Amyas Morse, the head of the National Audit Office, said
today:
"Train to Gain is achieving growth in training that
employers value, but taxpayers have a right to expect that much
more than half of the public funding should result in training that
would not otherwise have occurred. Inconsistent management
contributed to a slow start to the programme, followed by rapid
growth and now the risk of demand exceeding budgets. We also need
to see evidence that money is directed more to areas of greatest
need, with training providers who do the best job for their
learners and on bringing the whole range of business benefits to
employers."
At a cost of £1.47 billion by March 2009, Train to Gain had
supported employer-focused training for over one million learners,
and hd developed a skills brokerage service with which a majority
of employers was satisfied. But while Train to Gain has achieved
undoubted benefits for employers, the NAO has concluded that over
its full lifetime the programme has not provided good value for
money.
Unrealistically ambitious initial targets and inconsistent
implementation reduced the efficiency of the programme. Take up was
much lower than expected at first, leading to underspending and the
need for changes in eligibility to increase learner numbers. The
now strong demand for training needs to be better managed, to make
the programme sustainable while avoiding overspending this
year.
Learners have nevertheless benefited from improved work skills
at a basic level, and surveys of employers have provided evidence
of improved business performance from the training. For many of the
554,100 learners who achieved a qualification it was their first
qualification, giving them a boost in self-confidence as well as
new employment skills. Some employers have reported that the
training has led to improved business performance. Many of the
143,400 engagements with employers to provide advice on skills
training were with ‘hard to reach’ businesses that had previously
provided little or no training for their staff.
Learners’ success rates have varied substantially between
training providers. In 2006-07, success rates ranged from 8 to 99
per cent for the largest 100 providers. So while some training
providers have been doing a very good job and most are above the
‘minimum standard’ that is being introduced, one quarter of the
largest providers were performing below the minimum. A half of
employers whose employees received training would have arranged
similar training without public subsidy.
The report concludes that the now strong demand for training
should be used as an opportunity to focus resources on the areas of
greatest need and on training with the highest quality providers.
The Learning and Skills Council is taking steps to improve its
management and communication of the programme - which has
previously led to confusion among employers, training providers and
brokers - and the Department and the LSC must be alert to the risk
of disruption of these efforts by the transition to the Skills
Funding Agency.