London Conference on Employer Engagement in Education and Training 2016

1. London Conference on Employer Engagement in Education and Training 2016 Hidden Gems vs. Usual Suspects: How targeted employer engagement in higher education can produce social mobility outcomes for less advantaged graduates, reputational enhancement for institutions and business development outcomes for organisations By Rachel Roberts, Queen Mary University of London, Fiona Cobb and Laura Brammar, Research Unit, The Careers Group, University of London

2. What we’ll cover • Broad context - Local context - Project -Research -Results - Analysis - Food for thought

3. The big picture… • Universities ‘level the playing field’ • High status roles for advantaged cohorts • Influence of social capital and networks • Employers looking for broad skill sets • Work-based learning = mutual benefit • Less advantaged = less likely to engage in Careers support and WBL

4. The small picture… • Russell Group University • Based in East London – lots of local students • > 50% of students fall into the widening participation (WP)* group. • 42% of students are bursary holders. *been/currently eligible for free school meals, no parent in HE, parents from non professional backgrounds, lived/have lived in local authority care, have a disability, is a young career, estranged from family/living independently, neighbourhoods with low progression rates to HEI. • Ethnically diverse – 66% self identify as BME.

5. Bursary Holders and their Employment Prospects • Summer 2014, analysed one group of WP students at HEI i.e. those in receipt of a bursary • Looked at their destinations 6 months after graduating (DLHE) • Looked at data going back 5 years* * leavers from 2008/9, 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13

6. What Did We Find? • 14% more likely to be unemployed • 30% more likely to be in non-graduate jobs* * leavers from 2008/9, 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13

7. The Programme • Tackle a mini consultancy project for a company over a five week period. • Teams of 5 selected for the project at an assessment centre • Independently conduct project with support from careers staff and industry mentor

8. The Programme • Final client presentation and presentation with corporate partner • Skills debrief at the end with a Careers Consultant

9. The Programme • Students are part paid by the organisation • Organisations are asked to provide a real world project that needs tackling

10. - 78 students completed the programme The Students Ethnicity: Programme vs HEI Population Gender: Programme vs HEI Population Programme Programme Population Population

11. The Employers • 16 distinct projects with 15 employers. • 8 start-up businesses, 6 SMEs and 1 large business, all of which are in growth sectors. • 13/15 businesses had not partnered with the HEI prior to this project. • 13/15 businesses are based in East London.

12. Research Questions • Did engagement in the scheme produce positive social mobility outcomes for less advantaged graduates in terms of their work experience? • Did engagement in the scheme produce positive business development outcomes for the organisations involved in offering the consultancy projects? • Did the higher education institution participating in the scheme receive any reputational or other enhancement as a result of offering the scheme?

13. Research methods Students: • Immediately pre-project (100% response rate) • Immediately post-project (96% response rate) • 3 months post project (89% response rate) • 6 months post project  (82% response rate) • 12 months post project (none conducted as yet) • 40 minute reflective qualitative interviews have been held with 1 student per team (16% of participants)

14. Research Methods Host organisations: • Immediately post project (93% response rate) • 6 months post project (86% response rate)

15. Student ResultsPre and post skills self-efficacy Order of mean differences in self-efficacy between pre and post placement table

16. Student Results: 3 month follow-up • Have you further engagement with the HEI careers service since the project? • 25% Yes • ‘Have you networked professionally since participating in this programme?’ • 60% Yes

17. Student Results: 3 month follow up • ‘Has your experience on the programme made any difference to the types of jobs or placements you have been applying to? Or your professional network?’ • 85% Yes

18. Student Results: 3 month follow-up • By using a thematic content analysis approach, a range of common skills were identified by the participants which they felt had been developed during the course of the programme, such as confidence and teamwork.

19. Student Results:6 month follow-up • 67% of the respondents were continuing some form of employability activity following completion of the Programme. (e.g. copy from table) • 18% of eligible scheme participants are in graduate level jobs

20. Student Results: 6 month follow-up • 66% of responders have used examples from experience on programme in applications and interviews

21. Employer Results • 87% wanted to continue to engage with the careers service - sustainable • 81% wanted to engage with other departments

22. Employer Results • 74% considered recruiting from their project team • 71% felt the programme was value for money but that dropped to 50% if had to cover the full fee

23. Analysis Did engagement in the scheme produce positive social mobility outcomes for less advantaged graduates in terms of their work experience? • Yes…

24. Analysis • ‘It’s difficult to explain to those who don't come from working class or lower income families, but there's a lot of things you are not used to when dealing with corporate environments like this….It’s all about powering through potential self limiting beliefs, learning as much as you can and growing as both person and a professional.’

25. Analysis Did engagement in the scheme produce positive business development outcomes for the organisations involved in offering the consultancy projects? • To an extent…

26. Analysis • “The students delivered and the data analysis was even more impressive than what we hoped for. It gave us the resources at a crucial point in our growing venture.”

27. Analysis Did the higher education institution participating in the scheme receive any reputational or other enhancement as a result of offering the scheme? • ‘ excellent focus on networking for students. Good take up and clear impact in support of employability’.

28. Analysis Did the higher education institution participating in the scheme receive any reputational or other enhancement as a result of offering the scheme? • ‘a wonderfully affirmative example of employer and university working together to support students from low-income backgrounds achieve their full potential.’

29. Food for thought… • This isn’t about an academic piece of work, it’s about employer engagement and supporting students…is there anything you could do?

30. Thank You • Rachel Roberts, r.s.Roberts@qmul.ac.uk • Laura Brammar, laura.brammar@careers.lon.ac.uk • Fiona Cobb, fiona.Cobb@careers.lon.ac.uk