ESF PROVIDERS’ BRIEFING 15 th MARCH 2007

2. ESF PROVIDERS’ BRIEFING15th MARCH 2007 LSCLC ESF TEAM Welcome

3. LSCLC ESF Co-financing Plan Update – Paul CrosswellDaniel Kunka 01

4. Beneficiary Targets GOL Profile 59% ACTUAL 54%

5. Beneficiary Targets GOL Profile 18% ACTUAL 12%

6. Beneficiary Targets Female Starts: GOL Profile 51% ACTUAL 60%

7. Beneficiary Targets GOL Profile – Employed 28% ACTUAL 24% GOL Profile – Unemployed 72% ACTUAL 66% GOL Profile – Eco Inactive 15% ACTUAL 8%

8. Beneficiary Targets GOL Profile – Progress to Employment 45% ACTUAL 8%

9. Beneficiary Targets GOL Profile 58% ACTUAL 42%

10. Beneficiary Targets GOL Profile 50% 1 – 10 25% 11 – 49 25% 50 – 249 ACTUAL 60% 1 – 10 27% 11 – 49 13% 50 – 249

11. Spend Targets • Overall 7.68% above profile • ESF project payments • - Overall 9.42% above profile • 1.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 5.1 are under profile • £30.3m originally allocated to providers • £27.4m total profile

12. LSCLC ESF Developments • Projects now managed by ‘borough’ portfolio • Team currently fully staffed • Secondments to the regional team • ‘Top – up’ funding approved for 15 projects, further 5 to be assessed. OCT rules mean that no project can receive more than €211,000

13. LSCLC ESF Developments • Extension of LSCLC co-financing plan to 2008 • A small tendering round to launched April • Tenders will seeking employment outcomes and concentrate on key targets (disabled people, economically inactive and women) • Final amount to be confirmed but expected to be in the region of £1.5 – £2 million • Spend must all be achieved by July 2008 • Anticipated that deliver will start from September • Track record key criteria

14. MANAGING PROJECT CLOSURE & RECONCILIATION - John McMahon 02

15. Holds in Final Month • As all providers were notified in 27/11 email from London Central ESF… • in order to minimise over-payment/clawback all projects will be placed on hold for their final month • …unless all progression evidence and a final evaluation report (MS5) has already been received.

16. Final Desktop Reconciliation • Once a contract has finished, the ESF Contract Adviser should… • Complete a final desktop reconciliation within six weeks of contract’s end to confirm actual totals (checking and reconciling data between the ESF CORE system, POL and the SME database) • Produce a final reconciliation spreadsheet to identify whether a clawback is required (this will be sent to providers to allow a final opportunity to amend POL) • 10% leeway does not apply with this programme; payment will be based on actuals

17. The Activity-Evidence Distinction • Once a contract has finished, no further activity can take place. • However, providers can continue to gather evidence to support their claim after the end of the contract. • If the agreed evidence is not available to support the claim at the time, Providers must have enough supplementary evidence to ensure that the number claimed will be correct.

18. Progression Outcomes • Some outcomes may occur after the end of the contract even though they are profiled to occur during the contract delivery period, esp. progression outcomes. • In this case, evidence of the outcome (except employment outcomes) should be available no later than six weeks after the end of the contract. • For employment outcomes profiled in the contract’s final month, evidence should be available no later than 13 weeks after the end of the contract. • Any progressions occurring after these deadlines will not be recorded on POL and therefore will not be claimed by us when we submit our project closure report.

19. No. of Hours - CMR • The provider must enter the total number of hours spent on the project by all beneficiaries engaged in their final CMR.

20. Writing to the Provider • Once the initial desktop reconciliation has been completed, your ESF Contract Adviser will write to you to confirm: • Any data issues that have been highlighted • Any potential clawback amount identified in the reconciliation spreadsheet • A date for the final monitoring visit

21. Final Monitoring Visit • ESF Contract Advisers should undertake a final monitoring visit to: • Ensure all the evidence is in place and any action points from previous monitoring visits/data checks have been resolved • Take a sample of beneficiary records to identify any potential issues • Ensure that requirements have been met in terms of publicity, H&S and equal opps. • Make the provider aware of record retention obligations (2014) • Identify how the sustainable development seminars have impacted on the project • If any further issues are identified in the final monitoring visit that impact on the actual earned total, then the ESF Contract Adviser must amend the ESF CORE system and the final reconciliation spreadsheet with the revised actual earned figures.

22. Final Narrative Report • Once ESF Contract Advisers have completed the final monitoring visit and any further issues are resolved, they should complete a final narrative report. • The point of this report is to give the ESF Programme Team the Contract Adviser’s perspective on how the contract has performed and, to that extent, provide another perspective in addition to that afforded by the final evaluation report from the provider.

23. Making a Clawback • If, after the final reconciliation and monitoring visit, there is a variance between actuals achieved and profile over the length of the contract, a clawback must be made. • The amount of the clawback will be the difference between the amount actually paid to the provider over the contract and the actual earned value.

24. Clawback Procedure • Clawback involves the following steps: • Providers will be sent a clawback letter stating the amount due back to the LSC and confirming that this will be recovered by sales invoice • We then require written acknowledgement that the provider agrees with the amount to be recovered • The letter, signed on behalf of the provider and the LSC, should be forwarded to the ESF Programme Team who will process the sales invoice and reconcile the project on the ESF Core system • LSC National Office undertakes actual recovery of the amount owed

25. PUBLICITY AND MARKETING – Ryan Ansah 03

26. What we require: • ESF co-funded providers: • You’ll be expected to: • Display appropriate logos • Produce marketing collateral • Use terms of reference (see guidelines) • Produce case studies • Submit materials for approval

27. ESF LOGOSAlways bottom left!

28. LSC LOGOSLSC use only: Provider use only:Bottom/Top right!

29. Samples: • Certificate:

30. Samples: • Brochure:

31. Branding Guidelines: • ESF: LSC:

32. Other Marketing Materials • Example:

33. General- consult branding guidelines in first instance- use discretion where appropriate e.g. logos- when in doubt contact ESF team: Programme Manager -> Marketing adviser

34. Contact Ryan.ansah@lsc.gov.uk http://www.esf.gov.uk/03_Applying/20_PUBLICITY_-_Guidance/50_Logo_and_brand_images.asp https://brand.lsc.gov.uk/

35. Quality Improvement Toolbox Project – Amena Matin

36. ESF Post-2007 – Paul Crosswell 04

37. ESF Post-2007 – Paul Crosswell THE KNOWNS • London will receive ESF funding, indicative allocation is in the region of £330 million • Less funding – approximately a third less than 2000 - 2006 • Two Priorities • Extending employment oppourtunities • Development of a skilled and adaptable workforce

38. ESF Post-2007 – Paul Crosswell • Changing role of Government offices • Co-financing organisations will contract with ESFD • Reduced co-financers – anticipated the there will be 4 in London – LDA, LSC, JC+ and London Councils • In order to meet N+2 spend must start from January 2008

39. ESF Post-2007 – Paul Crosswell • Influence of the Mayor • London Skills and Employment Board • ESF Stakeholders working group established by the GLA, includes representatives from London CFO’s, GOL, LVSTC and SSDA

40. ESF Post-2007 – Paul Crosswell THE UNKNOWNS • Final allocation and programme start date • Regional framework and priorities • Allocation between CFOs • CFO plans and processes

41. ESF Post-2007 – Paul Crosswell RISK AND OPPOURTUNITIES • Meeting N+2 • Reduced funding, greater competition • Greater joined up planning between CFOs • Links to ERDF and 2012

42. 05