« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contextual overview
1. In October 2004, BMRB was commissioned by the former Scottish Executive to carry out a survey to evaluate Individual Learning Accounts Scotland ( ILA Scotland).
2. The overall aim of this study was to gauge the impact of the ILA Scotland scheme in relation to the following aims, which were set out for the scheme prior to its launch:
- widening participation in adult learning by increasing interest and uptake;
- introducing new learners to adult learning and to provide an opportunity for those who have not recently participated in learning to do so;
- encouraging more learning progression;
- encouraging individuals to invest in their own learning (and take ownership);
- prioritising the learning needs of certain groups of learners ( i.e. people on low incomes);
- supporting the development of a quality learning provider base in Scotland.
3. The purpose of the ILA Scotland scheme is to encourage individuals to take up learning opportunities and invest in their learning as they do so. The importance of measures designed to increase and widen participation in lifelong learning among members of the adult population has been recognised as an important priority of the policy agenda in Scotland in recent years. This focus has been reflected in a number of reports and policy documents.
4. Within these reports and policy documents there is recognition of the barriers to participation, in terms of financial support and access to flexible learning opportunities, and the ILA scheme is seen as an important response to such issues.
5. The original ILA Scotland scheme was launched in 2000 and was generally regarded as a success; however the scheme was suspended in 2001 as a result of some providers having been engaged in the mis-selling of ILAs. Plans were then made for the re-launch of an enhanced and more stable scheme.
6. The revised ILA Scotland scheme was launched in two phases. The first phase, ILA200 (previously named the 'Targeted Offer'), was launched in December 2004 and was aimed at those on low incomes (earned individual income of £15,000 or less and those on benefits) who are eighteen or over and normally resident in Scotland. ILA200 provides eligible learners with £200 funding which can be put towards a wide range of learning opportunities both accredited and non-accredited. The second phase, the ILA100 scheme (previously named the 'Universal Offer') was launched in August 2005. This offer is not income restricted. Initially, ILA100 eligible learners could access £100 of funding towards basic information and communication technology ( ICT) learning, leading to a formal qualification/certification up to Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework ( SCQF) Level 5 or equivalent.
7. Changes were introduced in summer 2006 to both the ILA100 and ILA200 offers. The ILA100 offer was expanded to include a wide range of courses covering any subject, rather than restricted to ICT, up to SCQF Level 6 and still leading to a recognized qualification or certification. Changes were also made to the ILA200 offer. The restriction that ICT courses must lead to formal qualifications or recognised certification has also been removed. The timing of the survey means that the first wave of interviewing was undertaken before these changes took effect (although a small proportion of ILA100 learners had started courses in subjects other than ICT). However, courses identified in the second wave of interviewing mainly took place after these changes had been made.
8. In addition, from June 1 2007, the £15,000 income threshold was raised to £18,000 (all applicants covered in the survey were assessed under the previous threshold). The introduction of all these changes corresponds with ILA Scotland's objective of addressing financial barriers to learning and increasing participation of a more diverse or non-traditional group of learners.
Method
9. BMRB carried out a longitudinal survey of successful applicants 1 of the two Individual Learning Accounts ( ILA) offers, between January 2006 and September 2007. At wave 1 of the survey, 1,000 ILA200 applicants and 1,000 ILA100 applicants were interviewed. At wave 2, BMRB attempted to re-contact all those who had agreed to take part in a second interview nine months later, in order to track respondents and explore learner outcomes; interviews were conducted with 628 ILA200 respondents and 596 ILA100 respondents.
10. In addition, a separate survey was conducted among 996 "unconverted enquirers", people who had requested an ILA Scotland application form but who had not returned the form.
11. The survey was designed to assess the extent to which learners felt the ILA scheme had met its objectives, specifically:
- What were the characteristics of people on the two schemes, and when had they last undertaken learning
- Had people on the schemes actually been on ILA funded courses
- To what extent had participation in the schemes encouraged learning progression
- Were learners satisfied with the courses they had been on; did they meet their needs
- What benefits did they feel they received from the courses they had been on
- Was the funding critical to their participation in learning, or would they have done so anyway.
Characteristics of applicants
12. In comparison with the adult population of Scotland, the profile of successful ILA200 applicants was younger, with more women than men. Those on ILA100 were closer to the profile of the Scottish population but with a greater concentration between the ages of 31 and 60. Those on both offers were more likely than the Scottish population as a whole to be in work, and the number in work was particularly high among those on ILA100 (and most were working full-time). ILA100 contained a relatively high proportion of people in social grades A and B (professional and managerial occupations), while the proportion for ILA200 was slightly lower than the population as a whole.
13. Around one in six successful applicants were "new" learners (who had not done any learning since leaving school): 16% for ILA200 and 14% for ILA100. In addition, 21% of ILA200 and 16% of ILA100 respondents were "returners" (had done no learning in the last three years). Those on ILA100 were more likely than those on ILA200 to be qualified to degree level or above (32% compared with 18%).
14. Unconverted enquirers tended to be younger than successful applicants, and were less likely to have studied recently. However, they were similar to successful applicants in terms of the highest qualification they had attained.
The application process
15. TV and radio were commonly used sources of information for both offers, and were also seen as effective. The ILA website, the learning provider and word of mouth were also seen as effective sources of information.
16. Most respondents were satisfied with the ILA helpline (90% for ILA200 and 87% for ILA100) and had not used any other source of information during the ILA application process.
17. Nearly all successful applicants found the application process straightforward (96% for ILA200, 93% for ILA100), and this was also true of unconverted enquirers (most of whom found the application form easy to understand). The unconverted enquirers also thought the income assessment section was easy to complete, although 18% felt that they would have had difficulties providing the supporting documents. The main reasons why the unconverted enquirers did not return the form were a change of mind, being too busy and not being eligible for funding.
Participation in ILA funded learning
18. By the time of the wave 2 interview, around three in five successful applicants had actually undertaken an ILA funded course (62% for ILA200, 59% for ILA100). This comprised those who had completed a course (27% for ILA200, 32% for ILA100), those who had dropped out of a course before it finished (14% and 13% respectively) and the remainder who were still on their first course (21% and 14% respectively).
19. Around half of all of all respondents said that they were planning to do a new course in the next 12 months when interviewed at wave 2, and this was higher amongst those who had already been on a course. However, only one in five of those planning to do a course at wave 1 had actually done so by the time of the wave 2 interview nine months later.
Types of course and qualifications
20. Information and communication technologies ( ICT) was the most common subject of ILA funded courses on both offers 2, and around half of courses took place at a college.
21. Most respondents said that their course had led or would lead to a qualification (82% for ILA200 and 75% for ILA100), and this qualification was generally seen as important to the learner (88% on ILA200 and 89% on ILA100).
22. Where learners were planning to do a course in the future, the subjects closely reflected those of courses already undertaken through ILA.
Motivations and barriers
23. Many people took ILA funded courses to help to find work or a change of job, and this was higher among those on ILA200 than those on ILA100. Gaining skills or qualifications were the other main reasons for undertaking a course, although courses under the ILA200 offer do not need to lead to qualifications.
24. Those who had not undertaken any ILA funded courses by the time of the initial interview were most likely to say this was because ILA funding was not accepted on their chosen course, or because they could not find an appropriate course. Other reasons related to personal circumstances, including work and family commitments, and these were also the most common reasons for dropping out of a course.
Outcomes from ILA courses
25. In both offers, the outcomes that respondents felt they had achieved from ILA funded courses generally matched their priorities for doing the course, so that gaining new skills or knowledge was likely to be seen as both an important reason for doing a course and something that learners had successfully achieved.
26. Respondents were more likely to say they had achieved "softer" outcomes ( e.g. gaining new skills and increasing self-confidence) than harder employment related outcomes (such as getting a job, changing jobs or getting a promotion), although a proportion of learners said that their course had helped them in relation to work; this was more pronounced for ILA200 than ILA100 learners (26% of ILA200 learners said that the course had helped them to get work and 23% to find a job with a different employer).
Satisfaction
27. There were high levels of satisfaction with ILA funded learning amongst those that had been on a course: at wave 1, 21% of those on ILA200 and 13% on ILA100 said that the course had exceeded their expectations, while most of the remainder said that it had met their expectations. At wave 2, 96% of learners on ILA200 and 93% of those on ILA100 said that they were satisfied with the offer overall. Those who had been on a course were also very positive towards individual aspects of the course (quality of teaching and course materials, the learning provider and ILA staff).
28. While the majority of respondents were satisfied with the range of courses available, the availability of courses in their area, and the availability of suitable dates and times for courses, those who had not undertaken any ILA funded courses were more negative (between 25% and 30% were dissatisfied with these aspects), as were the unconverted enquirers (between 23% and 32% agreed that course locations or times were inconvenient or that they couldn't find a course subject that they wanted to do).
Funding
29. Most respondents (85% on ILA200 and 82% on ILA100) felt that the personal contribution they were required to pay was about the right amount, and were satisfied with the overall level of funding provided by the ILA each year (88% on ILA200 and 84% on ILA100). However, around two in five respondents (40% on ILA200 and 41% on ILA100) indicated that the personal contribution they had to pay might discourage them, by agreeing with the statement that paying the personal contribution made you think twice about applying for a course.
30. Respondents who had been on an ILA funded course were asked whether they would have taken the course if ILA funding had not been available. The proportion who said they would have done the course without ILA funding was higher for those on ILA100 than ILA200 (27% and 16% respectively said it was very likely that they would still have done the course).
« Previous | Contents | Next »