Project Self Evalution template and guidancewestlondonalliance.org/wlaextranet.nsf/0... · Web...

West London Sub Regional Engagement Programme

2009 to 2011 - Self Evaluation

i vcycnfe76btcgrfbeb gtcrme

West London - 4145068

Contents

Self Evaluation Template.................................................................................3 Lessons Learnt Summary...................................................................................3

Section 1: Project Description........................................................................5Section 2: Project Background, Rationale and Objectives.............................6Section 3: Evaluation Methodology................................................................7Section 4: Project Costs & Funding................................................................8Section 5: Project Outputs and Outcomes & KPI’s........................................9Section 6: Strategic Added Value.................................................................10Section 7: Performance of Management and Delivery Processes...............12Section 8: Added Value................................................................................13Section 9: Value for Money Assessment......................................................13Section 10: Sustainability and Succession/Exit Strategy...............................16Section 11: Performance against Project Objectives.....................................16Section 12: Cross Cutting Themes.................................................................19Section 13: Key Conclusions and Lessons Learnt.........................................19Section 14: LDA Project Managers Peer Review...........................................22

West London - 4145068 2

Self Evaluation Template

NB: Please note that when completing this template you should also refer to the full Project Self Evaluation Guidance notes (Appendix 1 of this document).


Lessons Learnt Summary

This section should be completed by the LDA Project Manager, summarising the key lessons learnt from the evaluation, including what worked well and what worked less well and the audiences for dissemination. Lessons learnt will be presented to IPB and APR quarterly. Please refer to the full guidance notes, in Appendix 1 of this document, for additional information.


STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 25386 (Contract number: 25649)Sub Regional Partnership – West LondonSection 1: Project Description

The project supports the aims of the West London Partnership (WLP), which brings together the key stakeholders in a coherent and representative body to influence the policies and strategies of the Government, Mayor and the GLA Group, and other agencies.

Examples include:

West London Economic Development Strategy West London Strategic Transport Group (WLSTG) 10pt Transport Plan West London Programme for London 2012 Promoting a more sustainable West London through collaborative approaches to

spatial planning Undertaking or participating in collaborative research on key issues for West London Supporting the West London Working City Strategy Pathfinder

It also supports programmes of activity and investment that shape and deliver environmental, social and economic prospects. In 2009 – 2011 the WLP’s Sub-regional Programme set out to deliver the following activities:

Respond to Mayor’s Plans

London Plan – leading and facilitating the assembly and public consultation responses to the Mayor’s revised London Plan

Economic Development Strategy – facilitate WLP response Mayor’s Transport Strategy – influence and inform the MTS

Economic Development

Outer London Commisison – influence and inform the development of the OLC, to ensure the OLC’s impact is viable for West London’s economic prosperity and vitality

Local Economic Assessments – facilitate development of LEAs; coordinate borough’s LEAs with Mayoral/ GLA’s strategies; securing efficiencies in the production of LEAs

Facilitate private sector/ business sector engagement with WL policy making; research business issues and needs for WL to inform policy, strategy and public sector interventiotions

Commissioning

Influencing and informing the LDAs approach to commisoning Facilitating good quality bidding for commisioned programmes by WLP

stakeholders

London 2012 Games legacy for West London

Support the delivery of a West London programme of activities which are aimed at securing a lasting legacy from the staging of the London 2012 Games and where appropriate deliver activities related to the staging of the Games (including prequel and subsequent activities)


Capacity building partnership working

Facilitate the reorganisation, realignment or capacity building of sub-regional and area-based partnership organisations in West London in response to the changing socio-economic policy environment and operating circumstances in West London

Support the boroughs and GLA Group in liaison and collaboration with regional and local government and partnership organisations in the South East England areas bordering on West London

West London Working

Support and facilitate WLW programme, to tackle unemployment and worklessness in West London

Project Delivery and Target Groups The project is administered and organised by the West London Alliance (WLA) representing the 6 West London Local Authorities, and by West London Business (WLB) representing over 750 members and the wider business community in West London. The stakeholders who benefit in West London include the voluntary sector, the local authorities, the skills and education bodies, the health sector, and business support organisations. These stakeholders contribute to activities that positively impact the community and businesses in West London.

Section 2: Project Background, Rationale and ObjectivesThe project has been developed to support the work of the WLP. The programme was funded to encourage the development of local economic and social policies, programmes and initiatives by the public and private stakeholders in West London. It acts as the lead body to bring together strong representation from the stakeholder groups, and assists the LDA and other pan London bodies to fully understand the economic and social issues that West London is facing.

The project has the following objectives:

1. Support sub-regional partnerships in the development and initial implementation phase of robust business plans that enable them to become self-sufficient organisations that add value to joint strategic goals and, consequently, are funded by sub-regional stakeholders (boroughs) by 2011.

Measurements:

- Jointly agreed WLP business plan- Incre-asing non-LDA funding contributions towards partnerships

2. Enable boroughs and other key sub-regional stakeholders to increase coordination, alignment and partnership approaches across the sub-region to develop and implement common strategic plans leading to increased public and private sector contributions towards these plans by 2011.

Measurements:

- Jointly agreed strategic plans and action plans- Increased public and private sector funding towards joint sub-regional plans

3. Based on broad representation and high levels of interaction between partners, improve intelligence, influencing and awareness raising and provides joint input into broader sub-regional policy and LDA/GLA strategic consultations (e.g. EDS, LDA Investment Strategy) by 2011.


Measurements:- Partnerships providing broad representation of key partners based on high levels of interaction between partners- Joint responses to LDA/GLA strategies (EDS, LDA Investment Strategy)

The business plan also set the following SMART objectives based on the objectives above: 1. WLP stakeholder meetings to inform WLP business and the business planning process

and engage partners in the future economic, environmental and social development of West London (and its London-wide contribution).

2. WLP to share knowledge and improve intelligence, to inform sub-regional policy and strategy development

3. WLP to inform West London responses and contribution to GLA/ LDA strategic consultations on London Plan, OLC, MTS2 and EES

4. WLP Business Plan/ s for 2011 onwards and Implementation Plan agreed by WLP by March 2010

Section 3: Evaluation MethodologyThe evaluation has been prepared by Russell Harris (Project Manager). The project business case and quarterly SAV monitoring reports were used as background research for this report.

Initial interviews were then held with Ian Nichol and Shahnaz Abassi from the West London Alliance, and with Frank Wingate and Helen Peck from West London Business. These interviews helped determine existing information resources, assessment practices and research requirements.

The following information sources were also used in the preparation of this evaluation:

WLA Annual Review - 2009/10WLB Business Plan – 2009/10WLB SRA Events Evaluation Report - 2010/11WLP for the 2012 Games Annual Report - 2009/10WLA OLC Final Submission - 2009WLB OLC Final Submission - 2009WLP Consultation Response to Draft London Plan – Jan 2010WLP Response to the Draft Replacement London Plan, Outer London Development Centres and Vision – Jan 2010 WLP Consultation Response to Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2009 – Jan 2010WL 10 Point Transport Plan - 2007WLP Consultation Response to the Mayor’s EDS – Jan 2010WL EDS 2007 UpdateMIPIM reports 2009, 2010Places West London reports – 2009/10Business West magazines – various from 2009 and 2010

A series of stakeholder interviews were held with West London and pan London bodies to further determine the impact of the project. In total, 5 interviews were completed and the views of the stakeholders are provided in this report.

Those contributing were:

Andrew Ward – Corporate Relations Director, Brunel UniversityJohn Izett – Chairman, West London Business (April 2009 – December 2010)Diana Neal – Head of Prosperous Communities, London Councils


Joanne Francis – Economic Development Manager, London Borough of BrentSimon Lister – WL Sports and Physical Activity Programme Manager(Note – London Plans Team were invited to contribute but their representative declined to do so)

Case studies were submitted by the WLA and WLB.

Final interviews were then conducted with WLB and WLA to determine a final quarter forecast to complete the evaluation.

Section 4: Project Costs & Funding

There were no changes or variances to the budgets for this project.

Table 1: Analysis of Project Costs & Funding

Table 1: Provide information on all project costs and funding within Table 1.

Baseline Budget (£)

Revised Budget (if

applicable) (£)

Final Budget (£)

Actual Spend (£)

Variance Actual Spend against Final

Budget(£) (%)

Project Costs 340,000 340,000 340,000 0 0Capital RevenueTotal Project Cost

Project FundingLDA Single Programme Funding (Cap)LDA Single Programme Funding (Rev) 340,000 340,000 340,000 0 0LDA Single Programme Funding Total

340,000 340,000 340,000 0 0LDA accountable funding (other public funding through LDA books) (Cap)

LDA accountable funding (other public funding through LDA books) (Rev)LDA accountable funding (other public funding through LDA books) Other public funding (direct to project)Other private funding (direct to project)Total Project Funding 340,000 340,000 340,000 0 0

Gross LDA funding (Cap)Gross LDA funding (Rev)Gross LDA funding (Total) 340,000 340,000 340,000 0 0Net LDA funding (Cap)Net LDA funding (Rev)Net LDA funding (Total) 340,000 340,000 340,000 0 0

Table 2: Analysis of Management & Administration Costs

The staff costs refer to the apportioned salary costs of staff undertaking work for the WLP in the accountable bodies. This is calculated on an hourly rate and audited annually as part of the claims procedure. The administration costs are those that are associated with the staff time (apportioned accommodation, communications costs, etc). This approach was explained at the beginning of the project.


Table 2: Provide information on all management and administration costs associated within this table.

Baseline Budget (£)

Revised Budget (if

applicable) (£)

Final Budget (£)

Actual Spend (£)

Variance Actual Spend against Final Budget

(£) (%)Total Management & Admin CostsStaff Costs 91,500.00 91,500.00 88005.76 -3494.24 -3.82%Admin CostsPlease add others as requiredEvents/seminar/ accommodation/ services

6000.00 6000.00 4230.22 -1769.78 -29.50%

Evaluation 0 0 2000.00 +2000.00 +2000%

Consultant (inc WLB) 242,500.00 242,500.00 245,764.02 +3264.02 +1.35%

Section 5: Project Outputs and Outcomes & KPI’s

See section 6

Table 3: Analysis of Outputs and OutcomesUse your grant agreement or contract and quarterly reporting documents (Project Progress Reports) to complete the outputs and outcomes within this table.

Output Baseline Target Outputs

Revised Target Outputs (if appicable)

Actual Outputs

Variance Actual Outputs against Final

Outputs

(Actual) (%)

Enter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Outcome Baseline Target Outcomes

Revised Target Outcomes (if

appicable)Actual

Outcomes

Variance Actual Outcomes against Final

Outcomes

(Actual) (%)

Enter Outcome Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Outcome Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Outcome Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASAV outcome baseline position and progression made to be addressed in section 6

Table 4: Analysis of Equality Outputs

This information should be analysed within Section 12, Cross Cutting Themes.

Table 4: Analysis of Equality Outputs

Output <Insert Equality Group> <Insert Equality Group>


Target Actual Variance (Actual)

Variance(%)


Variance (%)

Enter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Output Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Outcome<Insert Equality Group> <Insert Equality Group>


Variance(%)


Variance (%)

Enter Outcome Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Outcome Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEnter Outcome Name N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEquality baseline position and progression made to be addressed in section 12

Section 6: Strategic Added Value The LDA project manager has encouraged us to use this section to provide an evaluation of the project outcomes. In order to do this we need to look at the baseline position in West London.

The policy context was a new Mayoral administration, and therefore new strategies to prepare on transport, economic development and the London Plan. The OLC was set-up and there were also new policies emerging from the Government, such as the Future Jobs Fund, and new duties for Local Authorities, such as LEAs, and work and skills plans. The economy had hit a downturn and measures were being considered or put into place to tackle that by both the Government and the GLA. The ODA had been set up and was getting into its stride, but with less engagement with the sub-regions. Organisationally the WLP was building on and consolidating the investment it and the LDA had made in the sub-regions during the past 4 years.

This project set the following SAV objective outcomes in 2009-11.

The WLP sub-regional programme will provide Strategic Added Value, by providing partnership capacity building to develop and support collaboration and project and programme development among the public, private and voluntary and community sectors and across/ beyond borough boundaries; to develop sub-regional socio-economic vitality.

The achievement of the objectives will deliver the following outcomes:

SAV1: The WLP sub-regional programme will increase the profile of West London, leading to increased confidence and investment in activities that contribute to and improve socio-economic development across the sub-region, i.e., developing public/ private strategic partnership approaches to economic and transport development, reducing worklessness, realising local legacy arising from the London 2012 Games, enabling increased inward investment, supporting and increasing SMEs.

SAV2: The WLP sub-regional programme will increase coordination, alignment & partnership approaches among sub-regional stakeholders and partners, in conjunction with London regional partners (GLA/ LDA), to develop shared strategic objectives, and to work together in a more effective way by building capacity.


SAV3: The WLP sub-regional programme will: improve intelligence, influencing & awareness raising; contribute to broader policy development in relation to socio-economic development needs, opportunities, solutions and/or issues being addressed; stimulate collaborative action to tackle the issues; and contribute to broader policy development - across West London.

A Co-ordinated Approach for West LondonWhist West London is recognised as a strategic sub-region, the activities supported under this project have provided the platform to assist central, regional and local public sector bodies to engage the sub-region with confidence. A good example is the feedback West London received from Outer London Commission (OLC), who described West London as a ‘well organised, coherent single voice that was clear about its key challenges and objectives’. In addition to the responses the sub-region submitted to the OLC, it also submitted a combined response to the London Plan through the examination in public, setting out the sub-regional priorities and the case for investment.

Co-ordination and partnership approaches have been prevalent in West London since the inception of the WLP. However, since this project started there have been some important changes in governance, which the Partnership has responded to, highlighting the strengths of having a strategic body representing West London.

As Frank Wingate, Chief Executive of West London Business said, “Without having a structure for engagement with the LDA and GLA, the views of West London would have been delivered in a defuse, not connected way, making it harder for stakeholders to plan clear strategies in this sub-region.

Diana Neal, Head of Prosperous Communities, London Council’s added, “We regularly consult with all 33 Boroughs in London, but it is really useful to know that on certain key issues, we can have informed discussions with the Partnership and its sub-groups. In particular, we have benefitted from sub-regional collective views on employment, skills, transport and LEA’s”.

The business community has benefitted from the opportunity to improve intelligence and define its role in influencing policy and strategy development. This has been achieved through attending WLP meetings, and organised responses to the Outer London Commission, London Plan, and Local Economic Partnership. John Izett, Chairman of West London Business from March 2009 until December 2010, said “The opportunities to consult and provide a strategic response on the key issues facing the economy and business community in West London, shows the value of the Partnership at its highest level. Following preparation of the private sector response to the OLC, we discussed this with the WLP, and subsequently modified our response to demonstrate a united front in West London”.

Raising the Profile of West LondonPlace West London also raised the profile of West London across the project stakeholders. Chaired by the Deputy Mayor of London, this one day conference event was launched in October 2009, and was attended by 300 delegates, representing some of West London’s biggest companies, major developers, local authorities and the education sector. By October 2010 the event had raised its profile even further, with many of the Mayor’s senior economic team supporting the event as keynote speakers. Major developers, such as Development Securities and Capital and Counties, spoke about their crucial relationships with West London Local Authorities and outlined plans for major regeneration projects.

The joint approach to bring together the public and private sectors at MIPIM, the International property and investment show, has helped raise the investment profile


of West London both in the UK and internationally. The initiative showcased the vision of each of the different local authorities in West London in conjunction with property developers and businesses supporting major development plans. This caught the attention of visitors to the MIPIM event, and by March 2010, West London was recognised as one of the key contributors to the London pavilion. This growing stature enabled West London to secure a prominent stand position and headline slots in the speaker programme. In turn, this resulted in major event organisers for the property sector investing in West London specific events throughout the remaining months of 2010.

Tackling Socio-economic Needs – Reducing WorklessnessThe Partnership supported a programme through West London Working to respond to the Government’s Future Jobs Fund initiative. They developed a proposal to provide a FJF programme in West London using the resources of the Employability programme described above to work with organisations which can provide employment opportunities, to and match clients to the jobs offered and to support both them and employers whilst they are in work. This successful programme secured £1.95m funding and created over 300 jobs for young West Londoners, with the London Borough of Ealing acting as the accountable body. The programme is now drawing to a close with a very high rate of participants going into employment or training.

On behalf of the Partnership, and with West London Working, the West London Alliance supported the development, competitive tendering and implementation of the West London Sustained Employment Programme (‘Reach’). The WLA boroughs, with the support of West London Working, negotiated an agreement with the LDA for an 18 month programme to support workless residents obtain employment. The target group was those residents who have been without work for at least 12 months and who were not entitled to receive support through the government's New Deal programmes; mainly residents on Income Support or Incapacity Benefit. The proposal requested a £2m investment from the LDA in the programme with WLW putting in a further £1m from its programme, and will aim to target over 600 sustained jobs.

Transport LobbyingIn addition to creating a 10 Point Transport Plan for West London, the West London Strategic Transport Group (WLSTG) has worked closely with TfL to develop a sub-regional transport plan (see transport case study) and to lobby the Government for Crossrail. It wrote to Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport in August 2010 to raise issues such as improving accessibility to employment opportunities, saying “Crossrail will enter West London at West Drayton in Hillingdon and will connect the existing stations of Heathrow Airport, Hayes & Harlington, Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Mainline before it enters its tunnelled section at Paddington. Crossrail will benefit West London’s residents both in terms of time spent travelling from the area to their places of work, but more importantly it will reduce the time taken to travel to employment locations in West London from locations elsewhere in London and the South East. A study by Colin Buchanan found that the benefits accruing through increased accessibility to employment centres in West London, particularly in Ealing, Hillingdon and Hounslow, are estimated as £15.4m, £15m and £6m per annum respectively”. The letter was co-signed by major businesses in West London, and active members of the Partnership, including BAA, SEGRO, the BBC and British Airways.

Local Legacy of the 2012 GamesThe West London Partnership for the 2012 games is another good example of a project where West London is leading the way in delivering a collaborative approach, which is providing social and economic benefits to the sub-region, whilst raising the profile of West London with LOCOG and the Olympic Organising Committee.

As the Chair of this Partnership, says in the 2009/10 Annual Report, ‘Feedback from our partners indicates that they value the work of the Partnership, particularly our ability to facilitate connections between people and organisations, filter the large amount of


information coming through and direct it on appropriately and sharing our knowledge of external funding opportunities with our partners’.

The project has also secured £55K Play Sport London funding for sports clubs and community organisations to increase adult participation in sports and physical activity programmes and developed events with the G15 Housing Association group to engage young people across West London with employment and training opportunities arising from the Games.

Section 7: Performance of Management and Delivery ProcessesIn delivering the aims of the WLP, the management of this project has been kept compact, but flexible. Whilst the management lies with the WLA and the WLB, support staff and expert consultants have been used to deliver specific programmes and research projects.

Ian Nichol, Director of the West London Alliance, and Frank Wingate, Chief Executive of West London Business, have been responsible for managing the delivery processes and ensuring activity is delivered in line with the projects delivery plan. This has been achieved and the management has also been able to accommodate other strategic initiatives, such as the coordination of discussions on LEP’s, and respond to other issues that have been created by a change in Government.

Ian, Frank and the projects support staff meet regularly (at least once a month) and there is evidence (meeting notes, e-mails) to support more regular engagement. A central record of project activity has been maintained which contains details of events, meeting agendas and notes, responses to consultations and publications. This provides an evidence base for the outcomes of the partners' investment in the project and achievement against milestones. The record was examined in LDA monitoring visits and in the annual audit process by the external auditor. In addition key documents and publications remain available on the WLA and WLB web sites.

Section 8: Added ValueIt is difficult to assess whether or not activity would have taken place without LDA funding, but it’s clear from the opinion and evidence gathered in this exercise that the activity would have been delivered in a different and less effective way.

Without a strategic partnership to facilitate discussion, the public and private sectors, and other stakeholders would have not met with the same regularity, governance and performance.

John Izett, Chairman of West London Business from March 2009 until December 2010, said “Without the platform provided by the WLP, the ability to discuss and develop ideas with our local authority partners would have been difficult. The WLP is the catalyst for bringing us together regularly and for managing and driving forward the strategies and policies that we set”.

Simon Lister, Director, West London Sport and Physical Activity Partnership, said “There is no doubt that that the Partnership had a positive impact on the ‘Training Camp’ guide for West London. The Partnership created a cohesive approach, which helped us to reduce cost, increase efficiency, and produce a very good guide that raised the bar in London, and will ultimately benefit the sub-region”.

The West London Strategic Transport Group would have lacked participation and status. This is recognised by TfL, who said “The WLSTG brought together the key organisations, both public and private, to provide West London and TfL with well thought our transport priorities for both residents and the business community. The group’s work, which included the 10 point transport plan for West London, was recognised as a crucial contribution to the development of the TfL Strategy for West London”.

Section 9: Value for Money Assessment


Given the nature of this project, it was agreed with the LDA that the value for money assessment would be done in conjunction with the other sub-regional partnerships. In doing so, we looked at the types of spend that the project supported, what was achieved, and how this compared with the other sub-regions, as well as considering what other funding and support the Partnership was able to draw-in.

Broadly speaking, the sub-regional delivery is very comparable. All the sub-regions spoken to (North and South) have used their Partnerships to respond to the Mayors plans, lead on economic assessments, develop long lasting partnership approaches, and deliver programmes to achieve socio-economic change, particularly on worklessness and skills shortages.

However, West London is unique in the strength of its business contributors, and led the way in London on responses to the Outer London Commission and on programmes for worklessness and the legacy of the 2012 games. With the same budget, on paper, West London has achieved more and will leave a stronger legacy for the future.

West London was also able to secure the following funding, and deliver the following outcomes with the support of the West London Partnership:

West London secured £500k through the Hillingdon Borough led ERDF funded Heathrow Supply Chain, which assisted over 250 SME’s

West London, led by WLB, secured £460k of funding from the LDA to support the creation of 50 jobs and safeguard over 850 jobs through the Investor Development Programme

Again led by Hillingdon, the WLP secured £900k to support Gateway Heathrow 2012, an ESF programme, which created 800 business starts and 280 jobs

£2m funding for the Ealing led West London Transnational Project on Worklessness

£700k of funding to provide general business and international trade support for start-ups and SME’s

In conclusion, the West London Partnership delivered a huge amount in terms of outcomes, benefits to its stakeholders, its communities, and businesses, with great efficiency, using a relatively small budget.


Table 5: Analysis of Unit Cost EffectivenessYou should complete Table 5 below, please refer to the worked example in the full guidance notes, which can be found in Appendix 1.

Outputs Outputs LDA Total Public Sector Target Unit Costs Actual Unit Costs

Target Output

Revised Target Output (if applicable)

Actual Output

Baseline LDA Budget (£)

Revised LDA Budget (if applicable (£)

Actual LDA Spend (£)

Baseline Total Public Sector Budget (£)

Revised Total Public Sector Budget (£)

Total Public Sector Spend (£)

Baseline LDA Unit Costs (£)

Revised LDA Unit Costs (if applicable) (£)

Baseline Total Public Sector Unit Costs (£)

Revised Total Public Sector Unit Costs (£)

Actual LDA Unit Costs (£)

Actual Total Public Sector Unit Costs (£)

<Enter Output Name>

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

<Enter Output Name>


<Enter Output Name>


<Enter Output Name>


<Enter Output Name>


TOTALS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Outcomes Outcomes LDA Total Public Sector Target Unit Costs Actual Unit Costs

Target Outcomes

Revised Target Outcomes (if applicable)

Actual Outcomes

Baseline LDA Budget (£)

Revised LDA Budget (if applicable (£)

Actual LDA Spend (£)

Baseline Total Public Sector Budget (£)

Revised Total Public Sector Budget (£)

Total Public Sector Spend (£)

Baseline LDA Unit Costs (£)

Revised LDA Unit Costs (if applicable) (£)

Baseline Total Public Sector Unit Cost (£)

Revised Total Public Sector Unit Cost (£)

Actual LDA Unit Costs (£)

Actual Total Public Sector Unit Costs (£)

<Enter Outcome Name>



N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTALS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


Section 10: Sustainability and Succession/Exit StrategyOne of the key objectives of this project is to look at and implement a succession plan. This will ensure that the positive effects are sustained and improved, and that ideas are developed to create future sustainability of the project.

The WLP members undertook a review of the WLP and its business planning at a meeting on the 10th February 2011 and agreed that there was value and merit in continuing their engagement through the WLP and asked that an outline business plan for 2011/12 be prepared.

Stakeholder feedback would suggest that the key challenge is to ensure ongoing commitment from all parties, to re-define and re-energise the Partnership, and to ensure it delivers continued benefit to the communities and businesses in West London.

Section 11: Performance against Project Objectives

Objective 1: Support sub-regional partnerships in the development and initial implementation phase of robust business plans that enable them to become self-sufficient organisations that add value to joint strategic goals and, consequently, are funded by sub-regional stakeholders (boroughs) by 2011.

WLP Business PlanAn outline business plan for succession was first developed towards the end of 09-10, to ensure synergy with the borough budget cycles. A proposal was also being developed by WLA and WLW for the establishment of a West London Commissioning Unit for employment and skills. However, there were also 27% public expenditure reductions over the next CSR period being implemented in boroughs, which had a wider impact on WLP partners.

The work on the WLP business plan was put on hold whilst the issue of LEPs in London was resolved as a sub-regional LEP was viewed as a potential successor to the WLP. The WLP facilitated discussions with businesses and public sector partners about LEP proposals, and following a WLP meeting in October set the priorities for a LEP. An expression of interest in a West London LEP was submitted to the Government, in consultation with the GLA and Mayor.

However, following the announcement of the CSR the Mayor determined that he wanted to see the development a London LEP. The WLP facilitated sub-regional stakeholders input to the drafting by the GLA of the London LEP proposition, working on this with the other sub-regional partnerships. The London LEP proposal does not contain proposals for strong sub-regional working, or set out how it proposes that the LEP will work with sub-regions. The WLP has therefore worked again on the development of the business plan in the final months of this project, resulting in one that has been approved by WLB Board and the WLA Chief Executives.

West London WorkingThe WLP worked closely with West London Working to develop a business plan for the succession strategy for the WLW CSP post March 2011. A detailed business plan for a West London Commissioning Unit was prepared with the WLW board and considered by the WLA boroughs which would have been required to fund the Unit (comprising three officers). The development of the business plan (funded by WLW but facilitated and project managed by WLA for WLP partners) was the subject of extensive consultation with stakeholders and within the boroughs. The aim of the business plan was to continue the work of the WLW CSP in better aligning services for workless residents and improving their quality. The Business Plan was carefully reviewed by boroughs and the principle of the proposition was accepted. However, in the context of the CSR settlement and the pressures on borough and other partner finances, it was concluded that it would not be possible to fund the proposed Commissioning Unit. As a result WLA and other WLP partners are now working on proposals which will be finalised in Q4 to


identify how projects such as the Directory and the Web site can be carried forward by WLP partners post March 2011.

WLP2012As the countdown to the London 2012 Games nears 19 months, there has been a shift by the West London Olympics effort to a more focussed delivery of interventions as organisations are keen to ensure a sustained legacy and there are increased funding opportunities available for West London from National and regional legacy programmes. In light of this the WLP2012 began a review and refresh of the aims within the ongoing work programme. The partnership has also been looking at how to tackle the business continuity impacts of the games for boroughs and partners in West London – it is likely joint arrangements will be needed to address these issues in the near future and plans are in place to facilitate the discussions needed to enable this work to begin.

The local authority partners, Brunel University and Pro-Active West London, having reviewed the performance of the Olympics partnership and the need for the further work up to and after the 2012 Games have undertaken to provided cash and in kind funding up to December 2012 to enable the partnership working to continue following the end of the LDA SRA support.

In conclusion, this objective has not yet been fully achieved, is still relevant, but this will be addressed and the final arrangements completed in the final months of the project.

Objective 2: Enable boroughs and other key sub-regional stakeholders to increase coordination, alignment and partnership approaches across the sub-region to develop and implement common strategic plans leading to increased public and private sector contributions towards these plans by 2011.

During the project cycle the WLP has continued to organise regular meetings on transport strategy, development of Interim Work and Skills Plans, LEPs, the West London LEA and 2012 games legacy. It has also established its role to identify funding opportunities, securing nearly £10million for the sub-region.

LEAsThe WLP partners have worked on the alignment of borough and West London LEAs and the West London LEA has been developed (in consultation with GLA/LDA) further with a view to the final draft for consultation with WLP stakeholders and wider stakeholder community in late Jan/early Feb 2011 with publication by March 2011. The West London LEA will identify key issues and opportunities for the West London economy which will inform the WLP’s plans going forward as well as the London LEP, when set up, and the GLA group. The development of proposals or initiatives to address the issues and opportunities set out in the West London LEA (aligned with borough LEA and the London strategies) will inform bidding and investment decisions by the WLP partners in the future. The LEA has also be the vehicle for opening discussions on economic issues with adjoining sub-regions and authorities outside London which will increase inter-regional collaboration and alignment in the future.

West London WorkingSupport and facilitation by WLP partners of the roll out of the Work Programme continued in conjunction with WLW and London Councils. Support and information has been offered to primary contractors and for the development of their supply chain in West London. The WLP stakeholders have sought to influence the design of the contracting by the DWP, albeit with limited success (in common with other like organisations in London and more widely) WLP partners have supported a number of supplier events in West London and LB Brent has taken the lead for WLP boroughs in co-ordinating responses to the Work Programme contractors. Co-ordination has been through the West London Regeneration Officers Group as well as WLW. LB Ealing finalised a contract, the development of which was supported by the WLP partners, for the


LDA sustained employment programme in West London. This resulted in West London securing £3m funding and 600 new jobs.

Business NetworkingWest London Business held 10 networking events, bringing businesses, public sector reps and HE reps together to work together on common innovation strategies for West London and to inform them about GLA and mayoral policies in this area. These involved Brunel University and NESTA. Together they drew over 200 businesses. WLB also held an event promoting an event to promote the 2012 Olympics in collaboration with LOCOG, which was attended by over 50 businesses.

Place West LondonOn October 14, West London’s economic summit – Place West London – was held for the second successive year at Chelsea FC. This event brought together over 25 private sector exhibitors, all six boroughs and some 300 delegates to consider public policies and developing common West London strategies. Key corporate supporters included HSBC, GSK, BAA, Westfield and Brunel University. GLA and borough views were explained by Sir Simon Milton, Hammersmith and Fulham Leader Stephen Greenhalgh and Hillingdon CE Hugh Dunnachie among a range of conference speakers, while a wide range of private sector, government, borough, and HE executives spoke at breakout sessions covering such topics as transport, housing, regeneration, LEPs and planning.

MIPIMThe collaboration that supported West London’s presence at the international property and investment show, MIPIM 2010, is a good example of the public and private sector coming together in a partnership to present a common strategic plan. The local authorities joined developers and other businesses on a shared exhibition stand, in a special magazine, and on the stage to present plans and visions for the future of West London’s landscape. The initiative has enabled the local authorities to understand how to present themselves to developers and investors, and has contributed to the development of several strategic partnerships that will deliver projects in the sub-region.

In conclusion, partnership approaches have been developed by the public and private sectors to enable work to continue on these plans in 2011.

Objective 3. Based on broad representation and high levels of interaction between partners, improve intelligence, influencing and awareness raising and provides joint input into broader sub-regional policy and LDA/GLA strategic consultations (e.g. EDS, LDA Investment Strategy) by 2011.

London PlanWLP submitted evidence to and gave evidence at the London Plan EIP and contributed to wider discussions on the shape of regeneration delivery and organisation taking place currently in London. Inputs to the Mayor’s EDS and the LDA Investment Strategy were completed in 2009/10.

TransportOne major area of activity and success has been the input by WLP stakeholders into the development of the West London Transport Plan. This has involved detailed discussion and contributions towards the development of the drafting of the West London Transport Plan and a series of meetings between TfL and the WLP stakeholders. The Plan is important in recognising the need for improved orbital transport in West London which has been a key theme for the WLP over the last 10 years and was particularly reflected in the WLP 10 Point Transport Plan and the evidence from the WLP to the OLC.


WLP2012The WLP2012 through its regular Stakeholder meetings worked closely together to co-ordinate a range of visits and meetings to enable disemination and exchange information about opportunities and projects, alongside raising the profile of West London.

Visits from Seb Coe, the Sports Minister and meetings with LOCOG and the ODA to showcase West London and discuss PGTC. October Club fest rolled out across West London. This focused on working with sports clubs across the 6 WL Boroughs to increase participation in sport and ultimately, sports club membership, through free coaching sessions throughout the month of October. The Programme attracted interest from over 50 clubs in the Sub-Region.

The partnership working with Brent as the Lead Borough for the City Operations Borough Grouping Support unit are developing a series of seminars and dissemination of information through stakeholder meetings and events to ensure that all partners are aware of the business continuity impacts during the games and contingency plans are considered. The partnership is also supporting the development of the C3 Operations NW group.

Business CommunityIn support of the WLP objectives, West London Business has relayed public and GLA policy to the business community through its Board, events programme, consultations and regular members (800) communications. Simultaneously, WLB has worked closely with the WLA in bringing private sector views to the Sub-regional Transport Group, Liaison meetings with TfL, joint discussion on LEPs and other issues such as housing and planning. The Place West economic summit in October proved a valuable forum for raising awareness of GLA/LDA policy and providing private sector consultative feedback and opinion.

In conclusion, this objective has been achieved.

Please also refer to the 3 case studies submitted with this template, which provide more information about performance against these objectives

Section 12: Cross Cutting ThemesWhilst there were not equalities targets attributed to this project, the diverse community of West London was encompassed in all aspects of programme delivery. When seeking to engage with partners the project ensured that venues met disability requirements, using checklists as appropriate, and attendees were requested to provide information in advance of any special needs that they had. In communicating information about meetings involving wider stakeholder participation than named representatives, the project used a wide range of media to ensure that the information would reach the full range of target organisation from West London's diverse communities and kept mail lists under review for corrective action with regard to attendance by BAME, women and disability organisations. Organisers then evaluated the success of this in order to inform subsequent activities.

As stated in the business case plan, the WLP sub-regional programme is designed to support the socio-economic infrastructure of West London; for the benefit of all sectors, groups and communities and is likely to have a positive impact on equality.

Assessment and evaluation of businesses attending events organised by WLB, could be improved to provide an indication of this benefit.

Section 13: Key Conclusions and Lessons LearntIn preparing this self evaluation, assessing the earlier monitoring of this project, and interviewing some of the key stakeholders, the following conclusions have been drawn.


Key FindingsWhat were the key strengths?How the Partnership facilitated joint strategies for West London Working,Transport, 2012 Games, and responded cohesively to policy documents, such as the OLC, London Plan, EDS and LDA Investment Strategy. In addition, how the Partnership supported Place West London and the West London at MIPIM initiatives, which have raised West London’s profile and supported the development of fruitful partnerships between the public and private sectors. These are widely recognised as the key strengths of the Partnership.

What were the key weaknesses?

The WLP’s role has been primarily strategic and influencing; it has not had control or strong influence over significant resources to itself organise and manage delivery of economic development projects and programmes. In addition, with the notable exception of TfL the GLA group has not adopted an approach to investment and interventions on a sub-regional basis and by an large has not sought to work with the WLP. There has been comparative little investment in West London by the LDA. . This issue is exemplified by the GLA decision not to make use of the sub-regional structures it has supported through the LDA in the LEP submission, notwithstanding representations to do so.

Against this backdrop it has become a challenge to bring together the main Partnership representatives around an agenda where they felt that there participation would really make a difference. There was frustration felt some business stakeholders when a couple of WLP meetings were postponed, due to lack of substantive business and a perception that there was and a perception that there was weakening commitment, a confused definition, and lack of clarity about the Partnership’s future format in the light of the future public sector budgetary and the declining engagement of the GLA group.

It has also been quite a challenge to explain and promote the Partnership work down to all levels of both public and private sector organisations. This meant that whilst local authority staff were engaged in programmes, they were not always clear that the Partnership was supporting the delivery. The exceptions to this were the 2012 and transport activities.

Key Lessons LearntWhat approaches /activities have worked well?Building successful WLP sub-groups to respond on West London’s transport strategy, the 2012 games, and West London Working. The events supported by the Partnership (in particular MIPIM and Place West London), both in the UK and overseas, and the responses provided on behalf of West London to the Outer London Commission and London Plan. A key point here has been that much of this was as a result of the positive invitation or willingness to engage by the GLA group with the Partnership.

What approaches /activities have worked less well?The main WLP Board meetings have not always been well attended. The seniority of attendees on both sides was below the level expected, and can be attributed to a ‘front door’ focus by both businesses and local authorities, and political and stakeholder changes leading to a lack of clarity about the future of sub-regional strategies.


Informing Future ApproachesWhat should the project have done more of?More concentrated lobbying for West London benefits from public sector funding and policies, and more implementation.

What should the project have done less of?Less research, strategy development and collecting evidence, leading to more implementation and action from the Partnership’s limited resources.


WEST LONDON PARTNERSHIP

Section 14: LDA Project Manager’s Peer Review

Note to LDA Project Managers: Where possible, recommend where and how you think improvements can be made to produce the highest quality self-evaluation that is reasonably possible; avoid yes/no answers – try to offer specific examples from the report to support your comment;

LDA Project Manager Comments (March 23rd, 2011) Actioned Yes/No/Partially Addressed

1. Compliance Have all relevant parts of the report been completed?

You should list the sections that are missing from the report and recommend that they be added.

YES

2. Timeliness Was the self-evaluation completed in time? YES

3. Robustness & Accuracy of the evidence base

GeneralIs the data and information presented factually correct?

Is the evidence used to support the analysis and conclusions made in this report sound, robust, credible?

Have sources of information been adequately referenced?

MethodologyWhat evidence has been used to support the findings within the report?

If a survey has been conducted please consider the following:

Is it clear how many beneficiaries/businesses have been surveyed/interviewed as part of the evaluation? How many beneficiaries/business have responded to the survey? Compare this with the total number of beneficiaries/businesses from the project, this will enable you to identify what the response rate is. What is the sample size, how many beneficiaries/businesses were surveyed compared to the total number of beneficiaries/businesses from the project?

Have all topic guides and questionnaire templates been included as appendices?

Is the evidence provided robust, comprehensive, objective and accurate?

YES

YESYES

The project business case and quarterly Strategic Added Values monitoring reports were used as background research for this report. Feedback came from Ian Nichol and Shahnaz Abassi from the West London Alliance, and with Frank Wingate and Helen Peck from West London Business. These interviews helped determine existing information resources, assessment practices and research requirements. A list of additional information sources and those stakeholders interviewed is also given in the self evaluation.

YES


Project Outputs & OutcomesDoes the report explain:

Whether the project’s outputs and outcomes were realised?

Whether the outcomes were due to the project’s activities?

If the project had not been funded by the LDA, what outcomes would have been achieved anyway?

What impact the project had on its intended beneficiaries and/or beneficiary areas?

How sustainable were the impacts that were achieved?

Whether there were any unintended benefits?

Note: If output/outcome and spend information has not been finalised at the time the self-evaluation has been written and submitted, then forecasted information for the remainder of the project should be included.

Value for MoneyDoes the report explain:

What the ‘unit costs’ associated with the core outputs and outcomes are?

How these compare with the original unit costs at the project's inception (if available)?

How these ‘unit costs’ compare with those associated with similar activities (comparator or benchmark unit costs if available)?

The reasons for any significant differences? What the project’s overall value for money was,

based on the extent to which aims/objectives and targets were met and the costs incurred in doing so?

Any variance between target and actual spend, outputs, outcomes or unit costs should be explained within the evaluation report.

Sustainability & SuccessionDoes the report explain:

Whether there has been any succession planning? Whether the project has planned for its long term

sustainability, where appropriate? What is being sustained and what could be

sustained in terms of benefits and/or the services provided?

Whether an exit strategy been identified?

Performance against Project ObjectivesDoes the report explain:

YESThe project did not deliver standard LDA outputs and have delivered against Strategic Added Value Outcomes only. Summary has been provided on outcome success.

.

N/A

N/A

N/AN/A

The West London Partnership delivered a large amount in terms of outcomes, benefits to its stakeholders, its communities, and businesses, with great efficiency, using a relatively small budget. .

YES

YESYES - see their ‘Exit Strategy 2011/12’ doc.

YES - sustainability of the project is the exit


Whether the project’s objectives were achieved? Whether the project’s objectives and rationale are

still relevant after taking into account any changes in the social and economic context in which the project is working?

What alternative project activity, if any, could have been used to deliver the project’s objectives?

Key Conclusions & Lessons LearntThis section should include information on the following:

Key findings (performance and impact) What were the key strengths? What were the key weaknesses?

Key lessons learnt What approaches /activities have worked well? What approaches /activities have worked less

well?

Informing future approaches What should the project have done more of? What should the project have done less of?

The conclusions should include information on:

Why the project’s outputs differed from its original forecasts;

The cost effectiveness of the project; How effective the project activity has been in

achieving its objectives and outcomes and why; Assessment of whether the project’s rationale is

or is not still valid and the extent to which the project has addressed the broad problem that it set out to address at the start;

Areas of good practice that could be used to inform the design and/or delivery of other projects in the future; and

Review of any difficulties that were met during the project and how these were remedied. These are very important lessons that will assist in developing more successful and effective projects in the future. Almost all projects will suffer some delivery difficulties, and recognising these and potential ways to overcome them is an important part of the evaluation process.

strategy

YES

YES

N/A

YESYES

YESYES

YESYES

N/AN/A

YES – covered in other sections of the self evaluation report



YES

4. Objectivity Are the findings and conclusions objective /impartial – e.g. sufficiently supported and justified by the evidence and analysis presented in the report?

YES


5. Quality of the Written Report

The report covered all sections in line with LDA expectations. WLP has shown an accurate and thorough assessment of its project aims and objectives. Their sustainability plan is further detailed in their Business Plan 2011/2012.

YES

6. Other comments on the performance of the project

NO ---

LDA Project Manager Approval:

Name: Teresa Wiseman Position: LDA Head of Partnership Development Date: 23/03/11

LDA Head of Service Approval:Name: Teresa Wiseman Position: LDA Head of Partnership Development

Date: 23/03/11

Accountable Director Approval:

Name: Tony Medawar Position: LDA Director of Policy and Government Affairs Date: 23/03/11


Project Self Evalution template and guidancewestlondonalliance.org/wlaextranet.nsf/0... · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Project Self Evalution template and guidancewestlondonalliance.org/wlaextranet.nsf/0... · Web...