European Social Fund in England

Equal Opportunities

English Objective 3 OP Equal Opportunities Mainstreaming Action Plan - Outline Structure

Purpose of the plan

This plan sets how equal opportunities will be mainstreamed in the English Objective 3 programme for the last half of the 2000-06 period.

Why has the plan been revised?

The mainstreaming plan has been revised so that it responds to the recommendations made in the programme’s Mid Term Evaluation and Mid Term Review.

The plan is a monitoring tool and will be subject to continuous change during the remainder of the programme.

What is equal opportunities mainstreaming?

Equal Opportunities mainstreaming involves a systematic process of identification and integration of equal opportunities into all aspects of the planning and implementation of the programme including monitoring and evaluation. It involves identifying lessons learned and promoting good practice in equal opportunities through appropriate dissemination strategies. The guiding principle for mainstreaming equal opportunities is simple: policies, programmes and services should meet the needs of all groups in society. This means ensuing there is no discrimination and proactively dealing with barriers to participation and success.

Who is the plan for?

At national level:

The English OP mainstreaming action plan will be monitored and reviewed by The Equal Opportunities Sub-group who will report to the English OP Monitoring Committee and the GB Monitoring Committee.

At regional level:

The plan sets out key priorities and principles that Objective 3 regional committees should follow when they are updating there own regional mainstreaming plans. This national plan acts as a template for regional plans to build upon by setting-out key aims and objectives which should be pursued locally. Regions should tailor their plans to meet local needs but, as a minimum should cover the core areas described in the national plan. This will help ensure consistency in approach the national programme as well as ensuring a degree of consistency when monitoring / reporting at the national level.

How will the plan be monitored?

The plan will be monitored by means of a standard reporting template issued to all regions. A reporting template will be issued to GO Regions in early 2005 and will be cross-referred to the aims and objectives stated in this plan.

What does the experience from the previous Objective 3 programme tell us about equal opportunities?

• In general, women were successfully targeted onto the Objective 3 programme. However, there was evidence that women returners were not being effectively targeted. Qualitative research suggested the existence of barriers which prevented some women from taking part on the programme. The main barriers were lack of childcare and lack of flexibility on projects. As well as preventing some women from joining a project, these barriers can also create problems in them completing their projects.
• The evaluation evidence was mixed in terms of labour market outcomes for men and women. Immediately after leaving Objective 3 support, a lower proportion of women than men moved into jobs, yet a higher proportion obtained a positive outcome¹. This was due to the higher proportion of women moving on to further education or training after Objective 3. However, six months after leaving their projects, women had a higher probability than men of being in work. In line with the wider labour market, women were much more likely to get a part-time job with a lower weekly rate of pay.
• There is strong evidence of a better performance in terms of achievement of qualifications for women. However, at least a higher level of previous qualifications may explain some of this. Women returners and lone parents were more likely than other groups of beneficiaries to gain a qualification.
• Both job outcomes and positive outcomes are consistently lower for lone parents, women with no qualifications and women returners than for women beneficiaries as a whole, which reflects the disadvantage suffered by these groups. This also emphasises the point that it is misleading to look at women as a homogenous group and that some sub-groups of women face greater disadvantage in the labour market than others.
• Overall, the previous Objective 3 programme reflected traditional gender stereotypes in the types of occupations for which men and women were being trained. In addition, women were less likely than men to be on projects which were offering wage subsidy or which gave advice about the types of jobs to look for.
• In looking at the other disadvantaged groups, the evaluation evidence suggests that the previous Objective 3 programme did successfully reach most of its main target groups. In particular, targeting of ethnic monitories was good at the national level; 14% of Objective 3 beneficiaries were from an ethnic minority compared to 11% amongst the unemployed as a whole.
• While providing a tailor-made package of support to meet individual needs had a positive impact on the outcomes of all beneficiaries, it was those from the more disadvantaged groups who benefited the most from this more intensive type of support.
• The disabled and the long-term unemployed were the two groups that had the least success in moving into a job on leaving their ESF project.

A positive outcome is a job, self-employment or further education/training.

What did the mid term evaluation have to tell us about equal opportunities mainstreaming in the first half of the 2000 – 2006 programme period?

The Mid Tem Evaluation of the Objective 3 programme focused on and made recommendations in some key areas and these are summarised below:

Programme support for disadvantaged groups

• Although the overall proportion of women and people from ethnic minority groups were as forecast in the earlier mainstreaming plan, the level of support for disabled people was 2% below forecast;
• The numbers of disabled people who were able to obtain jobs immediately after leaving ESF was lower than forecast and the number of disabled people who were in work 6 months after leaving ESF-supported activity was also lower than forecast.
• The number of projects which provided or funded care support for beneficiaries with dependents was significantly lower than the number expecting to provide this support at the application stage;
• Although work outcomes were as predicted in the original mainstreaming plan forecast , work outcomes for minority ethnic groups and disabled people were lower than forecast, and suggest more support is needed to maximise their entry to the labour market;
• Projects should take a more pro-active approach to promoting labour market change by providing opportunities for both men and women to train and gain work experience and qualifications in areas not traditional for their sex.

Regional mainstreaming systems and monitoring

• Although understanding and commitment to equality mainstreaming was good at regional level, the pace of implementation of equality mainstreaming in the Government Office Regions was uneven. At the time of the mid term evaluation (2003) most regions had not devised equal opportunities forecasts and needed to improve their analysis and interpretation of MI reports / systems.
• There should be more qualitative monitoring of implementation systems and feedback to projects on required changes.

Co-financing Organisations (CFOs)

• Most CFOs have well-established systems and procedures. An assessment of the systems in use in CFOs and the extent to which equal opportunities is being mainstreamed is important;

Project / Provider Selection

• There is a need to ensure that all CFOs are implementing provider selection systems which are at least comparable to standards set in the equal opportunities gateway for alternative bidders;
• The DWP ESF Division should review the gateway for alternative bidders to review why projects fail and which types of project fail.