evaluation of the union learning fund and unionlearn

Evaluation of theUnion Learning Fundand unionlearn

preliminary findings

Mark Stuart, Hugh Cook, Jo Cutter and Jonathan Winterton

Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Changeat Leeds University Business School

July 2010

2

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

1

The TUC established unionlearn in 2006 to provide arobust framework for union-supported learningincluding TUC Education and the Union LearningFund (ULF). Considerable union and governmentresources have been invested in unionlearn’sactivities since then. That is why the TUCcommissioned the Centre for Employment RelationsInnovation and Change at Leeds University BusinessSchool to measure its impact. The final evaluation willcover all unionlearn activity and will be published forour Congress in September.

The purpose of this interim report is to measure theimpact of rounds 8–11 of the ULF (2005/6 to2008/9) on unions and employers as well as toprovide an overview of learning agreements andlearner characteristics. The union-led projects havehelped individuals access over 600,000 learningopportunities since the Fund was established in1998. The evaluation has found that the projectshave had considerable impact on individuals,unions and employers.

The ULF is inclusive. The evaluation has found thatover nine in ten projects opened learningopportunities to non-union members. Almost three-quarters address equality and diversity issues.

The ULF gives added value. In many of theworkplaces, learning would not have taken place orthe quality would have been poorer without theprojects.

The ULF is effective. More than two in five of unionproject officers surveyed claimed that their projecthad actually exceeded their objectives.

Key factors in sustaining union-supported learningare union learning representatives (ULRs), learningcentres and learning agreements signed withemployers. The ULF has been pivotal in drivingthese.

However, there are barriers to maximising theeffectiveness of the projects. The biggest hurdle issecuring time for learning from employers or forlearners themselves to make time available. This canbe addressed through unions securing more formallearning agreements providing paid time off foremployees to study. There is also a need foremployers to provide cover for ULRs while carryingout their functions.

ULF has also strengthened unions’ remit overlearning and skills. Well over half of the projects hadhelped unions establish joint workplace training andlearning committees with employers.

Unionlearn activity has had a major impact onemployers. Over half of the employers involved inunion learning projects stated that the take-up ofemployees attaining qualifications had increasedand that basic skills gaps had been addressed. Ofmost significance is that the greatest impact is inworkplaces covered by a learning agreement signedwith the employer.

There is strong evidence that this positive impactwill be sustained in the future. The findings suggestthat employers, to some extent, may have ‘bought’the added value that union learning can offer them.Nearly nine in ten employers stated that they willcontinue to be involved with union learningactivities.

The challenge for the future is therefore to extendthis good practice into more workplaces throughcontinued government funding for the ULF andincreased support from unions and employers.

Tom WilsonDirector, unionlearn

Foreword

Background

1. A major initiative to help unions supportinnovative learning has been the Union LearningFund (ULF). It was established in 1998 and hasbeen administered by unionlearn (the TUC’slearning organisation) since 2006. Over the first11 rounds of the ULF, union-led projects havehelped unions to support more than 600,000learning opportunities, sign 1,557 learningagreements with employers, establish 847learning centres, and support some 22,000union learning representatives (ULRs), who weretrained by TUC Education. The ULF has drawn insignificant funding, mostly from employers.Approximately £100m has been dispersedthrough the ULF to help unions set up innovativeprojects that help their members into learning.There has also been a reported additional £50mof levered-in funds.

Inclusion

2. The evaluation of rounds 8–11 of ULF projects(2005/6–2008/9) has revealed a high level ofinclusion: almost nine out of ten (89 per cent) ofunion project officers (UPOs) reported thatprojects were open to all employees and not justunion members. More than two in five (43 percent) reportedly targeted specific ethnic, migrantor minority worker groups as part of theiractivities to raise demand for learning.

Wide learning

3. The major training offered in the projects was:ULR training; information, advice and guidancesessions (IAG); Skills for Life assessments; andfurther education programmes. Across all typesof provision, UPOs reported that demand forlearning was met by at least three in five (60 percent) of the projects. There was, however, someunmet demand – for example for various types

of ICT and English as a second languageprovision, with courses often over-subscribedand some challenges following changes orfunding cuts.

4. Almost three in five (59 per cent) of the 415employer respondents to the evaluation surveywere currently involved in ULF projects or hadbeen involved in them. The highest level ofinvolvement was in providing facility time forULRs (reported by 88 per cent of employers),funding employees to take part in work-relatedcourses (78 per cent) and addressing skills gaps(77 per cent).

Learner progression

5. A sample of union learner records (based onlearndirect learners in union learning centresand those supported through programmesfunded by the European Social Fund or ESF)found that half are female and 60 per cent areaged 40 or over. Significant progression isevident, with individuals taking up on average2.5 learning opportunities. Over three-quarters(76 per cent) of those with previousqualifications at Level 2 or below are learning ata level higher than the qualification level atwhich they came into union learning.

Building union learning infrastructure

6. The ULF has contributed to unions establishingprocesses and frameworks to support unionlearning. ULF reporting for rounds 8–11 revealsthat on average each project trained 91 ULRs,established seven new learning centres, andsigned seven learning agreements withemployers and seven partnership agreementswith providers.

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

2

Executive summary

3

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

Learning agreements

8. Engagement with employers is a key part of ULFactivity and on average each project involved 27employers. Learning agreements had beensigned in over half (53 per cent) of workplaces,with joint management–union learningcommittees established in three-quarters ofworkplaces with an agreement. The top issuescovered by learning agreements were ULRfacility time, equality of access to learning, stafftime off for learning and the terms of referencefor joint learning committees. Around seven inten union project officers reported that learninghad been incorporated into collective bargainingas a result of their project to some extent.

Impact on the workplace

9. Findings from the UPO survey suggest that ULFactivities have contributed to positive union–employer relations. Over four in five (82 percent) felt that company policy on learning hadimproved with 70 per cent stating that seniormanagement was more supportive of learning.

10. The employer survey also revealed impactacross a range of learning practices. Mostnotably, equality of access to learning/trainingopportunities has increased in over half ofworkplaces. More widely, there is extensiveemployer support for the union effect on thenumber of employees attaining qualifications,positively addressing basic skills gaps and thetake-up of job-related training. Of particularsignificance is that all the reported increasesattributed to union learning activity are higherstill in those workplaces that have establishedlearning agreements.

11. There is also evidence that union learning isinfluencing organisational outcomes. At leastthree in ten employers report that union learninghas led to increases across a whole range ofemployee indicators, performance measures andindustrial relations concerns. In terms ofperformance, 54 per cent of employers reportedthat union learning activity has contributed toaddressing skills gaps; 42 per cent reportedincreasing levels of trust between managementand unions; and around one-third of employers(34 per cent) noted improving service/qualityindicators and organisational performance.Employers who had signed learning agreementsalso reported significantly higher increases inorganisational indicators compared withsurveyed employers overall.

Barriers to ULF activity

12. The main barriers as perceived by the unionproject officers related to securing time forlearning from employers, for learnersthemselves to make time available, and timepressures on ULRs. Further employer constraintsrelated to the signing of formal learningagreements with employers. These challengeshad all become more significant during round 11projects, as recessionary conditions started tohit.

Additionality and sustainability

13. The majority of UPOs appeared to be satisfiedwith the success of their projects, with 47 percent noting that their ULF projects had eitherexceeded or met objectives. In terms of addedvalue, 76 per cent of UPOs reported that aneeds assessment would not have taken placewithout ULF funding. Almost six in ten (58 percent) reported that the same learning wouldhave taken place but with fewer learners, while44 per cent stated the quality of learning wouldhave been poorer in the absence of the ULFproject.

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

Executive summary

continue to be involved with union learningactivities, with 63 per cent stating that there wasa benefit to the organisation and four in five thatthere was a benefit to individuals taking part.Nine in ten (91 per cent) stated that unionsshould continue to develop their role in thelearning agenda.

15. A large minority of employers (43 per cent)stated that union learning activities would takeplace even without external funding. However, asmall but sizeable minority (28 per cent) notedthat their engagement with union learning wouldnot take place without such funding..

4

Evaluation of the Union Learning Fund and unionlearn: preliminary findings

5

Table 1: The extent of union learning achievements under ULF rounds 1–11

ULF funding Levered in Total funding No of learning ULRs Learning Learning (£) million funding (£) million opportunities trained centres agreements(contracted (£) million accessedbudgets)

Round 1 (1998) 1.02 0.45 1.47 2,172 734 11 No dataRound 2 (1999) 2.78 0.56 3.34 4,460 882 15 No dataRound 3 (2000) 4.73 1.64 6.37 7,322 1,640 40 No dataRound 4 (2001) 6.49 3.23 9.72 14,330 1,540 66 No dataRound 5 (2002) 9.16 0.29 9.45 8,800 2,724 62 204Round 6 (2003) 10.34 6.98 17.32 62,087 2,383 49 134Round 7 (2004) 13.86 9.86 23.72 67,657 3,799 229 500Round 8 (2005) 7.69 4.61 12.30 107,219 2,169 104 196Round 9 (2006) 19.39 10.37 29.76 99,854 3,102 118 245Round 10 (2007) 5.39 1.75 7.14 116,782 865 8 73Round 11 (2008) 21.05 11.37 32.42 113,092 2,171 145 205

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 unionlearnfinancial data.

Introduction

The Union Learning Fund (ULF) was established in1998 and is now in its thirteenth round.Approximately £100m has been dispersed throughthe ULF to help unions establish innovative projectsthat help their members into learning. There hasalso been a reported additional £50m of levered-infunds. The achievements of the ULF have beensignificant. The main outcomes from the first 11rounds of the ULF are detailed in Table 1. Over thefirst ten years of the ULF, more than 600,000learning opportunities were accessed and some22,000 union learning representatives (ULRs) wererecruited/supported through ULF projects andtrained through TUC Education. In addition tohelping members into learning, ULRs often focustheir activities on establishing workplace learningcentres and signing learning agreements withemployers. ULF records show that 847 learningcentres and 1,557 learning agreements withemployers have been established. These outputsunderestimate the true extent of what has beenachieved, as additional activity takes place outsidethe formal provision of the ULF.

From 2006 the formal administration of the ULF hasbeen the responsibility of unionlearn. Unionlearn is

responsible for overseeing the development anddelivery of the ULF and provides extensive supportfor individual unions. The activities of unionlearn arenot limited to the management of the ULF, as itsupports a range of additional learning activitiesnationally and regionally. Unionlearn itself hasdeveloped out of the earlier TUC Learning Servicesand has sought to develop a new strategic role inthe area of union-led learning. A decade or so agoTUC learning activity was focused predominantly onworking directly in workplaces to recruit, train andsupport ULRs and to engage employers. The focuswithin unionlearn is now much more on providingsupport for unions themselves to undertake thiswork. At the national level unionlearn encouragesunions, under the remit of the ULF, to developnational learning strategies and relationships withskill bodies. At the regional level, unionlearn worksclosely with affiliate unions’ regional teams andlearning organisers to identify and support theirneeds.

To date no systematic evaluation of the activities ofunionlearn and the operation of the ULF under itsjurisdiction has been conducted. Evaluations wereundertaken of earlier rounds of the ULF, but often

suffered from methodological problems that limitedthe robustness of some of their key findings. Thisreport presents some preliminary findings from thelargest evaluation of union-led learning conductedto date. The evaluation has been led by the Centrefor Employment Relations Innovation and Change(CERIC) at the University of Leeds and aims toassess the added value of unionlearn and the ULF inboth quantitative and qualitative terms.

The evaluation has drawn from an extensive set ofdata sources. These include interviews withunionlearn staff and strategic stakeholders,secondary analysis of workplace learningagreements, ULF management information andlearner records, qualitative case studies and twooriginal surveys. The first survey was of unionproject officers (UPOs) responsible for projectsfunded under ULF rounds 8–11. In total 98 projectswere funded under this round, with 84 returns to thesurvey (86 per cent response). Second, the largestever survey of employers’ views on union-ledlearning was undertaken, achieving 415 returns (43per cent response).


6

Unionlearn has three basic targets against which itassesses progress: number of ULRs trained (initialtarget was 22,000); number of learners (250,000per year); and number of Skills for Life courses(target 30,000 courses per year). In practice, unionactivity covers a much wider range of learningopportunities. This can be explored through anumber of different sources.

UPO perspectives on learning activity

The ULF database and UPO survey allow us toexamine the number of learners achieved againsttarget, the composition of learners and the methodsused by projects to engage learners. A starting pointis the degree of inclusivity of union-led learning.Given its nature, should it be available to all relevantemployees or just union members? For rounds 8–11,the level of inclusion was high. In total, 89 per centof UPOs indicated that project activities were open

to all employees and not just union members. Justover one-third of projects (43 per cent) targetedspecific ethnic, migrant or minority worker groups aspart of their activities to raise demand for learning.Over eight in ten projects (82 per cent) also includedsome other specific action to address equality anddiversity issues with regard to learning. This includedactions such as recruiting specific groups of projectsworkers or ULRs (such as blind ULRs, Polish ULRs orAsian project workers), or specific concerns relatingto learning and education needs, for example interms of dyslexia or disability. More detailedinformation on the demographical profile of learnerswas not possible via the UPO survey, but isillustrated via learner records in Table 4b.

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

7

Table 2: Type of learning offered (%)

Percentage Already offered New Enhanced Demand metULR training 96 26 22 53 67IAG sessions 91 26 34 40 99SfL assessments 85 28 42 30 86FE programmes 84 35 29 35 91Other ICT 78 27 44 29 78Introductory ICT 77 28 41 31 78CPD programmes 74 26 35 40 96ICT Level 1 73 29 41 31 83ICT Level 2 73 25 41 34 79NVQ Level 2 73 32 32 36 84HE programmes 72 31 35 35 82Numeracy tests 67 35 40 25 85NVQ Level 3 65 28 40 32 84ULR follow-on training 64 25 30 45 62Literacy tests 64 37 39 25 86ESOL 59 29 39 33 60ICT through learndirect 51 32 39 29 63e-learning 53 28 42 30 87NVQ Level 1 49 40 30 30 78Informal learning 28 57 35 9 90Apprenticeships 22 39 39 22 83

Source: UPOs’ survey, base: 84 UPOs

Learning activities and the learning environment

each type. ULR projects were most likely to offer ULRtraining (96 per cent); information, advice andguidance sessions (IAG, 91 per cent); Skills for Lifeassessments (85 per cent); and FE programmes (84per cent). Reported levels of various forms of ICTprovision were also high. The least likely offer wasfor apprenticeships, which was reported by just 22per cent of projects. Nonetheless, of those projectsthat covered apprenticeship, the majority werefocused on enhancing existing provision. The otherforms of learning that were not reported by at leasthalf of respondents were NVQ Level 1 (49 per cent)and informal learning (28 per cent). Informallearning was, however, only reported byrespondents from round 11 projects. ULF projectmanagers were asked to indicate whether thelearning provision was new, enhanced (compared tothe provision available for learners during previousunion learning projects), or already offered. Thisquestion aimed to identify whether projects wereoffering more of the same or additional types oflearning. The results indicate a degree of qualitativeadditionality, with an average of two-thirds ofprojects developing a new or enhanced learningoffer. The top areas during rounds 8-11, where theprovision developed was new, related to basic skillsprovision, various forms of ICT provision and Skillsfor Life assessments.

The survey also explored the extent to which theactual demand for learning was being met. Thefindings show that unions were meeting demand forlearning to rather high levels. Across all types oflearning, demand for learning was met for at least60 per cent of UPOs. The lowest reported level ofdemand by UPOs was with regard to ESOL courses,where demand for learning had been met for just sixin ten UPOs. There also seems to be some unmetdemand for various types of ICT courses and ULRtraining and follow-on training. Across these offers,demand is not met in around one-third to one-fifthof cases. For IAG, FE programmes and CPD demandwas met to very high levels (for more than nine inten respondents in all cases). Many reasons weregiven by UPOs for not being able to meet demandfor learning. A number of respondents noted thatthe demand for ICT was ‘massive’ and, as a result,courses for ICT were often oversubscribed. Therewas also an issue with ESOL in terms of changes to

the funding regime. A number of respondents alsonoted more generally that there was a challengetrying to meet massive levels of demand in thecontext of changes to or cuts in funding. This did notjust relate to ESOL funding, but funding throughTrain to Gain as well. In terms of ULR training, acouple of projects stated that there were problemswith the provision of TUC courses, due to coursecancellations.

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


8

Case studyMigrant Workers Project, London, UNITE

The project promotes learning with migrantand other vulnerable workers in the contractcleaning sector in London, building on theJustice for Cleaners campaign, and coversworkers from over 25 countries. With anestimated 25,000 migrant workers involvedin cleaning services in the capital, theproject has sought to organise theseworkers to promote labour rights, usingeducation as a means of giving them accessto trade union representation. It started with15 learners on a Saturday English class, butdemand soon grew. Over 1,000 vulnerableworkers have received learning and 1,479IAG. Currently 240 learners attend sessionson Saturdays and Sundays at premisesprovided by Syracuse University; employersprovide no facilities. Twenty-seven new ULRshave also been trained, the majority ofwhom are migrant workers.

“This project has opened people’s eyes tomigrant workers and its multicultural aspecthas had an impact on the union as well asmaking the union more attractive formigrant workers. It would not havehappened as quickly without the project butit will continue because it is member-led”.(National Union Learning Organiser)

external learning providers (71 per cent). A numberof other survey methods were also widely used,though to a lesser extent than the activities of ULRsor external learning providers. Employers conductedsuch assessments through company-wide surveys ina surprisingly small majority of cases (59 per cent),while generic surveys of members by unions werereported by 37 per cent of UPOs. Other methodsincluded confidential surgeries and one-to-oneassessments.

Employers’ perspectives on learning activity

Just under one-half of employers responding to oursurvey (45 per cent) reported that they werecurrently involved in ULF projects, with 14 per centreporting that they had been involved with three ormore ULF projects historically. The nature ofemployer involvement with unions on learning ispresented in Table 3. That involvement is most likelyto relate to the provision of facility time for ULRs (88per cent). More widely, effort has concentrated ontackling skills gaps and building qualification levels.Nearly eight in ten employers report that they haveworked with unions to provide funding foremployees to take work-related courses (78 percent), to address basic skills gaps (77 per cent) or tointroduce qualifications (71 per cent). Less attentionhas been directed to participation in non-workrelated training (46 per cent) or the development oflearning centres (54 per cent). The lowest level ofengagement was again around apprenticeships,supporting the findings from the UPO survey, andperhaps indicative of the historic neglect ofapprenticeship training across the British economyuntil very recently.

The focus of training has predominantly beendirected at those with less historical experience oflearning and appears to have been successful inincreasing employee demand. Just over two-thirds ofemployers (68 per cent) reported that theirengagement with union learning has increaseddemand for learning among those employees withlittle history of learning, with even higher levels (71per cent) for those with poor basic skills. This doesnot mean that employees with higher levels of skillsare excluded. Union learning has increased demandfor learning among those with high skill levels by 28per cent.

Learner characteristics

The evaluation sought to assess the extent of learneroutcomes in terms of inclusion, employability andprogression. Data on individual learners is collectedregionally through unionlearn network (U-Net)learning centres (delivering learndirect provision) andvia those unionlearn regional teams providingEuropean Social Fund (ESF) programmes. U-Netprovision is located in union learning centres, whichmay be based in workplaces, colleges or unionoffices. ESF learners are engaged by predominantlyworkplace-based learning projects. The analysis of U-Net and ESF data represents an estimated 15 per centof learning activity reported by unionlearn, withobservations relating to 12,683 individuals and30,653 learning opportunities. Half of all learners arefemale (50.1 per cent) and 85 per cent are aged 40and over. Fewer than one in ten is from an ethnicminority (7.4 per cent), though the number of non-white British learners increased by almost 30 per centbetween 2008/09 and 2009/10. The majority oflearners engaged via U-Net and ESF provision have


9

Table 3: Employer involvement with unions on learning (% – employers’ survey)

Yes Base totalDevelopment of a learning centre 54 415Funding employees to take work-related courses 78 406Funding employees to take part in non work-related courses 46 403Facility time for ULRs 88 399Employee time off to discuss learning with ULRs 69 396Action plan to meet the skills pledge 49 374Addressing basic skills gaps 77 392Introducing qualifications 71 398Apprenticeships 44 393

Source: Employers’ survey, base 415 employers


10

Table 4a: Unionlearn learner data (1):

Management information records U-Net 2006–10 and ESF/LSC funded programmes 2008–10U-Net (n) ESF (n) Total (n)

Learning opportunities 19,784 10,779 30,563Individuals 5,898 6,785 12,683Average no. of learning opportunities 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 2008–10U-Net (%) ESF (%) Total (%)

Gender Female 46.50 51.2 50.1Male 53.50 48.8 49.9

Age Under 20 1.4 1.3 1.320–29 16.3 15.3 15.830–39 24.1 21.5 22.740–49 34 35.4 34.850–59 19.4 22.8 21.260+ 4.8 3.7 4.2

Ethnicity White British 92.6 92.6Other 7.4 7.4

Disability Yes 7.5 7.5Previous qualification Below Level 2 70.4 54.9

Level 2 13.7 17.7Level 3 or higher 15.9 27.4

Employment sector Public 43.2 68.3 52.0Private 56.4 29.7 47.0Vol 0.5 1.1 0.7Self-employed 0.1 0.9 0.4Unemployed 14.1 0.1

Multiple learning opportunities None (1 only) 11.5 32.72 episodes 18.3 30.23 or more episodes 70.2 37.1

Learning aim – first opportunity IAG initial assessment 58.7Non-vocational 0.2 48.1Entry Level 14.5 2.3Level 1 45.5 11.1Level 2 39.8 32.3Level 3+ 0.1 6.3

Contact source – top five Union/ULR 50.3 . 50.3Word of mouth 14.2 . 14.2Employer 10.9 . 10.9College 7.2 . 7.2Learndirect 3.1 . 3.1

prior levels of qualification. The type of learningactivity supported through the two learning routes (U-Net and ESF) differ in that ESF supports a higherproportion of non-vocational or non-accreditedlearning, often with the aim of engaging learners intolearning for the first time. Across the ESF projects,58.7 per cent of learners have been engaged in IAG

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

learner group, 48.1 per cent participated in non-vocational learning; 11.1 per cent in vocationallearning at Level 1; 32.2 per cent in vocationallearning at Level 2; and 6.3 per cent at Level 3 orhigher, including 1 per cent accessing HEprogrammes.

In terms of progression, individuals take part in anaverage of 2.5 learning opportunities. For U-Net thisaverage is 3.4. This shows the extent of multiplelearning activity. One indicator of progression is tolook at the proportion of learners who areparticipating in learning at least one level higherthan their prior level of learning. Of those withprevious qualifications at Level 2 or below, 76 percent are learning at a level higher than that at whichthey came into union learning. However, 80 per centof those learners with prior levels of learning atLevel 3 or more are taking courses at a level belowthis (mainly skills for life and IT courses), reflectingthe extent to which union learning providesopportunities for learners to refresh or widen theirlearning as well as to raise their qualification level.


11

In addition to specific types of learning activity andlearner outcomes, the ULF has contributed to thebuilding of wider processes and frameworks toassist developments in learning. This can beunderstood in terms of the extent to which ULRs aretrained, learning centres established andagreements with learning providers signed. As aresult of such activity, unions themselves are alsolooking to embed policies for learning within widerunion activities.

Supporting processes and frameworks

ULF reporting for rounds 8–11 reveals that 8,307ULRs were trained and 375 learning centres wereopened. These data can be further explored throughthe findings of the UPO survey. UPOs reported 323new learning centres opened as a direct result ofprojects funded under rounds 8–11, with a further384 significantly enhanced. On average each ULFproject resulted in the establishment of seven newlearning centres and nine that were enhanced. Interms of new courses, on average eight arecustomised per project and a further nine newcourses are enhanced. The training of ULRs hasbeen, and remains, a key concern of ULF activity.Those UPOs responding recruited and trained 6,529new ULRs, with an average of 91 per project. Inaddition projects provided, on average, furthertraining for 64 ULRs per project, making a total of2,624 receiving further training across all projects.Finally, in ensuring and identifying learningopportunities, ULF projects dedicate a fair amount ofattention to the formalisation of written partnershipswith learning providers. For rounds 8–11, respondingUPOs had established 385 such written partnershipswith providers were concluded. On average, thismeans that each project signs seven partnershipagreements with providers. These aggregatefindings were further examined to establish theextent to which results achieved were still active.Across all indicators this was pretty much confirmed.All the learning centres established or enhanced

were still considered active. The only indicatorwhere there was notable variation was in terms ofpartnership with providers, where 13 per cent ofUPOs reported that written partnerships were nolonger considered to be active.

Embedding learning into wider union structures

Table 5 explores the extent to which union-ledlearning has become embedded within unionstructures during the course of ULF projects. Thiswas notable in terms of the extent to which ULRsworked more effectively within their branches as aresult of ULF projects. Just 11 per cent of UPOs statedthat ULRs were working effectively with theirbranches prior to projects and just 3 per cent notedthat this was an issue they were not looking to worktowards. In contrast, nearly two-thirds of UPOs (63per cent) reported that, as a result of projects, ULRswere working more effectively within their unionbranch and around a further quarter (24 per cent)were working towards more effective ULR workingwithin branches.

There was also some indication of a greater degreeof formalisation of learning within union structures.In just over a quarter of cases (28 per cent) the roleof ULRs had been written into rule books during thecourse of ULF projects, with union officers withspecific roles for learning established in 39 per centof projects and written learning policies establishedaccording to 38 per cent of respondents. Unionofficers with a specific role for learning were mostlikely to have already been established prior to ULFprojects – as noted by 41 per cent of respondents..

In terms of more traditional union activity, a majorchallenge for union-led learning is how it links towider imperatives around union organising andnegotiating. There is clear evidence that the ULF ismaking an impact. Nearly two-thirds of UPOs (62 percent) claimed that learning had become increasinglylinked to the union organising agenda during the

12

Building supporting infrastructure andcapacity for learning activity

course of the project, with 16 per cent working onthis. Similarly, 50 per cent of UPOs identifiedlearning and skills as issues that during the projecthad become established as part of the union’snegotiating agenda; one-fifth were working on this.

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

Building supporting infrastructure and capacity for learning activity

13

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

Existed before Established Working Not workingproject during project towards towards

ULR role written into rule book 27 28 26 19ULRs working more effectively within their branch 11 63 24 3Union officers with a specific role for learning 41 39 8 13Written learning policy established 30 38 8 24Learning become more linked to union organising 12 62 16 10Learning/skills formed part of union negotiating 20 50 20 11


Table 6: ULF impact on unions (%)

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Stronglyagree disagree

Improved employee attitudes to the union 48 43 9 0 0ULF has contributed to increased union membership 21 48 25 6 0Increased enrolment on other union courses 27 56 13 5 0Increased member involvement in union activities 31 51 17 1 0Increased interest in taking union roles 20 59 19 3 0Increased ULR interest in union roles 33 45 14 9 0Increased capability of workplace reps 26 56 17 1 0


The evaluation explored from both union andemployer perspectives the ways in which ULFactivity was affecting employer policy, how thismight be contributing to learning and organisationaloutcomes, and the ways in which unions andemployers have sought to formalise joint activitythrough workplace learning agreements.Engagement with employers is a key part of ULFactivity. On average, respondents to the UPO surveyworked with 27 employers per project.

Learning agreements

According to ULF reporting data presented in Table 1,719 learning agreements were signed across rounds8–11: roughly seven agreements per project. There isfurther support for this from the employer survey.Learning agreements had been established in 53 percent of workplaces. In addition, joint management–union learning committees had been established inhalf of all cases. There was a strong correlationbetween the existence of a learning agreement and a

learning committee – three-quarters of workplaceswith an agreement also had a committee. Just underfour in ten (39 per cent) of all workplaces had both alearning agreement and a learning committee. Theissues covered by learning agreements as reported byemployers cover ULR facility time (95 per cent) andactivities (91 per cent), equality of access to learningopportunities (93 per cent), staff time off for learning(86 per cent) and the terms of reference for jointlearning committees (84 per cent). More generally,rather little is known about learning agreements. Theevaluation explored the nature of learningagreements through the first systematic contentanalysis of learning agreements. In total, 258agreements were analysed, and their constituentelements are detailed in Table 7.

Impact on employer policies and organisationaloutcomes

Findings from the UPO survey suggest that ULFactivities have contributed to union–employer

14

Employer engagement, outcomes andthe formalisation of workplace learning

Table 7: Constituent elements of learning agreements: base 258 agreements (evaluation)

% reporting % reportingAims of agreements 95 Time off for learning 61

Commitment to partnership 81 Paid time off 53Learning culture 54 Time for vocational training 28Learning outcomes 41 Time for Skills for Life 26

Roles and responsibilities N/A Time for Information, Advice and Guidance 33of union 46 Employer contribution to costs 18of employers 52 Reference to training budgets 5of ULRs 50 Incentives for learners/achievement 2

Establish joint learning committee 78 Monitoring of agreement 60With terms of reference 70 Joint monitoring 54Stated membership 69 Union monitor 3Stated frequency of meetings 59 Management monitor 4Establish support for learning centre 58 Equality opportunities clause 79With resources for centre 22 ULR support for facility time 68

Identify learning needs 79 Reference to ACAS code 48ULRs identify needs 26 Guarantees 54Joint identification by committee 47 Confidentiality of individuals 18Management identify needs 8 Used for learning only 34

Covers organisational learning plan 41 Safeguards existing bargaining 35Grievance procedures 34

relations. The ULF was seen to contribute to union–management relations with regard to learning to amajor extent for 19 per cent of respondents and to alarge extent for just under one-third of respondents(30 per cent). ULF projects also had some impact onthe wider terrain of collective bargaining. Aroundseven in ten UPO respondents reported thatlearning had to some extent been incorporated intocollective bargaining as a result of the ULF. Lessthan a quarter (23 per cent) stated that the ULF hadnot led to learning being incorporated into collectivebargaining at all; 4 per cent reported that learningalready was.

While a key challenge for unions is to engageemployers in collective bargaining around learning,unions can also help to shape workplace practicearound learning by influencing wider employerpolicies. This is explored in Table 8. The ULF has hadmost impact on company policy and support fromsenior management: 82 per cent of UPOs reportedimprovements in company learning policy, while justover two-thirds (70 per cent) reported seniormanagement were supportive of learning. A smallmajority (62 per cent and 57 per cent respectively)reported that the ULF had led to the establishment ofjoint workplace training and learning committees andinitiatives for the joint funding of other training. FewerUPOs saw middle management as supportive (53 percent), compared to senior management. The lowestdegree of impact related to the Skills Pledge. UPOsreported that the ULF had influenced employers tosign the Skills Pledge in 46 per cent of cases.

The views of UPOs are encouraging in terms of theimpact of the ULF on employer policy. Whether this isso can be further verified with findings from theemployers’ survey.* As Table 9 indicates, employersthemselves report that union learning initiatives haveaffected a range of learning practices. Most notably,equality of access to learning/training opportunitieshas increased in 56 per cent of workplaces. Morewidely, there is extensive employer support for theunion effect on the number of employees attainingqualifications (55 per cent), positively addressingbasic skills gaps (46 per cent), the take-up of jobrelated training (41 per cent) and the take-up of non-job related training (37 per cent). Reported increasesare less visible for apprenticeships (15 per cent) andemployer expenditure on employee training/learning(23 per cent). Given the relatively low number ofapprenticeships during the survey's time framecompared with other provision and the extent towhich apprenticeship budgets are seen as an area ofmanagement prerogative, these reported levels ofimpact are still very positive. Of particularsignificance is that all the reported increasesattributed to union learning activity are higher still inthose workplaces that have established learningagreements. Learning agreements appear to matterin terms of the terrain of organisations’ learningpractices.

There was also evidence that employers wereproviding additional resources and contributions tounion learning activity. Four in ten employersreported providing a financial contribution to unionlearning activities. Few respondents were prepared(or able) to quantify this. Of those that did, theaverage investment was approximately £23,000.Employers were much more likely to provide an in-kind contribution, reported for three-quarters ofworkplaces. In-kind contributions included:equipment (69 per cent); office space (71); learningcentres (52 per cent); ULR time (77 per cent);management time (58 per cent); and, employeetime (73 per cent).

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

Employer engagement, outcomes and the formalisation of workplace learning

15

Table 8: ULF impact on employer policies%

Company policy on learning has improved 82Senior management are more supportive of learning 70Joint workplace training and learning committees

established 62Joint funding of other training initiatives 57Middle management more supportive of learning 53Joint application for funding from non-ULF sources 49Employer has signed the skills pledge 46Employer has an action plan to meet Skills Pledge 43Other impacts on employer training 25


* 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 allemployers.

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 maybe having a wider effect on organisationaloutcomes? The findings presented in Table 10,again, offer grounds for optimism. With theexception of staff turnover, at least three in tenemployers report that union learning has led toincreases across a whole range of employeeindicators, performance measures and industrialrelations concerns. In terms of performance,employers report that union learning activity hascontributed to increases in organisationalperformance (32 per cent), service/quality indicators(34 per cent) and health and safety (39 per cent).Sceptics would note that the majority ofrespondents report there has been no change. Yet,given that union learning does not aim to addressthese factors per se, the fact that a large minority ofemployers attribute such increases to union learningis a notable and important finding.

The findings are equally positive for employeeoutcomes and industrial relations matters. Aroundfour in ten employers claim that union learning hascontributed to an increase in staff morale (42 percent) and employee commitment (39 per cent).Turning to the wider industrial relationsenvironment, the findings offer strong support forthe contribution union learning can make toimproving levels of trust between management andunions (as reported by 42 per cent). Perhaps moresurprising is what this means in terms of bringing innew voices within the workplace. Consultation levelswere reported to have increased in 46 per cent ofworkplaces and negotiation on learning and trainingissues in four in ten workplaces – a notablefinding. It may well be that the workplaces surveyedwere highly predisposed to engagement with unionsanyway. Even so, given the fact that employers havegenerally proved reluctant to negotiate on learning,and that learning is often pursued separately fromwider channels of bargaining, these findings meritfurther analysis.


16

Table 9: Impact of union learning on organisational learning practices (% employers’ survey)

Increased Stayed the same Decreased Base totalTake-up of job-related training 41 (52)* 59 0 404Take-up of non-job-related training 37 (51)* 60 3 397Number of employees attaining qualifications 55 (70)* 44 1 401Continuing professional development 31 (40)* 69 0 380Positively addresses basic skills gaps 46 (58)* 39 16 403Number of apprenticeships 15 (21)* 83 2 390Equality of access to learning/ training opportunities 56 (65)* 43 1 399Employer expenditure on employee training/learning 23 (31)* 72 6 396

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

Table 10: Impact of union learning on organisational level indicators (% employers’ survey)

Increased Stayed the same Decreased Base totalOrganisation performance 32 (42)* 67 1 392Service/quality indicators 34 (44)* 66 0 395Health and safety 39 (42) 61 0 389Staff turnover 4 (5) 87 9 394Addressing skills gaps 54 (68)* 42 3 395Staff morale 42 (52)* 56 3 395Employee commitment 39 (49)* 60 2 396Levels of trust between management and unions 42 (53)* 54 4 396Negotiation on learning/ training issues 40 (52)* 59 1 397Consultation on learning/ training issues 46 (59)* 54 0 395

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

It is natural for projects to face some challengesduring the course of activity. Indeed, it is oftenthrough addressing and overcoming suchchallenges that lessons can be learnt. The UPOsurvey explored potential barriers across sixdimensions: union factors; learners; learningproviders; employers; project management; andULRs. The top barriers, where UPOs reported largeor very large constraints, are shown in Table 11. Themain perceived barriers related to engagingemployers and specific supports, such as time offfor learners and ULRs. The biggest barrier faced byUPOs relates to securing time for learning fromemployers (55 per cent) or for learners themselvesto make time available (47 per cent). Furtheremployer constraints related to the signature offormal learning agreements with employers (41 percent) and generally being able to elicit interest andsupport from employers for ULF project initiatives(28 per cent). Given the pressures that manyprojects face in terms of the recruitment and trainingof ULRs, and the need to meet targets, it is notsurprising that this also creates perceived pressuresfor project workers. First, the actual ability to recruitenough ULRs was seen as a major barrier to therunning of projects (31 per cent). Second, even whenULRs where in post time pressures were seen as amajor challenge (48 per cent). These challenges hadall become more significant during round 11projects, as recessionary conditions started to bite.

When faced with such challenges, UPOs can drawon the expertise of the unionlearn apparatus,which – among other services – has a dedicatedULF team. UPOs were overwhelmingly positive aboutthe levels of support provided by unionlearn. Forexample, nearly eight in ten UPOs (78 per cent)reported that the quality of support unionlearnprovided was good in terms of helping them workwith employers to promote learning.

17

Barriers to ULF activity

Table 11: Main barriers to running ULF projects %

Large barrierAllowing time off for learning (from employers) 55Time pressures on ULRs 48Making time available to learning (for learners) 47Reaching a formal learning agreement 41Recruiting enough ULRs 31Encouraging interest and support from

employers 28


The majority of UPOs appeared to be satisfied withthe success of projects. A large minority of UPOs, 36per cent, reported that ULF projects had exceededobjectives, with a further 14 per cent stating thatobjectives had been fully met. One-third (33 percent) reported that objectives had been adequatelymet and 18 per cent that the ULF projects hadpartially met objectives. No UPOs were of theopinion that projects had not met their objectives.The degree of project success can be consideredfurther by considering the extent to which projectsdelivered tangible added value. Without ULFfunding, according to UPOs, very few needsassessments would have taken place, with nearly 8in 10 (76 per cent) respondents stating that noneeds assessments would have taken place. It isalso evident that the ULF adds a quality dimensionto learning. Without the ULF, 58 per cent reportedthat the same learning would have taken place butwith fewer learners; 44 per cent that learning wouldhave been of a poorer quality; 17 per cent that thesame learning would have taken place but for lesstime; and 24 per cent that learning would have beendelayed. For 35 per cent of UPOs, no learning wouldhave taken place without the ULF. Just 12 per centstated that the same level of learning would havetaken place.

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

But how sustainable, given the perceived relianceon external state funding, is the union learningagenda? For union learning to become sustainable,it will require further embedding into workplaceinstitutions (through for example learningagreements) and ongoing employer support.

How do employers see it? The findings in Table 12suggest that employers, to some extent, may have‘bought’ the added value that union learning canoffer them. Nearly nine in ten employers (87 percent) state that they will continue to be involvedwith union learning activities; just 4 per cent reportthat while regarded as successful, they will notcontinue with union learning. Two reasons mayexplain this. First, employers generally see a benefitto union learning, with 63 per cent stating there wasa benefit to the organisation and 81 per cent thatthere was a benefit to individuals taking part.Second, management was generally supportive ofthe union role in learning and regarded this as animportant offer of a ‘modern’ union movement.Thus, 79 per cent reported that management werevery supportive of the union role in learning and 91per cent felt that unions should continue to developtheir role in the learning agenda.

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

18


Table 12: Sustainability and added value of union learning (% employers’ survey)

Agree Neither agree/ Disagree Base totaldisagree

Organisation will continue to be involved with union 87 10 4 411learning activities

Union learning successful, but will not continue 4 17 79 410Union learning of benefit to the organisation 63 18 19 410Union learning benefited individuals taking part 81 15 4 409Learning activities will take place, even without 43 29 28 407

external fundingManagement very supportive of the union role in learning 79 16 5 410Unions should continue to develop their role in the 91 8 1 406

learning agenda

Source: Employers' survey, base 415 employers

The findings on this can only be suggestive, but aremixed. A large minority of employers (43 per cent)stated that union learning activities will take placeeven without external funding. Nonetheless, asmaller but still sizeable minority, 28 per cent, tookthe opposing stance that engagement with unionlearning activities would not take place withoutexternal funding.


19

Drawing from a large-scale evaluation of recentrounds of the ULF and wider union learningactivities, this report presents a summaryassessment of the impact of union learning forlearners, unions and employers. It has presentedtwo new surveys – the first of ULF project officersand the second of managers at workplace level. Thefindings suggest that the embedding of unionlearning activity continues to face challenges butwhat is most striking is the degree of consensus thatseems to exist among union and employerrepresentatives over the potential benefits of unionlearning.

ULF projects have delivered an impressive set offormal learning outputs and indicators. Projectshave also started to affect the conduct andstructures of trade unions, and ultimately the ‘offer’of unions within the modern economy. Learning isbecoming a more ‘mainstreamed’ activity. Inpractical terms, this means that unions are lookingto write the role of ULRs into their rule books;develop more formal policies on learning; linklearning more explicitly to organising; establishmore effective working between ULRs and branches;and place learning into the arena of negotiation.

But the ULF is not just about the union side. UPOssurveyed were also of the view that union learningactivities were having a positive impact onemployees’ attitudes to unions and were starting toinfluence employer policy on learning. This wasevident in terms of eliciting senior managementsupport of the union role, influencing workplacelearning policy and establishing workplacecommittees for learning and training.

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

appropriate time needed for learners to receiveadvice about or take advantage of learningopportunities. UPOs face challenges in terms of therecruitment and training of ULRs; time constraintsare also a pressure on ULRs.

It is self-evident, then, that the sustainability ofunion learning will be shaped by the degree towhich unions are able to firmly establish a rolewithin the workplace and the extent to which theyare able to engage constructively with employers onlearning matters. The UPO survey highlighted keychallenges. To this must be added the lack ofobligations on employers to engage with theiremployees 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 aminority of them). Our survey of employersnonetheless offers valuable insights into thepotential benefits that may accrue to employers inworkplace engagement with unions on learning.

The employer survey – the largest conducted todate – shows a generally positive perspectiveamong employers to union learning. First,organisational involvement with unions on learningwas found to be widespread. The survey also foundthat learning agreements have been signed and/orlearning committees established in more than halfof workplaces. Management has also supportedunion learning activity through various in-kindcontributions (such as computer equipment). Giventhis wide-ranging activity, it seems appropriate toask whether there is any perceived benefit foremployers in engagement. Our initial analysis ishighly suggestive that union learning is starting toinfluence workplace learning practices, most notablyin terms of perceived skills upgrading, the numberof employees attaining qualifications and increasedlevels of equality of access to learning and training.Perhaps more surprising was the response to thewider impact of union learning on organisationaloutcomes. Around one-third of respondents

20

Conclusions

reported that organisational performance andservice/quality indicators had increased as a resultof union learning. In more than four in tenworkplaces, trust levels between management andunions had increased as had consultation andnegotiation. Moreover, employer respondentsappear open and confident about future andongoing engagement with unions on learningmatters. While a minority take the view that this willbe contingent on future external funding streams, aneven larger minority appear not so beholden. Thisoffers optimism for the sustainability of unionlearning.

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

Conclusions

21

Published by:unionlearn

Congress HouseGreat Russell Street

London WC1B 3LS

T 020 7079 6920F 020 7079 6921

www.unionlearn.org.uk

July 2010

Design: Kevin Brown at park44.com

Print: College Hill Press

evaluation of the union learning fund and unionlearn

Documents

learning activities

learning environment

inunion learning projects

ulf activity

union learningfund ulf

learning agreement signedwith

considerable union

sustaining union