2
The LEP also retains a significant stock of individual project case studies to provide
contextual support to the work of the programmes.
It is recognised however that due to the nature of the funding, whilst programmes are still
live, the emphasis is on the collation and presentation of outputs such as jobs, houses,
learners and match funding achieved, rather than an assessment of the wider impact, or
outcome of the programme.
It is the intention in the future to explore opportunities to evaluate the broader outcome of
individual programmes, providing that ‘bigger picture’ of the impact of the LEP and its
programmes to date.
Action: Continue to promote individual programmes and the collective impact of the
work of the LEP and its programmes and also consider opportunities for
incorporating outcome assessment into future promotion.
2. Seek to improve the consistency and depth of impact evidence
Many of the outputs the LEP is required to monitor are driven by external funders and linked
directly to the funding provided to the LEP.
As external priorities have moved between, for example, those to combat the financial crisis
after 2008, through improving productivity and innovation and on to current low carbon and
net zero ambitions, the range and type of output measures reported has increased
significantly.
Consolidating this range of outputs and achieving consistency across the programmes is an
important aspect of any future programme design and implementation.
In terms of monitoring and reporting, the LEP has been building a comprehensive bespoke
Client Record Management system (CRM) for several years, with constant updates and
improvements to produce a central resource for the grant management process.
The system now operates as a whole-life record, from enquiry with the Growth Hub to
output capture and project closure by the LEP or SCC.
The CRM will replace other management systems for any future programmes. In terms of
payments to projects, the pandemic has brought forward streamlined systems such as
electronic claim and payment signatures, improving the overall efficiency of the financial
management processes.
Action: Continue to invest in the development and utilisation of the CRM system.
Ensure future programmes align with respect to output targets to consolidate and
narrow the range of outputs captured and reported and that all targets cascade from
strategic priorities where possible.
3. Consider a greater differentiation with programme names
Since the introduction of the first tranche of programme funding to the LEP, the Growing
Places Fund in 2012, government nomenclature has often preferred the use of ‘Growth’ or
‘Growing’ as titles for national funding programmes, and these have cascaded down to the
regional delivery level.
There is no doubt that from a customer perspective viewing the programme titles alone it is
difficult to distinguish between programmes, although published criteria outline the
differences explicitly, removing any further misunderstanding as to the intentions of the
programme or its eligibility criteria.
More recent programmes, such as the Innovative Projects and the Resilience and Recovery
Funds have successfully used titles that reflect the ambition of those programmes more
clearly and this process will continue in future.
Action: Future programme titles to avoid similarities, where possible, to other LEP
and external provider programmes. Continue to develop the CRM system for full
client record management by multiple users.
4. Consider a review of the capital grant management process
The current capital grant management process does comprise a number of stages, driven
by government policy, followed by LEP strategic priorities before delivering through local
authority partners, SMEs and voluntary and community organisations.
The current model does not necessarily suit every applicant in terms of decision timescales,
but processes have been designed in favour of the applicant as much as possible.