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

2. 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

3. Civil Society participation National level  strong focus on delivering localised, specialised, voluntary services  2007-2010 phase – 211 voluntary sector organisation sub- contractors in DWP ESF CFO provision (60% of sub- contractors)  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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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 self- employment and entrepreneurship, and upskilling employees, particularly in SMEs.

8. 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 ?

9. 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 ?

10. 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.