Summary of findings Impact on individuals Projects rated the impact of the ACLF very highly, feeling that the support offered by the Fund was important across a range of factors. In particular, projects felt that the levels of confidence and self-esteem among their learners had increased. The numbers completing a learning activity was encouragingly high. In addition, projects were extremely positive about the new aspirations among their learners, their levels of motivation and their knowledge of other local learning opportunities. Projects were also positive about the impact they had achieved on learners in terms of employment and transition to further learning. The projects most likely to report increased numbers of participants in employment were those that had been funded over longer time periods. The case studies provided a wealth of examples from individuals who felt that their participation in an ACLF-funded project had positively affected their lives. For example, one volunteer said "It's the best thing I've ever done, you get such a buzz from it". Another individual said about a participant who is now in paid work as a result of her involvement "Being involved with the project has completely turned her life around". Wider impact As for the impact on individuals, projects were very positive about the broader impact of their work. The number of new learners getting involved in learning came out in a particularly positive light, as did the broadening of project workers' skills and experiences, building organisational capacity to deliver learning, and the capacity for collaboration between formal providers and the community. The case studies also provided examples of how people felt their community had been aided via an ACLF-funded project. At one of the projects, the staff and users commented "It's had a huge impact on the community, as it involves so many people of different ages, different needs, different levels". "It's helped to pull different sections of the estate together". Encouragingly, 78 per cent of projects whose ACLF funding had ceased were continuing their activities. Projects had approached a range of funding sources including the Single Regeneration Budget, the New Opportunities Fund, the European Social Fund and a range of local funding initiatives. ACLF stakeholders Of the organisations leading ACLF projects, 57 per cent were charity or not-for-profit organisations, 37 per cent were voluntary groups and 20 per cent community groups (each organisation could identify itself within more than one category). Only a small percentage of projects (less than 15 per cent in each case) were led by local authorities or further education colleges. Interestingly, however, these statutory providers were the most likely to have received funding in Round One of the ACLF, with other providers making up a greater percentage in subsequent rounds. It may have taken the course of the first funding round, therefore, for non-statutory providers to either become aware of the Fund or to put together a successful bid. Partnership activity among the projects was strong. Statutory providers were more likely to be involved in this capacity, with 50 per cent of projects involving a local authority as a partner and around 45 per cent involving a further education college as a partner. Partnership appeared to be most common between statutory providers and the community and voluntary sectors and vice versa. Over 50 per cent of all partnerships were established as a result of the ACLF funding. Thus, the ACLF has been very successful in its aims of promoting partnerships of this nature. Projects were extremely successful in reaching their target groups. On average, 86 to 95 per cent of projects reached the types of learners they had hoped to. They included people from minority groups, older people, people with learning difficulties or disabilities, young people, the unemployed and those from particular neighbourhoods. 33 per cent of projects reached between 30 and 99 learners, but over 20 per cent reached 200 or more. Project activities Sixty-six per cent of ACLF projects focused on activities concerned with basic skills needs. Fifty per cent of the projects surveyed focused on building bridges to learning. Around 33 per cent worked on computing skills and/or work-related skills and/or community work. Projects were able to specify multiple foci. In attracting new learners, the projects had used a number of strategies. These included: The use of standard publicity materials (ie mail-shots, leaflets, posters, newsletters and adverts). Using other agencies for referrals. Face-to-face contact with learners through community events or centres. The use of local learning promoters. Word of mouth was an important way to raise the profile of the learning opportunities on offer. The general trend was for projects in receipt of more funding to reach more learners. The actual activities used by projects in their work with learners were also varied. The most common was offering a non-accredited course (over 70 per cent), followed by workshops (around 55 per cent) and outreach work (49 per cent). Courses leading to a qualification were on offer at just less than 50 per cent of the projects. Support and monitoring Participants in the projects were offered a range of support. Over 80 per cent of projects provided course materials free of charge, with over 50 per cent supplying travel costs or personal support. IT equipment was provided at just under 50 per cent of the projects and childcare at around 45 per cent of the projects. Mainstream providers were more likely to offer IT equipment or course materials, whereas voluntary groups were more likely to offer personal support. The advice on offer to the projects themselves from NIACE and BSA was well received. In particular lead organisations appreciated the advice and guidance available from the project officers assigned to them. Projects also appreciated the simple processes, minimal paperwork and flexible nature of the Fund. Interestingly, however, despite a recognition of the minimal burden placed on projects by the Fund, almost 33 per cent of projects still felt that there was too much paperwork! Conclusions The ACLF was welcomed because it offered a flexible framework to learning, and a realistic approach to the outcomes it expected from projects. The minimisation of monitoring information required, and the acknowledgement that clients who are hard to reach and difficult to work with require higher levels of funding, were also seen as important. These factors should be considered in future funding strategy and planning. Working in partnership was an important part of the ACLF ethos. Projects were able to give a range of examples of how partnership working had enabled them to maximise the impact of their work. However, small organisations, or those new to community learning may need further support if they are to be successful. Part of that support could usefully relate to the management of partners, as all involved need to be fully engaged and tied into delivery from the outset. It is important to recognise that many learners require support. This support can be of a financial nature (eg travel or childcare costs) or more personal such as one to one work with project staff (eg some help with basic skills). Acknowledging how important support is in breaking down the barriers to learning is crucial. However, providing support can be expensive, and this also needs to be recognised. The projects involved in the ACLF all needed to look for funding from different sources once their ACLF funding had ended. A lack of sustainability in funding causes a range of difficulties for projects. Maintaining staff continuity can be difficult, as can being proactive in meeting local needs. Only by bringing adult and community learning into the mainstream, in funding terms, can these problems be addressed.

Previous | Next | Contents | Home