Evaluation of the Higher Education Support Programme Final Report: part 1, building HEI capacity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY August 2013 Social Enterprise University Enterprise Network Research and Innovation, Plymouth University, Tamar Science Park, 9 Research Way, Derriford, Plymouth, PL6 8BT T: 01752 588307 E: info@plymouthsocialenterpriseuen.co.uk W: www.plymouthsocialenterpriseuen.co.uk
Evaluation of the Higher Education Support Programme A Plymouth University Centre of Expertise Research and Innovation Tamar Science Park 9 Research Way Derriford Plymouth PL6 8BT t: 01752 588942 f: 01752 588987 e: serio@plymouth.ac.uk www.serio.ac.uk The University of Northampton Avenue Campus St George's Avenue Northampton NN2 6JD t: 01604 735500 f: 01604 720636 www.northampton.ac.uk c/o Countrywide House 166 Fore Street Saltash PL12 6JR t. 07790 849449 e. Rebekah@southernhorizons.co.uk
Executive Summary Introduction The Higher Education Support Programme (HESP) is the second partnership between UnLtd and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), and aims to embed social entrepreneurship within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England. The evaluation has been undertaken by the Social Enterprise University Enterprise Network (SE-UEN), drawing on the expertise of staff from SERIO, an applied research unit based at Plymouth University, and the University of Northampton, together with SE-UEN research partner, Southern Horizons (UK) Ltd. This report is the first of a series of three, with two following reports due in January 2014 following completion of both UnLtd monitoring activities and follow-up fieldwork. The purpose of this report is to both comply with the HESP funding requirements and to ensure that learning from the HESP can be drawn upon in future rounds. Its focus, reflecting the availability of evaluation and monitoring data at this stage, is upon the experience of the HEIs participating in the HESP and the impact that this has had upon both the institution and the wider higher education sector. Context and Background to the HESP The HESP follows on from the success of the 1m 2009-2011 Higher Education Social Entrepreneurship Awards (HESEA), which enabled 200 staff and students across 70 HEIs to set up social ventures (Ramsey, 2011). Funded by a Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) underspend, this programme was initially seen as a one-off but UnLtd and HEFCE applied for additional funding following the tangible benefits generated by HESEA. The 2m HESP was launched in 2012 and was designed to support both nascent and existing social entrepreneurs who were employed, enrolled or recently graduated from universities. A key focus of the HESP was on developing enterprise support structures within the participating HEIs to embed social entrepreneurship into their organisation. Following an application process, 56 HEIs were selected to participate within the HESP and in doing so, received an awards pot of up to 25,000, and tailored support to embed social entrepreneurship within their institution. This awards pot was to be used by HEIs to allocate grant funding directly to its staff, students or recent graduates. Three levels of grants were available ( 500-15,000) to reflect the stage the entrepreneur and their venture. The HEI support package delivered by UnLtd included: one-to-one support from a dedicated Partnership Support Manager (PSM); pro-bono and mentoring support to facilitate learning from corporates and successful social entrepreneurs; networking and training events; and an online learning platform (Social Entrepreneurs in Higher Education Learning Network (SEHELN)). Three different programme delivery models were offered to participating HEIs, which reflected the various stages of development of institutions social entrepreneurship provision. In all three models, HEIs were to act as talent scouts and find potential social entrepreneurships to be supported through the programme. Upon finding these individuals, the awards funding was administered by either the HEI (the find and fund model) or by UnLtd (the find model). HEIs could also choose whether they or UnLtd supported the funded award winners (with HEI support provision representing the find, fund and support delivery model). Regardless of the model chosen, HEIs were expected to deliver the programme as appropriate to their local circumstances but also within the context of UnLtd s core values. SE-UEN 1
The Evaluation Approach The evaluation has followed the lifetime of the HESP and will extend beyond this timeframe to capture post-project monitoring data up until December 2013. Core evaluation components include: Eight HEI case studies; Observations of learning and development events; Interviews with HESP programme staff; and Analysis of UnLtd monitoring data (including a survey of HEIs, termly reports 1, and postevent feedback surveys). Programme Performance UnLtd s monitoring data has captured the HESP s key outputs, including the number of HEIs supported and awards made. Although the collection of the monitoring data was on-going at the time of writing (and therefore the number and value of awards will be higher than that reported here), the available data still provides a useful indication of the size and scale of the HESP s investment on social entrepreneurship in the HE sector. Key statistics include: A total of 56 HEIs participated within the programme and represented a diversity of institutional types but with a higher proportion of post 1992 universities; To date, 702 awards are known to have been made with a total value of 1.3m; and The largest proportion of award winners were undergraduate students, followed by postgraduates and academic staff. A more comprehensive analysis of the HESP s outputs will be conducted following the completion of all monitoring processes. The Institutional Experience The evaluation and monitoring methods captured data on HEIs experience of participating in the programme. The majority of HEIs participated to develop their social entrepreneurship support provision, with others citing a strategic fit and the availability of grant funding as reasons for their participation. The majority of HEIs completing a survey stated that the partnership with UnLtd met their expectations well (44.4%, 20) or very well (35.6%, 16), with two stating that it had not met their expectations and seven providing a neutral response. The reasons given for the less positive or neutral responses primarily related to the resource implications of the HESP. All but one HEI completing the survey reported benefitting from the partnership, where benefits commonly included staff development, an increased social entrepreneurship profile, and networking opportunities. Furthermore, 35.5% (16) of HEIs felt that the HESP had impacted 1 HEIs completed a monitoring report at the end of each term to capture the type and value of awards made in that reporting period, as well the more qualitative experiences of the programme. SE-UEN 2
positively upon the employability of the student award winners, a finding which will be explored in more depth following the completion of an award winner survey. Less positively, a third (31.1%, 14) of HEI survey respondents reported experiencing negative effects as a result of the partnership, with time and administrative requirements again being cited. A review of the qualitative responses provided by HEIs in the termly reports (completion of which is one of the UnLtd s monitoring requirements) indicates that it is the frequency and volume of monitoring data required that has created issues. In addition, resourcing the HESP was identified by 82.2% (37) of HEIs completing the survey as a challenge to their delivery. This is an important finding, especially given that UnLtd perceives the HESP to be based on a partnership between them and each of the participating HEIs. The resource implications of the programme appear however to have shifted the balance of this partnership for some of the HEIs. Other factors reported to be a challenge included finding quality applications and establishing the systems and/or infrastructure for social entrepreneurship support. In relation to finding quality applications, although 64.4% (29) felt that the awards criteria enabled them to support everyone they wanted to, 35.6% (16) said that it did not. In addition, the timeframe of the HESP was perceived to be too short by 80% (36) of HEIs completing the survey. It also emerged during discussions at the learning and development events and through case study interviews, that the timeframe was perceived to be a misalignment with the academic year. A key challenge relating to the academic year appeared to be the scheduling of the induction during term time. As such, HEIs were unable to prepare for the programme s delivery in advance of the new academic year, which in turn placed pressure on ensuring delivery within the constraints of the exam timetable. For UnLtd, a key part of the HESP was supporting HEIs to develop and deliver structures for social entrepreneurial support that reflected their own processes but were also reflective of UnLtd s values. All but two of the HEIs completing the survey perceived that UnLtd had communicated its mission and values either well (51.1%, 23) or very well (44.4%, 20). The other two HEIs provided a neutral response. Supporting this perception, PSMs believed, for the most part, that values were understood by the HEIs. Further, many commented that whilst some HEIs have embraced the values more fully than others, there tends to be a natural alignment. This alignment was also reflected in the case study interviews. In fact some case study participants reported that it was UnLtd s values base that encouraged them to enter into the partnership in the first place. HEIs satisfaction with the UnLtd support package was explored through a survey, case studies, termly reports and post-event feedback. Overall, 82.2% (37) rated the HESP as good or very good; with only three people rating it as poor (6.7%). More specifically: 84.4% (38) of survey respondents rated the one-to-one support provided by PSMs as good or very good. Similarly, case study HEI staff most often identified the one-to-one support provided by PSMs as the most useful element of the UnLtd offer, primarily because of its availability and accessibility. Indeed, PSMs reported providing support as and when it was required in response to HEIs expressed needs. Although PSMs felt that their relationships with HEIs were a key success of the HESP, they acknowledged that their approach led to some inconsistencies in the level of support provided, with those engaged and communicating with the PSM receiving the required support. There was some uncertainty however regarding the effectiveness of the support received by those HEIs were less engaged. Over three quarters of HEIs completing the survey (77.8%, 35) rated the induction the first of the programme s events - as good or very good. The wider programme of learning and SE-UEN 3
development events was rated as good or very good by a slightly smaller number of HEIs (66.7%, 30). The opportunities for knowledge exchange and networking provided by these events was considered to be their most valuable element. Despite this, some HEIs reported that time constraints and/or geography prevented them from attending all of the events. PSMs too reflected on their effectiveness and suggested changes that could be made including, reducing their frequency, using HEI-led events, and a move to more regionally based events. As set out in the programme s prospectus, UnLtd Connect provided pro-bono and mentoring support to learn from corporates and successful social entrepreneurs. For those institutions delivering a Find, or Find and Fund model, social entrepreneurs were matched to a mentor where there was an identified need for such support and an appropriate mentor was available to meet the identified need. Support was available to all HEIs, regardless of their model, to learn from Connect and develop their own networks of support. In addition, a Corporate Week was introduced part way through the programme to meet the need for support of this type. However, there was some confusion amongst the HEI partners about the Connect offer. Not all HEIs engaged with Connect, and this was reflected in the survey with 28.9% (13) stating that they had not received this form of support. Amongst the 32 who had, 62.5% (20) rated it as good or very good (44.4% of all respondents). The online platform, SEHELN was viewed less positively by both survey respondents (15.5% (7) rated it as good or very good) and case study participants. The effectiveness of SEHELN has been limited by institutional log-ins and its launch in the latter half of the programme. Change at the HEI Level Using the survey of HEIs, case studies and available monitoring data (e.g. termly reports, postevent feedback), the evaluation assessed the evidence of change within partner institutions. A key finding emerging from the survey, was that three quarters (77.8%, 35) of HEIs reported making some changes to the way in which they supported social entrepreneurs as a result of their partnership with UnLtd. The changes made ranged from strengthening or tailoring their social entrepreneurship support offer, with some providing specialist support for the first time, to increasing awareness of social entrepreneurship and curriculum development. However, a key aim of the HESP was for structures, processes and partnerships for social entrepreneur support to be both developed and embedded within the institution. Although evidence that the changes have been made will emerge over a longer time period than that of the evaluation, the survey found that the majority of those making changes expected them to continue after the HESP. Over three quarters of survey respondents (77.1%, 27) said that the reported changes would continue and the remainder didn t know (22.8%, 8). Reasons for uncertainty unsurprisingly included funding constraints and an on-going review processes. Furthermore, all but one survey respondent said that it was either likely (28.9%, 13) or extremely likely (68.9%, 31) that they would be working with social entrepreneurs in 12 months time. For 91.1% (41) of respondents, this could be attributed, at least in part, to UnLtd. Where respondents (6.7% 3) stated that it was not at all attributable to UnLtd, this was generally because they already had a strong commitment to this area of work. The evaluation also sought to identify evidence of wider institutional change; over half (24, 53.3%) reported that knowledge of social entrepreneurship had been developed a lot and 51.1% (23) that their interest in working with social entrepreneurs had developed a lot. A programme aim was for partner HEIs to adopt a culture capable of nurturing social entrepreneurship support and recognition. It is likely that such a culture is a key component in SE-UEN 4
achieving social entrepreneurship support that is embedded within an institution. Reflecting this, the evaluation sought to advance understanding of what a social entrepreneurship culture means in the context of the HE sector. The definitions and interpretations of culture used by both programme staff and HEI case studies were varied and little consensus emerged. The following points were described by participants as representing a culture capable of nurturing social entrepreneurship: The provision of accessible and visible social entrepreneurship support that was responsive to the different stages of the entrepreneurial journey and delivered by knowledgeable staff; A support infrastructure that is institution-wide rather than embedded within the role of one individual; Awareness and recognition of social entrepreneurship as a viable alternative to other forms of entrepreneurship; and Senior level buy-in. As culture means different things to different people, cultural change is difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, perceived changes in relation to each of the above descriptions did emerge in wider discussions of the HESP s impact in both the HEI survey and case studies. HEIs report that changes have been made and that they are expected to remain in place, at least for the majority, beyond the lifetime of the programme. This therefore lays the foundation for the development of accessible and visible social entrepreneurship support. Furthermore, awareness and recognition of social entrepreneurship is reported to have increased amongst both staff and students and the support offer strengthened, in some cases through rationalising the existing internal offer. In assessing what this means in terms of culture however, it is important to acknowledge that some of those HEIs participating within the HESP will have had a culture capable of nurturing social entrepreneurship prior to the programme and therefore such change was not necessary. For others, social entrepreneurship support was in its infancy or a developing offer. In these instances, the HESP appears to have strengthened the support offer and increased awareness of social entrepreneurship, and in doing so, provides a starting point for cultural change. The achievement of this change is likely to be dependent upon senior leaders however, which if driven by a bottom-up process of cascading awareness throughout the institution, will take time. Achieving senior level buy-in featured strongly in discussions on cultural change at the final conference but evidence on the extent to which such buy-in had been achieved was more limited. Universities were described as super-tankers by conference delegates, with their size and structure meaning that strategic change took time. Conference delegates emphasised the importance of demonstrating the impact of social entrepreneurship to achieve senior management buy-in. Sector Wide Change One of the key aims of the HESP was to help develop the ecosystem for social entrepreneur support. As such there has been a strong emphasis throughout the programme on facilitating cross-institutional collaboration and knowledge sharing as a key indicator of social entrepreneur support being developed and promoted at a sector level. The survey explored whether and how HEIs were working with other organisations to find and/or support social entrepreneurs. The majority of HEIs completing the survey stated that they were doing so. This most frequently took the form of another local organisation (68.9%, 31), but almost half (48.9%, 22) of respondents reported working with another HEI to find or SE-UEN 5
support social entrepreneurs. Student Hubs is an example of the type of organisation with which HEIs collaborated, and indeed, the value of partnering with Student Hubs emerged as a recurring theme across the different evaluation strands. The Hubs provided a mechanism through with HEIs could access student societies and therefore broaden the programme s reach, as well as supporting, and in some cases leading, the delivery of workshops and events. The interaction between private and public sector partners offered by Hubs therefore provides an effective way of drawing upon a range of expertise and networks. Although knowledge exchange and networking were commonly reported between HEIs, fewer tangible collaborations were reported. Further details on the types of collaboration formed were given in the learning and development event feedback surveys, which asked if an opportunity to collaborate had been identified as a result of the event. Reported examples of collaborative opportunities included running shared award winner events, increased dialogue and the sharing of good practice. However, the most commonly reported collaboration was participation in the UniPopshop competition led by the University of Bath. This competition invited social ventures from across all HEIs participating in the HESP to run a stall in Spitalfields market. The programme s success in developing a mechanism for shared learning and knowledge exchange that HEIs were willing and eager to engage with is apparent. Despite this, fewer tangible collaborations have formed as a direct result of the events than might be desired. Although there was a reported willingness for collaboration, the available evidence suggests that geography, time frame and the practicalities of aligning programme delivery restricted HEIs ability to do this. In terms of the perceived wider changes in the HE sector, the majority of survey respondents felt that there was more support and interest in relation to social entrepreneurship, perceptions which were supported by programme staff. Reflecting this, there was a general feeling of optimism about the future of social entrepreneurship in the sector. A key challenge for the second round of the HESP will be to maintain the momentum generated by the 2012/2013 programme and ensure that support continues to develop throughout the sector. Conclusions The HESP sought to form partnerships between UnLtd and each of the 56 HEIs selected to participate in the programme, and develop social entrepreneurship support within these institutions. As a result of these partnerships, 702 awards with a value of 1.3m has been made to staff, students and recent graduates to date (these totals will increase as HEIs submit their outstanding monitoring data). The programme therefore represents a substantial investment in social entrepreneurialism in the HE sector. Overall, the experience of working in partnership with UnLtd was perceived as a positive one by HEIs, with the majority stating that it had met their expectations and that their relationship with UnLtd had the right level of flexibility. From UnLtd s perspective, the HEIs generally delivered the HESP in a way that aligned with their values and aspirations, indicating that it has been a good partnership arrangement. There were also some negative effects reported, in terms of programme delivery itself, particularly around the time and administrative burden which should be taken into consideration for any future activities. Likewise, the length of the programme was felt by many to be too short. It is evident that some cross-institutional working and knowledge sharing is taking place. This is an important evaluation finding: the programme aimed to see increased cross-institutional collaboration and knowledge sharing for the promotion and development of social entrepreneur support at a sector level. The available evidence suggests that the learning and development SE-UEN 6
events were an important mechanism in facilitating this, there is however more work to be done. For example, although some institutions delivered shared events, the most common form of cross-institutional working reported was knowledge exchange. Nevertheless, most participants could see wider changes occurring both within their institution and across the sector in support for social entrepreneur development. Although evidence on the extent to which these changes have been embedded in institutions will emerge in the longer term, the majority expected their changed approach to continue after the programme ends. It is likely that a culture of social entrepreneurship is needed before such embeddedness can take place. Like its interpretations, the evidence that the HESP has brought about a change in culture is mixed. Achieving change will take time in some instances, with the size and structure of HEIs leading to them being described as super-tankers. The available evidence does however suggest that the foundations for achieving a culture of social entrepreneurship have been laid. Overall, the HESP can be considered a success on a range of criteria, most notably the changes generated in the approach to social entrepreneurship support. The key challenge for the future however will be to ensure that these changes are embedded within institutions and are sustained beyond the lifetime of the HESP programme. It is unlikely however that the programme can achieve this in the absence of senior level buy-in. UnLtd can however contribute to this by continuing to demonstrate the impact of social entrepreneurship and its potential to contribute to HE sector policy agendas, such as student employability. This report represents the first of a series of reports to emerge from the evaluation of the 2012/2013 HESP. Future reports will draw upon evidence of the impact of the programme on award winners themselves and therefore contribute to the developing understanding of the value of social entrepreneurship. As with any programme however, there are elements which UnLtd may like to consider revising to ensure that the impact opportunities of future rounds are maximised. To summarise, these include: Reducing the frequency and duration of learning and development events, and run more regionally based events where possible to ensure that HEI resources are used most effectively; Similarly, streamlining the monitoring requirements will help to realign the balance of the partnership between HEIs and UnLtd. An in-depth discussion between HEIs and UnLtd ahead of the second round of the HESP may be useful in achieving this balance; The provision of support to identify tangible collaborative opportunities, for example: UnLtd could adopt a buddying or matching role to assist HEIs to identify other institutions with which a collaboration could be practically possible; and SEHELN could be utilised to further promote collaborative opportunities in the future through the publication of institutional profiles. SE-UEN 7
References Ramsey, N., (2011), Unlocking the Potential of Social Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Report for UnLtd & HEFCE, June 2011. SE-UEN 8
A Plymouth University Centre of Expertise Research and Innovation Tamar Science Park 9 Research Way Derriford Plymouth PL6 8BT t 01752 588942 f 01752 588987 e serio@plymouth.ac.uk www.serio.ac.uk The University of Northampton Avenue Campus St George's Avenue Northampton NN2 6JD t: 01604 735500 f: 01604 720636 www.northampton.ac.uk Social Enterprise University Enterprise Network c/o Countrywide House, 166 Fore St Saltash PL12 6JR t. 07790 849449 e. Rebekah@southernhorizons.co.uk Research and Innovation, Plymouth University, Tamar Science Park, 9 Research Way, Derriford, Plymouth, PL6 8BT T: 01752 588307 E: info@plymouthsocialenterpriseuen.co.uk W: www.plymouthsocialenterpriseuen.co.uk 9