In the UK over recent years, various schemes run by independent providers under contacts issued by government have been introduced to facilitate initial entry or a return to work by disadvantaged groups in the adult population (Leitch, 2006; LSC, 2005). After analysing the wider context of such a policy approach, this paper considers the findings of an evaluation of one pre-entry to employment programme which ran between November 2005 and March 2008 in the Midlands industrial region of the UK. The evaluation was designed to examine the effectiveness of the programme from the perspectives of both training providers and learners and to establish the extent to which the programme’s targets had been met. This programme was aimed at teenagers between the ages of 16 to 18 who were unemployed, not in full time education and for a range of reasons had not been accepted on any other preparation for work scheme. They could thus be identified as a particularly vulnerable group of young people. It was felt that particular provision was needed to avoid them becoming excluded long term from the working population. The scheme was funded the European Social Fund and a regional Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Delivery was sub-contracted to seven independent education and training providers in the area. The funding agreement required that the success of the young people in completing the programme and gaining employment on completion was monitored and also that there was an annual evaluation. As the project approached completion, the LSC also commissioned an independent evaluation. One of the reasons for this was to make a case for the introduction of similar schemes in the future. They were also aware of certain failings with the current programme that had not been identified by other monitoring processes. One issue was the shortness of the programme: eight weeks in total for each young person. In addition, at the end of the programme links and support structures were not maintained. This suggested that the focus of the programme was short term, designed to ensure immediate employment or more likely progression to another scheme, education or training, rather than the longer term welfare of the participants.

Visits were made to all seven training providers involved in the programme and a total of 18 staff and 20 learners were interviewed. In each centre staff interviewed included at least one senior manager and one senior adviser or coordinator. In addition, programme documents, including statistical data on participation in the programme to date, were analysed.

Findings from the evaluation were divided in key strengths and key barriers. Key strengths included the provision of small group and personalised learning; pastoral and social support occurring alongside more formal training; the use of creative and varied approaches to learning; and staff quality and commitment. Barriers included the length of the programme; inflexibility of provision and eligibility criteria; recruitment; and funding. The paper’s conclusion builds on these findings to consider the basis of allocating such funding to a fragmented range of individual companies with results being judged upon narrow statistical indicators. It also suggests that prioritising national political priorities over community development conflicts with local and national initiatives intended to combat social exclusion.