Bootcamps fray and wear thin as providers begin race to the bottom

Like many skills initiatives over the past three decades, the history of skills bootcamps in England has been mixed.

Conceived during the pandemic, bootcamps were designed as short, intensive courses aligned with employer demand. They have enjoyed a measure of success, attracting over 60,000 learners in their first three years across priority sectors including digital, construction, logistics, green skills, health and social care and engineering.

Their short duration has proved popular with employers and anecdotal evidence suggests the impact on individuals can be transformative.

Members of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) cite numerous positive learner outcomes. One digital bootcamp graduate, for instance, went from busking on the streets to earning nearly £60,000 as a software engineer in the North West.

However, there are growing concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of the bootcamp model. A modest 37 per cent success rate in 2023 has raised questions – not just about outcomes, but how those outcomes are defined and measured.

As the job market tightens, groups of bootcamp graduates find themselves competing for just one or two vacancies, calling into question the promise of rapid employment.

FIN has been closely monitoring the quality of provision and our analysis of Ofsted’s findings might offer some reassurance. As of January this year, 65 of the 90 most recent new provider monitoring visits, largely to independent training providers, were for bootcamps. All but two were judged to be making ‘reasonable progress’ across key areas such as curriculum, safeguarding and leadership.

Yet this presents only a partial picture. New providers can operate for up to two years before Ofsted even conducts a monitoring visit and it may be another two to two-and-a-half years before they undergo a full inspection. This four-year window leaves learners exposed and raises serious questions about provider vetting and programme oversight.

The situation is not without precedent. The government’s early experience with the apprenticeship levy saw the rapid expansion of untested providers entering the skills market, only for ministers to backtrack when quality concerns surfaced. The bootcamp programme risks repeating this cycle, particularly as devolution accelerates.

The shift to the combined authorities is already having a destabilising effect, with redundancies hitting high-performing providers. Several local commissioners are overseeing delayed tender processes, smaller contract sizes and pricing structures that reward low bids rather than quality. The result: pressure to deliver programmes for as little as £9 per learner hour.

FIN is increasingly hearing reports of corners being cut. Online group sessions are replacing interactive tutoring. Providers, incentivised by payment structures tied to job interviews, may be pushing candidates into interviews of questionable value just to trigger the next funding milestone. Such practices are undermining the reputation of the programme and penalising good providers, some of whom are still achieving employment outcomes for more than half of their learners.

Amid this, there are encouraging signs. Some established apprenticeship providers are using bootcamps as progression pathways to apprenticeship programmes, supporting sustained employment. But their viability is under threat unless funding models are reviewed. As with apprenticeships, quality cannot be bought on the cheap.

Five years in, the bootcamp programme is at a crossroads. To stay relevant, course content must evolve with the labour market. One example: demand from employers for Level 3 data bootcamp graduates has declined markedly compared to the early days of the programme.

Bootcamps have the potential to be a game-changer in adult skills and workforce development. But without clearer accountability, appropriate funding and strategic alignment between national and devolved decision-makers, they could wither on the vine and become yet another missed opportunity in England’s skills landscape.