Transcript Slide 1

Network for Europe
European Funding - Good Practice and
Preparing for the Next Programme event
Tuesday 3 July 2012
EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND
James Ritchie
Senior Policy and Publicity Manager
European Social Fund Division
ESF in England 2007-2013
£2.5 billion focused mainly on two priorities:
 extending employment opportunities
 employability & skills for disadvantaged people
 families with multiple problems
 community grants
 developing a skilled & adaptable workforce
 training low skilled workers, especially in SMEs
Civil Society participation
National level
 strong focus on delivering localised, specialised, voluntary
services
 2007-2010 phase – 211 voluntary sector organisation subcontractors in DWP ESF CFO provision (60% of subcontractors)
 2011 ESF Community Grant delivery
 over 800 grants awarded
 average value – c. £10,000
 participants supported – c. 22,000
 networks to raise awareness, involvement and achievements
ESF 2014-2020 thematic objectives
 European Commission proposes enhanced focus
on Europe 2020 growth strategy:
• promoting employment & labour mobility
• investing in education, skills & lifelong learning
• promoting social inclusion & combating poverty
• enhancing institutional capacity & efficient public
administration
European Commission investment priorities
 18 investment priorities including:
 Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local
employment initiatives and support for labour mobility;
 Sustainable integration of young people NEET into the labour market;
 Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change;
 Active and healthy ageing;
 Improving the quality, efficiency, and openness of tertiary and equivalent education
with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels;
 Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the
workforce, and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training
systems;
 Combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation;
 Active inclusion;
 Promoting the social economy and social enterprises.
European Commission delivery options
 Options in regulations to encourage local
engagement:
• Integrated Territorial Investments
• Community Led Local Development
• Role of cities
 New financial instruments to encourage social
investment
ESF 2014-2020: initial policy thinking
 Focus on disadvantaged groups, particularly those not eligible
for, or not well served by existing mainstream provision.
 Opportunities to support recently published Social Justice
strategy.
 Groups likely to include: young people not in employment,
education or training; troubled families; ex-offenders; unskilled
people.
 Also scope to support growth agenda through funding selfemployment and entrepreneurship, and upskilling employees,
particularly in SMEs.
ESF 2014-2020: delivery issues
 Existing arrangements are effective:




coherence with national policy priorities – ensures that ESF
complements and does not duplicate or support local alternatives
to the Work Programme or skills strategy;
match funding comes from national programmes;
delivery is efficient (low national overheads);
sound financial management through standardised national
procurement and control systems.
 But are they responsive enough to local needs,
particularly given Government’s localism agenda and
focus on cities ?
ESF 2014-2020: challenges
 How can we get more local input into strategic planning of
how the funds are spent ?
 What advantages could closer alignment of funds
(especially ESF and ERDF) bring ?
 Are there arguments for different local delivery models ?
Which sub-national organisations have the capacity and
capability to make a difference and take on financial risks ?
 If some national elements remain, can we put in place
effective mechanisms for local engagement ?
ESF 2014-2020: possible options
 Separate Operational Programmes for (a) Helping
disadvantaged groups; and (b) Supporting Growth, with
the second aligned with ERDF (and therefore
“regionalised”).
 Different arrangements for engaging Voluntary and
Community Sector, particularly in delivering social
inclusion activities ?
 Some core cities having greater local control. Is London
a model to copy ?
 Improved procurement arrangements through CFOs, with
greater local consultation.