)* 39 (49)* 42 (53)* 40 (52)* 46 (59)*

Stayed the same 67 66 61 87 42 56 60 54 59 54

Decreased 1 0 0 9 3 3 2 4 1 0

Base total 392 395 389 394 395 395 396 396 397 395

Figures in brackets relate to where there is a learning agreement; * significant difference to overall percentage ␹2 of at least .01.

Source: Employers' survey, base 415 employers

extent are they limited to learning practices per se?

In contributing to the policy of organisation learning, is there evidence to suggest that union learning may be having a wider effect on organisational outcomes? The findings presented in Table 10, again, offer grounds for optimism. With the exception of staff turnover, at least three in ten employers report that union learning has led to increases across a whole range of employee indicators, performance measures and industrial relations concerns. In terms of performance, employers report that union learning activity has contributed to increases in organisational performance (32 per cent), service/quality indicators (34 per cent) and health and safety (39 per cent).

Sceptics would note that the majority of respondents report there has been no change. Yet, given that union learning does not aim to address these factors per se, the fact that a large minority of employers attribute such increases to union learning is a notable and important finding.

16

The findings are equally positive for employee outcomes and industrial relations matters. Around four in ten employers claim that union learning has contributed to an increase in staff morale (42 per cent) and employee commitment (39 per cent).

Turning to the wider industrial relations environment, the findings offer strong support for the contribution union learning can make to improving levels of trust between management and unions (as reported by 42 per cent). Perhaps more surprising is what this means in terms of bringing in new voices within the workplace. Consultation levels were reported to have increased in 46 per cent of workplaces and negotiation on learning and training issues in four in ten workplaces – a notable finding. It may well be that the workplaces surveyed were highly predisposed to engagement with unions anyway. Even so, given the fact that employers have generally proved reluctant to negotiate on learning, and that learning is often pursued separately from wider channels of bargaining, these findings merit further analysis.

Barriers to ULF activity It is natural for projects to face some challenges during the course of activity. Indeed, it is often through addressing and overcoming such challenges that lessons can be learnt. The UPO survey explored potential barriers across six dimensions: union factors; learners; learning providers; employers; project management; and ULRs. The top barriers, where UPOs reported large or very large constraints, are shown in Table 11. The main perceived barriers related to engaging employers and specific supports, such as time off for learners and ULRs. The biggest barrier faced by UPOs relates to securing time for learning from employers (55 per cent) or for learners themselves to make time available (47 per cent). Further employer constraints related to the signature of formal learning agreements with employers (41 per cent) and generally being able to elicit interest and support from employers for ULF project initiatives (28 per cent). Given the pressures that many projects face in terms of the recruitment and training of ULRs, and the need to meet targets, it is not surprising that this also creates perceived pressures for project workers. First, the actual ability to recruit enough ULRs was seen as a major barrier to the running of projects (31 per cent). Second, even when ULRs where in post time pressures were seen as a major challenge (48 per cent). These challenges had all become more significant during round 11 projects, as recessionary conditions started to bite.

When faced with such challenges, UPOs can draw on the expertise of the unionlearn apparatus, which – among other services – has a dedicated ULF team. UPOs were overwhelmingly positive about the levels of support provided by unionlearn. For example, nearly eight in ten UPOs (78 per cent) reported that the quality of support unionlearn provided was good in terms of helping them work with employers to promote learning.

Table 11: Main barriers to running ULF projects % Allowing time off for learning (from employers) Time pressures on ULRs Making time available to learning (for learners) Reaching a formal learning agreement Recruiting enough ULRs Encouraging interest and support from employers

Large barrier 55 48 47 41 31 28

Source: UPOs’ survey, base: 84 UPOs

17

Additionality and sustainability The majority of UPOs appeared to be satisfied with the success of projects. A large minority of UPOs, 36 per cent, reported that ULF projects had exceeded objectives, with a further 14 per cent stating that objectives had been fully met. One-third (33 per cent) reported that objectives had been adequately met and 18 per cent that the ULF projects had partially met objectives. No UPOs were of the opinion that projects had not met their objectives.

The degree of project success can be considered further by considering the extent to which projects delivered tangible added value. Without ULF funding, according to UPOs, very few needs assessments would have taken place, with nearly 8 in 10 (76 per cent) respondents stating that no needs assessments would have taken place. It is also evident that the ULF adds a quality dimension to learning. Without the ULF, 58 per cent reported that the same learning would have taken place but with fewer learners; 44 per cent that learning would have been of a poorer quality; 17 per cent that the same learning would have taken place but for less time; and 24 per cent that learning would have been delayed. For 35 per cent of UPOs, no learning would have taken place without the ULF. Just 12 per cent stated that the same level of learning would have taken place.

But how sustainable, given the perceived reliance on external state funding, is the union learning agenda? For union learning to become sustainable, it will require further embedding into workplace institutions (through for example learning agreements) and ongoing employer support.

How do employers see it? The findings in Table 12 suggest that employers, to some extent, may have ‘bought’ the added value that union learning can offer them. Nearly nine in ten employers (87 per cent) state that they will continue to be involved with union learning activities; just 4 per cent report that while regarded as successful, they will not continue with union learning. Two reasons may explain this. First, employers generally see a benefit to union learning, with 63 per cent stating there was a benefit to the organisation and 81 per cent that there was a benefit to individuals taking part.

Second, management was generally supportive of the union role in learning and regarded this as an important offer of a ‘modern’ union movement.

Thus, 79 per cent reported that management were very supportive of the union role in learning and 91 per cent felt that unions should continue to develop their role in the learning agenda.

Of course, the $64,000 question is how dependent these positive attitudes are on the fact that external funding for learning can be drawn down by unions.

The evidence thus far paints a positive picture of employer engagement with union learning activity.

Table 12: Sustainability and added value of union learning (% employers’ survey) Agree Organisation will continue to be involved with union learning activities Union learning successful, but will not continue Union learning of benefit to the organisation Union learning benefited individuals taking part Learning activities will take place, even without external funding Management very supportive of the union role in learning Unions should continue to develop their role in the learning agenda Source: Employers' survey, base 415 employers

18

Disagree

Base total

87

Neither agree/ disagree 10

4

411

4 63 81 43

17 18 15 29

79 19 4 28

410 410 409 407

79 91

16 8

5 1

410 406

Additionality and sustainability

The findings on this can only be suggestive, but are mixed. A large minority of employers (43 per cent) stated that union learning activities will take place even without external funding. Nonetheless, a smaller but still sizeable minority, 28 per cent, took the opposing stance that engagement with union learning activities would not take place without external funding.

19

Conclusions Drawing from a large-scale evaluation of recent rounds of the ULF and wider union learning activities, this report presents a summary assessment of the impact of union learning for learners, unions and employers. It has presented two new surveys – the first of ULF project officers and the second of managers at workplace level. The findings suggest that the embedding of union learning activity continues to face challenges but what is most striking is the degree of consensus that seems to exist among union and employer representatives over the potential benefits of union learning.

ULF projects have delivered an impressive set of formal learning outputs and indicators. Projects have also started to affect the conduct and structures of trade unions, and ultimately the ‘offer’ of unions within the modern economy. Learning is becoming a more ‘mainstreamed’ activity. In practical terms, this means that unions are looking to write the role of ULRs into their rule books; develop more formal policies on learning; link learning more explicitly to organising; establish more effective working between ULRs and branches; and place learning into the arena of negotiation.

But the ULF is not just about the union side. UPOs surveyed were also of the view that union learning activities were having a positive impact on employees’ attitudes to unions and were starting to influence employer policy on learning. This was evident in terms of eliciting senior management support of the union role, influencing workplace learning policy and establishing workplace committees for learning and training.

This is not to suggest there are no challenges. UPOs (in advancing ULF projects) and ULRs (in promoting learning in the workplace) face considerable barriers in engaging employers, whether in terms of raising general interest and support from employers, establishing learning agreements or eliciting the 20

appropriate time needed for learners to receive advice about or take advantage of learning opportunities. UPOs face challenges in terms of the recruitment and training of ULRs; time constraints are also a pressure on ULRs. It is self-evident, then, that the sustainability of union learning will be shaped by the degree to which unions are able to firmly establish a role within the workplace and the extent to which they are able to engage constructively with employers on learning matters. The UPO survey highlighted key challenges. To this must be added the lack of obligations on employers to engage with their employees on learning and training and, of course, the fact that unions are not present in all workplaces (and, for some sectors, are only present in a minority of them). Our survey of employers nonetheless offers valuable insights into the potential benefits that may accrue to employers in workplace engagement with unions on learning.

The employer survey – the largest conducted to date – shows a generally positive perspective among employers to union learning. First, organisational involvement with unions on learning was found to be widespread. The survey also found that learning agreements have been signed and/or learning committees established in more than half of workplaces. Management has also supported union learning activity through various in-kind contributions (such as computer equipment). Given this wide-ranging activity, it seems appropriate to ask whether there is any perceived benefit for employers in engagement. Our initial analysis is highly suggestive that union learning is starting to influence workplace learning practices, most notably in terms of perceived skills upgrading, the number of employees attaining qualifications and increased levels of equality of access to learning and training.

Perhaps more surprising was the response to the wider impact of union learning on organisational outcomes. Around one-third of respondents

Conclusions

reported that organisational performance and service/quality indicators had increased as a result of union learning. In more than four in ten workplaces, trust levels between management and unions had increased as had consultation and negotiation. Moreover, employer respondents appear open and confident about future and ongoing engagement with unions on learning matters. While a minority take the view that this will be contingent on future external funding streams, an even larger minority appear not so beholden. This offers optimism for the sustainability of union learning.

In conclusion, while noting the challenges that unions face in advancing learning, the report has highlighted the perceived impact that union learning is having for both unions and employers. For UPOs, union activity is leading to learning opportunities that simply would not have existed without the ULF, and employers confirm that the union role has led to higher levels of learning. The findings suggest a base may exist for the sustainability of union learning activity.

21

Published by: unionlearn Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LS T 020 7079 6920 F 020 7079 6921 www.unionlearn.org.uk July 2010 Design: Kevin Brown at park44.com Print: College Hill Press