POLICY GUIDANCE NOTE STRENGTHENING THE DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP SUPPORT GENERIC

An action plan can be an effective tool for transforming policy objectives into concrete policy actions on the ground. Action plans for inclusive entrepreneurship typically focus on one target group and identify the actions that will be taken to achieve the associated policy objectives. While one party should be responsible for the implementation of the action plan, responsibility for each action should be assigned to a ministry, department, agency, local authority, or other partner. In developing an action plan for entrepreneurship support, it is important for policy makers to secure support from relevant stakeholders including public employment services, trade unions and non-governmental organisations that support people. Key actions should be consistent with wider employment and social welfare policies.

An action plan aims to transform a policy vision into implemented actions. A good action plan should seek to mobilise ministries, departments, agencies and other stakeholders to achieve the defined policy objectives. Organising all related actions into an action plan can also help co-ordinate the implementation of initiatives since stakeholders will be aware of all of relevant activities.

An action plan should contain a list of steps or actions that will be undertaken in a given time period to achieve a set of policy objectives. It should include clearly defined actions to be taken, and identify who will be responsible for undertaking the activity. There is often an indication of the start date (and possibly end date) to help manage the sequencing of actions. Action plans may provide an indication of the scale of each action by indicating targets expected to be achieved and the resources allocated to each activity.

To increase the chances of success, it is important that one actor is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the action plan. Action plans also need to be supported by the implicated ministries, departments, agencies, local authorities, partners and stakeholders. Consultation with the relevant parties is therefore essential. This requires identifying key partners and stakeholder groups, and sharing written documents and collecting feedback in an organised consultation process.

In developing an action plan, policy makers should also consider the role of monitoring and evaluation. In order to track progress and assess the impact of the policy actions, appropriate indicators will need to be identified as well as the specific data sources that will feed the indicators. Often both are identified in the action plan. The ministry, department, or local authority that is responsible for overseeing the action plan should also be responsible for setting up monitoring and evaluation processes, although this is often contracted out to external experts.

Once action plans have been prepared and agreed, they should be made public so that stakeholders and the wider community can support the policy actions.

When developing an action plan for supporting entrepreneurship in the population, it is important to:

• Engage relevant organisations that work with the targeted population in the development of the action plan, including public employment services, trade unions and labour organisations, as well as relevant ministries, departments, agencies, and local authorities.
• Seek support from organisations supporting the disadvantaged population in implementing the action plan.
• Ensure that actions aimed at supporting entrepreneurship among the population are consistent with wider inclusion support policies.
• Collect key performance indicators according to participant characteristics, including age and gender.

Financial resources for tailored entrepreneurship policies are limited and should be a central consideration when selecting among policy options. It is important to consider all potential funding sources, including direct financing, matched financing for non-government actions, and the potential of leveraging in-kind support from the non-governmental sector. Effective financial management should include a tracking system that allows ongoing monitoring of expenditures. In securing financial resources for entrepreneurship support, it is important to use all available funding sources, including the European Structural Funds. There is also potential to leverage in-kind contributions from organisations supporting disadvantaged groups of the population and business development service providers.

An appropriate allocation of financial resources is essential for the successful implementation of inclusive entrepreneurship policies and programmes. This requires consideration of both financial and non-financial (e.g. human resources, organisational capacity) resources that will be required to implement inclusive entrepreneurship policies and programmes, and implementing support initiatives.

At the outset, it is necessary to identify the sources of appropriate funding and ensure that they are sufficient to cover costs that will be incurred throughout implementation. The Entrepreneurship Works programme in Flanders, Belgium, is example of an initiative supporting the unemployed in business creation through an individualised approach. The programme was jointly funded by three consecutive European Social Fund projects, the ESF-Agency Flanders, the Flemish government and other sources.

Case study: Entrepreneurship Works, Belgium (Flanders)

Entrepreneurship Works was a 12-month entrepreneurship coaching scheme delivered between 2008 and 2013 in Flanders, Belgium. The objective was to help unemployed job-seekers start their own business. The coaching comprised elements of one-to-one business advice and personal and entrepreneurship skills development. This individualised approach allowed for better guidance during the pre-start-up phase and more responsive referrals to other business and finance supports.

Tell me more

The availability of financial and non-financial resources will shape decision makers’ choices of using internal or external delivery mechanisms, including delivery by government departments or agencies, non-governmental bodies, private sector organisations, not-for-profit organisations, or volunteers. A thorough cost-benefit analysis can help implementers decide what can be done in-house or sourced externally. In practice, most inclusive entrepreneurship initiatives are delivered with a mix of mechanisms.

It can be helpful to develop a resource management strategy that specifies how all financial and non-financial resources will be tracked and managed to support policy delivery. Thought should be given to resources that are required to meet the anticipated outcomes, including office space, equipment, IT services and staff. Key questions for policy makers include: How will those resources be acquired and managed? How long will they be needed for? What are the estimated costs?

It is important not to overlook the human resources required to successfully implement the strategy. Different types of expertise may be needed for different phases of implementation to ensure the best possible results. Financial resources may be needed to hire or train staff, or to contract external expertise.   

Consideration is also needed for the resources required at different levels to implement the strategy. Resources at the highest level (e.g. national or regional government) should be considered prior to assigning resources at the organisational and individual levels. For example, are the conditions and budgets available to facilitate the delivery of the desired outcome? At the organisational level, resources need to be sufficient to cover the equipment and human resources needed to deliver the support. At the individual level, business advisors and trainers will need appropriate skills and knowledge to successfully deliver the support programmes.

Policy makers need to monitor and measure the success of their inclusive entrepreneurship actions in terms of resource allocation and management. The instruments used in the assessment may vary depending on the scope of policy objectives and targets. The use of cost-benefit analysis is typically appropriate for national or regional initiatives since it enables policy makers to measure the benefits and financial costs of the project to society and to monitor the progress.

Finally, it is also important to balance the resource needs of ongoing operations against programme development needs. Any future policy development will require additional resources.

When securing and allocating financial resources to support entrepreneurship policies and programmes aimed at the disadvantaged members of the population, it is important to:

• Explore all potential funding sources, including European Structural Funds (e.g. European Social Fund).
• Seek partnerships with trade unions, labour organisations and large employers that may co-fund initiatives.
• Leverage in-kind contributions from organisations that support specific groups of people and professional business development service providers.

The effective implementation of inclusive entrepreneurship policies and programmes requires co-ordination across the range of ministries, departments, agencies, local authorities, and non-government actors involved in designing and delivering support measures to ensure coherence, relevance and actions, and to minimise duplication. Mechanisms that could be used include working groups and committees with representation of all of the relevant actors. Success factors include strong leadership and regular communication. In establishing co-ordination mechanisms for the design and delivery of entrepreneurship support, it is important for policy makers to strengthen relationships with organisations that support the specific groups of the population (e.g. public employment services) and to ensure that there are mechanisms for information sharing across all actors involved in delivering entrepreneurship support.

Inclusive entrepreneurship policies and programmes need to be co-ordinated across ministries, departments, agencies, and local authorities because inclusive entrepreneurship touches many policy areas (e.g. employment, economic, education policy) and several jurisdictions (e.g. national, regional, local). Moreover, many non-governmental actors are involved in delivering inclusive entrepreneurship initiatives and government needs to be aware of these actions. Strong co-ordination across ministries and departments can facilitate information sharing, build synergies between initiatives, and minimise duplication.

A common approach to co-ordinating policy actions between ministries, departments and agencies is to use inter-organisation working groups, with representation from key ministries and departments (e.g. Labour, Economy, Industry, Education), as well as agencies and local authorities. The goal of such working groups is to design and manage working arrangements across institutions so that mandates, competences and responsibilities are clearly defined and agreed upon. However, it is also possible for a dedicated agency or department to take on this role.

Other potential mechanisms include the establishment of a public-private working group or an advisory council, which both seek to provide a strong voice to non-government actors. Either approach requires strong leadership from the public sector and a clear definition of roles, responsibilities and expectations at the outset.

It is also important to establish mechanisms to co-ordinate actions between ministries, departments, agencies, local authorities and non-government actors. Often these relationships are managed through the mechanisms that allocate public funding to non-government partners that deliver inclusive entrepreneurship support initiatives, or through public consultation processes. Other examples include inter-organisation working groups that could include both government and non-government representatives. These mechanisms typically seek to improve the coherence of public sector and non-governmental activities to support inclusive entrepreneurship.

In establishing co-ordination mechanisms, policy makers should consider a number of key questions: How well do different policy actions and stakeholder mandates fit together? Are there duplica­tions or gaps in the actions required? How well do entrepreneurship programmes co-ordinate with, and complement, wider labour market and economic policies?

When setting up co-ordination mechanisms for entrepreneurship support aimed at disadvantaged groups of the population, it is important to:

• Build trusting and co-operative relationships between the range of stakeholders involved in entrepreneurship support targeting disadvantaged groups of the population, including public employment services, trade unions, labour organisations, large employers, governmental and non-governmental organisations.
• Build trusting and co-operative relationships between stakeholders involved in entrepreneurship support targeting  under-represented and disadvantaged groups and those in charge of non-targeted (generic) entrepreneurship support.
• Build conduits for information sharing so that all partners are aware of the take-up of support and its impact, e.g. websites, working groups.

For inclusive entrepreneurship initiatives to be successful, it is critical that the target groups are aware of the available support. Many people from groups that are under-represented or disadvantaged in entrepreneurship (e.g. women, youth, seniors, immigrants, people with disabilities, travelling communities and the unemployed) are “hard to reach” and policy makers need to adjust their messages and communication methods to reach these populations. When reaching out to people who aspire to create a business, it is important to develop messages to reach a range of potential entrepreneurs since not all people have the same motivations and intentions. Partnering with organisations that support different profiles of the population can help reach potential entrepreneurs.

Outreach is an important component of policy delivery since common reasons for low take-up of support among the targeted recipients include a lack of awareness about the available support and an inappropriate programme interface for the target group. This is a particularly important issue for inclusive entrepreneurship because the targeted populations (e.g. youth, seniors, disabled, immigrants, the unemployed, travelling communities such as Roma) are often groups that are “hard to reach” by public support initiatives since these groups are typically less likely to be exposed to mainstream outreach channels. This calls for a different approach when trying to raise awareness about tailored entrepreneurship support.

Communication methods and channels used by policy makers need to be adjusted and diversified. Outreach messages need to be clear and easy-to-understand since many of these targeted populations have less experience in entrepreneurship and the labour market. It is most effective to push these messages out through communication channels that will reach the intended target group, e.g. through community-based media and respected role models. Outreach for many entrepreneurship programmes is now done online so it is important to ensure that these messages are disseminated through appropriate online platforms that are used by the different target groups. Some groups, however, will still prefer more traditional brochures or leaflets, and it is important to consider whether there is a need to offer printed material in multiple languages or in special formats (e.g. Braille). It can be helpful to consult with members of the target group, as well as organisations that work with, or represented, them to ensure that appropriate messages are delivered through appropriate channels.

The programme interface is also important. Members of under-represented and disadvantaged groups often feel more comfortable in meeting a business adviser in their own environment rather than in the offices of business support agencies. This can be achieved, for example, by business advisors travelling to the homes and businesses of the supported entrepreneurs or by operating out of local branch offices. Further, it can be effective to have the business advisors and trainers come from the community that policy makers are trying to reach. It is important to mention any tailoring of the programme interface in outreach efforts.

When reaching out to people from different under-represented and disadvantaged groups with the potential to create a business, it is important to:

• Develop messages that speak to different profiles of the population and tailor messages for them, e.g. youth, women, long-term unemployed, recent graduates, travellers.
• Partner with organisations that  enable interventions to reach the target group, including public employment services, trade unions, labour organisations, and non-governmental organisations that work with disadvantaged groups of the population.

Ensure that mainstream business support organisations are supportive of entrepreneurship as a route into work for disadvantaged groups and are engaged with intermediaries that understand and support entrepreneurship as a means of labour market engagement. These may include employment agencies or organisations working with disadvantaged groups.

Entrepreneurs from groups that are under-represented or disadvantaged in entrepreneurship (e.g. women, youth, seniors, disabled, immigrants, people with disabilities, traveller groups and the unemployed) face greater and different barriers to business creation. This calls for support initiatives that are tailored to address the unique barriers faced. To be effective, those delivering support should understand these barriers and be trained to work with the target groups. To improve the delivery entrepreneurship support for these groups, frontline staff should have appropriate entrepreneurship qualifications and experience, and have awareness about challenges faced by different profiles of the population.

Some of the common barriers in using mainstream entrepreneurship support include the “one size fits all” mentality and the inability of mainstream agencies to fully understand and address the unique needs of the target groups that are under-represented and disadvantaged in entrepreneurship (e.g. women, youth, seniors, disabled, immigrants, the unemployed).

When implementing support initiatives, programme managers may consider two main complementary strategies for ensuring that there is appropriately qualified support staff. First, they can recruit people who have experience in working with specific target groups. This should help ensure that frontline staff understand the challenges faced by these groups and that they know how to communicate effectively with them. Furthermore, trust can be built more quickly with a target group when at least some members of the frontline staff are from this group. Recruiting staff from various background, including people from target groups who have personal experience of entrepreneurship, would be highly beneficial to the promotion of inclusive entrepreneurship policies and programmes because of the trust and empathy that they can bring to the programme as well as their first-hand knowledge of specific challenges

Second, programme managers can train their staff so that they understand the challenges faced by a target group and know how to best work with this population and empathise with their needs. Often, training for inclusive entrepreneurship trainers and business advisors places a strong emphasis on communication skills.

Having frontline staff who is experienced in working with a specific target group, or even from within that group, has two benefits for programme managers. First, it can help ensure that the support is relevant. Second, it can help increase take-up due to the relevance of support, well-established outreach channels and methods, and an existing relationship between the target group and support provider.

Some regions and countries offer certification programmes for entrepreneurship trainers and advisors. Often this is a signal to potential clients that the support offered is high quality, but there are also several examples of certifications that indicate that frontline staff is experienced in working with the target group.

Policy makers can also have influence on programme managers by placing conditions on programme funding. For example, conditions can require that a certain proportion of programme staff is from the target group, and/or that they receive training in working with the target group.

When delivering entrepreneurship support for groups of the population disadvantaged in entrepreneurship, it is important to:

• Offer training to career advisors, frontline staff in public employment services, business advisers, trainers, coaches and mentors so that they have specialised entrepreneurship knowledge, an awareness about the issues faced by disadvantaged groups of the population and an understanding about the business-related needs of various profiles of the population disadvantaged in entrepreneurship, e.g. youth, seniors, long-term unemployed, recent graduates.

Ensure that frontline support staff has entrepreneurship experience and strong communication skills so that they can build trust with targeted client groups. Having both entrepreneurship experience and coming from diverse groups would further enhance the impact of the programme.

Monitoring and evaluation are an important part of the policy development process. When assessing the impact of entrepreneurship support for groups of the population against strategic objectives, it is important for policy makers to consider broader labour market trends and the influence of other systems, such as social security systems on the motivations for entrepreneurship.

The policy development process should include monitoring and evaluation to measure progress against the objectives and targets. Policy makers should want to understand what works, what does not work, and to ensure that lessons can be learned and shared with others.

Basic monitoring is done with key performance indicators (KPIs) by programme or project managers. KPIs measure progress of a policy or project against the objectives and targets. Indicators can be grouped into three main types:

• Impact (i.e. changes in the problem or other outcomes of concern);
• Cost-effectiveness (i.e. costs for a given level of impact); and
• Net Benefits (i.e. all beneficial impacts minus all costly impacts).

Mid-term and ex-post evaluations can help identify the ways in which the policy can be improved or developed to increase its impact. These evaluations are typically undertaken by external experts to ensure independence and objectivity. Such evaluations should be built into the policy design process from the outset. Furthermore, the lessons learned from evaluations should be available and accessible to other policy makers in order to share good practice.

Effective policy evaluation should include several features. It should be systematic and analytical, focused on actual effects and provide judgement of the level of success. Moreover, it should aim to improve decision making, help resource allocation, enhance accountability, and bring about organisational learning. Six principles for sound evaluation practices can be highlighted:

1. Evaluation should lead to policy change;
2. Evaluation should be part of the policy debate;
3. Evaluators should be “in at the start”;
4. Evaluation techniques should always use the most appropriate methodology;
5. Evaluation should apply to all policies and programmes; and
6. International comparisons should be made where necessary.

The process of policy evaluation may vary, depending on the circumstances. Some government departments and organisations have a dedicated unit with responsibility for evaluating policies, while others may commission evaluations in-house or from outside organisations, as required. Although best practice principles exist, the context of the policy and the target audience requires particular attention against these broader best practice guidelines. 

In order to establish effective evaluation of inclusive entrepreneurship strategy, decision makers may consider undertaking the following steps:

• Consider the scope and purpose of evaluation from the outset of policy design.
• Identify all relevant stakeholders and seek their views so that the impact of the policy on all parties can be evaluated.
• Undertake ex post evaluations of policy pilots to identify how a policy might be improved before it is rolled out nationally.
• Ensure indicators and data are fit for purpose and sufficiently valid, reliable and relevant.
• Quantify the effects of a policy in isolation from other related policies using valid measures of the counterfactual from controlled comparisons.
• Distinguish between factors that are attributable to an outcome and factors that contribute to an outcome to analyse the success or failure of a policy.
• Ensure results are used to inform and improve the design and implementation of future policies.
• Share results and lessons publicly.
• Ensure that evaluators have the appropriate skills and experience.
• Ensure that evaluators understand the policy objectives, as well as the political, cultural and organisational context.
• Ensure that the criteria used to evaluate the success of a policy meet its objectives, and distinction is made between policy outputs and policy outcomes.

When monitoring and evaluating inclusive entrepreneurship strategies, it is important to:

• Recognise that business start-up can occur many years after entrepreneurship education or awareness raising activities. It is also possible that someone may learn that entrepreneurship is not suitable for them and not starting a business could be a positive outcome.
• Ensure that strategic objectives for entrepreneurship support aimed at the population disadvantaged in entrepreneurship are coherent with other relevant policy objectives.
• Collect key performance indicators by different personal characteristics, including age and gender for all programmes, whether tailored to underrepresented or disadvantaged groups or generic in approach.