Process Evaluation of Support for T Level Industry Placements

Research Report

This report brings together the findings from across two phases of evaluation. The first phase focused primarily on the provider experience with a sample of providers taking part in CDF year 1. In the second phase there was a dual focus on employers and providers as well as an analysis of monitoring information and delivery of a provider survey.

In sum, the evaluation included:

• Inception phase – to confirm the evaluation approach and finalise the research questions.

• Stakeholder interviews at phase 1 and 2 – to set the context for the evaluation, develop key insights into CDF delivery and changes over time.

• Provider interviews at phase 1 and 2 – following an agreed sampling strategy, telephone interviews with 25 providers took place in phase 1 and 52 interviews in phase 2. The interviews aimed to understand different perspectives on progress in the CDF year 1 including insights into delivering different routes and feedback on the support made available to providers.

• Employer interviews in phase 2 – the evaluation included interviews with 100 employers at different stages of engagement with the industry placements to gather feedback on decision-making around participation in placements and feedback on how the placements progressed.

• Provider survey in phase 2 – a survey invitation was sent to all providers that had opted-in to take part in research. The short survey aimed to gather route specific feedback on sourcing placements and support during the CDF year.

• Data analysis in phases 1 and 2 – analysis of the available quarterly monitoring forms to provide data on provider characteristics, progress, funding and spending. In addition, qualitative analysis of the intensive support reports was conducted and reported here. In phase 2, this included analysis of the intensive support logs kept by AoC and The Challenge.

• Employer costs analysis in phase 1 – to meet the Department’s requirement to provide analysis and an infographic specifically reporting on the financial support that providers have given to employers in order to host industry placements.

As this demonstrates, the method for the evaluation was predominantly qualitative, and as demonstrated in the report, samples were purposively selected. This means that while the research can provide robust and detailed insights into implementation from multiple perspectives, it should not be understood to be fully representative.