Partnerships ’ operating models and infrastructure for the outreach hubs
Changes to partnerships ’ operating models for embedding the hubs are fit-for-purpose . Operating models were becoming : a ) more unified than before , with regional needs playing a bigger role in the development of outreach activities than activities tailored to the needs of specific schools / colleges – this shift is more evident in smaller partnerships ; and b ) more outward-looking , engaging with more stakeholders more frequently through the use of technology .
Partnerships had also made good progress in governance and staffing in order to deliver the hubs . This was attributed to being able to build on existing targeted outreach structures , which partnerships reported had taken at least a year and a lot of staff time and effort to establish . Thus , most partnerships extended their existing structures to support hub activities rather than create new or separate structures .
Most partnerships had expanded their existing governing boards to include further education colleges ( FECs ), which , overall , were found to be more challenging to engage . At least four reported that they had created separate governing boards for outreach hubs . Most partnerships ’ staffing structures had not changed significantly from those created for targeted outreach and did not seem to need to , particularly given that targeted outreach continued to account for the majority of partnerships ’ activity . The most common approach involved appointing a dedicated hub officer within the central team . In a few cases , two or three officers were appointed , usually , but not exclusively , based on the number of schools / colleges served . In some smaller partnerships , staffing remained the same with existing staff taking on additional hub responsibilities . Staff numbers and roles varied considerably even amongst partnerships of the same size .
Interviewees valued governing boards who set strategic direction for the partnership , although at least five partnerships reported that their governing boards were not as engaged and were “ simply rubber stamping ”. This was attributed to a perceived lack of clarity relating to the hubs and the short-term nature of the funding . Effective boards viewed Uni Connect as a priority , were focused on strategy , met at least four times a year and were relatively small in size .
Retaining staffing structures was key to effective delivery , and the main cost and concern for partnerships . Some partnerships suggested that their staffing structures had only recently stabilised , although some had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to provider recruitment freezes . Smaller partnerships were impacted more negatively when staffing issues occurred .
Uni Connect staff based in schools / colleges were particularly helpful in engaging and continuing communications with schools / colleges during the pandemic . The fact that many of these staff were serving schools / colleges based on their geographical characteristics ( i . e . urban / metropolitan or urban and coastal ), meant that they were developing expertise on how best to support different student populations , potentially enabling partnerships to better meet the different needs of these learners .
Some partnerships suggested that the uncertain funding environment had led to lower morale and some staff leaving for other jobs . Overall , most partnerships were expecting funding to be reduced and some had started seeking ways to streamline their structures in anticipation of this . There was consensus that losing staff equated to losing valuable infrastructure and expertise , as well as potentially some relationships with schools / colleges . Some partnerships also believed that the impact of losing staff would be wider ; that it would reduce the impartiality of advice available to young people and put at further risk the needs of students , regions and the economy at a critical time due to the pandemic .
6