ESF Priority 5 Protocol Sub Group

ESF Priority 5 Protocol Sub Group

Overview of CPP delivery models

Background

At the recent meeting of the ESF Priority 5 Protocol sub group it was suggested that an overview of the types of delivery models in place with the current crop of Community Planning Partnership European pilot projects would be useful to inform the current discussion on the nature of Priority 5. This paper will look specifically at the different approaches taken by the various partnerships, their strengths and weaknesses and lessons that may shape Priority 5.

Introduction

Through support from the LUPS Programmes, 13 local authority areas are eligible to receive funding under European Social Fund (ESF) Priority 1 (Progressing Into Employment) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Priority 3 (Urban Regeneration). Each CPP has developed strategic, coherent and integrated programmes of ESF actions focused on employability and ERDF activities, aimed at creating an infrastructure to address the underlying skills requirements of eligible target groups and helping them access the labour market.

The 13 eligible CPP areas involved in this pilot initiative created their own programmes based on the strength of their existing local employability infrastructure and partnership. As a result the areas have adopted different approaches across the 13 partnerships. Broadly there are three approaches utilised:

·  Tendered Activity

·  Partnership approach

·  Hybrid model

These are described below in greater detail.

Tendered Activity

This approach is best displayed in the Glasgow CPP, with North Ayrshire and Inverclyde also largely adopting this approach. The match funding for the ESF/ERDF application was matched centrally by the CPP/Local Authority, strategic priorities agreed by partners and then delivery of the programme/projects put out to competitive tender. There are a number of strengths and weaknesses of this approach:

Strengths

·  Allows a clear strategic overview of delivery required to support target groups – is not shaped by existing delivery provision/paradigm

·  Lessens the compliance/admin burden on the lead partner

·  Provides 100% match funding at source without problematic cash flow issues associated with European funding

·  Sub-contracting can be built into contracts to increase local participation

·  Reduction in compliance/admin allows greater emphasis on performance/participant monitoring

·  Encourages movement away from grant dependency to social enterprise approach

Weaknesses

·  Can exclude local delivery partners

·  Doesn’t maximise match funding available to local partners – package may be less comprehensive than a more inclusive approach can offer

·  Can lead to a lack of flexibility in delivery – contracted activity may not be as responsive to changing circumstance as a local delivery model

·  If pathway/”joined up” approach is vital this model can impede the integration of contracted activity with localised provision

Partnership Approach

This approach has been more widely adopted across the CPPs. The process for this approach encourages local partners to bring their own match funding to the European bid to deliver local priorities. This leads to a mult-match funder, multi-partner delivery model. Again there are a number of pros and cons associated with this approach:

Strengths

·  Pool of match funding can lead to larger “pot” of activity allowing a greater scale of intervention

·  More inclusive approach – local partners involved in delivery, match funding and identifying local priorities

·  Builds upon local delivery model encouraged in the Workforce+ strategy

·  Allows for a more flexible approach as partners can be more responsive to changing local needs within the partnership model

·  Encourages commitment to the CPP/SOA ethos of localised budgeting and pulled contribution of partners

Weaknesses

·  Administrative burden associated with this model is extremely onerous, to the point of being undeliverable within the current Eurosys reporting system

·  Can stifle innovation –delivery can be limited to what is locally available and not necessarily what is needed

·  Can exclude local partners who do not have access to match funding or may not be part of local strategic group

·  Can be difficult for lead partner (local authority) to manage and be responsible for a large number of mini-projects within a single European application

·  Can be difficult for national partners to integrate delivery with localised approach

Hybrid Model

The two approaches outlined above are the extremes of the 13 localised models; the reality of the delivery approach adopted in most areas is a mixture of both models. The ability of the local authority to match fund the European application at source along with the additional partner match funding brought to the bids has meant that a hybrid approach has been the most pragmatic one. This has lessened the problems outlined above but also diluted the positive aspects of both models. Whilst this has been a more organic than planned process it has helped create a flexible and responsive local mechanism that can be adapted to meet local circumstances.

Conclusion

For the successful implementation of the new Priority 5 the strengths and weaknesses of the above models must be considered and clear mechanisms must be put in place to maximise the benefits to the wider stakeholders. It is clear that any mechanism introduced must be based on the hybrid approach to offset the extremes offered by both the tendered and local partnership models. If this is done in a clear and inclusive manner then it should be possible to include a wide range of partners/stakeholders in the new Priority 5 delivery mechanism.