This seminar will focus on how countries can establish a policy framework to enable effective local action using an evidence-based approach, choosing between different measures when resources are scarce. The latest evidence from OECD countries on ‘what works’ and ‘what doesn’t’ will be considered, with participants sharing their own experiences from their perspectives as policy makers, researchers, practitioners and social entrepreneurs.

1. The EOLAS Project
(Women exploring options for accessing work)
A Pre-Employment Development Programme aimed at
women distant from the labour market
Helen Fitzgerald
Research, Evaluation and
Performance Monitoring Officer,
PAUL Partnership
Limerick
Ireland

2. Context for the Programme
• Equality for Women Measure Funding (Access to
Employment Strand)
• Female unemployment rate in Limerick City higher than
national average
• Education levels among females in Limerick City lower
than national average
• Female Labour Force participation rate lower than
national average

3. • Consultations with local stakeholders
identified target group - Unemployed
Women:
• Distant from the Labour Market
• Limited or no prior work experience
• Looking for work for first time
• Outside the labour market for long time (e.g.
homemakers)
• Low educational levels
• Low self-confidence and motivation
• Lack of knowledge, awareness,
motivation about seeking work

4. Programme Objectives
1. To develop confidence and self-esteem
2. To develop skills, attitude and knowledge to
make informed choices in relation to education,
training and work related options open to them
3. To develop ICT skills
4. To reduce social isolation

5. Approach
• 3 days a week for 6 weeks – 51 participants
• Combination of group work and 1-2-1 delivery
• Pre-programme 1-2-1 meetings between
facilitator and potential participants
• Follow up meetings 2-3 months later

6. Evaluation
• Qualitative and Quantitative approach
Quantitative
Pre- and Post Programme participant questionnaires:
• demographic profile of the participants (pre
programme only)
• participants’ levels of knowledge and skills in terms of
job-seeking
• participants’ confidence levels in relation to ICT
• participants’ levels of self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale)
• Programme satisfaction (post programme only)

7. Evaluation
Qualitative
End of Programme Focus Groups:
• Initial expectations for the programme and
whether they were met
• Topics covered by the programme (e.g. relevance,
usefulness, enjoyment etc)
• Impact of programme on participants, if at all
• Recommendations for improving programme

8. Evaluation Findings
• Enhanced Confidence and Self-Esteem
Pre-Programme
% of Participants
Post-Programme
% of Participants
High Self-Esteem 6% 38%
Low Self-Esteem 12% 2%
“A lot of us had battered confidence at the start … We learned
to value ourselves and our skills”
“We’ve learned we can do things just as well as anybody else”
“I’ve never done anything like this before…I was very nervous
in the beginning…it’s done an awful lot for me….I’m much
more confident now….It got me to think a lot about my life”

9. Evaluation Findings
• Enhanced Skills, Attitudes and Knowledge about seeking
employment
“I found [it useful] finding out about my qualities that I have I did not
know before this course”
“We didn’t realise what our skills are. It made us realise we have a lot”
“The amount of stuff, supports, services out there that are there to help
us – the night classes, the courses, the grants”

10. Evaluation Findings
• ICT Skills Development
Pre-Programme
% of Participants
Post-Programme
% of Participants
I am confident about using a
computer
62% 86%
“Learning to use a computer, that was getting over a hurdle for me. I
got over a block with the internet”
“I never turned on a computer before. They frightened me half to
death. But now I will keep going with it”

11. Evaluation Findings
• Reduced Social Isolation
“having a place to go”
“having a reason to get up in the morning”
“being out and about”
“the laughter with the girls”

12. Learning
• Recruitment of participants –the “hard-to-reach”
• Non-traditional and flexible recruitment methods
required; working with ‘gatekeepers’
• Pre-programme 1-2-1 meetings with potential
participants is important
• Enables programme content to be fine-tuned to
needs of group and individuals

13. Learning
• Programme Facilitator plays a key role
• Recruitment of right facilitator is critical
• Needs to be able to show a strong sense of
understanding and empathy
• Timing of Programme is important
• Schedule programme in time for participants
to enrol in further education

14. Reflections on evaluation process
Strengths
• Before and after data collected
• Rosenberg Self-Esteem Survey
• Focus groups added rich qualitative data
Weaknesses
• Self-administered survey
• Literacy; understanding
• Timing of qualitative focus groups – time for reflection?
• Long-term impact??
• Follow-up evaluation 6/12 months later? but how to capture attribution
or contribution?
• Small numbers, short term project
• Resources – limited; tied to funding requirements