Research and analysis

Workforce Recruitment and Retention Funds: outcomes and findings

Published 26 January 2023

Applies to England

Overview

We made £462.5 million available to local authorities through the Workforce Recruitment and Retention Funds (WRRFs). The first fund was announced on 21 October 2021 (£162.5 million) and the second fund was announced on 10 December 2021 (£300 million). These funds were made available to local authorities to be spent on activities to address workforce capacity pressures in the adult social care sector through recruitment and retention activity between 21 October 2021 and 31 March 2022. They followed the £120 million Workforce Capacity Fund (January to March 2021).

The key aims of the WRRFs were to:

• support social care providers to maintain the provision of safe care and bolster capacity within providers to deliver more hours of care
• support timely and safe discharge from hospital to where ongoing care and support is needed
• support providers to prevent admission to hospital
• enable timely new care provision in the community
• support and boost retention of staff within social care

Data sources

Monitoring information

A key source of data for the evaluation came from the monitoring information gathered as part of the final reporting point for the WRRFs. The template for local authority returns is available at Workforce Recruitment and Retention Fund for adult social care, round 2 (Annex F).

Data was received from 150 local authorities, with 2 local authorities not returning their reports by the deadline.

The WRRF monitoring data was self-reported by local authorities. In some cases, there was variation in how local authorities interpreted the form and the way in which they reported spending and outputs delivered.

The grant conditions outlined that reporting on the fund would also need to include baseline data from September 2021. This included:

• estimated total number of hours generated from comparable local authority activities
• total number of recruits generated from comparable local authority activities
• how many staff left care providers in the local authority area

We asked for this data to identify the additional impact and effectiveness of the WRRFs compared to baseline activities, and to strengthen our evidence base on the value of these interventions.

Surveys

An online survey of local authorities and providers was conducted to assess their experience of the fund administration, the conditions and guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and to gauge the quality and level of support given to local authorities.

The local authority survey was launched on 6 July 2022 and ran for 10 days until 15 July. We received 23 responses to this survey (a response rate of 15%).

An adapted version of the survey was also distributed to providers at the same time using Capacity Tracker. 1,705 providers responded to the survey (a response rate of 7%).

Workshops and other feedback

A series of stakeholder focus groups and discussions were carried out to gather qualitative data on the use and administration of the funds.

Discussions were held with local authorities, care providers and government officials. The evaluation also drew on feedback gathered from adult social care sector representatives.

In all cases, stakeholders consented to their anonymised feedback being used in the evaluation of the WRRFs.

Key outcomes from the WRRFs

Total hours generated

Local authorities reported that 23.2 million staff hours were generated by measures supported by the WRRFs.

However, some of these measures were already in place prior to the WRRFs. To test how many of the hours were additional, we compare to hours generated by equivalent measures during the baseline period. The baseline estimates were based on the number of hours and recruits reported by local authorities in September 2021, prior to the grant period.

Of the 23.2 million hours generated, we estimate that 2.9 million staff hours (12.5% of the total) were additional relative to what would have been expected without the funds. This is the additional impact of the WRRF measures during the funded period.

Although this is a relatively small increase in hours across the whole workforce, it is statistically significant (Wilcoxon test comparing WRRF hours to baseline hours, 95% confidence interval), suggesting that the WRRFs did have a small but positive impact on the number of hours worked.

The baseline estimates do not consider any anticipated workforce attrition or forecasts of workforce capacity. The approach used in this evaluation represented an attempt to estimate the additional impact of the funds, while limiting the reporting burden on local authorities. However, we acknowledge that there is uncertainty in the baseline estimates of hours and recruits, and therefore in our estimates of the impacts of the WRRFs.

Total recruits generated

Local authorities reported that 109,000 recruits were generated by WRRF measures.

However, some recruitment measures were already in place prior to the WRRFs. To test how many of the recruits were additional, we compare to recruits generated by equivalent measures during the baseline period.

Compared to the September 2021 baseline period, we estimate that there were 7,000 fewer recruits generated by WRRF measures during the funded period than would be expected.

The difference in the number of staff recruited between the funded period and baseline period is not statistically significant (Wilcoxon test comparing WRRF recruits to baseline recruits, 95% confidence interval), suggesting that the WRRFs did not have a positive or negative impact on overall recruitment during the funded period (though it may have had an impact later).

This is supported by qualitative feedback which highlighted that the lead-in time or fund period was too short to have a tangible impact on recruitment activities (both due to a challenging recruitment landscape and the time required to recruit to adult social care posts).

Impact on overall workforce capacity

We estimate a net growth of 33,000 staff relative to the baseline period.

This net growth is driven by increased retention rather than improved recruitment and is a statistically significant improvement on the baseline period (Wilcoxon test comparing WRRF headcount changes to baseline headcount changes, 95% confidence interval).

Qualitative feedback also highlighted that the fund was most effective when used on retention methods or investment in the existing workforce (such as overtime, childcare costs and bonuses).

It suggests that the WRRF measures may have helped to stabilise the decline in workforce numbers seen over the summer and autumn of 2021. This is supported by qualitative feedback which suggested that the fund was a ‘lifeline’ and helped local authorities and providers ‘get through’ a particularly challenging period.

How local authorities spent the fund

£450.9 million of the total funds were spent (£11.6 million underspend).

Local authorities passported the majority of the funds to providers (82.6%), while 14.9% of the total funds was spent directly by local authorities. There was some variation geographically, with local authorities in London spending an average of 28.7% of their allocation directly.

We understand that in several areas, local authorities, NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have topped up government funding to enhance the impact of the funds. However, this evaluation will only account for monies provided through the WRRFs.

Measures and examples of spend are:

• retention payments or financial incentives:
  • staff bonuses
  • welcome payments
• training and development:
  • induction training costs
  • mental health training
• staff wellbeing and other incentives:
  • staff counselling
  • wellbeing boxes
  • travel costs
• recruitment costs:
  • refer-a-friend schemes
  • recruitment campaigns
• enhanced pay: bringing forward planned 2022 to 2023 National Living Wage increases
• staff banks and agency staff:
  • creation of shared staff banks
  • agency fees
• increased hours, overtime or redeployment:
  • overtime payments
  • buying back annual leave

Local authority spending was permitted under the following categories as long as there was a clear link to workforce capacity, recruitment or retention:

• administrative costs:
  • project management
  • IT system improvements
• supporting hospital discharge: increased care packages
• preventing hospital admission:
  • intermediate care team support
  • funding for reablement
• community care provision:
  • personal care tasks
  • additional care provision

While providers were most likely to spend passported funds on retention payments, overtime pay and enhanced pay rates, direct local authority spend was more likely to be used to support recruitment costs, agency costs, and activities to support hospital discharge.

Nationally, the funds were most likely to be used to support:

• retention bonus payments (44% of total spend)
• overtime pay (15%)
• enhanced basic pay rates (13%)
• recruitment costs (9%)

See the evaluation tables below for further details of breakdown of spend by activity type.

Clawback

Clawback provisions apply to these funds, including that local authorities must repay any unspent amounts from the funds and any amounts not used for measures that deliver additional staffing capacity and meet the grant conditions. If the department reasonably believes spending is not in line with the grant conditions, they may recover grant monies from local authorities.

What worked well on the WRRFs

Qualitative feedback and surveys highlighted some key areas which worked well on the funds.

The WRRFs helped support staffing capacity over winter 2021 to 2022:

• local authorities told us that the fund helped with retention of the workforce. They reported that measures had deterred staff from leaving their employment
• local authorities reported that the fund had enabled them to operate at higher levels of capacity to support hospital discharge
• sector representatives fed back that the funds had helped to improve short-term workforce capacity

The fund was seen as national recognition of the sector and boosted staff morale:

• local authorities told us that retention bonuses and incentive payments boosted staff morale at a difficult time for the sector
• staff were grateful for bonuses, which had an impact on their morale and recognition

The mix of eligible activities provided flexibility to the sector:

• 61% of local authorities said that the mix of eligible activities was broad enough to impact on workforce capacity
• half of providers surveyed (49%) agreed that the conditions of the funds were broad enough to impact on workforce capacity
• sector representatives reported that the sector appreciated the flexibility of fund conditions

The funds encouraged communication, collaboration and transparency between local authorities and providers, helping to strengthen working relationships:

• providers noted that the WRRFs had supported more communication and collaboration between providers and government
• sector representatives told us that the funds enabled the sharing of good practice across the sector

The administration of the funds was positive overall:

• 77% of providers told us that their experience of the fund administration by local authorities was either excellent or good
• 69% of providers were satisfied with the timescales given to spend the funds

However, only 26% of local authorities reported that the fund administration had been good.

What did not work so well on the WRRFs

Local authorities and providers reported that they needed more time to plan and then distribute the funding:

• 73% of local authorities told us that they were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the timescales given to spend the fund
• while sector representatives welcomed the longer lead-in time than the previous winter’s Workforce Capacity Fund, they reflected that their main concern with the WRRFs was that the spending period and lead time was too short. This limited the time they had to plan effective measures to boost capacity. They also highlighted that short-term, time-limited funding is not the most efficient or effective way of addressing workforce capacity concerns

The sector told us that the impact on recruitment was likely to have been limited:

• providers told us they did not have enough time to fund new recruitment campaigns. Where WRRFs were used to fund recruitment campaigns, these had often already been planned before the funds were announced
• although qualitative feedback highlighted that the funds were helpful in supporting retention of existing staff, local authorities also reported that the fund had not had as much of an impact on recruitment
• sector representatives highlighted that care workers cannot be recruited at pace and therefore the fund had limited use in regard to recruitment

The WRRFs supported short-term stabilisation of capacity but was less successful in creating longer-term benefits:

• local authorities reported that the fund had enabled them to operate at higher levels of capacity. However, this was not sustainable after the funding closed, even though levels of demand remained high
• local authorities told us that providers had used the WRRFs to fund temporary measures such as agency staff rather than measures which would have a longer-term impact
• sector representatives also told us that most measures were short-term but have set an expectation for ongoing support

Providers told us of some instances where the funds were not administered as they would have liked:

• providers told us that late payment was an issue, with some local authorities paying both WRRF rounds in December 2021. This limited time to plan and spend the funds
• local authorities were able to state their own spend conditions in line with their local strategic priorities. Some providers highlighted that they were frustrated by restrictive conditions placed on them by local authorities
• in our survey of providers, some reported that they had not received funds and were not consulted about the funding
• a further administrative issue related to the allocation of the fund and local authority boundaries. Many care providers deliver services across local authority boundaries, while WRRF allocations only covered populations living within the local authority boundary where the provider was based. For large care establishments this created administrative complexities. Some reported that it was unfair that care workers in one local authority could be paid bonuses while those in other local authorities did not receive them
• providers and local authorities expressed frustration and disappointment that funds were not able to be passported to non Care Quality Commission (CQC) registered providers

What we can learn from the WRRFs

The evidence suggests that the WRRFs helped to stabilise the winter decline in workforce numbers. They helped the sector to prevent further deterioration on the ability of the system to continue providing care. The funds were described as a ‘lifeline’ during a difficult time and were symbolically significant for the sector – participants felt that this was central government recognising the sector, the workforce and the pressure they were under.

Timescales

Although the timescales for the WRRFs were extended based on the feedback from the Workforce Capacity Fund, qualitative feedback still highlighted that the short-term, restricted timings of the funds were a barrier to effective use of the funds and hindered strategic planning. Furthermore, respondents highlighted that, due to the short-term nature of the funds, there will be limited legacy to this fund. Feedback has strongly highlighted that the sector would prefer longer-term, strategic investment as opposed to emergency short-term funding.

Reporting

Although the reporting was reduced based on feedback from the Workforce Capacity Fund, respondents still highlighted the administrative burden of the funds as a key area of concern. This was particularly in relation to deadlines that coincided with reporting deadlines for other funds.

Distribution

Qualitative feedback highlighted that local authorities and providers appreciated the additional flexibility and scope of these funds compared to other DHSC funding. However, some providers received funding very late in the grant period, and providers which operate across several local authorities found it difficult to manage differing WRRF strategies.

Eligibility

There was frustration from stakeholders that monies could not be passported to unregistered providers, as these services provide key areas of support for those in receipt of care.

Next steps

We heard that the funds encouraged collaboration and innovation across the sector. We will continue to share further best practice with the sector through the evaluation process. We plan to work with the sector on how best to share best practice and learning from the WRRFs and other winter capacity measures.

Findings from the Workforce Capacity Fund

Before the design and launch of the WRRFs, the Workforce Capacity Fund was released in January 2021 and ran until 31 March 2021. Findings from the evaluation of the Workforce Capacity Fund fed into the design of the WRRFs.

Timescales

To allow local authorities more time for better planning and utilisation of funding, the WRRFs were developed to span an extended period of time, lasting between 21 October 2021 and 31 March 2022.

Reporting requirements

We developed a more proportionate reporting framework for the WRRFs, that balanced the administrative burden on local authorities and care providers from this and other COVID-19 related funding, with the need for grant assurance and for purposes of evaluation.

Guidance

To support the sector to maximise the productivity of the funding, we published further guidance for the WRRF which detailed case studies and examples of allowable activity under the grant.

Distributing the grant via local authorities

As with the Workforce Capacity Fund, we distributed the WRRFs via local authorities, as they are well placed to identify pressure points in their local systems and are able to encourage collaborative working across their geographical area.

We encouraged local authorities to work closely with care providers and other local partners to ensure the WRRFs were used to best effect, including passporting funding to care providers as appropriate, and subject to grant conditions.

Changes between WRRF round 1 and round 2

Unlike the WRRF round 1, the WRRF round 2 could be used to enable local authorities and providers to bring forward planned uplifts relating to pay for the adult social care workforce in advance of the new financial year.

In addition to the WRRF round 2 final reporting point (29 April 2022, alongside the final WRRF round 1 final reporting point) local authorities were required to submit a statement of assurance certifying that their reported expenditure from this grant would be spent in compliance with the grant conditions (21 January 2022).

Evaluation tables

The following data tables summarise the data received from 150 local authorities on how they spent the fund and the impact of measures.

This data was self-reported and there were some data quality issues with the monitoring information. There was variation in the level of detail reported by local authorities and some appeared to have interpreted the monitoring form differently. As a result, comparisons should not be drawn between local authorities using the monitoring information.

How local authorities spent the fund

Passported funding	Value (rounded to nearest 10,000)
Total funds	£462,500,000
Total amount passported to local authorities	£68,710,000
Amount passported as % of allocation	14.9%
Total amount passported to providers	£382,190,000
Amount passported as % of allocation	82.6%
Total amount underspent	£11,620,000
Proportion underspent	2.5%

Breakdown of spend and outputs by activity type

Category of activity	Total spend (to nearest £10,000)	Proportion of spend by activity	Total spend by local authorities	Total spend by providers	Average spend per local authority (to nearest £100)
Retention payment, bonus and financial incentives	£181,850,000	44%	£9,420,000	£172,430,000	£699,000
Training and development	£5,290,000	1%	£1,760,000	£3,530,000	£91,000
Staff wellbeing	£21,540,000	5%	£3,400,000	£18,140,000	£166,000
Recruitment costs	£39,090,000	9%	£8,660,000	£30,430,000	£185,000
Enhanced pay or uplift advance	£53,700,000	13%	£4,420,000	£49,280,000	£537,000
Staff banks and agency (external)	£19,570,000	5%	£8,040,000	£11,530,000	£233,000
Staff capacity, increased hours, redeployment and overtime (internal)	£62,980,000	15%	£10,010,000	£52,970,000	£337,000
Administration and infrastructure costs	£6,550,000	2%	£2,650,000	£3,900,000	£49,000
Support hospital discharge	£12,940,000	3%	£7,170,000	£5,770,000	£135,000
Hospital admission prevention	£1,000,000	0%	£550,000	£450,000	£56,000
Community care provision	£2,440,000	1%	£940,000	£1,500,000	£102,000
Other	£6,860,000	2%	£20,000	£6,840,000	£312,000

Proportion of allocation spent on measures by region (%)

Category of activity	East of England	London	Midlands	North East and Yorkshire	North West	South East	South West
Retention payment, bonus and financial incentives	54	35	40	48	29	52	58
Training and development	0	2	1	2	1	3	0
Staff wellbeing	8	5	6	2	5	8	1
Recruitment costs	4	13	12	10	7	11	6
Enhanced pay or uplift advance	9	6	7	15	25	10	17
Staff banks and agency	0	9	8	3	3	4	4
Increased hours, redeployment and overtime	21	17	15	13	21	9	8
Administration and infrastructure costs	1	2	1	1	2	2	1
Support hospital discharge	1	9	1	3	3	2	2
Hospital admission prevention	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Community care provision	1	1	0	1	1	0	0
Other	1	1	8	1	3	0	1

Total outputs from current local authority returns

Hours generated	Total quantity delivered
Total hours generated	23,160,000
Total additional hours generated relative to baseline	2,880,000

Recruits generated	Total quantity delivered
Total recruits generated (we are unable to confirm whether these are full-time equivalent posts or when the individual started)	109,000
Total additional recruits generated relative to baseline	-7,000

Headcount growth	Total quantity delivered
Total headcount growth (recruits less staff exits)	17,700
Total additional headcount growth relative to baseline	33,000