Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Creative Careers Programme: Final report

Published 16 July 2026

Executive summary

The Creative Careers Programme (CCP), funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), provides young people (aged 11 to 24), careers advisers, and schools across England with specialist information, advice, and guidance about pursuing a career in the creative industries. Following increased funding for the financial year (FY) 2025 to 2026, DCMS significantly expanded the programme to include three pilot strands and an expansion of the core strand. The core strand (consisting of short-duration events across multiple locations) was expanded from being a week-long stretch of activity to a month-long duration of activity. Pilot strands included an expansion of the core programme activity into Scotland and Wales, delivery of work experience placements for 14 to 16-year-olds in England, and the delivery of a sector-based work academy programme (SWAP), providing pre-employment training with a guaranteed interview, for young people of working age. Alma Economics was commissioned by DCMS to conduct a process and impact evaluation of CCP for FY 2025 to 2026.

Impact evaluation

Overall, our evaluation has shown that CCP is delivering its intended intermediate outcomes either fully or partially. These findings indicate that CCP’s longer-term impacts have a strong likelihood of being delivered. Given the long-time horizon for CCP’s impacts materialising, and the associated challenges around data collection, we have assessed these intermediate outcomes.

Young people know more about roles, pathways, and opportunities (outcome 1)

We found that CCP is contributing to young people learning more about the roles, opportunities, and pathways in the creative industries. Across all strands, young people reported learning more about different creative industries sub-sectors, new job roles, and pathways into the different sub-sectors. Engagement with CCP activities helped young people learn about “hidden” and “behind-the-scenes” job roles of which they were previously unaware. CCP also helped participants learn about the wide range of roles within creative sector professions that had not previously been taught to them at school.

Tutors feel their students have learned more about creative industries (outcome 2)

Overall, our evidence is anecdotal on the extent to which the CCP has improved knowledge of roles, pathways, and opportunities amongst tutors, parents, and work coaches. Available evidence shows that tutors and work coaches who participated in CCP activities felt that events were useful in improving their knowledge of jobs, opportunities, and pathways in the creative industries, enabling them to better support their students. Most tutors we engaged felt that CCP activities helped their students learn more about roles, pathways, and opportunities in the creative industries.

Strengthened ambitions for pursuing careers in the creative industries (outcomes 3 and 5)

Whilst our evidence is inconclusive as to whether CCP led to a greater number of young people interested in taking up jobs in the creative industries (outcome 3), we have strong evidence that CCP events strengthened aspirations amongst young people to consider careers in the creative industries (outcome 5) across all strands of the programme. In most strands, CCP events helped make careers in the creative industries seem more attainable to young people, often by highlighting the ability to find work through alternative, often non-linear pathways. In strands such as the SWAP pilot and Work Experience pilot, aimed at young people of older age groups, young people’s interest in joining the creative industries was also enhanced through improved knowledge of “next steps”.

Opportunities for direct and meaningful engagement with the creative industries (outcome 4)

Programme-wide, CCP has enabled direct and meaningful engagement between young people and businesses in the creative industries. In our engagement with young people, they consistently reported enjoying the ability to be directly exposed to sector realities and learn from creative sector professionals who shared real-world experiences (particularly for the core strand, Beyond England expansion). In strands such as the SWAP pilot, opportunities for networking with creative sector professionals were greatly valued.

Improved perceptions of careers in the creative industries (outcome 6)

We found that CCP has contributed to improved perceptions of careers in the creative industries, helping to challenge outdated stereotypes about work in the creative industries. In many cases, CCP programme activities helped the creative industries feel more accessible, less “silly” or “risky”, and more realistic. In some strands, such as the Work Experience strand, CCP activity also helped the creative industries appear as a “credible” prospect for young people seeking to establish careers. Partners delivering CCP activities actively focused on “myth busting” and challenging perceptions about work in the creative industries.

Process evaluation

Our process evaluation examined the delivery of the CCP programme, looking into how the programme has been implemented in practice. It focused on evaluating the key processes underpinning the delivery of CCP, including programme development, partnership, and collaborative working, delivery processes, and monitoring and evaluation.

The decentralised programme structure helps CCP operate effectively at scale

We found that CCP’s decentralised structure has allowed the programme to leverage local networks and infrastructure to help optimise delivery at scale. The decentralised structure has also enabled programme activities to be delivered by local training bodies, creative industries organisations, and professionals, whose industry know-how and local professional networks contributed to a high standard of quality for programme activity.

Programme activity praised by participants for being useful and engaging

Throughout our engagement, young people participating in the programme consistently praised programme activity as being enjoyable and beneficial, evidencing the high quality of programme activity being delivered across the board.

Available capacity levels found to be stretched

In most CCP strands, the level of resources available to delivery organisations was generally reported to be adequate. However, varying levels of logistical and administrative pressures were reported by most delivery organisations across strands. Where reported, these pressures manifested in stretched staff capacities within delivery organisations, impacting the quality of events in a few cases. These challenges were reportedly most commonly experienced by partners delivering the pilot strands, first-time industry partners, and by smaller organisations.

Scope for clarity around delivery expectations and responsibilities of collaborators

Given its decentralised structure, close and seamless collaboration between the stakeholders involved in delivering CCP is crucial for delivering effective outcomes. These collaborations were generally perceived by partner organisations to be working well. That said, across most strands, gaps in communication amongst key collaborators were reported by industry partners (for example, between industry partners and schools). Where reported, these communication gaps resulted from a lack of clarity around expectations for delivery of CCP activity and a lack of clarity around the scope of responsibilities for each collaborator in the delivery cycle. In most cases, these communication gaps were reported to have further stretched available delivery capacity.

Programme activity can benefit from longer planning timelines

Our evaluation has shown that programme activity across strands could benefit from a longer planning period, for useful collaboration with schools, which often plan months in advance. This was reported as being particularly useful for programme strands working with schools (for example, core programme strand, Beyond England expansion strands, and Work experience strands). This was also seen as important in regions and areas that do not benefit from pre-existing networks that can streamline delivery.

Recommendations

To address the challenges reported above, we provide the following recommendations:

1. Establish longer timelines between set-up and delivery, for effective programme planning and collaboration with schools, by:
(a) concluding contracting of partners at least three to four months prior to programme delivery
(b) reviewing timelines for delivery of activities under Discover Week and month (core programme and Beyond England expansion)

2. Continue the decentralised approach to programme delivery to enable the programme to continue to leverage local networks and know-how and to strengthen creative industries pathways.

3. Strengthen programme management, through:
(a) establishment of clear responsibilities for each collaborator
(b) dedicated responsibilities for oversight of programme activity and collaborations
(c) clear communication of delivery expectations to downstream industry partners

4. Provide top-down administrative support to industry partners by:
(a) centralising registration activity
(b) providing hands-on support for partners delivering pilot strands
(c) establishing forums for knowledge sharing amongst delivery partners

5. Centralise and enhance monitoring capacity across all programme strands by:
(a) ensuring clear alignment of programme delivery plans with the programme monitoring framework
(b) clearly defining responsibilities around governance of programme-wide monitoring data
(c) having dedicated staff capacity to facilitate data collection and liaison with the evaluator

Introduction

Alma Economics was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport, to conduct a process and impact evaluation of the Creative Careers Programme for the FY 2025 to 2026. This report presents findings from the evaluation of CCP. It brings together evidence from both the impact and process evaluations, offering an assessment of the programme outcomes and programme delivery across the various strands.

About the Creative Careers Programme

The CCP provides young people, careers advisers, and schools across England with specialist information, advice, and guidance about pursuing a career in the creative industries through a blend of online resources, in-person events, and training. Following increased funding for FY 2025 to 2026, DCMS significantly expanded the programme to include three pilot strands and an expansion of the core strand. The expanded programme includes:

Core programme Expansion

For FY 2025 to 2026, the core programme (formerly, a combination of short-form in-person events delivered over the course of a week, and online guidance and training resources) was expanded to be delivered over an increased number of areas, expanding from 77 to 120 priority areas. This expansion included improved digital tools and a more comprehensive website, creating a one-stop shop for creative careers information and an expansion of the erstwhile ‘Discover! Creative Careers Week’ to a month. Aside from the activities delivered as part of the ‘Discover! Creative Careers Month,’ the core programme expansion also included a micro-grant offered to industry partners to stimulate CCP activity in the regions. The CCP core programme expansion was delivered by ScreenSkills in collaboration with other subcontracted delivery partners.

Available monitoring data collected by delivery partners shows that the core programme expansion reached 124,884 young people in total. Of this, 81,409 young people were engaged through the ‘Discover! Creative Careers Month.’ A total of 614 events were conducted in England, as part of the core programme expansion. A total of 1,626 schools in England were engaged through the core programme extension. An estimated total of 1,315 creative industries businesses in England were engaged through the core programme expansion.

Beyond England expansion

In addition to the expansion of the core programme, two pilot programmes were also rolled out in Scotland and Wales (Beyond England expansion). The delivery of the pilot programmes included employer encounters for school children through the ‘Discover! Creative Careers Week’ and the development of nation-specific training, resources, and website content. The Beyond England expansion was delivered by Into Film Scotland and Into Film Wales.

Available monitoring data collected by delivery partners shows that the Beyond England expansion reached 11,027 young people in Scotland and 10,999 young people in Wales. In Scotland, a total of 68 events were conducted, whilst 189 events were conducted in Wales. The number of schools engaged totalled 111 in Scotland and 140 in Wales. A total of 20 creative industries businesses were engaged in Scotland, and a total of 60 in Wales.

Work experience programme

The expanded programme also included the delivery of a work experience pilot, in which the delivery partner worked with schools and employers to coordinate work experience placements for school children during their summer term. This pilot aimed at engaging with 600 students in three to five-day in-person work experience placements. The programme matched schools with creative businesses in specific regions to deliver hands-on work experience placements. The pilot was delivered by Mission Accomplished.

Available monitoring data collected by delivery partners shows that the ‘Work Experience pilot reached 430 young people across 93 schools. A total of 74 creative industries businesses hosted placements for the Work Experience pilot.

Sector-Based Work Academy Programme Pilot

This pilot aimed at organising further industry encounters for young people who are searching for work through Jobcentre Plus. This pilot programme ran in Manchester, Liverpool, Hertfordshire, and Leeds. The SWAP pilot was delivered by ScreenSkills alongside DWP and other subcontracted delivery partners.

Available monitoring data collected by delivery partners showed that a total of 90 young people started SWAP placements, and a total of 67 young people completed the SWAP pilot, across 5 training placements being delivered by 3 industry partners. Separately, a SWAP-style training programme with structured networking opportunities was delivered by another industry partner; this placement was started by 16 young people, and completed by 12 of them. A total of 204 job coaches were also engaged through webinars aimed at improving their understanding of creative industries. Delivery partners estimate that a total of 10,112 young people were also reached through direct and indirect job centre encounters carried out by these job coaches.

Research aims

Our two evaluation strands have the following objectives:

1. Impact evaluation

Developing an understanding of whether the CCP has resulted in the desired outcomes and impacts, as well as if any unintended (positive or negative) consequences have materialised. These outcomes, set out in the Theory of Change (see Appendix 5), focus on improvements in knowledge, aspirations, and perceptions of creative careers, as well as increased meaningful interaction between young people and the creative industries.

2. Process evaluation

Providing a review of how CCP is being delivered, including what has worked well, what has worked less well, and what lessons can be learned. Key areas explored through the process evaluation include:
(i) partnerships and collaboration
(ii) delivery
(iii) monitoring and evaluation

Report structure

This report first sets out the evaluation methodology and discusses the limitations encountered in the research. Then, impact evaluation findings are presented, organised by the theorised outcomes according to which impact was assessed. Following this, the process evaluation explores how the programme is being implemented in practice, examining its progress against the various stages of the process map, including programme delivery, partnership, and collaborative working, and approaches to monitoring and evaluation across the various programme strands. Finally, the report includes a chapter for conclusions and recommendations that apply programme-wide. A breakdown of impact and process findings organised by strand is presented in Appendix 4 for reference.

Key terms

For clarity, the following terms are used throughout this report:

1. Participants

Refers to programme participants. These include young people engaged through the CCP, including those of school age (11 to 18 years), and young people looking for employment or currently in further education (FE) and higher education (HE) (18 to 24). Programme participants also specifically include young people seeking work via job centres (16 to 24 years), as they are the main intended beneficiaries of the SWAP pilot.

2. Delivery partners

Refers to ScreenSkills and other organisations subcontracted by ScreenSkills to lead the delivery of the various programme strands. Key sub-delivery partners include Mission Accomplished for the Work Experience pilot, and Into Film for the Beyond England expansion pilot in Wales and Scotland.

3. Industry partners

Refers to the organisations, creative businesses, creative sector employers, and other practitioners involved in programme delivery or engagement with participants. The specific role of these industry partners differs across the various strands; for instance, in the Discover England and Beyond England expansion strands, the term ‘industry partners’ refer to all organisations leading and hosting delivery of the various events, and directly engaging with young people; for the Work Experience pilot, the term refers to organisations hosting the various events; and for the SWAP pilot, the term refers to organisations leading and hosting each SWAP placement.

4. Tutors

Refers to teachers, careers advisers, and/or other school staff supporting students in their engagement with CCP events, either by attending events with their students and/or through organising attendance of young people at CCP events and/or placements.

Methodology

The evaluation uses a theory-based approach that draws primarily on qualitative evidence captured from fieldwork activities with programme participants. The theory-based approach enabled us to map the causal pathways (as described by the programme Theory of Change - see Appendix 5) by linking inputs, activities, and expected outcomes. Using a mixed-methods approach (described below), we then tested the extent to which the theorised causal chains have materialised or are on track to be delivered in the future. Our evaluation assessed how effectively the CCP FY 2025 to 2026 is being delivered (process evaluation), and whether it has delivered the intended intermediate outcomes for young people, schools, and creative employers (impact evaluation).

Research activities

We have combined in-person and remote methods to maximise engagement across stakeholder groups and programme strands. Our key research activities include:

Observation of CCP events

Ethnographic observation of programme activities for certain strands provided real-time insights into delivery, participant engagement, and contextual factors (for example, differences between online and in-person events).

Interviews

Conducted one-to-one with stakeholders, including event participants (meaning young people of varying age groups), tutors, industry partners (creative businesses or other creative sector organisations), and programme delivery partners.

Focus groups

Focus groups conducted with groups of young people at various programme events, all delivered in-person to support richer discussion with young people.

Data from Feedback Surveys

Primarily to complement qualitative findings from interviews and focus groups, and bridge data gaps. Data was gathered from feedback surveys circulated by delivery partners to participants, tutors, and industry partners/creative businesses.

Description of research activities in each programme strand

The Creative Careers Programme includes four different strands (with three being pilot strands for FY 2025 to 2026), each with varying delivery formats and programme activities. Accordingly, research methods were adapted to reflect the realities of each strand, including agile approaches to enhance stakeholder engagement across strands. Below is a brief description of research activities undertaken in each strand.

Core programme expansion, for example, Discover England Events

Strand description: Programme activities under this strand were delivered in the format of shorter events conducted over the course of a few hours at specific locations, open to groups of young people of varying age groups (typically enrolled in school, college, or university). The events were organised and delivered by industry partners, and typically focused on one creative sector (with some catering to more than one creative sector). Activities included presentations, workshops, and sessions on creative sector roles, opportunities, and jobs, and some activities for young people. The core strand also included improved digital resources and a more comprehensive website with a one-stop shop for creative careers information.

Our research activities: We attended a total of six events open to a varying number of participants, reaching an engagement level of up to 10% of participants at each event. We attended Discover England events in Manchester, Brighton, Bristol, Leeds, and London. A research team of two researchers attended each event, carrying out interviews and focus groups with event participants, tutors, and industry partners, and observing the event either fully or in part, subject to feasibility. We also conducted interviews with tutors and industry partners online in cases when we were unable to engage these groups on event days.

Surveys were circulated to participants by the ScreenSkills team on event days, and follow-up surveys were circulated online to tutors and industry partners. A total of 417 young people completed the surveys across 20 Discover England events. The online feedback survey for industry partners and tutors was completed by a total of 23 industry partners and seven tutors, respectively.

Beyond England expansion in Scotland and Wales

Strand description: The Beyond England expansion in Scotland and Wales followed a similar format to the Discover England strand.

Our research activities: We attended in-person a total of four events in Wales, engaged event participants, and observed events. In Scotland, we attended one event in person, engaging participants and tutors, and observing events. Engagement levels were higher in this strand, up to 30% of participants at events in Wales and in Scotland.

Separately, we conducted follow-up online interviews with industry partners delivering events in Scotland and Wales, and engaged a total of five industry partners in Scotland and seven industry partners in Wales.

Feedback surveys for the Creative Careers Week were distributed to young participants, tutors, and industry partners across programme events delivered in Scotland and Wales. A total of 400 responses were received from young people. In addition, 25 industry partners completed the survey and a total of 40 tutors. Findings from these surveys were used to triangulate findings from our qualitative engagement.

Our primary engagement strategy for both the Discover England and Beyond England expansion strands was to attend programme events in person and carry out primary research at events. This strategy allowed us to develop a strong contextual understanding of events and to maximise and streamline engagement by engaging directly with participants and industry partners on site. This was also done as young people are difficult to engage post-event, with challenges made worse due to safeguarding concerns and no comprehensive or reliable data tracking of participants attending these events.

The Sector-based Work Academy Pilot (SWAP)

Strand description: The SWAP placements were organised and delivered by industry partners in various locations in England. The placement targeted young people over 18. While some participants had previous higher education experience, there were no formal qualification requirements. The offer was distributed through job centres, supported by coordinated engagement with work coaches.

Our research activities: Our research activities included engagement with three industry partners hosting and delivering SWAP placements, and four online interviews with participants of two placements. We also received survey data collected by industry partners across two placements.

Work Experience (WEX) pilot

Strand description: The work experience strand included work experience placements in England, creative sector businesses hosting school-age young people for three to five days.

Our research activities: Our research activities included engagement with industry partners, hosting and delivering five WEX placements, and online interviews with three participants. We also received feedback survey data collected by the delivery partner from 60 young people, 25 industry partners, and 9 tutors.

Limitations

Several limitations to this research have impacted the strength of the evidence and conclusions contained within this report. Whilst measures were taken to mitigate the challenges faced (as described below), the nature and implications of these limitations for the research are discussed below.

Medium and long-term impacts yet to materialise

The CCP will complement the government’s ongoing work to build a resilient, inclusive, and productive pipeline of talent that meets the demand of creative industries ^{[footnote 1]}. Given this, and the targeting of most of the programme strands at children and young people, it is expected that many of the programme’s outcomes and impacts will only be realised many years into the future. For example, the impact of the Core programme on individual labour market outcomes and the size and constituency of the creative sector workforce would only be observable once the children attending CCP events have progressed through their education and entered into the workforce, a process likely to take many years.

Our approach to this evaluation of the 2025 to 2026 CCP was therefore to as robustly as possible measure the near-term, intermediate outcomes for each strand of the programme to determine progress against the CCP’s strategic objectives. As part of this, we used qualitative and quantitative methods to evidence the intermediate outcomes and causal mechanisms outlined in the programme Theory of Change, using this to validate that CCP is on track to deliver its proposed impacts. This will support a potential follow-up evaluation to assess whether the programme achieves, or is likely to achieve, its medium- to longer-term impacts. Recommended approaches for long-term evaluation of the 2025 to 2026 CCP are discussed in Appendix 1.

Limitations in fieldwork activities

We faced some limitations in conducting our fieldwork activities for this evaluation, which have impacted the strength of our evidence. These have been detailed below.

All programme strands

Inconsistent engagement levels in feedback surveys

Although feedback surveys were circulated across all strands, engagement levels for these surveys remained limited relative to the scale of programme activity, across the board, given difficulties in engaging participants through follow-up surveys after CCP events. Even where data is available, this is often not consistent across strands. In some strands, surveys have only been partially completed by participants, with limited engagement in some or most of the questions. The most comprehensive data from feedback surveys are available from the core CCP strand and the WEX strand. Overall, feedback survey data has been used in most cases to complement qualitative engagement. Although we have included quantitative findings from the feedback surveys in our evaluation, due to low sample sizes, inconsistent engagement levels, and the nature of outcomes being evaluated, these findings should not be considered conclusive as to impact.

Delayed and fragmented access to data and key stakeholders

We have found it difficult throughout the evaluation to receive timely and streamlined access to data and key stakeholders. Challenges in data collection indicate that the programme can benefit from well-defined responsibilities around data collection and management, ensuring streamlined access to programme data and stakeholders, and stronger support for evaluation (whilst remaining aligned with the realities of programme delivery).

Whilst challenges in recruitment were bridged, to a great extent, across most strands in later phases of the evaluation, mitigation strategies were less successful for the Work Experience strand. In this strand, even after access to key stakeholders was provided, it remained challenging to reconcile evaluation timelines with school calendars, with tutors finding it difficult to make time for the evaluation. We attempted to bridge this gap through the use of incentives and the extrapolation of open-ended feedback survey data. Ultimately, through interviews, we engaged a small number of participants and tutors. Findings from interviews conducted for this strand are therefore anecdotal at best, supported, where available, by survey data from other participants.

Discover England and Beyond England expansion

Gaps in engagement with some stakeholder groups

• Parents: Although it is likely that parents engage with CCP’s digital content (for example, website and other digital materials), we understand that parents typically have no attendance at any programme events and/or activities. It therefore remains unclear as to what extent parents can offer valuable insights about programme impact and/or process. Due to existing data collection challenges and limitations that make it difficult to track which young people attended these events, follow-up engagement with parents is also not feasible.
• Tutors: Engagement with teachers was also constrained by time pressures during events, as they were primarily occupied in supporting students. This resulted in a relatively small number of teachers engaged through qualitative methods. This was mitigated to some extent through triangulation of data from feedback surveys, although engagement through surveys also remained low overall.
• Underrepresented groups: Given that monitoring data across the CCP does not collect demographic information of participants (beyond school-level participation tracked through registration activity), it was not possible to qualitatively assess outcomes of the programme amongst all underrepresented groups. However, from our observations of various events and through interviews with industry partners and participants, we have found that event participation is typically ethnically diverse, and industry partners of various CCP activities often aimed to increase participation amongst young people with SEND and/or young people from underrepresented socio-economic backgrounds. Given this diversity of events, our engagement of participants during events did include young people of underrepresented groups, but this was not systematic.

Impact Evaluation

This chapter presents findings from the impact evaluation of the Creative Careers Programme. At the outset, the chapter presents key findings for each strand, followed by details on shared findings across each outcome area.

The impact evaluation findings presented here assess the extent to which six theorised programme outcomes (see Theory of Change) have materialised, allowing us to form a judgement as to whether CCP’s intended impacts are being delivered. These outcomes included:

• Outcome 1: Increased knowledge of roles, pathways, and opportunities within creative industries among young people of school age (11 to 18) and those looking for work (16 to 24).
• Outcome 2: Improved knowledge amongst parents, carers, careers advisers, work coaches, and teachers of roles, careers, and pathways into the creative industries.
• Outcome 3: Improved knowledge of pathways into creative careers, and aspirations, among young people from underrepresented backgrounds, and those in regions outside London.
• Outcome 4: Increased numbers of young people directly interacting with the sector (through encounters or work experience) and increased involvement of creative industry businesses across the UK in meaningfully engaging young people.
• Outcome 5: Increased number of young people (11 to 24) considering careers in the creative industries.
• Outcome 6: Improved perceptions of careers in the creative industries.

The full programme Theory of Change is included for reference in Appendix 5 of this report.

Outcome 1: Increased knowledge of roles, pathways, and opportunities

Evaluation data shows that across all strands, CCP activities improved young people’s knowledge of creative industries roles, opportunities, and pathways. This improved knowledge was evidenced in the following ways.

Improved knowledge of ‘‘hidden’’ creative sector roles

Participants across all strands reported discovering job roles they had not previously been aware of or associated with the creative sector. This included behind-the-scenes roles and non-public-facing positions, such as technical production, camera operation, stage management, and financial and administrative functions.

[The event] changed my thinking on what jobs are available. There are more than I thought.

– Participant, Beyond England expansion

[…] she [participating student] didn’t even know what PR was at the start of the week and by the end of the week, she wanted to work in it forever.

– Industry partner, WEX

Clearer understanding of pathways

While this finding was particularly strong for Discover England, all strands shifted participants’ understanding of routes into the sector, highlighting varied, non-linear and alternative pathways including apprenticeships, internships, freelancing, and degree and non-degree routes. Many participants reported learning for the first time that some creative subsectors do not require specific qualifications, making the sector feel more accessible to them. In Wales, many participants reported gaining clearer insight into how to make themselves better candidates for recruitment into creative sectors. They learned about using tools, such as LinkedIn, effectively, exploring apprenticeships as an alternative to university, and taking actionable steps like attending relevant events, sharing their work, and building networks.

[…] they [SWAP participants] are going to get an interview at the end of this as well, whether or not it’s exactly what they want to do ultimately, but it will be a foot in the door in terms of working within that industry.

– Industry partner, SWAP

Improved understanding of distinctions between roles

Many participants in Discover England and the Work Experience pilot reported developing a clearer understanding of the differences between roles, for example, the differences between producing and directing roles, and different production roles available.

Stronger awareness of workplace realities

Participants in the SWAP and Work Experience strands reported stronger awareness of workplace expectations and the day-to-day realities of the sector, facilitated by direct engagement with industry professionals. This included the prevalence of part-time jobs and flexible working, the importance of networking, the realities of recruitment practices, and local nuances in sector operation. In the Beyond England expansion strand, however, some participants reported that the sessions provided less information about day-to-day tasks.

Importance of direct interaction with the sector

The most important factor influencing these outcomes was reported to be direct contact with industry professionals. For the Discover England and Beyond England expansion strands, sector-specific presentations by industry partners from diverse creative subsectors were highlighted as particularly helpful in breaking down sector roles, workflows, pathways, and opportunities into accessible components.

Survey findings from Discover England (Figure 1) and Beyond England expansion (Figure 2) support these qualitative findings. In England, most surveyed young people (n=417) reported that the events they attended helped them learn about the different types of jobs in the creative industries (95% of respondents), that these events helped them understand the skills employers are seeking (91%), and helped them know more about the various ways to study or train for a career in the creative industries (88%). These impacts were particularly evident among KS3 and post-16 students. Further, in the Discover England strand, 49% of surveyed young people reported knowing more about different ways to study or train for a career in the creative industries.

Figure 1. Discover England: Findings from young people’s surveys on increased knowledge of jobs, pathways, and skills needed in the creative industries (n=417)

Text description

Q1: Different types of jobs in the creative industries

• I know a lot more: 65%
• I know a bit more: 31%
• I don’t know anymore than I did before: 4%
• I’m not sure: 1%
• Not answered: 0%

Q2: Skills employers in the creative industries look for

• I know a lot more: 47%
• I know a bit more: 44%
• I don’t know anymore than I did before: 6%
• I’m not sure: 4%
• Not answered: 0%

In the Beyond England expansion strand, most young people across both nations indicated an increase in knowledge and awareness of skills and careers in the creative sector because of participating in the events. Almost 90% of participants in the survey reported increasing their knowledge to some level, with the remaining 10% stating they know the same as before or that they are unsure.

Figure 2. Beyond England expansion: Impact on participants’ knowledge of jobs, skills, and in the creative industries (n=400)

Text description:

Q1: Different types of jobs in the creative industries

• I know a lot more: 41%
• I know a bit more: 49%
• I don’t know anymore than I did before: 7%
• I’m not sure: 3%
• Not answered: 0%

Q2: Skills employers in the creative industries look for

• I know a lot more: 35%
• I know a bit more: 51%
• I don’t know anymore than I did before: 8%
• I’m not sure: 6%
• Not answered: 0%

For the Work Experience strand, 85% of young people surveyed reported learning more about working in the creative industries during their placement, and 68% reported knowing more about the different pathways into the creative industries.

Increased awareness sometimes contributed to a sense of uncertainty

Some participants also reported remaining unclear about pathways, sometimes increasingly so. Findings indicated an interesting interaction between the goals of improving both awareness and aspirations (also relevant to Outcomes 3 and 5) – while learning about varied, informal, and non-linear pathways in the sector increased participants’ knowledge and awareness of this landscape, this at times made them feel less clear on the steps they needed to take, and at times discouraged by the complexity. This uncertainty was particularly acute in the SWAP pilot, where several participants in one placement reported being unclear on how to secure jobs once the placement finished.

Outcome 2: Improved knowledge of roles, pathways, and opportunities amongst tutors

Evidence for this outcome is more limited and mixed across strands. Evidence was primarily gathered from the Discover England and Work Experience pilot strands, and related almost entirely to tutors/teachers rather than parents, carers, or others. This was due to challenges in engaging these groups, detailed in the methodology chapter. Tutors’ engagement in Discover England surveys was limited, with most tutors who did engage responding “don’t know” when asked about the impact of the Discover England events on their knowledge of roles, pathways, and opportunities within the creative industries. While some tutors involved in Discover England reported increased parental engagement due to young people sharing their enthusiasm at home, this evidence of indirect impact is anecdotal.

Tutors’ improved knowledge of roles and careers

Those tutors who did engage with the evaluation broadly reported positive outcomes. Across the Discover England, Beyond England expansion, and work experience strands (all strands where tutors were involved in programme activity), most tutors we engaged reported improved knowledge of roles and careers, including lesser-known and behind-the-scenes roles in the creative sector that they had not previously associated with the industries, and felt better equipped to support students as a result.

Tutors’ awareness of pathways and opportunities

Tutors in both strands also reported expanded awareness of pathways, including local opportunities and community-based routes into the sector that they had not previously been aware of. In the Discover England strand, many tutors reported that the events helped them support young people in gaining a clearer understanding of the realities of creative industry careers and how young people can access them.

However, insights from the tutors’ survey in the work experience pilot showed that a small number of tutors did not feel they had learned more about the skills employers seek and did not feel more confident advising students about careers in the creative industries. Similarly, when asked about gaps in the Discover England strand, most tutors surveyed reported that the events did not provide learners with insight into a real work setting.

Outcome 3: Improved aspirations among underrepresented young people, and those in regions outside London

Evaluation indicates that the Creative Careers Programme has increased knowledge of pathways into creative careers and aspirations among young people in regions outside London, and for the work experience strand, also for young people from underrepresented backgrounds. Evidence relating to young people from underrepresented backgrounds is more limited and inconclusive for the core programme and Beyond England strands, although observation at these events does suggest a positive impact amongst underrepresented groups.

Awareness of local opportunities beyond London

Across strands, most participants reported gaining clearer insight into pathways and opportunities that exist outside London and within their local areas, with many reporting they had not previously known such opportunities existed near them. Presenters and industry partners across strands highlighted regional opportunities and emphasised that skills, mindset, and hands-on experience matter more than formal qualifications, making the sector feel more accessible to those outside traditional creative industry hubs. In Scotland, young people reported not knowing that creative sector businesses existed in their city, and responded positively to learning they could apply to work locally. In Wales, feedback from a majority of survey respondents (86%) reported that their awareness and understanding of different pathways into careers in the creative industries had increased.

Importance of hearing from relatable creative professionals

In Wales, industry partners and young participants highlighted the importance of hearing from people from a similar background, and industry partners noted the value of promoting the fact that Welsh language skills can be a significant advantage in accessing regional opportunities.

I came from a working class village. My parents didn’t work in the media industry. And I guess me being someone who went into the media industry feeling really kind of overwhelmed and a lot of imposter syndrome, and showing that young people who are from working class Welsh areas can work in the industry, I think is quite important. I think it’s also important that I live in Wales and I work in Wales as well, because a lot of people may have this perception you have to go to London to work in the creative industry. […] although I struggled a little bit at the beginning with earning their [participants’] trust, I do feel like I got them in the end and I feel that if I wasn’t Welsh, that may have been slightly more difficult.

– Industry partner, Beyond England expansion, Wales

Opening opportunities for those facing structural barriers

Work experience and SWAP placements were particularly noted for their impact on young people from underrepresented backgrounds, for whom direct exposure to the sector was especially valuable given structural barriers to access. In the work experience pilot, industry partners in areas of higher deprivation, such as the Northeast, where geographic and transport barriers restrict access to cultural institutions, perceived placements as particularly impactful for students with limited prior exposure to the sector.

In the WEX strand, some surveyed tutors agreed and noted that exposure to opportunities in the creative industries gave these students access to meaningful work experience in sectors where they are traditionally underrepresented. Some tutors also pointed out that the placements took an inclusive approach, helping students with additional learning needs to get more involved. This was said to be especially impactful for young people from SEND schools.

Accessible approaches enable engagement with diverse young people

Industry and delivery partners in Wales and Scotland highlighted examples of successful engagement with young people with additional learning or support needs by using accessible and creative formats within mainstream classrooms. This inclusive approach was also highlighted in the WEX pilot, as tutors also pointed out that the placements took an inclusive approach, which was said to be especially impactful for young people from SEND schools.

Outcome 4: Meaningful engagement between creative businesses and young people

Our research indicates that the programme events provide opportunities for direct and meaningful engagement between young people and creative businesses, although evidence from the work experience pilot is anecdotal.

Direct engagement made the creative industries feel accessible

Across all strands, direct engagement with industry professionals was consistently highlighted as one of the most valuable aspects of participation. Hearing from practitioners gave young people new perspectives, validated guidance received in school, and increased confidence in the information shared.

In the work experience pilot, placements also addressed misunderstandings about certain fields, repositioning previously undervalued areas, such as PR and museums, as legitimate, skilled, and meaningful. The creation of ongoing networks expanded young people’s perception of whether creative careers are “for people like them,” and a few industry partners reported students proactively asking staff about qualifications and career paths, which further indicates a growing belief that these pathways are navigable and relevant to them.

Importance of practical and engaging activities

Hands-on, practical activities and small-group settings were highlighted across strands as enabling more personalised, meaningful engagement, allowing participants to ask detailed questions, apply learning, and collaborate with peers. In the Discover England and nations strands, activities that allowed participants to see what creative careers looked like in practice were highly valued, such as seeing preps and large-scale design pieces in theatres, and designing and creating video games.

Building interpersonal and technical skills

Across strands, young people reported developing a broad range of skills through direct engagement with the sector. The strongest impacts were seen in soft skills, particularly teamwork, communication, collaboration and confidence, alongside exposure to sector-specific technical skills. Technical skills were particularly highlighted in the SWAP strand, with participants reporting exposure to skills such as website design, graphic design, sector-specific platforms, production processes, storyboarding, and, in one placement, learning about taxation and intellectual property.

I’ve developed my network. It’s helped to develop my understanding of what makes a good CV slash cover letter. And I’ve just generally met some new people, which was nice […]

– SWAP participant

Figure 3. Work experience pilot: Skills young people improved during placement (n=54)

Text description:

• Between 30% and 40% of young people improved the following skills during placement:
  • Teamwork
  • Communication
  • Creative thinking
• Between 20% and 30% of young people improved the following skills during placement:
  • Confidence
  • Time management
  • Problem solving 
• Less than 10% of young people reported improving ‘other skills’

Opportunities for networking seen as useful

In the SWAP strand, networking opportunities were reported as a particular strength. Participants reported that placement activities such as industry panels, masterclasses, and studio visits created opportunities to interact directly with individuals working across different parts of the sector, helping them to gain an informed understanding of the realities of the sector. For the work experience pilot, while survey data indicates participants engaged with a wide range of peers and industry professionals, the extent of engagement with the sector was noted to depend on the type of placement, the host organisation, and the specific projects and tasks that students were involved in.

Creative professionals’ strong interest in future delivery

Industry partners reported high levels of engagement from participants and expressed strong interest in future involvement, suggesting the programme has potential to sustain and expand connections between young people and creative businesses. In the SWAP strand, we understand that in some cases, engagement extended beyond structured sessions, with participants continuing conversations with speakers and maintaining connections through mailing lists and industry events. In the Discover England and Beyond England strands, industry partners reported strengthened relationships with schools and a willingness to engage further in future.

Outcome 5: Increased number of young people considering careers in the creative industries

Our research is not conclusive as to whether the programme is increasing the number of young people considering careers in the creative industries. However, across all strands, participation appeared to strengthen aspirations among young people already interested in creative careers, and in some cases, newly inspired those who had not previously considered them. A recurring pattern was that events and placements helped de-mystify the creative industries, making careers feel more relevant, accessible, and achievable, particularly for those with limited prior exposure to the sector.

New inspiration to consider creative careers

Across the Discover England and Beyond England expansions, some young people described being newly inspired to consider creative careers after learning about the variety and accessibility of roles and pathways. In Discover England, hands-on experiences and seeing professionals take pride in their work helped reinforce the appeal of creative careers, with one student gaining clarity on how their chosen degree could open specific career paths. In the work experience pilot, some students who were initially uncertain about their futures began exploring specific pathways by the end of their placements. In one placement, some participants went on to apply for staff or volunteer roles.

[…] to show them [participating students] that actually, if your brain doesn’t align with your core subjects, then you do have other options. Like I do think it’s so, so, so important. And I would love to do it again, to be honest.

– Industry partner, WEX pilot

Evidence of increased interest in Discover England

In Discover England, survey findings indicate a notable increase in interest in the creative sector (0). Most respondents reported that the events increased their interest in the creative industries overall (65% of respondents), working in the sector (59% of respondents), and studying a creative subject in the future (56% of respondents). Interest was particularly strong amongst post-16 students, with over 60% of post-16 respondents reporting that they more interested in working in the creative industries, and were more interested in the creative industries in general.

Figure 4. Discover England: Findings from young people’s survey on impacts on their interest in creative industries (n=417)

Text description:

A total of 417 students answered questions on impact of the programme on their interest in creative industries:

• Post-16 students (n=178)
• KS4 students (n=74)
• KS3 students (n=159)

I am now more interested in studying a creative subject in the future:

• Over 60% of KS4 students report that they are now more interested
• Between 40% and 60% of Total students, Post-16 students and KS3 students report that they are now more interested

I am now more interested in working in the creative industries in the future

• Over 60% of Post-16 students and KS4 students report that they are now more interested
• Between 40% and 60% of Total students and KS3 students report that they are now more interested

I am now more interested in the creative industries in general

• Over 60% of students at all levels report that they are now more interested

Programme activities reinforced existing interest in creative industries

In the SWAP pilot, many participants reported that placements reinforced pre-existing interest and provided tangible tips on how to progress. Similarly, in the work experience pilot, students expressed that placements helped confirm an existing interest in creative areas they were already curious about; 56% of survey respondents reported that the work experience had influenced them to consider a career in the creative industries, and the majority of tutors surveyed also reported that the placements sparked a stronger interest among students in pursuing future work or further study in the creative industries. In the Beyond England expansion (Wales), young people described feeling motivated to restart creative projects, such as promoting a clothing brand or re-engaging with digital content creation. One student gained confidence to pursue product design despite concerns about entering a competitive field, while another felt reassured that university could be a viable and purposeful path into their chosen career.

It encouraged me to keep doing what I’m doing, that I’m on the right path. I liked how they encouraged people to just do it and not care what people think.

– Participant, Beyond England expansion

Clarity on next steps increased interest in creative careers

In the Work Experience pilot, students felt that placements gave them the space to ask about further opportunities, such as volunteering and paid roles. By the end of their placements, students who were initially uncertain about their futures began exploring specific pathways into creative industries. Students’ end-of-week reflections and questions about next steps suggest an increased likelihood of wanting to pursue creative roles. In the Beyond England expansion (Wales), young people already on creative pathways, for example, those studying A-level music, felt more informed about the routes available and alternative opportunities in the sector, increasing their focus and motivation.

Continuing uncertainty

Participants did not universally express increased interest in creative careers. In the work experience pilot, 38% of participants were unsure about the impact of the placement and about pursuing a career in the creative industries. Some of these young people found the sector in which they had their placement interesting and enjoyable, but they were unsure if it aligned with their future career plans. Others noted that they are still uncertain about their career path in general but would like to continue exploring the creative industries in the future. Similarly, as highlighted under Outcome 1, some participants in Discover England and Nations, as well as SWAP, reflected persistent or even increased uncertainty regarding the sustainability of a creative career.

Outcome 6: Improved perceptions of careers in the creative industries

Across all strands, participation helped shift young people’s perceptions of creative careers, challenging misconceptions, broadening their understanding of what the sector comprises, and making careers feel more attainable. A consistent theme was the value of hearing realistic, personal accounts from practitioners in breaking down preconceived ideas about how creative careers work.

Creative careers felt more attainable

In Discover England, many described the industry as less “risky” or “silly” than they had previously thought, with hearing about non-linear pathways and the diversity of roles helping them see that even if they do not reach a specific “dream job,” other routes are achievable. Across Discover England and Beyond England expansion, sessions featuring personal stories and myth-busting activities effectively challenged common misconceptions, including the belief that university is the only route into creative careers. In the Beyond England expansion, some participants noted that events challenged the traditional emphasis schools often place on careers such as medicine, teaching, or nursing, highlighting opportunities they had not previously considered.

It’s reassuring to hear about different pathways and routes that aren’t just university.

– Participant, Discover England

For a lot of the young people, it’s them recognising the skills they have, and I generally think we are broadening the mindset of what creativity is. And I think with the young people, you know, they might roll their eyes when I say we can do something creative today, but a lot of them will be like, oh, you know, I do my own TikTok videos, or I make my own music actually.

– Delivery partner, Beyond England Expansion – Wales

Improved understanding led to negative perceptions in some cases

At the same time, some participants in Discover England and Beyond England expansions reported scepticism about creative careers, sometimes even exacerbated by learning about their realities (as has been highlighted under Outcome 1). Financial stability was a particular concern, as well as instability and lack of guaranteed employment.

Importance of long-term work in shifting perceptions

In the Discover England strand, a few industry partners emphasised the importance of the CCP core strand events in changing perceptions of young people through information and curiosity, particularly younger age groups. One industry partner in the delivery of an event in the theatre subsector reported:

It is difficult to tell whether these students eventually pursue jobs [in theatre], the immediate value lies in sparking curiosity and changing perceptions. Maybe these children will go home and tell their parents they want to go to the Christmas play.

– Industry partner, Discover England

In the Beyond England expansion strand, some industry partners emphasised the importance of incorporating follow-up activities connected to broader learning and progression pathways, to ensure programmes have a lasting impact beyond one-off sessions. This aligned with the views of a delivery partner, who noted:

We’re not going to change perceptions overnight. It takes time, it’s got to be regular and part of the agenda.

– Delivery partner, Beyond England expansion

Process Evaluation

Our process evaluation examines the delivery of the CCP programme, focusing on how it has been implemented in practice. This includes an evaluation of what has worked well, difficulties and challenges faced, and the key lessons emerging to inform both future delivery and policymaking. The evaluation draws on the views and experiences of delivery partners and participants involved in programme activities and events.

This chapter outlines the main stages and activities underpinning the delivery of CCP, including programme delivery, partnership and collaborative working, and monitoring and evaluation. These are described below:

• Programme delivery: This stage includes findings relating to the delivery of various programme strands, including aspects such as planning, set-up, and delivery.
• Partnerships and collaboration: This stage includes findings relating to the collaboration and partnership between various delivery partners and the industry partners, and relationships with other key stakeholders, including presenters, guest speakers, and other collaborators. Specifically, in this stage, we have evaluated relationships with ScreenSkills as the key delivery partner of the full CCP.
• Monitoring and evaluation: This stage includes findings relating to the extent to which the current CCP supports high-quality and timely evaluation activity, including the extent to which monitoring data is timely and comprehensive.

Findings for the core and Beyond England strands have been reported together, as their implementation process was similar and therefore findings overlap considerably. We have also combined findings for SWAP and Work Experience strands, as these both involved within-sector placements and many findings align. Where findings are specific to one strand only, this is made clear in-text.

Discover England and Beyond England expansions

Programme delivery

Resource available for delivery partners seen as adequate, with capacity issues reported

In Discover England, funding and support provided under CCP were generally considered adequate, and in some cases enabled partners to expand their offer; for example, allowing one partner to deliver an additional, innovative event that would not otherwise have been possible. Some partners nonetheless reported strain on internal resources and felt the level of support was not sufficient, with funding seen as important for sustaining future delivery. For instance, one industry partner said they received “no support in managing requests,” suggesting that registration pages should be “shut down once they were full.”

In the Beyond England expansion strand, while delivery partners did not generally express that the overall level of resource was inadequate, there were challenges associated with staffing, which often made those working on delivery feel under resourced. These challenges were put down to the pilot structure; only being able to offer one-year contracts made it challenging to attract suitable candidates, and connected organisations were unable to offer full-time secondments. Exacerbating this, delivery partners consistently reported high levels of administrative burden, which had not been anticipated, contributing to the sense of intense workload at times. Some suggested that additional admin support staff would be beneficial in the future, as well as more robust and streamlined booking systems.

Industry partners receive either grant funding and/or other support, such as CCP branding, under the CCP. Across both strands, many reported that significant staff time and overheads were required for the delivery of the pilot. Discover England events relied heavily on industry partners’ in-house staff, volunteers, or partner-provided venues. Where industry partners did not receive direct grant funding under the programme, they absorbed many logistical costs themselves. On one hand, this reliance on in-house partner resources shows that the programme is meeting its aims of leveraging in-kind resources from partners ^{[footnote 2]}. On the other hand, this reliance on in-kind resources could sometimes have the impact of limiting the scale of the event, particularly for non-profit industry partners ^{[footnote 3]}. There were several cases where interest in events exceeded capacity due to the size of partner-secured venues.

In the Beyond England expansion strand, initially, payment for industry partners was intended to be entirely ‘in kind.’ Delivery partners and one industry partner noted that ‘in-kind’ payment can be sometimes problematic, especially for smaller industries and freelancers that are less well-resourced. Delivery partners reported recognising early on that the lack of remuneration for industry partners was creating challenges for buy-in, especially for those contacted through ‘cold-calling’ rather than existing networks. One delivery partner reported taking an adaptive approach and diverting resources from other project areas to enable payment of industry partners.

Those industry partners who did not report any resource challenges tended to be those who were repeat partners (having delivered CCP activity in previous iterations) or had extensive experience working with young people. This suggests that capacity challenges were more of an issue for industry partners new to this kind of project delivery.

In a related but notable issue, some industry partners in the Beyond England expansion strand reported that remuneration available under CCP (where this was offered to improve sector buy-in) was often misaligned with sector standards. For some sectors (for example, TV and film), payment available under CCP were significantly below their usual fees, while for others (for example, dance), rates were significantly higher. It is likely that issues such as this can result in an imbalance in engagement of certain sectors as opposed to others. This, therefore, indicates a need for programme resourcing to align more closely with sector realities.

Challenges with the school-led delivery model

The school-led delivery model, where schools register interest for events to be delivered, created challenges across both strands, though this was more explicitly documented in the Beyond England expansion. Engagement depended on schools actively seeking opportunities, meaning delivery was influenced by school leadership priorities and how embedded careers education was within school culture. Securing bookings often required further outreach to the right contacts, such as careers leads, even where initial interest existed. In Scotland, some of this was mitigated through existing networks such as the Developing the Young Workforce (DYW) network, while in England, it was reported that navigating timelines was easier with schools that had pre-existing relationships. Delivery partners in Wales reported challenges building school relationships from scratch, as schools can be overwhelmed with offers of programmes and too busy to engage.

The quality of events was also reported to be subject to the levels of staffing, resources, and infrastructure of individual schools. This finding was particularly strong in Wales, where many industry partners interviewed had done school-based engagement. For example, the level of school staff involvement in supporting behaviour and encouraging engagement was reported to differ between schools, and sessions were more challenging when school staff were not actively present or supportive during activities. Event delivery was also often subject to school infrastructure, particularly relating to technology. Industry partners in Wales reported prioritising low-tech activities to mitigate unexpected challenges.

However, these context-specific details were not known to industry partners beforehand, making delivery challenging. Session lengths were not always consistent, limiting how deeply industry partners could engage with students. In some cases, industry partners reported not knowing how long sessions would be or which year groups they would be engaging with until they arrived at the school, creating challenges for planning. Similarly, industry partners generally did not know in advance what technology or resources would be available. Some took the initiative to contact the school in advance to discuss arrangements, but this contact was not built in as a standard part of delivery. Most reported making flexible plans and adapting on the day; while this was generally reported to be effective, the process felt quite spontaneous and required extra effort.

Constrained timelines created challenges

For many delivery and industry partners, the programme timeline (meaning lead-in timeline from receipt of the grant to delivery of programme events) felt short and rushed. In England, industry partners particularly reported this as being a key challenge for collaboration with schools, as schools plan calendars a year in advance. Delivery partners in the nations similarly felt they lacked adequate time to build relationships with industry partners and align activities with their schedules. They highlighted that delivery requires significant administrative effort, particularly for engaging industry partners, school selection, teacher follow-up, and off-site activity coordination.

Planning was challenging because [we] received confirmation of funding quite late and had to pull everything together very quickly. More time would have allowed fuller co-design with schools, who were only able to give feedback after many plans were already in place.

– Industry partner, Discover England

Whilst existing networks and relationships (for example, the DYW in Scotland) helped access schools faster in some cases, the process remained time-intensive overall.

It’s just taking time […] If you’re trying to build trust and saying, we’d like this to happen next month, that’s quite a challenge. You know, people already have their plans laid out for the next 12 months and we were kind of hitting them halfway into the year and going, we’d like this now, please

– Delivery partner, Beyond England expansion

Partner organisations generally felt that a longer planning period (for example, three months) would have reduced pressure and allowed for more strategic outreach.

Benefits and challenges associated with shared branding

Most delivery partners observed that the Discover programme branding is a valuable resource for extending promotion and outreach, helping attract participants to events. This was particularly useful for industry partners that did not receive direct funding, and also for industry partners who are new to the programme. Various industry partners reported seeing a benefit in branding support and the platform provided under ‘Discover Creative Careers’ in expanding the reach of their event, strengthening local networks, and scaling events by making it more accessible to participants. In one case, for a first-time CCP industry partner in England, the ‘Discover’ branding helped attract participants from neighbouring cities.

At the same time, delivery partners in Wales and Scotland reported that not having their own separate social media channels created challenges in establishing distinct local identities and encouraging engagement. They had to run all social media activity by the national team, and although this was reported to be an easy and collaborative process, it naturally created delays that meant the team could not, for example, post live updates during events. The website was also felt to not fully reflect the cross-national work, not always clearly differentiating between activities for each nation and making it difficult for some teachers to locate relevant information. Delivery partners linked this to the short lead-in time, suggesting that despite the national team’s best efforts, it was not possible to create a fully representative website in the time available.

Impact of nation-specific structures and contexts

The presence or absence of enabling structures impacted delivery in different nations. In Wales, there were challenges getting schools engaged, and their approach relied more on the team’s existing networks, including Reaching Wider Wales and Careers Wales. One industry partner in Wales reported that it was challenging to provide careers advice without really knowing what structures and opportunities were available in Wales, as they are fragmented and frequently changing. In contrast, this appears to have been less of a problem in Scotland, where there are more established bodies and policies related to available pathways or enterprise support structures. They highlighted that Scotland had enabling structures that CCP could tie into during engagement with schools, like Developing the Young Workforce (DYW), which had pre-existing relationships with schools. Notably, in both nations, delivery partners reported having the flexibility to adapt the programme to their local needs.

The geography of Wales and Scotland was also noted, as it was more challenging to secure engagement in rural and remote areas. While delivery was always intended to be concentrated in priority areas, for example, the Scottish central belt, delivery partners expressed interest in expanding rural engagement over a longer programme period, potentially through blended or webinar-based delivery.

Scottish delivery partners also reported a growing interest in developing more Gaelic-speaking activities in future editions of the pilot.

Strategic efforts to engage underrepresented groups

Delivery and industry partners in both strands made active efforts to reach underrepresented groups, though there was acknowledgement that more could be done. In Discover England, approaches included targeted engagement to improve participation amongst young people with SEND, and/or young people from underrepresented socio-economic backgrounds. In Scotland and Wales, approaches included embedding inclusion within mainstream school sessions, partnering with local charities and community organisations to support delivery for disabled young people, and working with alternative education providers to reach vulnerable young people. Some industry partners targeted low SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) areas and sought gender balance in events, and at least one made deliberate efforts to feature panel members without “stereotypical” routes into the arts, to make events more relatable to young people from diverse backgrounds.

Our project is all based around socioeconomic deprivation […] we feel that that is the intersection that really holds people back from going into creative industries and then that’s compounded by if they come from ethnic minority backgrounds.

– Industry partner, Discover England

Industry partners identified areas of improvement in event delivery

Several industry partners identified areas for improvement in event delivery. Content was sometimes felt to be too complex or information-heavy for younger audiences, and some partners reflected after delivery that more breaks should have been incorporated. To address this, partners suggested earlier coordination with speakers to tailor content to different audiences, greater emphasis on interactive and age-appropriate formats, and more regular monitoring of registrations to better understand who is attending. One delivery partner proposed creating simple guidance for industry partners, with key information on how to successfully engage teenagers. Some partners also recommended reviewing the timing of Discover Creative Careers month events, noting that November was inconvenient due to half-term.

Partnerships and collaboration

Broadly positive collaboration amongst partner organisations, with some gaps

Experiences of collaborating with the lead delivery partner, ScreenSkills, were broadly positive across both strands. In Discover England, existing relationships between the lead delivery partner staff and industry partners were a key factor in attracting partners, particularly first-time partners, to deliver events under the CCP, and were noted as likely contributing to the programme’s growth from a week-long to a month-long offer. In the Beyond England expansion, pilot delivery partners similarly valued their collaborative work with ScreenSkills, welcoming access to wider pools of industry partners and responsive, constructive support. Collaborative working between the Scotland and Wales delivery teams was particularly appreciated, with both teams recommending more opportunities for shared in-person working to reflect, plan, and learn together.

At the same time, challenges were reported in both strands. In Discover England, industry partners reported that while ScreenSkills was “there if needed,” support was not always proactive, particularly around logistical requirements and unplanned hurdles. Specific issues reported by industry partners included a lack of proactive check-ins on event days, insufficient support in managing registrations, and a need for clearer communication around additional programme requirements, such as marketing activities conducted at events ^{[footnote 4]}. Industry partners also felt that the presence of the evaluation team on event days added strain to already stretched capacity, with no additional support provided to offset this.

In Scotland and Wales, industry partners’ collaboration with the delivery partners broadly worked well. Pilot delivery partners were praised by most industry partners for their proactivity and support with the various logistical elements of delivery. Some industry partners reported gaps in communication (particularly in streamlining collaboration with schools), and recommended more proactive sharing of information around expectations for how school-based sessions should be run.

In Discover England, some industry partners suggested that knowledge-sharing between partners delivering events under the strand could help mitigate logistical challenges, enabling partners to learn from each other’s experiences without “reinventing the wheel,” including through collaboration with regional partners. Across both strands, these findings point to a need for clearer communication protocols and more clearly defined responsibilities for each collaborator ahead of delivery.

Communication gaps reported between schools and industry partners

Across both strands, communication between schools and industry partners was identified as an area requiring improvement. In the Beyond England expansion, whilst collaboration generally worked well, some industry partners reported practical gaps, such as schools not being fully prepared for activities, and partners being uncertain about site access and who to contact on arrival. Teachers were not always able to engage in detailed planning discussions due to time pressures and competing priorities. Some also highlighted the need for industry partners to receive pre-event guidance on working with young people, including information on attention spans, age-appropriate content, and strategies for adapting to different classroom scenarios. This feedback aligned with young people’s own reflections on maintaining attention during longer sessions.

Scope for clearer downstream communication of programme objectives

While industry partners in Scotland and Wales reported being broadly clear on the programme’s objectives, in England, most industry partners, and almost all first-time industry partners we engaged, reported not being explicitly aware of the CCP programme objectives. Further, there was no knowledge of programme objectives amongst other creative industry businesses engaged by industry partners at various events, to present or speak at various events. Industry partners across both strands reported that their own organisational or personal goals aligned with the CCP. This broad alignment in core principles was often what drew them to the programme, even where funding support was not available. Given the high perceived benefit among industry partners of CCP branding, this finding may indicate the need for more explicit messaging and formal, top-down communication of programme objectives to participating industry partners in future iterations.

Importance of collaboration with local creative practitioners

In the Beyond England expansion, all industry partners interviewed emphasised the value of involving local creative professionals in event delivery. Having practitioners speak directly to young people was seen as an effective way to build trust, foster engagement, and provide relatable role models, particularly for young people in deprived areas, for whom seeing someone from a similar background succeed in the creative industries was felt to be especially impactful. In Wales, young people expressed particular appreciation for creative professionals who could speak Welsh, which helped build comfort and confidence with presenters. One industry partner noted that their own cultural background and regional identity helped them connect meaningfully with students.

Monitoring and evaluation

Scope for more consistent monitoring activity

There is scope for more consistent and streamlined monitoring activity across both the Discover England and Beyond England expansion strands. For both strands, the lead delivery partner collected monitoring data such as the number of events, schools, and the number of young people reached through programme activities. Data on the number of schools engaged in priority regions and the presence of SEND students were also captured.

For the Discover England strand, Evaluation reports were also collected by partner organisations delivering micro-grant activities in the regions. Outside of this, monitoring by industry partners in the Discover England strand was largely sporadic, with most partners only tracking sign-up numbers. Only a small minority reported conducting detailed follow-up with participating schools and tutors (despite all indicating the desire to conduct more consistent monitoring and evaluation in the future).

CCP-wide feedback surveys were circulated by the delivery partner across a sample of Discover England events (more details available in the methodology chapter), which provided useful and rich participant feedback. Engagement from tutors and creative businesses through these surveys remained low across both strands.

In the Beyond England expansion, delivery partners led on monitoring and attempted a range of strategies to collect data on reach, engagement, satisfaction, and demographic characteristics. They, however, reported persistently low engagement in response, despite regular follow-ups. One delivery partner’s initial survey strategy yielded a response rate of under 1%, and a subsequent pivot to QR code-based feedback was constrained by school mobile phone policies.

Across both strands, gaps in monitoring data have implications for the programme’s ability to track reach to underrepresented groups, which is a key programme outcome (Outcome 3). In Discover England, the absence of robust school-level monitoring beyond participating schools limits the feasibility of assessing outcomes outside of tracking participation levels. In the Beyond England expansion, whilst delivery partners attempted to collect demographic data, including SIMD and free school meal eligibility, low response rates constrained what could meaningfully be captured. In both strands, feedback surveys do not collect demographic information beyond school and age group, and challenges in engaging participants post-event limit what can be meaningfully captured.

Participant observations on programme delivery

In this section, we have detailed some findings from engagement with young people participating in the Discover England and Beyond England expansion events. These findings help add nuance to industry partner observations on programme delivery and help support recommendations on quality improvement. Given the similarity of events delivered under the core programme strand and the Beyond England expansion pilot, we have combined findings for both strands under this one section.

Overall, a majority of participants of all Discover month events in the core strand in England, and in the Beyond England expansion pilot, reported that the events were interesting and enjoyable. Participants valued the insight provided into what different creative roles were involved in a creative sector because, from their perspective, this information would have been difficult to find independently. Other common findings on the quality of event delivery are elaborated below.

Young people report feeling inspired by insights into lived experiences of creative professionals

Participants of the core programme and the Beyond England expansion widely reported that they liked learning about the lived experiences of people working in creative careers. This was a positive for participants of all age groups across events. Participants specifically highlighted that the candid descriptions of professional journeys in creative industries, covering both challenges faced and the positives of working in these careers, were “inspiring” for them.

Information on alternative pathways into creative careers was useful

Another highlight for participants was learning about the alternative routes into creative industries, outside of formal education. Some participants reported that this was particularly “reassuring” for them, whilst others found this to be insightful. An interest in learning about alternative pathways was raised widely by older student participants (ages 16+) across a majority of Discover England events, regardless of format.

Young people often felt events were densely packed with information

Many participants at Discover England events we attended consistently reported that Discover England events provided a lot of information on careers, roles, pathways, and often specific creative businesses across creative subsectors. While participants generally found this to be interesting, they felt that the events frequently included a lot of information packed into short durations of time. This meant that they struggled to retain a lot of the information, with many participants reporting loss of attention spans towards the end of the various events. For events featuring more than one sector, participants also reported that more detailed insight into a single topic area would have been preferred over a wide range of information across so many sectors. In a few events, participants also reported that the bulk of the information felt “dense.”

This observation on event schedules being packed with information was widely reported for events with younger participants (11 to 13 age groups). Relatedly, these younger participants suggested that the events include short snack breaks, as they had started to feel hungry towards the end of the event.

Young people suggest prioritising interactive, hands-on activities

Young people taking part in the core programme and the Beyond England expansion events also widely reported that they would have preferred more interactive, hands-on, workshop format activities. In programme events that featured such interactive and/or hands-on activity segments, a majority of young people reported having enjoyed those segments of events more than others. Several Discover England events also featured presentation-style activities, where participants got the opportunity to work with each other to develop their pitch presentations; these segments were reported by participants as particularly enjoyable. Tutors accompanying their students also reported that presentation format activities enabled their students to practice their public speaking skills.

SWAP and work experience pilots

Programme Delivery

Available resource seen as adequate, with capacity pressures reported by partners

Resources were broadly felt to be adequate across the two pilots. In the work experience pilot, the delivery partner felt well-resourced for the pilot phase, with existing contacts, networks, and careful upfront planning securing strong delivery despite tight timelines. In the SWAP pilot, industry partners led on pilot planning and delivery, and generally felt well-resourced. These partners reported having suitable internal resources for delivery due to their experience delivering similar programmes.

However, industry partners in both strands reported capacity pressures around the administrative and logistical demands of delivery. In the SWAP pilot, coordinating guest speakers, booking venues, managing communications, and supporting participants required significant effort, with one industry partner suggesting that dedicated project coordination support could improve delivery. Another SWAP industry partner, being a training provider new to the creative industries, found it difficult to secure external industry engagement without established networks, leading to reliance on external partners and logistical challenges such as last-minute scheduling changes.

In the work experience pilot, some industry partners reported strain around office space, technology, and other practical resources that restricted the number of placements they could accommodate, with partners suggesting access to a small equipment budget would have been beneficial.

The impact of location was highlighted in both strands. In the work experience pilot, industry partners noted that financially supporting young people in rural areas to commute to and from placements made delivery more resource-intensive. Additional resources to support local industry partners in these areas were considered important by both industry and delivery partners.

Short planning timelines caused pressure

Short planning timelines were identified as a key challenge across both strands. In the work experience pilot, the programme was launched quickly after the tender was awarded, leaving limited time to align with schools’ long-term planning cycles, which are typically a full year in advance. Early phases of the pilot consequently achieved fewer placements than planned, with summer holidays compressing delivery windows. Businesses were reported to typically need six to eight weeks to prepare for a placement, with shorter lead-in periods noted as a particular barrier for smaller creative businesses. Some tutors suggested that longer lead-in times could improve overall communication and coordination with delivery partners, enabling better planning with young people (particularly those with additional needs), and better alignment on procedures.

In the SWAP pilot, timeline pressures similarly contributed to logistical challenges described under point a). Across both strands, longer lead-in timelines were seen as essential for more strategic planning, stronger collaboration with schools, and more effective overall delivery.

Delivery experience and programme design

Delivery experiences were broadly positive across both strands.

In the SWAP strand, all industry partners engaged felt that the cohort-based model (meaning grouping 20 young people together) worked well, particularly in bringing together participants who had not met before to foster collaboration and learning. The cohort-based model was supported by regular facilitation, as most participants praised regular input by the lead facilitator, who provided regular guidance, feedback, and practical instruction. Two examples were given of participating young people maintaining contact after the placement ended, one group forming a creative collective and one setting up an online peer support and networking group.

In SWAP, industry partners were given the opportunity to lead on placement design, and most combined general employability training, including CV workshops, interview preparation, and skill-building exercises, with sector-specific experiences such as guest speakers, masterclasses, and industry visits. This dual approach helped participants understand how transferable skills apply in the creative industries, explore various career roles, and identify entry points that match their skills and interests.

We spoke to individuals [within creative industries] and a lot of them came up with the same sort of key skills that people would need to work in that sector, which was around resilience, communication, teamwork […] so we came up with a number of programmes that would help people gain those sorts of skills.

– SWAP delivery partner

In the work experience pilot, industry partners generally found placements to be a positive and rewarding experience. Most partners were very satisfied with students’ contributions, valued the opportunity to mentor young people and strengthen links with the local community, and agreed they would repeat the experience. However, a few found it challenging to keep young people engaged for the full placement and to find meaningful tasks, particularly in smaller or highly specialised organisations where work could be technical and require close supervision, and where supporting young people required extra time from staff already balancing their usual workload; more financial support was suggested for these organisations. Other suggestions included more flexible and tailored placement structures, shorter placements for some organisations, and better matching of students to businesses. Some industry partners also felt that students were not always sufficiently interested in the specific placement area, suggesting that providing students with clearer information about the placement beforehand could help improve engagement.

Financial support for underrepresented groups (work experience pilot)

In the work experience pilot, financial bursaries for travel and food, alongside additional access funding, were reported by most industry partners as critical in removing barriers to participation for underrepresented groups, including those in rural areas and those with SEND. One industry partner noted that without the bursary, certain groups of young people would simply have been unable to attend, and that smaller organisations would have struggled to host placements equitably in its absence. Some industry partners suggested a sliding-scale bursary for transport costs, taking into account rurality, limited public transport infrastructure, and young people’s personal circumstances, such as parents’ ability to drive students due to work or caring responsibilities, as a way to ensure more equitable access to placement opportunities.

Partnerships and collaboration

Positive collaboration experiences, with some communication challenges

As with other CCP strands, delivery for both WEX and SWAP pilots relied heavily on strong collaboration between key stakeholders, including industry and delivery partners, ScreenSkills, schools, creative businesses, and others. These collaboration experiences were generally perceived positively. In the SWAP pilot, most industry partners reported that their partnership with ScreenSkills was supportive and helpful for programme delivery. In the work experience pilot, the delivery partner was similarly praised by most industry partners for being proactive, communicative, and supportive, and specifically for leading on administrative work such as paperwork and transport arrangements, which reduced the burden on industry partners. This was echoed by most tutors, who reported high satisfaction with levels of communication from the delivery partner and valued their support with coordination tasks such as parental consent and risk assessments.

[the delivery partner] was fantastic. I’ve really enjoyed working with them. I think it’s been refreshing to have the support. I think it’s very much a programme that is needed and I think it’s really beneficial for the young people to actually have that chance.

– WEX industry partner

At the same time, certain challenges were encountered across both strands. In the SWAP pilot, one industry partner described communication issues with the job centre, including delays in receiving participant referral lists, exacerbated by uncertainty over who was responsible for participant recruitment, and resulting in participants receiving incorrect information about event times and other logistics. Another industry partner reported difficulties receiving timely confirmation of participation from creative sector professionals, attributed to having limited existing networks in the creative industries. It is important to note that these were not experienced by all partners, and are likely sensitive to location, sector, and the specific partner involved. Collectively, however, they point to a need for well-defined roles and responsibilities across collaborators to pre-emptively bridge communication gaps.

In the work experience pilot, communication challenges were often linked to timeline challenges, delays, and incomplete information provided to industry partners. Whilst most tutors surveyed reported being satisfied with the pre-placement arrangements, some noted that preparation timeframes affected the level of communication they were able to maintain with creative businesses. This was particularly important when considering safeguarding arrangements for students, which 34% of tutors surveyed found unsatisfactory. Tutors felt that employers were sometimes unfamiliar with school requirements, such as security procedures, parental communication, and travel arrangements for students, which could create challenges during the preparation stage.

Most industry partners reported feeling “put on the back foot” by communication challenges, with limited ability to prepare effectively, including for participants with additional needs. In some cases, the first few hours of placements were often spent identifying student requirements rather than starting planned activities. Most industry partners attributed this issue to the lack of direct contact with schools and students and having to liaise with schools through the delivery partner. Even though most industry partners felt supported by the delivery partner, several suggested clearer points of contact between schools, students, and staff to avoid communication gaps.

I would say there was a little bit of late notice in terms of knowing who we had and that it was definitely happening, so I ended up probably doing a bit of chasing […] which just put you on the back foot a little bit. Having said that, once that had happened and I’d got the information about the three young people […] delivery was really good and really simple.

– WEX industry partner

Agile outreach and collaboration strategies (work experience pilot)

Following slower uptake in earlier months of the pilot, delivery partners in the work experience strand reported having to adapt outreach approaches separately for schools and businesses, with phone calls proving more effective than email for schools, while newsletters, webinars, local authorities, and regional networks worked well for engaging employers. For industry partners, snowballing engagement through existing sector networks helped expand reach and connect with sectors such as gaming and architecture. In some cases, this required educating creative businesses on the nature of work experience opportunities.

Delivery partners noted that an agile and iterative approach, along with additional capacity (including freelance support), proved critical to programme delivery on targets in later months, enabling stronger engagement after September (once schools reopened).

Collaboration with outside agencies and regional variation

In the SWAP pilot, collaboration with Universal Credit boosted programme uptake in at least one placement, with work coaches recommending and referring participants to the programme and travel expenses covered through Universal Credit.

In the work experience placement, partnerships with special schools were cited as particularly successful, enabling the programme to meet SEND participation targets early. School engagement varied significantly by region, however, with more resourced areas tending to engage more strongly and quickly. Regional differences were also linked by various industry partners to variations in the opportunities available. Industry partners noted a “career poverty” issue in regions such as the West Midlands and the Northeast, where creative industries can remain largely invisible to young people due to limited local networks.

Monitoring and evaluation

Comprehensive monitoring undertaken

Across both strands, comprehensive monitoring was undertaken, although some inconsistencies remained.

In the SWAP pilot, all industry partners conducted comprehensive monitoring of programme engagement. Feedback forms were used to collect participant information and enquire about participant experiences. These forms were promptly shared with Alma for evaluation, following participant consent. Follow-up engagement with participants was also undertaken by all industry partners, though engagement levels remain sporadic. Not all industry partners we engaged were systematically tracking how many SWAP placements eventually convert into employment, and those tracking this did so through the follow-up feedback surveys and/or engagement (which has sporadic engagement levels). Despite challenges faced by partner organisations in systematically tracking onward employment, we understand anecdotally from delivery partners that that onward work opportunities (including opportunities for casual work, shadowing opportunities, and more formal roles) materialised for several SWAP participants across placements we engaged, following conclusion of our fieldwork.

In the work experience strand, delivery partners carried out comprehensive monitoring activity, through follow-up feedback surveys to schools and industry partners as a wrap-around activity sent online after the placement is completed. Separately, delivery partners collected monitoring data of schoolteachers and career leads, and participating businesses; no names or contact details of young people are collected. However, monitoring at the industry partner level was typically informal, with most partners relying on informal observations, such as end-of-week discussions, rather than structured feedback. Only one industry partner used structured post-placement feedback.

Participant observations on pilot delivery

In this section, we have detailed some findings from engagement with young people participating in the SWAP and work experience strands. These findings highlight areas of improvement and underline aspects of the programme delivery that have worked well.

Peer engagement highlighted as key pilot positive (SWAP)

Most SWAP participants across all placements we engaged reported peer interaction as a positive part of the SWAP pilot, as well as meeting and working with industry practitioners. Most participants enjoyed working on the placement briefs, particularly in groups, valuing the opportunity to collaborate with peers. Participants also noted the value of engaging with peers from diverse educational and professional backgrounds, which contributed to a broader exchange of ideas and perspectives.

Practical career development and networking support seen as useful (SWAP)

Across placements, many SWAP participants saw practical employability support provided through the SWAP placements as the most useful part of the placement. Some participants found CV development support to be particularly useful.

He [the training provider] was generally very good, like I could message him for feedback on like cover letters and CVs I wanted to submit, and he gave quite good feedback on the CVs I did submit to make them more ATS [Applicant Tracking System] friendly, which is something I hadn’t really considered in the past.

– SWAP participant

Workshops on topics like LinkedIn and social media were highlighted by some participants as particularly valuable, prompting these participants to take concrete actions such as updating profiles. Similarly, sessions on IP and taxes were highlighted by others as useful. In several cases, support available during the SWAP placements translated into tangible outcomes, with participants reporting that they had begun applying for roles, reaching out to employers, and building on existing creative projects using support received during the placement.

Calls for more support in finding employment after the placement (SWAP)

In one SWAP placement, several participants felt that the SWAP placement could be improved through support and guidance in looking for jobs after the placement ended (beyond the guaranteed networking opportunities provided); they would also have preferred more information about available job opportunities. While the placements were informative and engaging, they felt that it would be a helpful follow-up support in finding and applying for roles, as well as clearer pathways into employment.

Information provided by job centres could be more comprehensive (SWAP)

In one SWAP placement, participants reported that information provided by the job centres about the SWAP was generally limited. Some received only a brief overview or publicly available information, while others were told very little or found out about their placement at short notice. A few participants felt adequately informed, though details were sometimes incomplete, and elements of the programme were not shared from the beginning. In another placement, although participants did not report any challenges in relation to communication received from job centres, industry partners faced communication gaps. These varied experiences across SWAP placements suggest the need to clarify roles and responsibilities, particularly around the communication of key information to participants as well as other stakeholders, across the strand.

Suggestions for more hands-on sessions, networking, and exposure to wider range of careers (SWAP)

SWAP participants suggested several other areas for improvement. Most commonly made recommendations included offering practical skills training (such as software editing and marketing strategies) and increasing exposure to a wider range of careers through guest speakers. This is a notable suggestion, given that the current SWAP placements were typically targeted at one creative subsector and were therefore likely limited only to specific job roles and opportunities. Some participants also suggested more off-site activities, additional networking opportunities, and more interactive or hands-on sessions rather than staying in one room.

Additional support for diverse learning and accessibility needs (SWAP)

A few SWAP participants suggested that additional support could be offered for individuals with specific learning or accessibility needs. They emphasised the potential value of ensuring all participants can fully engage with the programme and help to create a more inclusive learning environment for all participants. Although this was raised in the context of one placement, it highlights a key area of attention for the SWAP pilot at the central level.

Calls for additional information after the placement (WEX)

Some WEX participants expressed that they would appreciate receiving additional information after the placement. They highlighted their interest in follow-up guidance on application processes, along with access to further opportunities (such as additional placements of job openings) to support their progression into employment.

Need for clear communication about expected tasks and responsibilities (WEX)

Several WEX participants emphasised the importance of clearer and earlier communication from both schools and host organisations about the nature of tasks and responsibilities. Additionally, providing more detailed information in advance could help manage expectations more effectively.

Suggestions for more practical, hands-on activities (WEX)

Several WEX participants we engaged sought more practical, hands-on, and immersive experiences and activities during placements. Importantly, negative feedback shared by young people (10% of those surveyed) primarily related to a mismatch between their expectations and the level of practical or hands-on engagement they had anticipated.

Conclusions and recommendations

Impact evaluation

Our evaluation of CCP FY 2025 to 2026 has shown that CCP is delivering its intended outcomes either fully or partially. These findings indicate that CCP’s longer-term impacts, which have a long-term horizon for materialising, have a strong likelihood of being delivered.

Having assessed these intermediate outcomes, we found that CCP is contributing to young people learning more about the roles, opportunities and pathways in the creative industries. Engagement with CCP activities helped young people learn about “hidden” and “behind-the-scenes” job roles of which they were previously unaware. CCP also helped participants learn about the wide range of roles within creative sector professions that had not previously been taught to them at school. Programme wide, CCP has enabled direct and meaningful engagement between young people and businesses in the creative industries. The CCP has contributed to improved perceptions of careers in the creative industries, helping to challenge outdated stereotypes about work in the creative industries, and helping make jobs in the creative industries seem more attainable to young people. For many young people, the participation in the CCP has helped strengthen aspirations for eventually working in the creative industries.

Process evaluation

Our process evaluation has shown that the programme is delivering high-quality events and activities, enabling the programme to realise its intermediate outcomes across strands. That said, our evaluation has outlined areas of programme activity that are facing challenges. In view of this, we have set out a set of forward-facing recommendations below. Each recommendation is supported by our rationale (drawn from evidence collected through this evaluation) and accompanied by detail on how each recommendation can be achieved in practice.

Recommendation 1: Establish longer timelines between set-up and delivery

Rationale: Our evaluation has shown that across most strands of the CCP, particularly those where programme delivery depends on engagement with schools, the CCP could benefit from a longer planning period between set-up and delivery. Both industry partners, and delivery partners across all strands have reported that short timelines between set-up and delivery of programme activities has led to challenges in securing engagement from schools and consequently, young people. Schools often plan their calendars one year in advance, making it difficult to engage in programme activity that have shorter planning periods.

Recommendation: We recommend that longer planning timelines be established for effective engagement with schools, and to ease time pressures for delivery partners. For this, we recommend:

• Conclude contracting of delivery and sub-delivery partners three to four months prior to programme delivery. From our engagement, we understand that an ideal planning timeline is between two and three months at minimum, to effectively engage schools. To allow for this, contracting of delivery partners and sub-partners should ideally conclude at least three to four months prior to delivery of programme activity.
• Review timeline for delivery of activities under Discover Week and month (core programme, and Beyond England expansion). In our qualitative engagement, a few industry partners raised difficulties of engaging schools through programme activity in November, in view of the half-term. Although this evidence is anecdotal, we understand from observation that a significant portion of programme activity was conducted after November. Accordingly, we suggest reviewing the time of year when the CCP programme activity (particularly the Discover Careers week or month) is scheduled to take place, to ensure feasibility.

Recommendation 2: Continue decentralised programme delivery

Rationale: Our evidence suggests that the programme’s decentralised structure is working well to support the delivery of the various programme strands at scale. This structure enables the programme to leverage hyperlocal training expertise and creative subsector networks, optimising programme reach. In our engagement, young people consistently praised programme activity as being enjoyable and beneficial, evidencing the high quality of programme activity being delivered across the board. CCP activities were also seen by local partner organisations as boosting engagement of young people with creative industries in local areas, through events and activities that had only been made possible under the programme.

Recommendation: We recommend that the programme continue its decentralised structure of delivery so it can continue to realise the benefits of this format. This can enable the CCP to:

• Continue to leverage local creative industries networks and local training infrastructure. This way, the programme can continue to reach priority regions, operate at scale, and meaningfully engage young people across the UK’s nations and regions.
• Continue to facilitate programme delivery by local training providers and creative businesses. This format can help the programme continue to achieve high-quality activities, enabling it to continue meeting its objectives.
• Continue enhancing creative industries pathways. By providing opportunities for engagement between local creative businesses and young people living in these areas, the programme’s structure is likely to strengthen local creative industries career pathways.

Recommendation 3: Ensure stronger programme management programme-wide

Rationale: Whilst the decentralised programme structure is working well, our evaluation has outlined challenges in programme delivery. One area where these issues were most evident is in the partnership and collaboration stage of programme activity. Across all strands, we found that effective programme activity depends on collaborations and partnerships working well. These include collaborations between schools, industry partners, delivery partners, and in some cases, job centres.

Although working relationships amongst key collaborators were reported to be working positively, there is evidence of critical communication issues between key collaborators that have impacted delivery at various stages. Industry partners delivering CCP events and sessions reported not having key programme information beforehand, such as information on students taking part. In some cases, we also found that challenges in delivery stem from unclear communication of delivery expectations. Compounding these communication issues, in some strands, there is evidence of administrative challenges arising from a lack of clarity around who was responsible for providing certain information. Communication issues were often attributed by industry partners to not having a clear understanding of where logistical responsibilities lay.

Recommendation: For the decentralised programme structure to continue to realise its benefits, we recommend stronger programme management that can bridge issues in communication and logistics

• Establish clear responsibilities for each collaborator. In particular, we recommend that there is a clear division of responsibilities between the lead delivery partner, subcontracted delivery partners (for each strand), and industry partners. Additionally, we recommend clarity of roles and responsibilities for each downstream collaborator, for example, division of responsibilities between industry partners, and sub-contracted delivery partners for each strand. These responsibilities should be communicated clearly to partners at contracting (at all levels).
• Establish dedicated responsibilities at the lead partner level, for oversight of activity across strands. We understand that there are dedicated roles at the lead partner-level managing programme activity across strands. Responsibilities of strand leads should be reviewed and amended, if necessary, to (a) ensure alignment with the division of responsibilities agreed programme-wide, and (b) to include stronger oversight of relationships and collaborations across strands.
• Ensure clear communication of programme delivery expectations to downstream industry partners. Given that the bulk of programme activity is delivered by downstream delivery partners, delivery partners should ensure clear, consistent, and streamlined communication of expectations around delivery objectives to industry partners. It is worth noting that in most cases, industry partners saw the ability to own and design CCP event sessions themselves as a positive. For clarity, our recommendation is not that this be changed, but rather that all delivery organisations be better aligned.

Recommendation 4: Provide top-down administrative support to industry partners

Rationale: Across all CCP strands, industry partners have reported needing more proactive logistical and administrative support. Support with managing registrations to events, support on the day with evaluation, and other requirements, were all mentioned as areas of additional support. This finding takes on more importance in the context of many of the industry partners being non-profit bodies and charities, who are likely to struggle with additional and/or unplanned strain on resources. Even in cases where resource available under the CCP was considered adequate, partner organisations reported pressures in scaling engagement to rural areas or achieving engagement in regions without pre-existing training networks and infrastructure. Ultimately, this has the potential to develop into a risk factor impacting the scale of CCP’s programme of events and the willingness of partners to continue delivering events under the programme umbrella.

Recommendation: We recommend a combination of hands-on and light-touch support to be provided to partner organisations, as needed. This is because strain is being experienced at varying levels across the programme.

• Centralise registration activity at the strand level to be managed by delivery partners. In our evaluation, registration activity was found to be a key area where industry partners experienced administrative strain. We recommend that registration for programme activity, particularly in the core strand and Beyond England expansion strands, be managed and overseen by the delivery partner (either the lead partner or the sub-contracted partners). This would help standardise registrations and reduce administrative burden on industry partners.
• Provide hands-on planning support for industry partners delivering pilot strands. Planning support, such as liaising with schools and organising event logistics, could be helpful to industry partners and reduce strain. This is particularly important for partners delivering activity in pilot strands and/or in rural areas, as strain on industry partner resources is being experienced more strongly by such organisations.
• Establish forums for knowledge-sharing amongst industry partners. Knowledge sharing would enable industry partners to learn from each other, leverage existing professional and training networks across local areas and across creative subsectors, and boost cohesiveness across the programme.

Recommendation 5: Streamline monitoring activity across all programme strands

Rationale: Our research has shown that monitoring activity is currently inconsistent across strands. Aside from some isolated cases in some strands, our experience in leveraging monitoring data to support evaluation analysis has often been hindered by a lack of timely and comprehensive monitoring data collection across strands. Responsibilities around the governance of monitoring data were unclear at the outset of the evaluation, which were addressed through clarifications in the monitoring framework developed as part of this evaluation. Regardless of this, access to key stakeholders, such as programme participants and industry partners across most strands, has been delayed, impacting evaluation timelines and engagement samples. In the absence of streamlined and standardised monitoring activity, longer-term and robust evaluation of the programme is likely to be impacted.

Recommendation:

• Clearly align delivery plans with the programme monitoring framework: At programme commencement, delivery partners at each level should be responsible for clearly outlining how monitoring framework data indicators will be collected throughout programme activity. Any risks should be flagged prior to programme delivery, enabling mitigation strategies to optimise the feasibility of data collection despite challenges.
• Clearly define responsibilities around governance of programme-wide monitoring data. Responsibilities should include ensuring that monitoring data is collected in alignment with the monitoring framework, in a timely and consistent manner across strands. The lead delivery partner should manage overall governance of programme-wide monitoring data, even where responsibilities are otherwise decentralised at the level of each strand.
• Dedicated staff capacity at the delivery partner-level of each strand to facilitate data collection and liaison with the evaluator ^{[footnote 5]}. Responsibilities include facilitating necessary, timely, and up-to-date data and stakeholder access to the programme evaluator. This is to ensure monitoring data is collected accurately and consistently throughout delivery of each strand, especially during busy programme delivery periods, with minimal risk of slippage.
• Regularly update monitoring data to ensure data is up-to-date.

Appendix 1 - Long-term impact evaluation options

Aim of this section

The CCP will complement the Government’s ongoing work to build a resilient, inclusive, and productive pipeline of talent that meets the demand of creative industries. The aim of a long-term impact evaluation of the 2025 to 2026 CCP is to as robustly as possible measure the impacts and intermediate outcomes for each strand of the programme to determine progress against the CCP’s strategic objectives. In this section, we provide advice on the data collection activities that should continue beyond the evaluation period if funding is extended. This will support a follow-up evaluation to assess whether the programme achieves, or is likely to achieve, its medium to longer-term impacts.

Our evaluation of options considers both a theory-based approach and quasi-experimental methods to identify suitable counterfactuals. Given various limitations outlined below – including sample size requirements, large time lags, and data collection challenges – we generally conclude that a theory-based approach underpinned by a mixed-methods approach is likely to be most suitable for the evaluation of all 2025 to 2026 CCP strands. This is expected to involve using qualitative and quantitative methods to evidence the intermediate outcomes and causal mechanisms outlined in the programme Theory of Change, using this to validate that CCP is on track to deliver its proposed impacts.

Impacts to be measured

A long-term impact evaluation should aim to generate evidence of the intended impacts of the 2025 to 2026 CCP, as described in the programme’s Theory of Change. The key long-term impacts to be measured, therefore, include:

• Whether programme participants are more likely to enter creative industries, as measured through work or further/higher education choices.
• How this varies across demographic groups, such as gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background, and geographical region.
• Whether young people engaged in the CCP exhibit an increased likelihood of positive labour market outcomes.
• Whether the CCP fosters stronger skills and talent pipelines that meet the demands of the UK’s creative industries.

Given the long-time horizon for such impacts materialising for certain programme strands, and the associated challenges around data collection, an evaluator may also want to measure certain intermediate outcomes to develop a view as to the likelihood of anticipated long-term impacts.

Integration of value-for-money assessment

To support the assessment of value-for-money (VfM), including monetisation of the impacts of the 2025 to 2026 CCP, an evaluator may want to generate evidence of the following specific labour market outcomes (particularly for the SWAP and work experience pilot strands, where these are potentially measurable):

• Changes in the likelihood of being employed or NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) as a result of CCP activities.
• Changes in participant income (as a proxy for productivity changes) as a result of CCP activities.

There is precedent of the types of activities delivered as part of CCP leading to such impacts (see summary of previous impact evaluation evidence in Appendix 3) and these outcomes being readily monetisable (for example, using the DWP model – see Appendix 2 for discussion on VfM assessment options). Should an evaluator not be able to robustly measure such outcomes on a timely basis – for example, due to significant time lags – then the evaluator may need to rely on previous impact evaluation evidence and form a view on the extent to which delivery of CCP is comparable and results generalisable as part of a theory-based evaluation.

Proposed evaluation strategies

We have assessed the feasibility of both theory-based and quasi-experimental approaches to evaluating the long-term impact of the three main strands delivered as part of the 2025 to 2026 CCP:

• Theory-based evaluation approaches evaluate a program or intervention by examining the underlying theory of how and why it is supposed to work. Instead of only measuring outcomes, the approach seeks to map the causal pathways (as described by the programme Theory of Change – see Appendix 5) by linking inputs, activities, and expected results. Evaluation activities are then focused on testing whether each step in the theorised chain holds true in practice, identifying where assumptions succeed or break down. For example, interviews with CCP event participants can be used to understand levels of engagement and satisfaction with the events at the point of delivery, which can be used to infer if intended longer-term impacts – such as labour market outcomes – are on track to be delivered.
• Quasi-experimental evaluation approaches evaluate the impact of a program by comparing outcomes between a group that receives the intervention and a similar group that does not, without using random assignment. They typically rely on statistical methods like matching, regression, or before-and-after comparisons to approximate a counterfactual (what would have happened otherwise), drawing on either primary data collected by the evaluator or available secondary data. While less rigorous than randomised experiments, such approaches aim to estimate causal effects by controlling for observable differences between groups.

We summarise below our recommendations for the most feasible evaluation approach for each programme.

Career Events (Core CCP and Beyond England Expansion Pilot)

Based on our understanding of the Core CCP and Beyond England Expansion pilot, we propose that a theory-based evaluation underpinned by a mixed-methods approach is likely to be the most promising impact evaluation approach for measuring the long-term impacts of the activities and employee encounters during Discover! Creative Careers Month 2025.

For these strands, an evaluator may need to rely to a large extent on insights from evaluation of short-term outcomes to evidence that programme activities are working as intended – these outcomes are currently being explored through the fieldwork conducted as part of our 2025 to 2026 evaluation work (for example, event observations, interviews, feedback surveys, review of monitoring data). Evaluating intermediate outcomes and long-term impacts will involve conducting follow-up fieldwork with programme participants (for example, pupils, teachers), which we understand would need to be arranged via re-contact with participating schools. Intermittent contact with these groups over time would allow an evaluator to explore topics, such as the influence of the events on academic subject choices, further/higher education decisions, and career choices. It could also explore how and why these occurred and the extent to which context influenced realisation. Due to the relatively light exposure, a future evaluator may consider re-engaging with previous career event attendees in large numbers well into the future to be disproportionate.

We have also outlined a potential quasi-experimental evaluation strategy for the Core CCP programme that would exploit variation in programme exposure across cohorts and schools using the LEO dataset (detailed later in this Appendix). While this design could, in principle, be implemented (the sample size should be sufficiently large), the time-intensive process of obtaining and preparing the data, combined with the array of confounding factors that may influence career decisions in future, means that such an approach is unlikely to be proportionate or yield robust results. Additionally, this approach would not be feasible for evaluating the long-term impacts of the Nations Pilot, given that LEO only capture data on English schools and pupils; as of yet, we are not aware of a comparable dataset that covers Wales and Scotland.

Creative Sector-based Work Academy Programme (SWAP) pilot

We similarly view that theory-based evaluation using a mixed-methods approach will be the most promising option for a long-term impact evaluation of the Creative SWAP pilot. This could feasibly involve exploring beneficiary outcomes through follow-up interviews and/or a survey (the latter may face issues with low numbers of responses given the small sample size of the programme) – distributed using participant contact details collected by job centres – to understand the extent to which the Creative SWAP pilot has led to the materialisation of intended outcomes and impacts. This would involve exploring how the programme has subsequently shaped participants’ engagement with creative careers and led to improvements in workforce outcomes more generally. Qualitative engagement would ideally also explore how and why these outcomes and impacts occurred and in which contexts. Compared with other CCP strands, we expect that it will be more straightforward to use primary data collection methods to gather information on workforce outcomes for this strand, given that beneficiaries are already adults and thus of working age, reducing the time lag for key outcomes and impacts to materialise.

Due to the small beneficiary sample size (n=60), we do not anticipate that a quasi-experimental evaluation approach will be feasible for quantifying the long-term impacts of the Creative SWAP pilot. We do, however, expect that this could be feasible in the future for a sufficiently scaled-up version of the Creative SWAP. Such an approach could combine monitoring data on Creative SWAP participants with HMRC RTI data to analyse the workforce outcomes of SWAP participants, which could use propensity score matching to construct a control group from those who were eligible to start a Creative SWAP but did not start a placement. A DWP evaluation of a SWAP programme implemented during the 2021/22 financial year represents a precedent application of such an approach (potential quasi-experimental approaches are discussed further in Appendix 1)^{[footnote 6]}.

Work experience pilot

For the work experience pilot, we expect a theory-based evaluation unpinned by a mixed-methods approach is likely to be the most feasible and proportionate evaluation strategy. This would involve conducting fieldwork with previous participants via re-contact with participating schools, following up with them periodically through surveys or interviews to track further/higher education and career choices. Fieldwork insights would then enable the future evaluator to understand how the work experience placements shaped students’ decision-making, whether and how they made use of contacts gained during the programme, and what longer-term value they attribute to the opportunity.

As multi-day programmes, we would expect work experience placements to provide deeper exposure and engagement, making these more suited to quasi-experimental evaluation than single-day events (making it easier to detect treatment effects with lower sample sizes). In addition, the programmes are expected to reach around n=600 students, creating more scope for quantitative analysis. However, this number of beneficiaries is still relatively modest, meaning that to achieve a suitable sample size, any quantitative approach would require linking of participants to administrative datasets to avoid issues – including low response rates, attrition, and challenges identifying a control group – associated with primary data collection methods.

DCMS should consider the proportionality of leveraging administrative data for this purpose, as accessing and preparing administrative data of this scale – including the Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) dataset – is likely to entail significant time and resource costs. Even if access were secured, the evaluation would face several challenges. Young people’s transitions from school into further/higher education and the labour market are shaped by a wide range of factors over time, introducing considerable noise into the analysis. Moreover, because key outcomes (such as employment or further/higher education choices) cannot be observed at baseline, a difference-in-differences design is not feasible, and any self-selection bias would remain unaddressed. Combined with the relatively small sample size, these constraints would make it challenging to estimate a robust causal effect.

Potential data sources for long-term evaluation

This section outlines the potential data sources that could feed into a long-term impact evaluation of the 2025 to 2026 CCP, which consists of both (i) primary data that could feasibly be collected by a future evaluator and (ii) secondary data sources that could potentially be leveraged by an evaluator to measure outcomes and impacts (for example, administrative data).

Regardless of whether secondary data is used, we would recommend a degree of primary data collection to develop qualitative insights into participants’ perception of the programmes and how and why they shaped their subsequent life choices and career trajectory.

Primary data

An evaluator is likely to want to rely at least partially on primary data collected directly from programme participants and other stakeholders to measure the outcomes and impacts of the 2025 to 2026 CCP over time. We expect reliance on primary data collection will need to be higher in the short- to medium-term, and reliance will be higher should some of the challenges associated with secondary data access and analysis materialise in the long-term (more detail below). We anticipate that primary data collection would involve using participant contact details collected by the programme delivery partner to recontact programme participants, inviting them to take part in follow-up fieldwork (meaning surveys, interviews, focus groups). This could involve the dissemination of follow-up surveys to CCP participants to trace outcomes and impacts over time, or follow-up interviews or focus groups to gather qualitative data on outcomes and impacts, including how and why these materialised and in what contexts and conditions.

The advantages of primary data collection over secondary data include:

(i) direct control over the data and no dependency on a separate data provider for data access
(ii) a most likely smaller, more manageable dataset
(iii) the ability to ask bespoke questions tailored to evaluation research questions

Primary data collection may end up being more or less resource-intensive than secondary data, depending on factors such as the methods used, sample sizes, and the respective resource requirements for accessing and analysing secondary data (which can be substantial).

There is a range of risks and challenges in practice to tracking the long-term outcomes and impacts of the 2025 to 2026 CCP, which a future evaluator should be aware of and actively seek mitigations for:

• Availability of contact information. Primary data collection should ideally rely on the collection by delivery partners of participant contact details (particularly, email addresses) for recontacting to occur. Currently, we are aware that beneficiary contact details are being collected directly by job centres as part of the Creative SWAP placements. For other CCP strands, we understand that any re-contacts would need to be arranged via participating schools (details of which are held by delivery partners). Due to the relatively light exposure, a future evaluation may consider recontacting previous career event attendees to be disproportionate, instead relying on fieldwork conducted during or immediately after events (via feedback surveys, observation, and interviews) and then potentially re-contacting schools over time.
• Response rates and respondent attrition. We expect that surveys in this context will face significant challenges in achieving the sample sizes necessary to conduct a robust quasi-experimental design. Based on previous experience, without using incentives, we would anticipate response rates for a short survey in this context to be in the range of 5 to 10%, which may decrease further with time. Similarly, there is also likely to be attrition over time due to some participants becoming non-contactable (for example, due to a change of email address). In the context of some 2025 to 2026 CCP strands (meaning the Creative SWAP pilot), this is a particular challenge given relatively low numbers of participants in the first place. Both of these issues also increase the risk of asymmetric bias, whereby the insights collected may not be representative of the full population of beneficiaries. A future evaluator may wish to consider using incentives to bolster engagement and should aim to keep surveys as quick and short as possible to maximise response rates.
• Challenges reaching a control group. To conduct a quasi-experimental analysis, it would be necessary to collect data both on treated individuals (participants) and a control group of individuals (non-participants), adding an additional layer of complexity to the data collection exercise. Primary data collection would require access to contact details for a large group of comparable individuals and, even if this could be secured, would likely be a time-intensive and costly exercise, including the need for incentives to motivate participation.
• Measurement error. As is often the case with primary data collection, there is a risk that self-reported responses end up being of lower quality than government register data, in particular for labour outcomes, such as earnings. A future evaluator should take care to clearly specify data requirements, consider piloting of fieldwork tools, and generally be aware and transparent about the limitations of such an exercise.

Secondary data

There are several administrative datasets that an evaluator of the 2025 to 2026 CCP could draw upon to track outcomes and impacts relating to educational attainment and workforce participation over time, the most promising of which are described below.

Use of secondary data has the advantage of not requiring an evaluator to collect data on outcomes and impacts through primary data collection methods, which can not only be resource-intensive but also come with challenges such as attrition and low-response rates (see above). It may also be possible to simultaneously use secondary data to construct a control group of individuals who were not programme beneficiaries for the purposes of a quasi-experimental design. Disadvantages include a potentially resource and time-intensive application process, a need for suitable identifiers to link CCP participants to data entries, and potentially time-intensive data cleaning.

Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data

CCP strand relevant for: Core CCP, Nations Pilot, work experience pilot

Whilst practical issues exist relating to access, in theory, the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) dataset could represent a useful source of data to evaluate the long-term impacts of careers events and work experience opportunities. LEO represents a combination of administrative datasets that cover the universe of people born since 1985 who have engaged with the school education system in England. It is unique in enabling the tracking of individuals from school age into the workforce, which, in theory, should allow the workforce outcomes of school students to eventually be measured. Key details include:

• Main variables of interest: industry classification of employer (SIC2007 code), movement in and out of employment, earnings, sex, ethnicity, disability status, age, local authority of school, subject applied to or enrolled in for further/higher education.
• Data linking requirements: To track schools and/or individuals in the dataset, a future evaluator will require access to unique identifiers (such as school names or Unique Pupil Number). We understand this would involve the evaluator needing to acquire an anonymised list of unique identifiers for the participating students, which we understand would then need to be passed on to the Department for Education (DfE) to link these to the LEO dataset. This process is likely to be feasible but may require collaboration with DfE.
• Access: Access to this data is available for approved third-party researchers who are fully accredited. Projects must demonstrate a clear public benefit and commit to publishing research outcomes. The data documentation indicates that researchers will need SQL skills to work with the data. We understand that applying to access the data can be time-intensive, and newly released data typically lags by several years. DCMS may wish to engage with DfE to explore if this process can be streamlined for the purposes of this evaluation. Further guidance on the application process can be found here.

• Limitations:

  • Access to the data will need to be granted by DfE (see above).
  • The data covers England only and so excludes coverage of schools and pupils in Wales and Scotland.
  • Creative sector employment can only be defined at the industry level, with occupation not specified.
  • Given the size and complexity of the dataset, substantial time and effort will likely be required to understand its structure and prepare it for analysis.
  • The data does include data on self-employed workers, but we understand that this data cannot be linked to a specific SIC code. This means one would only be able to identify someone as working in the creative industries if they are employed.

HMRC Real Time Information

CCP strand relevant for: Creative SWAP pilot

The HMRC Real Time Information (RTI) data is another useful source that has been used to evaluate SWAP programmes (Insanally, 2025). This data is collected by the Department for Work and Pensions from a regular feed of RTI payslip data. Key details include:

• Main variables of interest: gender, age, employment status, earnings
• Data linking requirements: to identify the SIC code, PAYE data needs to be linked to the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR). In addition, the evaluation would need to collect individual identifiers (such as National Insurance Numbers) that can be linked to the DWP administrative data.
• Access: access is provided through the HMRC Datalab and is open to UK government departments or commercial research groups who have been commissioned by a government department. Data applications need to demonstrate benefits to the HMRC of conducting this research and outline the research design, cost effectiveness, and relevance to HMRC areas of research interest.
• Limitations:
  • This data does not include self-employment earnings, which would exclude roughly a third of the creative industries workforce (PEC, 2025).
  • We understand that the data includes all individuals who have received Universal Credit, Job Seekers Allowance or income support at any point from the beginning of 2014. If individuals have not received any of these benefits, they will not appear in the data.

SWAP management information

CCP strand relevant for: Creative SWAP pilot

The Sector-based Work Academy Programmes (SWAPs) Management Information provides quarterly information on SWAP participants using data recorded in the clerical trackers (Insanally, 2025). The information from the clerical tracker can then be linked to administrative data to track movements into earnings (DWP, 2025). Key details include:

• Main variables of interest: date of SWAP participation, local authority, sector, age
• Data linking requirements: provided the CI SWAP programmes are covered in this data, the evaluator would need to collect the unique individual identifiers (such as National Insurance Numbers) to identify programme participants in the data set.
• Access: No formal application process for accessing the individual-level data is outlined online; access is likely arranged through direct consultation with the DWP.
• Limitations:
  • Only individuals on Universal Credit can be linked to the administrative data.

Feasibility of quasi-experimental approaches

If feasible, the preferred approach for evaluating long-term outcomes would be to use a quasi-experimental design to derive robust estimates of the impacts of the various CCP strands. With such an approach, the outcomes of interest for the programme beneficiaries would need to be compared to a feasible counterfactual scenario, which would have occurred in the absence of the programme. This is typically achieved by comparing outcomes of beneficiaries with those of a similar group who did not benefit from the programme: a control group.

For the CCP strands targeted toward children of school age, to measure further or higher education choices, it may be sufficient to follow individuals for five to ten years post-intervention. For labour market outcomes, a longer time horizon may be required to ensure that individuals have completed further or higher education and to allow for the realisation of measurable workforce outcomes.

The remainder of this section outlines some possible approaches by programme strand. Sample size permitting, all models can be estimated separately by demographic group to explore intersectional differences.

 

Career events for school children

One way to evaluate the longer-term outcomes of career events is to compare the outcomes and impacts of students who were exposed to the intervention, based on their school’s participation and their cohort, with a control group of students from other schools or cohorts within the same school. In theory, this could be done using LEO data (discussed above) to explore changes in the likelihood of individuals engaging with creative careers, given LEO’s ability to trace individuals from school-age into the workforce. It should be noted that LEO only covers schools and pupils in England, and so this would not be applicable to programmes operating in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

This approach would face numerous challenges, however, which in our view would severely limit feasibility:

• Given the age groups targeted by the events, we expect that it will be highly challenging to deliver timely evidence of further/higher education and workforce outcomes using LEO data, with further/higher education and workforce outcomes likely to require tracking five to ten years into the future and potentially for longer. This is compounded by likely time lags in the availability of LEO data to support outcomes once these have materialised.
• Even for intermediate outcomes, given the relatively brief exposure of individuals to Core CCP activities and the array of confounding factors that influence subject and further/higher education choices, we expect the likelihood of being able to derive robust quantitative results would be limited.
• As schools self-select into the programme, there is a risk of school selection bias, whereby treated schools were more engaged with their students’ career development at the time. A simple comparison on this dimension may conflate the impact of the CCP activities with pre-existing differences in school environments.
• Comparing students within the same school but across different cohorts that benefitted from the CCP may capture time trends rather than treatment effects.

Creative SWAP pilot

A Creative SWAP with a sufficient sample size could feasibly be evaluated using a two-way fixed effects model, drawing on a combination of the HMRC RTI data and SWAP Management Information data (described above). There are two possible ways to define the control group, depending on the type of effect of interest.

The closest comparison group for individuals participating in Creative SWAPs is participants in non-Creative SWAPs. Using this control group identifies the incremental effect of the Creative SWAP relative to other SWAP programmes. A suitable specification could be as follows:  

Year fixed effects control for common time trends, while individual fixed effects account for time-invariant individual characteristics, ensuring that comparisons are made by following the same individuals over time. Thus, if an individual had already worked in the creative industries before joining the programme, the estimated programme effect for that person would be zero.  indicates whether participating in any SWAP programme is associated with a higher likelihood of entering the creative industries, whilst  captures whether the creative industry SWAPs have an additional or differential impact. The linear combination of these two terms indicates the overall effect of the Creative SWAP. For this analysis, we recommend using a combination of the HMRC RTI data and SWAP Management Information data outlined in the data section.

The alternative is to use non-SWAP participants as the control group, which would measure the effect of participating in a Creative SWAP relative to those who were eligible for a SWAP programme but did not participate. Propensity score matching could be used to identify comparable individuals in the control group, who can then be compared to Creative SWAP participants using a difference-in-differences framework, similar to Insanally (2025).

Limitations

• Conducting this type of quasi-experimental analysis requires a sufficiently large treatment sample to yield statistically meaningful results. At present, the treatment group appears too small to support such an analysis.
• This approach relies on the assumption of parallel trends between treated and control groups in the period preceding SWAP participation – that is, in the absence of the intervention, both groups would have exhibited similar outcome trajectories. Violations of this assumption could bias the estimated programme effects. The validity of this assumption can be assessed using an event-study framework, which examines the evolution of outcomes in periods before and after the intervention to check whether treated and control units followed similar trends prior to treatment.
• If Creative SWAP participation is staggered across the treatment group – that is, participants start in different time periods (in the case of RTI data, the time unit is month) – then a standard two-way fixed effects approach can produce biased estimates. It may be necessary to apply the imputation-based method developed by Borusyak et al. (2024).

Work Experience

For the evaluation of the Work Experience programme, one could use propensity score matching to enhance the robustness of the control group in a comparison of participant and non-participant outcomes, following the approach of Haigh and Woods (2016). Using anonymised identifiers of participants, individuals who have participated in Work Experience placements can be identified in the LEO dataset. Within the same dataset, a matched comparison group of non-participants could be constructed based on observable characteristics, such as educational attainment, demographics, and school-level variables. By comparing labour outcomes between the participant and matched control groups over time, it is possible to estimate the impact of CCP placements while controlling for observables.

Limitations

• As the outcome variables (working in, or studying, the creative industries) are not observable pre-intervention, given that these decisions are made later in life, it is not possible to use a difference-in-difference approach, as used in Haigh and Woods (2016). This means that both time-variant and time-invariant non-observables are likely to bias the results.
• The sample sizes may be small, meaning there will be little statistical power to detect effects that are not large in magnitude.

Appendix 2 – Value-for-Money assessment options

Aim of this section

The aim of this section is to establish a clear and practical framework for assessing the value for money (VfM) of the 2025 to 2026 CCP. Given the timing of the evaluation and the fact that many impacts will not have fully emerged by the end of the 2025 to 2026 financial year, the aim is not to deliver a comprehensive VfM assessment at this stage. Instead, the framework will set out the methodology, tools, and data requirements needed to enable a robust future assessment of the programme’s overall VfM. This approach aims to assess not only whether the 2025 to 2026 CCP delivers VfM overall, but also how costs, benefits, and impacts differ across strands, the scope for valuing non-monetised impacts, and the level of uncertainty surrounding different estimates.

Its contents should be considered in conjunction with the long-term impact evaluation plan described in Appendix 1, with the VfM approach likely to rely on data inputs from the impact evaluation. Additionally, evaluators may wish to seek to embed VfM-related questions into fieldwork tools alongside questions relating to process and impact.

Our VfM assessment framework has been structured in line with HM Treasury’s Green Book guidance and consistent with the National Audit Office’s four-part VfM framework of Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity. The framework will also identify the data and evidence collection activities required beyond the evaluation period, so that a follow-up evaluation can deliver a comprehensive assessment of the net benefits associated with the programme.

The contents of this section should be considered alongside the long-term impact evaluation plan described in previous sections, with the VfM likely to rely on outputs from both the impact and process evaluations. Additionally, evaluators may wish to embed VfM-related questions into fieldwork tools alongside questions relating to process and impact to streamline data collection.

Summary of VfM assessment options

We assessed the following four options for assessing the VfM of the 2025 to 2026 CCP, with the feasibility of each approach dependent on the extent to which high-quality causal impact evaluation evidence from each programme strand:

Option 1: full CBA/SCBA based on impact evaluation evidence for CCP strands

Feasibility assessment

• Core CCP: Low
• Nations pilot: Low
• Creative SWAP pilot: Low
• Work experience pilot: Low

To the extent possible, robust impact evaluation evidence relating to each CCP strand should be combined with monetisation estimates from the economic literature to develop a full CBA for each strand. We anticipate that the two most promising benefit streams to attempt to monetise in this regard would be certain workforce outcomes (i) reduced probability of being unemployed or NEET, and (ii) salary uplift (as a proxy for productivity uplift). Due to the challenges and limitations we have already outlined for the impact evaluation, we expect the likelihood of being able to deliver a full CBA for any of the 2025 to 2026 CCP strands to be low. A modification to this option, which we expect would be feasible, is the use of break-even analysis to model the level of impact required for each strand’s benefits to exceed their costs (see Option 3 below).

Option 2: Full CBA/SCBA based on impact evaluation evidence from comparable programmes

Feasibility assessment

• Core CCP: Low
• Nations pilot: Low
• Creative SWAP pilot: High
• Work experience pilot: Medium

Where robust impact evaluation evidence cannot be derived for a given CCP strand, an alternative option would entail developing a CBA that draws on impact evaluation evidence from comparable programmes (see Appendix 3 for a high-level summary of the existing evidence base). Under this approach, the applicability of impact evaluation evidence for CCP should be validated as part of a theory-based evaluation to provide confidence around the transferability of evidence, for example, by the evaluator testing the extent to which intermediate outcomes and impacts are being delivered as intended, if only qualitatively. We anticipate that this approach may be particularly valid for a VfM assessment of the Creative SWAP pilot, which can draw on recent and robust quantitative evaluation evidence for previous SWAPs.

Option 3: VfM assessment with break-even analysis

Feasibility assessment

• Core CCP: Medium
• Nations pilot: Medium
• Creative SWAP pilot: High
• Work experience pilot: High

In the absence of robust impact evaluation evidence, break-even analysis is an alternative method for providing insight into CCP’s VfM. This would involve combining data on programme costs and monetisation estimates from the economic literature to model and estimate the treatment effect required to generate positive returns on public investment (meaning a benefit-cost ratio greater than one or a Net Present value (NPV) greater than zero). For the Creative SWAP pilot and work experience pilots, this could involve modelling the reduction in probability of being unemployed, or NEET, required for the NPVs of the respective strands to exceed 0. This evidence could then be triangulated with findings from theory-based impact evaluation to form a view on the likelihood of a treatment effect of the scale required to break even.

Option 4: Assessing the four Es using a mixed-methods approach

Feasibility assessment

• Core CCP: High
• Nations pilot: High
• Creative SWAP pilot: High
• Work experience pilot: High

A VfM assessment method that is expected to be feasible for all 2025 to 2026 CCP strands is the use of mixed methods approaches – meaning combining impact evaluation evidence with evidence generated from interviews, focus groups with delivery partners, and other stakeholders – to review the efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and equity (the “4 Es”) of CCP strands. We expect reliance on this method to be higher for CCP strands where CBA is more challenging (for example, the Core CCP, Nations Pilot, and work experience pilot). As a result, a future evaluator may wish to embed VfM-related questions into fieldwork tools alongside questions relating to process and impact to streamline data collection. This would entail:

• Economy: This would involve developing an understanding of the extent to which CCP is being delivered at the lowest sustainable cost. Relevant insights could be gathered through discussions with delivery partners to understand procurement processes and the perceptions of key stakeholders around VfM.  Another key aspect of such an analysis would also be understanding the nature of costs, including the extent to which programmes have been able to mobilise external funding and in-kind contributions to support programme delivery (discussed further below).
• Efficiency: This aspect would focus on understanding the extent to which CCP strands have maximised outputs for resources used. This could feasibly involve performing a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the costs of certain programme activities with suitable benchmarks (for example, cost per comparable SWAP, work experience placement). As such, the suitability of this would be dependent on the availability of up-to-date and comparable benchmarks such that comparison can happen on a like-for-like basis, which may be more likely for some programmes compared with others. For example, Insanally (2025) reported an average cost of £428 per SWAP, based on financial data from 2021 to 2022, while Haigh and Woods (2016) estimated the average cost of setting up and administering a work experience placement at £325. Overall, our literature review identified limited data in terms of close cost benchmarks for CCP’s events-focused strands, whilst benchmarks for work experience programmes were less current and not necessarily comparable.
• Effectiveness: This element would involve forming a conclusion as to whether the CCP strands are achieving their intended outcomes/impacts and thus would draw on insights from the impact evaluation.
• Equity: The fair distribution of CCP’s impacts can be analysed by exploring the targeting of the 2025 to 2026 CCP programme, which can be done using programme monitoring data to compare beneficiary or school socio-demographic profiles with a suitable population benchmark (for example, Census data). To this end, an evaluator may therefore wish to explore the extent to which CCP is targeted toward groups underrepresented in the creative industries (for example, ethnic minorities, lower socioeconomic backgrounds).

Key considerations for VfM assessment of the 2025 to 2026 CCP

Monetisation of benefit streams

Step 1: Assess the impact of CCP on monetisable benefit streams

Benefit stream 1: Reduced likelihood of being unemployed or NEET:

Evidence from the literature review suggests that the outcome most likely to lead to benefits that can be readily monetised is an increase in participants’ employment probability. Activities delivered through interventions comparable to those in the different strands of the CCP have been shown to improve skills, attitudes, and decision‑making, thereby enhancing employability and reducing the likelihood of future unemployment benefit claims.

As noted above, certain limitations are likely to make it infeasible to collect robust quantitative evidence on changes in employment probability before and after participation in the CCP. Instead, we suggest drawing on existing studies to provide quantitative estimates. The literature offers a substantial body of quantitative evidence on the links between relevant activities and employability outcomes. A selection of the most relevant estimates is summarised in Appendix 3.

Benefit stream 2: Salary uplift:

The other potential benefit of the CCP that could be monetised in a VfM assessment is any increase in participants’ salaries (as a proxy for increased productivity). A core hypothesis of the CCP is that its interventions support individuals to improve their employability and encourage them to pursue careers in sectors where their skills and interests align with job requirements. By securing employment that matches their capabilities, it could be hypothesised that this would make them more productive, which in turn could translate into higher wages/productivity for a given unit of labour input.

However, the empirical literature on the impact of career-focused interventions, such as career events, work experience placements, and Sector-based Work Academy Programmes (SWAPs) on earnings via productivity gains is more limited. The table in Appendix 3 sets out some quantitative estimates from the available evidence that could inform the CCP VfM assessment. It should be noted that in most previous assessments of programmes comparable to the CCP strands, increased wages were not incorporated into CBA, instead focusing primarily on changes in employment probability. The literature search for this assessment also found no robust estimates of the effect of SWAPs on wages.

Establishing the transferability of precedent impact evaluation evidence:

If relying on evidence from the precedent literature, a future evaluator should seek to validate the transferability of evidence as part of the theory-based impact evaluation. As highlighted in the evidence review in Appendix 3, several studies show that careers events and work experience activities not only deliver longer-term employment impacts but also lead to gains in intermediate outcomes such as skills development. The future evaluator should seek to assess: (i) the extent to which the intervention was comparable to a CCP strand (similar activities, beneficiary groups, dosages, contexts)
(ii) the extent to which there is alignment between studies in terms of causal mechanisms and the realisation of intermediate outcomes.
Where there is substantial alignment, an evaluator can be more confident that the employment and earnings impacts identified in the literature are also relevant to CCP strands and can therefore be included in the VfM assessment with greater confidence.

Step 2: Monetising impacts

To the extent that the evaluator is confident that estimates from the literature are reasonably applicable to CCP, the next stage will be to monetise and aggregate these impacts so they can be compared directly with programme costs. Following standard practice in the literature, we propose using the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Social Cost–Benefit Analysis (SCBA) model to monetise and aggregate the programme’s benefits. As described in the evidence review, the DWP model uses employment-related inputs to estimate net benefits from different perspectives, including those of participants and society as a whole. For CCP, the key inputs will likely include increases in employment and wages derived from the literature, alongside the number of participants expected to have entered employment or experienced wage gains as a result of the programme. The model then combines these inputs to produce an estimate of the programme’s net benefits from different perspectives. The benefits generated by each strand of the programme will be compared against the costs of implementing that specific strand. This comparison will produce benefit–cost ratios that indicate the benefits received per £1 invested, from multiple perspectives. This approach provides a clear and transparent measure of the programme’s VfM, ensuring that public funds are allocated efficiently, economically, and effectively.

The DWP SCBA Model:

We recommend that any future monetisation of the benefits of CCP draws on inputs from the DWP SCBA model (see here). The model provides a structured means of comparing programme costs with benefits across a range of perspectives, including participants, employers, the Exchequer, and society as a whole. This approach has been widely adopted to inform judgements about the overall VfM of labour market interventions in the UK, including several of the evaluations reviewed as part of this research.

The model incorporates both direct programme costs and employment-related outcomes, such as changes in wages, hours worked, employment duration, and participant characteristics. These inputs can then be used to estimate benefits from various social perspectives. For participants, the principal gains arise from increased earnings; for the government, from higher tax revenue and reduced benefit expenditure; for employers, from productivity improvements; and for society more broadly, from increased output. These benefits can then be weighed against associated costs, which vary by perspective, for example, increased tax liabilities and childcare or travel expenses for participants, programme delivery expenditure for government, additional wage and National Insurance contributions for employers, and wider social costs relating to programme spending and transport.

An important strength of the SCBA model is its adaptability. Parameters such as the persistence of employment effects, substitution between workers, and the application of welfare weights can be altered to reflect programme-specific contexts and available evidence. This has allowed the model to become a key tool in UK policy evaluation, offering a consistent means of appraising the broader economic and social value of employment-related initiatives.

Non-monetisable benefits:

As per HM Treasury Green Book guidance, non-monetisable benefits should be considered qualitatively where there is a lack of robust evaluation evidence with which to monetise certain impacts. We anticipate that the following benefit streams are likely to be non-monetisable, given an expected lack of robust impact evaluation evidence and limited monetisation literature:

• Increased diversity of the creative industries workforce.
• Development of a talent pipeline for the UK’s creative industries.

Improvements in workforce diversity within the creative industries and the development of sustainable talent pipelines create genuine social value but are difficult to capture within a cost–benefit analysis due to limited evidence on their scale and the challenges of assigning monetary values amid the complex system of factors which influence them. These impacts should therefore be considered qualitatively as part of the theory-based impact evaluation, whilst recognising that the quantitative VfM analysis may underestimate the programme’s overall benefits. We provide a brief summary of key considerations for both of these impacts, which could be explored in more depth as part of a future evaluation:

Increased diversity of the creative workforce

Addressing imbalance in the creative sector workforce is a core aim of the CCP, which seeks to attract underrepresented groups into the sector and increase workforce diversity. Several previous studies have highlighted persistent inequalities in access to creative careers, with women, people from minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled people, and individuals from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds all underrepresented. For example, a 2025 horizon scan study concluded that the UK creative industries workforce does not reflect the country’s population, and that the most influential roles remain some of the least diverse (McCabe, 2025).

There is a wider evidence base that indicates that increased diversity enhances innovation, broadens audience engagement, and strengthens business performance. For example, recent research found that companies with greater ethnic and gender diversity often achieve above-average financial returns and stronger business outcomes, reinforcing the economic rationale for a more representative sector (Creative Industries Federation, 2025).

Such benefits are challenging to capture in VfM frameworks, with the relationship between workforce diversity and financial outcomes being challenging to monetise. This is because many of the associated benefits – such as fairness, representation, and cultural value – are normative in nature and cannot be easily quantified using established impact evaluation methods (most of the evidence base seeks to establish correlations rather than causation as a result of these challenges).

Development of a talent pipeline for the UK’s creative industries

Building a strong talent pipeline is widely recognised as essential for the long-term sustainability and resilience of the UK’s creative industries and is one of the intended benefits of CCP. Yet, as highlighted by DCMS (2023), by critical skills shortages continue to affect the sector. By raising awareness of pathways into creative work and of the specific roles in demand, CCP seeks to address these shortages. In doing so, it has the potential to support industry growth by ensuring a steady inflow of skilled individuals to meet future labour market needs.

Monetising the value of talent pipeline development presents significant methodological challenges. As with diversity impacts, there is limited evidence linking strengthened pipelines directly to measurable economic outcomes (Wallis and van Raalte, 2022). Moreover, the relationship between pipeline-building initiatives and observable economic returns is typically indirect and long-term, making it unlikely that robust evidence could be established amid the complex array of factors that might influence such outcomes. For these reasons, we expect that talent pipeline development is most likely to be treated as an important but non-monetisable benefit in a future VfM assessment.

Measurement of programme costs

A future evaluator should liaise with delivery partners to collect data on incurred and projected future costs relating to the 2025 to 2026 CCP activities. We recommend that the cost lines for CBA and SCBA are presented separately, with the financial and in-kind contributions from programme collaborators (including creative businesses and schools) added to the cost line for SCBA to reflect the total social cost of delivering the programmes. We understand that investment from DCMS for each of the strand includes the following:

Core CCP and Beyond England expansion (Nations) pilot

Our understanding is that £1.1m has been allocated to an expanded Core CCP, with the programme’s main costs, as we understand, relating to staffing, including project managers, coordinators, trainers, and careers specialists who design and deliver activities. We also understand that substantial resources have been directed towards programme delivery, encompassing employer encounters, workshops, festivals, venue hire, travel, bursaries to support inclusion, as well as digital events and broadcasts. Another major cost area is the development of dedicated resources, which covers the development of tailored career materials, lesson plans, website development, video resources, and labour market information. Further expenditure supports partnership and stakeholder coordination, outreach and marketing, and the monitoring and evaluation systems needed to track impact. We understand that a further £0.3m was allocated toward expanding CCP to include coverage of areas in Scotland and Wales, with funding expected to cover similar activities.

Creative SWAP pilot

We understand that around £0.2m of DCMS funding has been allocated toward the Creative SWAP pilot, with this funding covering two main cost components: administration and pre-employment training. Administration costs include the set-up and management of placements, as well as support for participants’ travel and childcare expenses during the programme. Pre-employment training costs relate to sector-specific training designed to prepare participants for their work experience placements. Insanally (2025) broke down the total cost of a SWAP (£428) into £101 (24%) for administration and £327 (76%) for pre-training employment.

Work experience pilot

Our understanding is that around £0.5m of DCMS funding has been dedicated to the work experience pilot. We understand that the main costs involved in the work experience pilot are the labour and financial inputs involved in setting up and administering the placements.

Treatment of in-kind contributions

To secure grant funding, applicants to be the 2025 to 2026 delivery partner for CCP were required to evidence firm industry commitments to provide both in-kind and cash contributions. Where possible, therefore, a future evaluator should seek to quantify the extent of financial and in-kind contributions from external parties (meaning schools and businesses), which will form a key driver of the VfM performance of CCP (representing resources that are leveraged by DCMS funding). Such contributions may come in the form of staff time, venue hire, material provision, and financial contributions from external parties, such as those from participating creative sector businesses (for SWAP and work experience) and event partners (for core CCP).

We understand that past iterations of CCP have been able to leverage significant levels of in-kind contributions from employers and event partners, although these were not always fully quantified or monetised. ScreenSkills estimated there to be £552,000 of in-kind industry investment across the 2022 to 2025 programme, which represents approximately £275,000 per year, given the programme did not start fully until Spring 2023. For CCP FY 2025 to 2026, the core programme extension was estimated to have generated a total in-kind contribution of £1,762,854 in England, of which £479,700 was for Discover! Creative Careers Month, and £1,000,000 worth of advertising space to maximise the campaign.

The nature and approximate scale of in-kind contributions should ideally be tracked and reported by the programme delivery partner as part of routine monitoring activity. Otherwise, they could be determined through fieldwork activities conducted by the evaluator (for example, as part of surveys and interviews with participating partners), although we anticipate this would likely lead to lower-quality data at a higher cost. Estimated in-kind contributions can then be monetised using an estimate of the opportunity cost of the input – for example, using an appropriate estimate of the average day rate of support staff or the cost of venues and materials.

Appendix 3 - Review of relevant impact evaluation and VfM assessment evidence

Several precedent impact evaluations have explored the outcomes of career events, work experience programmes, and Sector-based Work Academy Programmes (SWAPs), offering relevant insights for the development of a long-term evaluation framework for the Creative Careers Programme. To reflect this evidence base, the literature review is structured by CCP strand, drawing on evaluations of similar career-focused interventions.

Career events (relevant for Core CCP and Nations Pilot)

The evidence reviewed suggests that career talks and events can yield lasting improvements in workforce outcomes for participants. A study by Kashefpakdel and Percy (2016), using UK British Cohort Study data, finds that each career talk attended at ages 14 to 15 is associated with a 0.8% increase in later earnings, rising to 1.6% when students considered the talks particularly helpful. However, as the analysis is based on simple correlations and rests on the strong assumption of a linear relationship between the number of talks and subsequent wage outcomes, the findings should be interpreted with caution (Mann et al., 2017) similarly report large associations – such as an 81% reduction in the probability of becoming NEET among those participating in career talks – but these estimates are also correlational, meaning that unobserved differences between participants and non-participants may drive part of the observed effects.

Complementing these programme-specific findings, broader evidence reviews provide additional insights into the impacts of careers-education activities. A systematic review by Hughes et al. (2016) shows that around 60% of careers-education evaluations report positive effects on educational outcomes, and 63% report positive effects on economic outcomes. Benefits also commonly include improvements in self-efficacy, confidence, career maturity, and career-related skills. The evidence base on online resources also points toward the benefits of these resources through enhanced career readiness, strengthened career-related networks, and increased life satisfaction (Vigurs, Everitt & Staunton, 2018). Buzzeo et al. (2022) similarly identify increases in confidence, independence, and motivation linked to interventions, such as careers fairs, personalised guidance, and skills workshops.

A growing number of evaluations use quasi-experimental methods to strengthen causal inference. For example, Pro Bono Economics (2022) assesses the Career Ready programme – a combination of mentoring, workplace visits, internships, masterclasses, and careers events – using propensity score matching. They estimate that alumni were 13.9 percentage points more likely to complete A-levels and 6.8 percentage points less likely to be unemployed than a matched comparison group. While matching was based on ex-post survey data, the use of largely time-invariant characteristics (for example, ethnicity and school-level outcomes) reduces, though does not eliminate, concerns about bias. Monetising these outcomes, the authors estimate a £12,800 average lifetime productivity gain per participant, equating to £23.1m for an annual cohort of 1,800 students.

Similarly, Atkinson and Cutmore (2022) evaluate the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), which combines careers advice, employability training, and skills development. Using both propensity score matching and difference-in-differences methods, they find that participants spent an additional 56 days in employment in the year following support. Their cost–benefit analysis indicated returns of £1.50–£1.55 to society and £0.13–£0.17 to the Exchequer per £1 invested.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that career events and related interventions can improve young people’s confidence, educational attainment, and labour-market outcomes, with some programmes demonstrating productivity and economic returns. However, much of this literature should be interpreted with caution: several cited findings are based on correlational analyses that cannot establish causality, and even quasi-experimental studies may not fully account for unobserved biases or selection effects.

Sector-Based Work Academy Programmes (SWAPs)

There has been precedent evaluation of the effectiveness of SWAPs, which combine skills training, work experience, and guaranteed job interviews for unemployed participants. Precedent evaluations have drawn on administrative data to overcome sampling limitations, providing larger samples and richer control variables than primary data collection. This enables the combination of propensity score matching with difference-in-differences methods to mitigate bias from time-invariant non-observables. Complementing this quantitative evidence, qualitative research from case studies (DWP, 2024) highlighted additional benefits, with participants reporting improved confidence, attainment of qualifications, and stronger employability.

Evaluations using HMRC Real Time Information (RTI) data demonstrate positive impacts on employment and benefit outcomes. Ward, Woods, and Haigh (2014) used earnings information from HMRC RTI data, coupled with clerical tracer data on participants, to evaluate the impact of a SWAP on workforce outcomes. Using propensity score matching and difference-in-differences, they found that participation reduced time spent on benefits and increased time in employment: over the 18 months following programme entry, participants worked 50 additional days and claimed benefits for 29 fewer days than a comparable group of non-participants. From a cost–benefit standpoint, these impacts yielded a net fiscal gain of around £100 for the government and an estimated £1,950 in increased income for participants, generating an overall social benefit of approximately £2,000 per participant.

A more recent evaluation used the LEO dataset to improve control group quality via propensity score matching, further reducing potential bias (Insanally, 2025). The study reported that participants were 12.5 percentage points more likely to be in employment, spending on average an additional 90 days in work over a two-year period. Cost–benefit analysis indicated that for every £1 invested, SWAPs generated £1.83 in fiscal returns and £5.66 in wider social value.

Despite the advantages of rich administrative datasets and robust matching techniques, these studies cannot fully rule out the influence of time-variant non-observables, such as motivation, peer networks, and wellbeing, which may influence both participation and labour-market outcomes.

Work experience programmes

Research has examined the effects of work experience placements and related activities, such as work shadowing and employer engagement, on young people’s personal, educational, and labour-market outcomes. Reviews by Buzzeo and Cifci (2017) and SQW (2022) highlight that placements can enhance employability skills, career decision-making, problem-solving, teamwork, and communication, while also boosting confidence and motivation. Evidence links work experience to a lower risk of becoming NEET, more informed career choices, and a better understanding of workplace expectations. Employer engagement similarly has measurable economic effects: Mann and Percy (2013) find that a single employer contact is associated with a 4.5% wage uplift, while four or more contacts are linked to an 18% wage increase compared with peers with none.

Several evaluations have quantitatively assessed programmes offering work experience. Clifford et al. (2011) evaluate the UK Young Apprenticeship Programme for 14–16-year-olds, finding that a performing arts cohort of 95 participants generated a net economic gain of £748,000 over ten years using a Social Return on Investment framework. Haigh and Woods (2016) analyse the DWP Work Experience Programme, which provided two eight-week placements for unemployed young people. Using propensity score matching combined with difference-in-differences methods, they find participants spent an average of 47 additional days in work and ten fewer days on benefits, generating estimated net benefits of £150 to the Exchequer, £1,950 to participants, and £2,050 to society per placement. A core limitation of this study is that, as participation was voluntary, time-variant non-observables, such as motivation or job readiness, may still influence the results, highlighting the difficulty of achieving fully causal inference without random assignment.

While voluntary participation limits causal interpretation, quasi-experimental designs can strengthen inference. Kay and Marlow (2020) evaluate a work programme using a differences-in-differences design, exploiting the timing of roll-out to form treatment and control groups. Defining treatment via eligibility rather than actual participation (Intention-to-Treat), the study finds that over two years, participants spent 17 more days in employment, 26 fewer days on benefits, and nine additional days neither in employment nor claiming benefits. Nonetheless, since the design relies on roll-out timing rather than randomisation, it cannot fully eliminate confounding time trends.

Haigh and Woods (2016) and Kay and Marlow (2020) illustrate that work experience evaluations can leverage administrative data to increase sample size and control for a richer set of confounders. Haigh and Woods combine HMRC RTI earnings data with clerical tracer information, while more recent evaluations integrate LEO data to enhance matching quality and reduce bias further. These studies consistently find meaningful gains in employment outcomes and reductions in benefit dependency, demonstrating both fiscal and social returns from work experience interventions.

Summary of relevant impact evaluation evidence

Table 1. Summary of impact evaluation evidence for employment/NEET probability change from CCP-related activities

Activity	Relevant CCP strand	Impact estimate	Source
Career talks	Core CCP, Nations Pilot	Up to 81% reduction in the probability of becoming NEET	Mann et al. (2017)
Work experience	Work experience pilot	5 percentage point reduction in the probability of being NEET	Kashefpakdel and Percy (2022)
Participation in Career Ready programme	Work experience pilot	6.8 percentage points reduction in the probability of being unemployed	Pro Bono Economics (2022)
Participation in the Work Experience Programme	Work experience pilot	Average of 47 more days in work and 10 fewer days on benefits	Haigh and Woods (2016)
Participation in Work Programme	Work experience pilot	Average of 46 more days in work and 70 fewer days on benefits	Kay and Marlow (2020)
Participation in SWAPs	Creative SWAP pilot	Average of 50 additional days in work and 29 fewer days on benefits	Ward, Wood, and Haigh (2014)
Participation in SWAPs	Creative SWAP pilot	12.5 percentage points more likely to be employed Average of 90 extra days at work	Insanally (2025)

Table 2. Summary of impact evaluation evidence for earnings/salary uplift from CCP-relevant activities

Activity	Relevant CCP strand	Impact estimate	Source
Career talks	Core CCP, Nations Pilot	0.8% increase in future earnings per career talk	Kashefpakdel & Percy (2016)
Work experience placement	Work experience pilot	3.4% wage premium per work experience placement	Kashefpakdel and Percy (2022)
Employer contacts	Work experience pilot	4.5% wage premium per employer contact	Mann and Percy (2013)

Appendix 4 – Key findings by programme strand

Discover England

Findings from the impact evaluation

• We found that the Discover England strand (core programme expansion) improved young people’s knowledge of roles, opportunities, and pathways in the creative industries (outcome 1). Almost 95% of participants surveyed reported increasing their knowledge about jobs in the creative industries, whilst 88% reported learning about ways to study or train for a career in the creative industries.
• Whilst our evidence is anecdotal as to improvement in tutors’ knowledge of roles, pathways, and opportunities in the creative industries, we have found an improvement in their knowledge (outcome 2). Tutors we engaged reported learning more about lesser-known creative industries roles, new pathways, and felt better able to support their students in finding opportunities in creative industries.
• Our research is not conclusive as to whether the Discover England strand is increasing the number of young people considering careers in the creative industries (outcome 5). That said, we found through our qualitative engagement that most young people’s aspirations to work in the creative industries were strengthened because of CCP events (outcome 3). Most young people surveyed reported that the Discover England events increased their interest in the creative industries overall (65% of respondents) and increased their interest in studying a creative subject in the future (56% of respondents).
• We also found that Discover England events generally improved young people’s perceptions of creative industries (outcome 6). Many participants reported feeling more confident that creative careers are attainable, describing the industry as less “risky” or “silly” than they had previously thought. Others reported learning about alternative pathways into the creative industries, which challenged previously held perceptions.
• We also found that Discover England facilitates meaningful engagement between young people and creative businesses, with young people reporting learning from lived experiences and learning more about sector realities.

Findings from the process evaluation

• The level of resources available under CCP was generally considered to be adequate by partner organisations. Branding support provided under CCP was largely seen by partner organisations as a positive, helping partners optimise delivery and operate at scale.
• As mentioned above, logistical and administrative challenges were reported by many partners, particularly on event days. There was also strong reliance by industry partners on in-house resources and networks, which in some cases could worsen capacity strain for partners.
• Partnerships and collaborations were viewed as working positively, with most industry partners praising ScreenSkills for being supportive. Several industry partners also reported being prompted to deliver under CCP through existing relationships with ScreenSkills.
• Partner organisations highlighted the need for longer planning timelines to engage effectively with schools and collaborate better on designing better quality activities.
• We also found that partner organisations in the core strand were not always clear about programme objectives, indicating the need for formalised, clear communication of delivery objectives and expectations.
• Delivery partners led on monitoring activity, including collecting monitoring data such as participating schools, numbers of young people, and events held in priority regions. Feedback surveys circulated by delivery partners yielded comprehensive data on impacts (though not conclusive) from participants. Beyond this, we found monitoring activity by industry partners to be inconsistent across the strand. There is also scope for more proactive support with evaluation activity through timely access to data and key stakeholders.

Beyond England expansion

Findings from the impact evaluation

• We found that the Beyond England expansion pilot improved young people’s knowledge of roles, opportunities, and pathways in the creative industries (outcome 1). Almost 90% of participants surveyed reported increasing their knowledge on some level.
• The pilot also improved participants’ perceptions of creative industries (outcome 6), through clarifying pre-existing uncertainties about getting work in the creative industries. Perceptions were also improved through exposing young people to new, realistic career opportunities, through challenging the traditional emphasis placed by schools on careers in medicine, teaching, or nursing.
• Our research showed that the pilot helped increase knowledge of pathways and opportunities outside London (outcome 3). Across both nations, participants reported learning more about local opportunities and pathways of which they were not previously aware.
• The pilot also helped strengthen aspirations to work in the creative industries (outcomes 3 and 5), with participants reporting that events helped them consolidate their existing aspirations, restart creative projects, and learn about how to make themselves better candidates for recruitment. Our evidence for this outcome is anecdotal for Scotland.
• Our research indicates that the pilot enabled opportunities for direct and meaningful engagement between young people and creative businesses (outcome 4). Young people across both nations reported enjoying learning about the lived experiences of creative sector professionals and enjoyed hands-on, practical activities.

Findings from the process evaluation

• Both industry and delivery partners reported time and capacity pressures in delivery, suggesting longer planning timelines for optimum delivery. A minimum planning period of three months was considered appropriate for effective delivery.
• Positive partnership and collaboration experiences were reported across the strand, with industry partners and delivery partners reporting working well with each other. Industry partners also reported that the involvement of local creative professionals helped boost the quality of events.
• Other challenges during programme delivery, reported by partner organisations, include difficulty in achieving equitable geographic coverage across both nations, such as rural parts of Wales and Scotland, and contextual differences, such as the lack of existing training infrastructure in Wales (thereby requiring partner organisations to develop these from scratch). Further, notwithstanding the positive working relationships reported above, communication issues were experienced between schools and industry partners, with partner organisations reporting logistical challenges whilst liaising with schools. These challenges were compounded by the short planning periods available under CCP, and often aggravated the strain on partner resources and staffing levels.
• Monitoring activity was led by delivery partners, who reported limited engagement of programme participants in follow-up feedback surveys. We were provided timely access to key stakeholders to carry out evaluation data collection, despite these low engagement levels.

SWAP pilot

Findings from the impact evaluation

• Our research shows that the SWAP pilot led to improvements in knowledge of creative career roles, opportunities, and pathways, and aspirations (outcomes 1 and 3). Participating young people reported discovering new creative industries roles, awareness of useful career development resources and tools, and an improved understanding of creative industries workplace realities.
• The pilot led to increased interaction of young people with the creative industries and meaningful engagement with creative businesses (outcome 4). Opportunities provided by the pilot for networking with creative industries were particularly valued by pilot participants.
• The pilot improved interest amongst young people in considering careers in the creative industries (contributing to outcome 5). Many participants felt that the SWAP placement helped strengthen pre-existing aspirations for finding work in the creative industries, and provided them with tangible “next steps” to progress.
• The pilot also improved perceptions of creative careers (outcome 6). Participants’ perceptions were mainly improved through a better understanding of “behind-the-scenes” roles and an appreciation of collaborative team efforts required for work in the creative industries.

Findings from the process evaluation

• The level of resources available under CCP was generally considered adequate by most partner organisations. Some logistical pressures were reported, mainly in planning and organising placement activity. We found that these pressures affected partners subjectively, based on their level of experience delivering training placements of this kind.
• Most industry partners perceived collaboration experiences with ScreenSkills as positive. That said, communication issues were reported amongst other collaborators, for example, between partners and job centres. This points to a lack of clarity amongst partners around where logistical responsibilities lie, thereby impacting delivery.
• Cohort-based placements were seen by industry partners and participants as the ideal delivery format for SWAPs. This format also enabled peer engagement amongst participants, which most participants saw as a pilot positive.
• Participant engagement with follow-up feedback surveys is low. Partner organisations delivering pilot placements have proactively supported evaluation. At a programme level, there is inconsistent tracking of how many placements are converting into employment. Where this is being tracked, our research shows, it is done by way of follow-up feedback surveys, which have yielded low engagement levels.

Work experience pilot

Findings from the impact evaluation

• We found that the work experience pilot improved young people’s knowledge of creative industries roles, opportunities, and pathways (outcome 1). Given limitations with qualitatively engaging young people, we have extrapolated data from feedback surveys. Most young people surveyed (85%) reported learning more about working in the creative industries during their placements. Most young people surveyed (68%) reported knowing more about the different pathways into the creative industries after their placement.
• Most tutors surveyed felt that they learned more about roles, pathways, and opportunities. Although anecdotal, evidence from interviews showed improved knowledge amongst tutors of local pathways and opportunities (outcome 2).
• Although our evidence is anecdotal, we found that the pilot facilitated opportunities for improved knowledge and aspirations of young people from underrepresented backgrounds (outcome 3). This evidence is drawn from engagement with industry partners in areas of higher deprivation, who perceived the placements as impactful for young people in their areas, and tutors who reported that placements were inclusive for young people with SEND.
• The pilot facilitated opportunities for meaningful engagement between young people and creative industries (outcome 4), though the extent of engagement was found to vary depending on the type of placement, the host organisation, and the specific projects and tasks that students were involved in. Tutors reported that their students received impactful engagement opportunities with creative businesses. In further support of this, young people reported improvement in key professional skills, such as collaboration and communication, because of their placements.
• The pilot improved interest amongst young people in considering careers in the creative industries (outcome 5), through improved knowledge of next steps, and enhanced familiarity with the creative industries.
• We found that the pilot has improved perceptions of creative careers (outcome 6). Most young people reported that their perceptions of creative industries became more positive after their placement, and that careers in the creative industries appeared more credible following their placement. Industry partners reported more proactive engagement and interest in the creative industries from participants, towards the end of the placement.

Findings from the process evaluation

• The level of resources available under CCP was largely seen by delivery partners to be adequate, and most industry partners were willing to repeat placements. However, some industry partners reported capacity constraints and strain on internal resources to deliver placements. Industry partners also highlighted that additional financial support through bursaries is critical for continued engagement with underrepresented groups and participants in rural areas.
• The strand delivery partner was seen as helpful, supportive, and contributing positively to industry partners’ preparations for placements. Despite this, industry partners reported communication gaps and limited clarity around key programme information, such as not knowing the right points of contact at schools, all of which complicated delivery.
• Longer planning timelines were suggested by schools, delivery partners, and industry partners as improving the quality of collaboration. Schools particularly saw longer preparation timelines as important to ensure industry partners have the requisite level of pre-placement arrangements in place, for example, safeguarding arrangements. Ideal planning timelines were seen as between six and eight weeks.
• Monitoring activity conducted by delivery partners is comprehensive. That said, given our experiences in delayed access to key programme stakeholders, there is room for more streamlined support with evaluation activity.

Appendix 5 – Theory of Change

Rationale

• The UK’s creative industries workforce is not representative of the UK’s Nations and regions, impacting diversity, innovation, and resilience of the sector
• Skills gaps and shortages have been widely reported across the CIs, and are identified as a key barrier to growth
• The UK government aims to deliver school-age work experience to support the delivery of the Gatsby Benchmarks in England ensuring all young people aged 18 to 21 are learning or earning, to prevent them becoming economically inactive before their careers have begun
• Low levels of awareness and misconceptions about career pathways and job roles within creative industries, among young people schools, career professionals, and parents, hampering aspirations for careers in the creative industries

Resources

Enhanced investment into:

• £1.1m expanded core Creative Careers programme (CCP)
• £300k expansion in Scotland and Wales
• £480k work experience pilot
• £190k young person’s creative Sector Based Work Academy Pilot (SWAP)

Activities

• Enhanced website, including increased number of resources, improved digital tools, and with a one-stop-shop for creative careers information
• Increased number of priority regions across the UK (from 77 to 120)
• Increased activity and employer encounters for school children during Discover! Creative Careers (DCC) Month; expansion of activities into Wales and Scotland
• Development of nation-specific training, resources and website content for Wales and Scotland
• Meaningful encounters with creative businesses and schools across England’s regions
• Delivery of work experience placements by matching schools to creative businesses in specific regions
• 6-week programme delivered in at least 2 regions
• Guaranteed job interview or help with application process
• Short work placement with a business
• Pre-employment training, matched to a particular sector and delivered by a business or local training provider

Outputs

• Over 100,000 employer encounters between young people aged 11 to 18 and industry partners across the UK
• 50% industry encounters taking place in priority regions
• Expansion of impact and reach of the DCC industry encounters and bespoke digital resources to Scotland and Wales
• 600 Year 10 and Year 11 students in 3 to 5 day in-person work experience placements
• 100 schools engaged across the programme
• 20 work experience opportunities per creative industry category (12 categories)
• 50% work experience placements outside London; targeted work placements for underrepresented young people
• 80 young people aged 16 to 24, who claiming benefits supported in at least two regions
• 600 individuals taking part in virtual and/or face to face industry encounters

Outcomes

• Increased knowledge of roles, pathways and opportunities within creative industries among young people of school age (11 to 18) and those looking for work (16 to 24)
• Improved knowledge amongst parents, carers, careers advisors, work coaches and teachers of roles, careers and pathways into the creative industries
• Improved knowledge of pathways into creative careers, and aspirations, among young people from under-represented backgrounds, and those in regions outside London
• Increased numbers of young people directly interacting with the sector (through encounters or work experience); and increased involvement of creative industries businesses across the UK in meaningfully engaging young people
• Increased number of young people (11 to 24) considering careers in the creative industries
• Improved perceptions of careers in the creative industries

Impacts

• Increased numbers of young people pursuing a career in the creative industries
• Increased diversity of the creative industries workforce
• Increased likelihood of positive labour market outcomes for young people engaged through the CCP
• Stronger skills and talent pipelines that meet the skills demands of the UK’s creative industries (also addressing skills shortages)

1. The main objectives of FY2025 to 2026 were to improve young people’s (11 to 24 years), careers advisers’, and job coaches’ knowledge of pathways and opportunities to enter the creative industries workforce; and improve knowledge and aspirations of creative industries careers amongst young people from underrepresented backgrounds. The programme also aimed to increase the number of young people considering a career in the creative industries. Overall, the programme aimed to increase the number of young people directly interacting with the sector, either through encounters or work experience. ↩

2. For CCP FY 2025 to 2026, the core programme extension was estimated to have generated a total in-kind contribution of £1,762,854 in England, of which, £479,700 was for Discover! Creative Careers Month. ↩

3. Notably, non-profit industry partners and community arts organisations made up the majority of industry partners delivering various events under the Discover England programme strand. ↩

4. These findings relate to feedback from industry partners, and does not reflect the operational feasibility of these suggested actions, which is ultimately subject to the scale of programme delivery. ↩

5. Following commencement of this evaluation, and challenges with access to programme data, there was appointment of dedicated personnel at the lead partner-level to support evaluation of the programme. We have set out these recommendations around data governance responsibilities that can further enhance evaluation activity programme-wide. ↩

6. Sector-based Work Academy Programme: A Quantitative Impact Assessment (Insanally, 2025). ↩