Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (v18)mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/BH-Herts/cms... ·...

Hertfordshire Growth Deal

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (v18)

August 2015

Hertfordshire Growth Deal Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (v18)

www.sqw.co.uk

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Part I: Overall Monitoring and Evaluation Plan .................................................................... 3

2. Hertfordshire’s Strategic Economic Plan and the “wicked issues” linked to it ............ 4

3. Intervention logic analysis .................................................................................................. 7

4. Monitoring data .................................................................................................................... 9

5. Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................ 10

6. Selection of projects for evaluation ................................................................................. 12

7. Evaluation methodologies and timings ........................................................................... 15

8. Governance and resourcing ............................................................................................. 17

Part II: Project/intervention-level evaluation plans ........................................................... 19

9. Croxley Rail Link ................................................................................................................ 20

10. Little Hadham bypass ...................................................................................................... 24

11. Growth Area Forums ....................................................................................................... 28

12. Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst ...................................................................................... 31

13. West Hertfordshire College ............................................................................................. 35

14. Stevenage First (Joint Venture) ...................................................................................... 39

15. Business Growth Hub ..................................................................................................... 42

Annex A: Intervention Logic Analysis ............................................................................... A-1

Annex B: Project selection justification ............................................................................ B-1

i

Executive Summary

1. This document summarises Hertfordshire LEP’s Plan for monitoring and evaluating its first

Growth Deal. The Plan is consistent with the guidance produced by government, but it has

been fundamentally driven out of Perfectly Placed for Business, Hertfordshire’s Strategic

Economic Plan (SEP). The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan sets out priorities for generating

evidence and insight to inform future iterations of the SEP and its delivery; and, hence, drive

the economy of Hertfordshire forward over the years ahead.

2. In relation to its first Growth Deal, Hertfordshire LEP’s plans include impact, outcomes and

process evaluations – and some which embrace mixed methods as a route to theory testing.

All are driven out of intervention logics which are set out in some detail in Part II of this

document. The immediate evaluation priorities are:

Croxley Rail Link – mixed methods, including a process and outcomes evaluation

approach

Little Hadham By-Pass – mixed methods, including a process and outcomes

evaluation

Growth Area Forums – process evaluation, focusing on the role of the Forums in

facilitating the delivery of growth (particularly housing)

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst – process evaluation (focusing on enabling

investments linked to Phase II of SBC); and then, prospectively, a broader outcomes

evaluation which will consider open innovation and collaborative research and their

relationship to business performance

West Hertfordshire College – outcomes evaluation focusing on the skills and

regeneration impacts of the campus redevelopment

Stevenage Joint Venture (Stevenage First) – mixed methods including a process,

and outcomes evaluation

Business Growth Hub – impact evaluation.

3. The delivery of the evaluation plan will start in 2015/16. Some strands will be completed

relatively quickly, but – consistent with the character of the overall Growth Deal – others will

continue into the 2020s. The plan itself will evolve as projects move towards

implementation.

4. Responsibility for gathering, verifying and quality assuring monitoring data will rest with

scheme promoters/project leads. These data will provide an important tool in reporting

day-to-day progress in delivery. The choice of monitoring indicators has been shaped by the

intervention logics; and monitoring data will provide a core strand of evidence for

evaluation purposes.

ii

5. The delivery of the overall Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be overseen by Hertfordshire

LEP’s Programme Management Committee. In turn, it will provide regular reports to the

Board of Hertfordshire LEP; to individual Programme Boards; and to government.

1

1. Introduction

1.1 This document provides a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Hertfordshire’s first Growth

Deal. It has been designed with two main purposes in mind:

To develop a strategy which provides real and proportionate intelligence for

Hertfordshire. Specifically it will aid:

understanding of whether Growth Deal projects achieve their objectives as

set out in the SEP and deliver impact; and

understanding of how Growth Deal projects contribute to the four priorities

and wider themes (including in relation to the crucial challenges of delivery)

in the SEP.

To provide robust and timely analysis as a means of reporting progress to

government – the plan sets out a strategy for collection of robust data which allow

meaningful evaluation, consistent with the methods and approaches advocated by

BIS and the National Audit Office.

1.2 Hertfordshire’s Strategic Economic Plan – and the Growth Deal that is nested within it – is

complex in evaluation terms. To navigate this complexity, and as set out in the Magenta

Book, intervention logics are used as the building blocks of evaluation; they underpin the

development of a theory of change for the different ‘levels’ of analysis, and a route to impact.

The evaluation questions which “fall out” of the intervention logic analysis will be used to

judge the effectiveness of those Growth Deal interventions which are identified as evaluation

priorities.

1.3 The remainder of the Plan is divided into two main parts, which are structured as follows:

Part I sets out the overall Plan for monitoring and evaluation, and it explains how

this Plan has been developed and how – in headline terms – it will be implemented.

It includes:

Chapter 2: Hertfordshire’s Strategic Economic Plan – provides a brief

overview of Hertfordshire’s SEP; the delivery mechanisms which are central

to it; and the implications for monitoring and evaluation

Chapter 3: Intervention logic analysis – develops the top-down, spatial

and bottom-up intervention logics which are implicit within the SEP and the

Growth Deal

Chapter 4: Monitoring data – explains the choice of monitoring indicators

in the light of the intervention logic analysis

Chapter 5: Evaluation Questions – outlines the evaluation questions which

will be used to judge the effectiveness and efficiency of Growth Deal funding

Chapter 6: Selection of projects for evaluation – explains the basis for the

choice of evaluation priorities

2

Chapter 7: Evaluation methodologies and timings – provides an

overview of the proposed methodologies and strategies for evaluation

Chapter 8: Governance and resourcing – outlines the roles and

responsibilities of the key players for monitoring and evaluating the Growth

Deal, and the resourcing implications.

Part II contains detailed plans for evaluation at a project/intervention level. Seven

different plans are set out. These are:

Chapter 9: Croxley Rail Link

Chapter 10: Little Hadham By-Pass

Chapter 11: Growth Area Forums

Chapter 12: Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst

Chapter 13: West Hertfordshire College

Chapter 14: Stevenage Joint Venture

Chapter 15: Business Growth Hub

3

Part I: Overall Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

4

2. Hertfordshire’s Strategic Economic Plan and the “wicked issues” linked to it

Summarising the SEP

2.1 Hertfordshire’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) – Perfectly Placed for Business – sets out a long

term blueprint for smart economic growth in Hertfordshire. The basic architecture of the

SEP (outlined in Figure 2-1) is based on a single vision and four high-level priorities. These

are summarised in the table that follows.

Figure 2-1: Hertfordshire’s SEP: Perfectly Placed for Business

Table 2-1: Hertfordshire SEP Priorities

Priority In Strategic Economic Plan

Background and broad aims

Maintaining Global Excellence in science and technology

Hertfordshire is home to world class science - particularly in bioscience and pharmaceuticals, but also a wider range of disciplines linked to advanced engineering. The aim is to encourage greater open innovation, along with the development of existing businesses, the formation of new ones and inward investment.

Harnessing relationships with London (and elsewhere)

Hertfordshire is traversed by a series of rail/road corridors. These corridors define the geography of economic life in Hertfordshire. Harnessing relationships with elsewhere is important in seeking to accelerate economic and housing growth appropriately. In this context, Hertfordshire’s relationship with London (which itself is growing quickly albeit within constraints) is important.

Re-invigorating places for the 21st Century

Nearly a quarter of Hertfordshire's population live in one of its New Towns. The aim is to re-energise these new towns which were all built around the same time and – as a result - require significant investment in infrastructure. Alongside the physical response, the objective is to re-affirm the economic roles and potentials of Hertfordshire's New Towns.

Providing the foundations for Growth

Hertfordshire is home to over 50,000 businesses. This priority aims to secure foundations for growth for small and medium sized enterprises. It aims to increase access to capital, export advice and to a range of government-provided services. In addition it looks to forge greater links between full time education institutions and local businesses in order to improve skills.

5

Hertfordshire’s “wicked issues”: broader opportunities and threats

2.2 Underpinning the four SEP priorities are a wide range of opportunities and threats; some of

these are linked to specific investments (e.g. Croxley Rail Link) whilst others are more

generic in character (e.g. issues around STEM skills). These broader themes reflect many of

the “wicked issues” in Hertfordshire on which progress in SEP delivery is premised and

which would particularly benefit from new evidence and new insight.

Table 2-2: “Wicked issues” which are intrinsic to Hertfordshire’s SEP

Key Themes in the SEP Brief description

Why is there a “missing middle” of growing SMEs?

There is a disproportionately large number of small and large enterprises in Hertfordshire. However there is a void between them which has been termed “the missing middle” where small enterprises fail to reach “critical mass” and grow. It is currently unclear why this is especially pronounced within the county.

How can the shortage of skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics be addressed?

While at a county level, Hertfordshire performs well in terms of residents’ skills levels, the evidence suggests that knowledge based businesses are struggling to recruit engineers and technicians, and that this is a brake on growth. A shortage of STEM skills is by no means unique to the county, but it is a particular concern.

How is the potential of the University of Hertfordshire and the four FE Colleges best harnessed in Hertfordshire?

The University of Hertfordshire is a major university with a substantial campus in Hatfield and the four FE colleges are also significant local players; all five institutions have a role in skills development and also in the process of enterprise. Given the need to forge stronger links between employers and skills providers, there is an imperative to further the role of these key organisations from an economic development point of view.

How can better local jobs be created for local people?

Across much of Hertfordshire, there is a substantial gulf between the wage levels that are earned locally and those that can be earned by commuting elsewhere, particularly to London. It is vital that Hertfordshire is not simply the home for London-bound commuters and there is a need to generate high quality jobs locally. This is particularly an issue in respect of Hertfordshire’s New Towns.

What steps can be taken to raise aspirations among young people?

Among some young people in Hertfordshire, there is concern that aspirations are not high. Again this seems to be a real concern in some of the New Towns and it is linked to poor levels of attainment.

How should Hertfordshire seize the potential of its film & TV industry?

Hertfordshire has world class assets in film, digital animation and creativity with Warner Brothers located in Leavesden and a series of film and TV studios in Elstree. The University of Hertfordshire has relevant specialisms and there is also a UTC with a particular focus on the sector. Looking ahead, a key question is how Hertfordshire might “sweat” these assets most effectively.

How Hertfordshire might gain traction and exploit its position at the core of the Golden Triangle

Hertfordshire is located at the heart of the UK’s “Golden Triangle” which is widely recognised to be a knowledge-based cluster of global significance. Through its own businesses and knowledge assets, and recognising its outstanding location vis-à-vis London, Cambridge and Oxford, Hertfordshire needs to flex this potential in order meet its wider growth ambitions. In this domain, the open innovation agenda is key.

How Hertfordshire might flex its strengths in bioscience

Hertfordshire is home to world class science and has particularly strong credentials in bioscience. GSK is located near Stevenage and the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst is developing quickly; it was recently announced that Stevenage will be home to the advanced manufacturing facility linked to the stem cell catapult.

How Hertfordshire might realise the potential of “open innovation”

Hertfordshire is leading the way in terms of open innovation. There are a number of core hubs across the county including Rothamsted Research and Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst. More generally, there is evidence of a real and growing appetite for open innovation linked to a number of major corporates in the county.

How the full growth and regeneration benefits of Croxley Rail Link might be captured

Croxley Rail Link is a planned extension of the Metropolitan underground line. While it is strictly a transport project, it has a key role to play in terms of urban regeneration, unlocking the growth potential of local businesses, and expanding local labour markets. It is also a key infrastructure in terms of Hertfordshire’s links to London.

What is the potential of the three Growth Areas

The three growth areas are de-facto functional economic areas which are defined around the county's key transport corridors. Many bioscience, pharmaceutical, TV/film, advanced manufacturing/engineering businesses are clustered within particular Growth Areas. A key question for Hertfordshire is how these geographies might grow most effectively.

6

Key Themes in the SEP Brief description

How might Hertfordshire’s New Towns be regenerated most effectively?

Much of the physical fabric in Hertfordshire’s New Towns is “tired” and in need of significant investment. Regeneration of the town centres in particular is crucial to galvanising business investment and making them more attractive places to live and work.

How can Hertfordshire exploit its position on the edge of London?

Hertfordshire has a strong relationship with London, although there are some challenges within it. Looking ahead it is crucial for Hertfordshire that the “upsides” are flexed and the “downside risks” are mitigated and managed as far as possible.

How can the delivery of housing be accelerated?

Much of the county is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. House prices are high and evidence suggests there is not sufficient provision to meet existing and future needs/demands. However housing delivery has proved to be a challenging process and novel insights and solutions are needed.

2.3 These issues – individually and in combination – are important for the future of

Hertfordshire. They have shaped the delivery architecture for the SEP, which is summarised

in the graphic below. A key element within this is the identification of three Growth Areas.

In essence these enable an holistic approach to delivery across functional geographies

defined around major transport corridors. In themselves, they represent a bold departure

for Hertfordshire.

2.4 Insofar as resources are to be devoted to evidence gathering and analysis – through

evaluation – the intention will be to generate insights of relevance to Hertfordshire’s wider

“wicked issues”, and the delivery processes through which they will be addressed.

Figure 2-2: Delivery architecture for the SEP

7

3. Intervention logic analysis

3.1 An intervention logic roots activities in their rationale and objectives and then tests the

mechanism(s) by which they achieve those objectives. It helps to identify clearly the key

inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts of individual interventions, or groups of

interventions. Intervention logics are primarily used to inform the evaluation objectives and

questions, as well as to guide the design of data collection and monitoring processes. Three

different intervention logics have shaped the overall evaluation plan. These are explained

briefly below – and more detailed information (including a series of logic chains) is available

in Annex A.

“Top-down” intervention logics

3.2 “Top-down” intervention logics are driven out of the SEP. They are broader therefore than

the Growth Deal, but are crucially important in framing the evaluation questions around

which a meaningful evaluation of the Growth Deal can be advanced.

3.3 Four high-level intervention logics are based around the priorities of the SEP (described in

the previous chapter). Embedded within these are some distinct aims and objectives:

Maintaining global excellence in science and technology – The first priority of

Perfectly Placed for Business is to encourage the development of existing businesses,

the formation of new businesses and greater inward investment, particularly in the

bioscience, manufacturing and engineering sectors. It also aims to improve skills

provision particularly in STEM skills to recruit into the key sectors.

Harnessing relationships with London & elsewhere – Hertfordshire is traversed

by a series of rail/road corridors all of which suffer from heavy congestion in certain

pinch points. The aim of the second priority is to reduce congestion and thereby un-

lock the growth potential of local businesses and pave the way for future housing

growth. Investment in infrastructure in many of Hertfordshire’s key towns is also

designed to promote regeneration and agglomeration benefits.

Re-invigorating places for the 21st Century – The vast majority of Hertfordshire’s

New Towns were all built around the same time and have similar issues in terms of

decaying infrastructure in need of investment. This third priority seeks to improve

the physical fabric of Hertfordshire’s New Towns and their performance in terms of

key socio-economic indicators.

Foundations for Growth – The final priority seeks to help small and medium sized

enterprises grow to middle size and beyond, through providing better access to

capital, export advice, and better awareness of government and private funding

support. There is also a key objective around skills and the need to increase the

number and strength of partnerships between full time education institutions and

local businesses.

8

“Bottom-Up” Intervention Logics and collection of monitoring data

3.4 The “bottom-up” intervention logics are aligned more closely to the specific content of the

Growth Deal, and the particular projects/interventions identified within it. The associated

“bottom-up” intervention logics have been important in developing appropriate and realistic

monitoring metrics, and identifying project/intervention-specific evaluation approaches.

Individual project-level logic chains are presented in Part II of this document.

Spatial Intervention Logics

3.5 Reflecting the specific character of Hertfordshire’s SEP, there is a third, cross-cutting,

intervention logic which has shaped plans for monitoring and evaluation.

3.6 The delivery of the SEP is based on three Growth Areas which are defined around the key

transport corridors, clusters and New Towns in Hertfordshire. In this context, the spatial

intervention logics take an holistic view, looking at the interaction between transport, land

and housing, skills and business growth. Three Growth Area Forums – which map onto the

Growth Areas – are at the heart of the delivery mechanism of Hertfordshire’s SEP.

3.7 The objectives for the different Growth Area Forums are broadly similar – and they relate to

the delivery of a business-led vision for economic and housing growth. Common to all three

Growth Areas is some form of transport package with objectives relating to expanding the

size of local labour markets, driving business GVA and productivity growth and promoting

regeneration of places. Aligned with this are various capital infrastructure projects, which

aim to revitalise Hertfordshire’s towns (particularly its New Towns).

9

4. Monitoring data

4.1 The monitoring requirements which “fell out” of the intervention logics outlined in Chapter

3 were mapped onto the individual LGF projects and considered in relation to the indicators

identified by BIS.

4.2 In the light of this process, core monitoring indicators were identified by Hertfordshire LEP

and included in a submission to BIS (15th October 2014). This return needs to be viewed

alongside this document. It directly reads across to the monitoring metrics tables outlined

for each scheme in the project level evaluation plans in Part II of this document.

4.3 In addition, justification was provided where certain monitoring data from the BIS template

did not match the nature of the projects or the outputs and outcomes they would “buy”. The

intervention logics suggested some further monitoring data would be required for certain

projects in order to judge their effectiveness in relation to the key themes in the SEP.

4.4 Both sets of monitoring indicators are referenced at a project level in Part II.

Responsibilities for data collection will – in the main – sit with scheme sponsors. The

requirement to provide verified, accurate and timely monitoring returns will be

written into delivery contracts, as set out in the Assurance Framework.

10

5. Evaluation Questions

5.1 Following the intervention logic analysis in Chapter 3, Table 5-1 (below) lists some core

evaluation questions. They build on the core objectives from the various intervention logics

and can be mapped to the project-level.

Table 5-1: Hertfordshire Growth Deal Evaluation Questions

Ref Evaluation Questions

Sub questions Growth Deal intervention(s) related to the question

“Wicked issues” intrinsic to the SEP

Q1 To what extent has Growth Deal funding enhanced Hertfordshire's profile / reputation in science and technology?

Has it encouraged inward investment in science / R&D sectors?

Has it encouraged greater recruitment in science / R&D sectors?

Have new businesses been set up around the technology parks?

Has it allowed local businesses to expand?

Has it encouraged open innovation at key technology hubs?

Has it meant that Hertfordshire is more routinely recognised as a key player within the “Golden Triangle”?

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst / Rothamsted Research Building

Bioscience / Open innovation / Golden Triangle / Aspirations and employability of young people / better local jobs

Q2 To what extent has Growth Deal funding led to investment in technology or business hubs and promoted innovation and collaborative research?

Has investment encouraged greater use of networks around key hubs?

Have small medium sized enterprises benefited from collaboration with larger, more established companies?

Has collaboration improved the chances of commercialisation of research?

Has investment promoted Hertfordshire or raised awareness of it as a place for open innovation?

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst / Rothamsted Research Building

Open Innovation / Golden Triangle / Bioscience / better local jobs

Q3 To what extent has Growth Deal funding improved connectivity in Hertfordshire?

Has it reduced congestion on key roads and in key towns?

Has it improved the level and frequency of service on the rail/bus network?

Has it enabled businesses to recruit from further afield?

Has it improved functionality in terms of travel-flows in major corridors?

Has investment in transport infrastructure driven wider agglomeration?

Has it played a role in regeneration of Hertfordshire’s (New) Towns?

M1/M25, A1(m),M11/A10 Growth Area Transport Packages including Little Hadham bypass & Croxley Rail Link

London Fringe / Three Growth Areas / New Towns / Croxley Rail Link

Q4 To what extent has Growth Deal funding helped the regeneration of Hertfordshire’s (New) Towns?

Have infrastructure projects in the New Town centres encouraged further investment (from the private sector)?

Has investment in the New Town centres enhanced the retail offer / increased retail business?

Has investment in the New Towns improved the physical environment / public realm?

Has investment in the New Towns had any role in promoting housing development?

Has Growth Deal funding increased the footfall in New Towns?

West Hertfordshire College Campus Redevelopment / Growth Area Forums / Stevenage JV / M1/M25, A1(m),M11/A10 Growth Area Transport Packages including Croxley Rail Link

New Towns / Town Centres / Accelerating housing delivery / Better local jobs / Growth Areas

11

Ref Evaluation Questions

Sub questions Growth Deal intervention(s) related to the question

“Wicked issues” intrinsic to the SEP

Q5 To what extent has Growth Deal funding accelerated housing delivery in Hertfordshire?

Has the Growth Deal helped speed up the planning process, specifically in relation to green belt land?

Has the Growth Deal helped to bring forward strategic housing sites in Hertfordshire?

M1/M25, A1(m), M11/A10 Growth Area Forum / M1/M25, A1(m),M11/A10 Growth Area Transport Packages including Croxley Rail Link and Little Hadham bypass

Accelerated delivery of local housing / New Towns / Town Centres

Q6 To what extent has Growth Deal funding led to the growth of businesses (particularly into medium size) and accelerated GVA growth in Hertfordshire?

Has it encouraged businesses to relocate to Hertfordshire?

Has it led to the sustained growth of small businesses? Has it helped businesses to export overseas?

Has it raised the take up of training amongst businesses?

Have transport projects / town centre regeneration projects increased business sales / turnover?

M1/M25, A1(m),M11/A10 Growth Area Transport Packages including Croxley Rail Link and Little Hadham bypass/ Business Growth Hub / West Hertfordshire College refurbishment/ Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst

Better local jobs / Missing Middle / STEM skills / Aspirations and employability of young people

Q7 To what extent has Growth Deal funding improved the skill level of local residents and improved links between higher education and businesses?

Has refurbishment of colleges increased student attendance?

Has the Growth Deal increased the number of partnerships between HE institutions and businesses?

Have local businesses recruited more students from Hertfordshire HE institutions?

Has the number of students qualifying in STEM subjects increased?

Has Growth Deal funding improved the aspirations and employability of young people?

Skills Programme / West Hertfordshire College refurbishment

Better local jobs / STEM skills / Aspirations and employability of young people

5.2 The evaluation questions and their sub-questions form the basis of the evaluation strategy.

12

6. Selection of projects for evaluation

Hertfordshire’s first wave Growth Deal projects/interventions

6.1 Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 summarise the individual LGF funded projects and unfunded

commitments which comprise Hertfordshire’s first wave Growth Deal. In principle, all of

these commitments could be evaluated. However, in practice, some projects/interventions

are more interesting than others in evaluation terms.

Table 6-1: LGF Funded Growth Deal Projects1

M1/M25 Growth Area

A1(m) Growth Area

M11/A10 Growth Area Hertfordshire Business Growth Programme

Hertfordshire Skills Programme

Croxley Rail Link Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst Phase II

Broxbourne Enterprise Centre

Local Growth Hub West Hertfordshire College Hemel Hempstead campus redevelopment

Rothamsted Research - Daniel Hall Building

A1 Sustainable Transport Package

Station Access Improvements: Broxbourne, Bishop's Stortford, Hertford East, Rye House

Broxbourne Enterprise Centre

A414 Breakspear Way Junction

A602 local congestion measures

Little Hadham Bypass Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst Phase II

Hemel Hempstead station

Buslink 2016 A602 improvements Rothamsted Research - Daniel Hall Building

Watford Business Park Pedestrian & Cycle Access Enhancements

A1(m) Growth Area Forum

A10 Network Resilience

Rothamsted Research Centre

Watford Public Realm package

Stevenage JV

Table 6-2: Unfunded Growth Deal “Commitments”

Housing Transport Skills Business Support

LEP & local planning authorities to work together to deliver housing provided for in Local Plans.

LEP & partners to agree to take a more proactive role in consultation on long-term strategic road and rail network planning.

Progress on development and delivery of priority transport schemes identified by

LEP to consider skills implications as part of decision taking on growth strategies.

Articulate and evidence skills priorities in the light of strategic national and local growth opportunities and communicate them to the FE skills sector. Positively engage the FE and private sector in key partnerships.

Recognise where the private sector has a responsibility to invest in skills provision and work with business to

Provide a clear model for coordinating and simplifying business support so it joins up national, local, public and private support systems.

Support delivery of superfast broadband coverage through existing channels

1 NB Rothampsted Research and Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst are part of the thematic skills and business growth programme, but also feature in the “spatially cut” Growth Areas.

13

Housing Transport Skills Business Support

Hertfordshire local transport body.

realise that investment.

Herts to facilitate stronger links between education providers and local businesses.

with DT and BDUK.

Criteria for project selection

6.2 Reflecting on both the guidance provided by BIS and the ambitions of Hertfordshire LEP in

relation to monitoring and evaluation, six criteria were identified as a basis for choosing

evaluation priorities:

Hertfordshire LEP interest – Projects selected must provide Hertfordshire LEP

with evidence that relates to the overarching evaluation questions outlined in

Chapter 5.

Themes in the SEP – Projects selected must cut across a number of the “wicked

issues” in the SEP where they are likely to have an impact, based on the intervention

logic analysis.

Size and proportionality – Schemes must be of sufficient size for impact and

outcomes to be measured. Evaluation of larger projects will also be important for

accountability.

Evidence Base – Projects should be prioritised in areas where existing evidence is

relatively weak.

Data Collection – Projects should, wherever possible, not rely on self-reported

values from beneficiaries. Projects which have relevant comparison groups allow for

more sophisticated and robust impact evaluation.

Technical considerations – Projects should be selected where robust impact

evaluation is feasible based on the Maryland Scale. It should not however put a bias

towards projects which are “easy” to evaluate well at the expense of those which are

not; evaluation design must be pragmatic.

Immediate evaluation priorities

6.3 Following a process of appraisal using these criteria, seven projects/interventions were

identified as evaluation priorities. These are listed below (and a full assessment of the

rationale for inclusion is provided at Annex B):

Croxley Rail Link – a major transport investment (involving an extension of the

Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction) which should deliver important

regeneration benefits to Watford

Little Hadham By-Pass – a road scheme which should cut congestion locally whilst

also helping to accelerate the delivery of housing, including at Bishop’s Stortford

North

14

Growth Area Forums – a major new venture for Hertfordshire to advance an

integrated approach to growth across three functional economic areas which are

defined, essentially, around road/rail corridors

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst – a project to accelerate the delivery of the second

phase of SBC, a major bioscience campus with a focus on open innovation (and

linking to the advanced manufacturing facility associated with the Cell Therapy

Catapult)

West Hertfordshire College – the redevelopment of a major further education

campus in the heart of Hemel Hempstead

Stevenage Joint Venture – a major new venture for Stevenage which will focus on

the urban area and the delivery of a new economic vision

Business Growth Hub – the provision of advice and support to small businesses

across the county.

15

7. Evaluation methodologies and timings

Methodologies

7.1 Detailed proposals for evaluation methodologies are set out in Part II of this Plan. Across the

seven priorities, a range of approaches are proposed – from process evaluation to outcomes

and impact evaluation. In each case – but especially for impact evaluation – consideration is

given to the robustness of planned evaluation. Baseline data and comparison groups are –

where feasible – proposed2. While the specificities of such comparators are not considered

in full, suggestions are given in each case as to what comparison groups might look like.

7.2 In outline, the proposed methodology for each project/intervention evaluation might be

summarised as follows:

Croxley Rail Link – mixed methods, including a process, outcomes and theory

based evaluation approach

Little Hadham By-Pass – mixed methods, including a process and outcomes

evaluation

Growth Area Forums – process evaluation, focusing on the role of the Forums in

facilitating the delivery of growth (particularly housing)

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst – process evaluation (focusing on enabling

infrastructure linked to Phase II of SBC); and then, prospectively, a broader

outcomes evaluation which will consider open innovation and collaborative

research and their relationship to business performance.

West Hertfordshire College – outcomes evaluation focusing on the skills and

regeneration impacts of the campus redevelopment.

Stevenage Joint Venture – mixed methods including a process, and outcomes

evaluation.

Business Growth Hub – impact evaluation.

7.3 In a number of cases, LGF funding forms only part of the whole package of funding for a

planned investment. This presents two problems:

How to attribute impact to the LGF component of funding; and

Uncertainty as to whether to rely on other planned evaluations of projects and if the

content will provide Hertfordshire LEP with information which is useful to them.

7.4 Wherever possible, and particularly where LGF funding is a small proportion of total

funding, Hertfordshire LEP will “piggy-back” on other planned evaluations, and input into

the monitoring and evaluation design process. In relation to the first bullet, an overall

impact statement will be used, rather than “itemising” the LGF component of total impact.

2 NAO (2013) Evaluation in Government, London

16

Timings

7.5 The proposed phasing of the different evaluations is driven by various factors. In particular,

enough time must have elapsed for process maps to have been completed, or outcomes to

have materialised, but not so much time that key stakeholders experience “memory decay”.

For transport projects, evaluation timings are also influenced by whether the project is

classified as a retained or major local scheme.

7.6 Table 7-1 outlines the proposed timetable for evaluating Growth Deal projects. This includes

a schedule for commissioning, collecting baseline and other data, construction (relevant for

infrastructure projects only), and reporting. In practice, this schedule will need to be

kept under review, and it will be subject to change. This is because – in many cases –

the precise timing of particular interventions, particularly those that are some way

into the future, is simply uncertain. Equally, it is currently uncertain how evaluations

will be funded; in general, project sponsors will be expected to make some

contribution to the costs.

Table 7-1: Gantt chart: Planned Growth Deal Evaluations – Indicative timetable (which is subject to change)

17

8. Governance and resourcing

Governance

8.1 Hertfordshire LEP intends to use a governance process in relation to monitoring and

evaluation which is aligned with its Assurance Framework. There will be two key “layers” of

responsibility in relation to M&E:

Programme Management Committee will have overall responsibility for the

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan; and it will receive regular updates in relation to the

different strands within it. It will receive activity and monitoring reports on all

Growth Deal projects on a quarterly basis and these will be shared – as appropriate

– with government. Initially, these will focus on key delivery milestones. The PMC

will send reports both to the Board of Hertfordshire LEP and to the relevant

Programme Boards

Delivery partners / scheme promoters will have direct responsibility for

delivering projects/schemes and they will receive a grant letter / contract to this

effect. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, an immediate responsibility will be to

collect accurate and verified monitoring data; and it will be imperative that

appropriate arrangements for quality assuring the data are put in place. In addition,

delivery partners / scheme promoters will be expected to contribute meaningfully

and substantively to the evaluation process. Where there are direct beneficiaries,

delivery partners will need to provide contact details for beneficiary

businesses/individuals in a form that can potentially be shared with a third party for

the sole purpose of evaluation (i.e. for surveys of beneficiaries)

8.2 On an ad hoc basis, Programme Groups will act as steering groups in relation to planned

evaluation activities (although responsibility for commissioning third parties will usually sit

with Hertfordshire LEP). They will have some input into detailed research design and they

will consider the findings as they come through. They will also reflect on the implications.

Resourcing

8.3 The total cost of the planned evaluations (at 2014/15 prices) – in very broad-brush terms –

is estimated to be in the order of £300,000. The phasing and distribution of costs is shown in

the two tables below – by activity and by project/intervention over the period 2015/16 to

2023/24.

8.4 In relation to this indicative estimate, the following points are important:

It excludes the cost of gathering monitoring data (responsibility for which sits

largely with the scheme promoters/delivery partners as set out above).

It makes no explicit provision for the cost of staff time within Hertfordshire LEP (or

delivery partners) which may be required to implement the Plan.

18

The spend profile is based on a series of broad-brush estimates and there are

uncertainties linked to it throughout. If outsourced to third parties, there would be a

need to allow for the costs of inception and design; and the costs of working with the

client group, etc. For individual evaluations, “project costs” of this nature could be

significant and will need to be factored in.

Estimates of costs are made at 2014/15 prices. Particularly towards the end of the

programme, there may be a need to make adjustments to allow for inflation, etc. The

estimates exclude VAT.

Estimates of costs are based around core evaluation activities. In some cases, there

is the possibility of introducing a comparator element (e.g. Croxley Rail Link) which

would add to robustness, but would also add to the costs of evaluation.

Table 8-1: Planned evaluation costs by year, cut by activity and projects

8.5 The issue of how evaluation activity is resourced will be a matter for discussion between

Hertfordshire LEP, the project sponsors/promoters, and (if applicable) other funding bodies.

Project sponsors will be expected to make a substantive funding contribution, particularly if

evaluations are outsourced, but the detail will be worked out on a case-by-case basis. The

PMC will maintain an overview of the scale and scope of planned evaluation activity; it will

need to be satisfied that the M&E Plan is appropriately implemented and – whilst being

flexible – it will want to ensure that appropriate evaluation coverage is being achieved.

Evaluation Activity 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total

Synthesising monitoring data provided by project leads £2,500 £5,000 £4,000 £6,000 £3,500 £2,000 £2,000 £1,000 £2,000 £28,000

Stakeholder consultation £0 £4,000 £12,500 £17,500 £13,000 £0 £10,000 £0 £0 £57,000

Primary survey work £0 £6,000 £3,000 £32,000 £16,000 £6,000 £11,000 £15,000 £15,000 £104,000

Analysis £1,000 £2,000 £2,000 £19,000 £6,500 £2,000 £2,500 £6,000 £5,000 £46,000

Formal reporting £1,000 £4,000 £5,500 £11,500 £6,000 £3,000 £5,000 £0 £3,000 £39,000

Total £4,500 £21,000 £27,000 £86,000 £45,000 £13,000 £30,500 £22,000 £25,000 £274,000

Projects 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total

Croxley Rail Link £1,500 £1,500 £3,500 £31,500 £1,500 £10,500 £1,500 £23,500 £0 £75,000

Little Hadham By-pass £0 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500 £32,000 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500 £25,000 £66,000

West Hertfordshire College £500 £2,500 £9,500 £3,500 £500 £500 £13,500 £0 £0 £30,500

Business Growth Hub £2,500 £8,500 £1,500 £22,500 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £35,000

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst £0 £5,000 £500 £500 £11,000 £500 £11,000 £0 £0 £28,500

Growth Area Forum £0 £500 £10,500 £10,500 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £21,500

Stevenage JV (Stevenage First) (NB excl. impact evaluation) £0 £1,500 £0 £16,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £17,500

Total £4,500 £21,000 £27,000 £86,000 £45,000 £13,000 £27,500 £25,000 £25,000 £274,000

19

Part II: Project/intervention-level evaluation plans

20

9. Croxley Rail Link

Overview

9.1 Croxley Rail Link (CRL) is a proposed diversion and extension of the Watford Branch of the

Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction via Watford High Street. Currently the line ends in a

residential area which is 15 minutes’ walk from the town centre and 20 minutes from

Watford Junction. The new line will provide direct tube access to Watford’s core business

area (Clarendon Road) and Watford Town Centre. The total current cost of CRL is £284m of

which LGF currently accounts for £50.5m (with £4m allocated to 2015/16); the LGF

contribution may however increase.

Scheme level intervention logic

9.2 The intervention logic outlined below (Figure 9-1) identifies the relevant evaluation

questions (see Chapter 5). It then outlines the “steps” which show how CRL might deliver on

its objectives, and hence generate relevant evidence in relation to the evaluation questions.

Figure 9-1: Croxley Rail Link Intervention logic

Planned Evaluation

9.3 CRL has been in the pipeline for many years. It is a complex and significant project, which

has numerous different funding pots, all of which have changed over time. In 2010, Steer

21

Davies Gleave (SDG) prepared a business case and developed an evaluation plan which were

consistent with the DfT’s webTAG guidance. The evaluation plan provides for some

consideration of the wider economic benefits of CRL, but they are not dealt with

comprehensively (e.g. provision was made to consult with 16 local businesses). As a result,

there is some mismatch with the aims for evaluation linked to the Growth Deal.

9.4 Budget 2015 announced that TfL will be providing an additional £16m of investment for

Croxley and while evaluation responsibilities are still unknown at this stage, it is likely that

TfL will take on responsibility for evaluation. In this eventuality, the LEP will use the plan set

out here to influence the evaluation design.

Data and metrics

9.5 Table 9-1 outlines the monitoring metrics identified by Hertfordshire LEP and submitted to

BIS in autumn 2014. Where relevant it also shows a few additional indicators which will

need to be populated for evaluation purposes.

Table 9-1: Croxley Rail Link metrics

Indicator type Metrics

Inputs BIS metrics: expenditure; funding breakdown; in-kind resources provided

Additional metrics: NA

Outputs BIS metrics: job creation / jobs safeguarded during construction; type of infrastructure; type of service improvement

Additional metrics: stations built; length of rail line constructed

Outcomes BIS Metrics: commercial floor space constructed and occupied; commercial rental values; housing unit starts / completions; follow on investment at the site; average daily traffic movements peak/non-peak; average AM PM peak journey time per mile on key routes; day-to-day travel time variability; average annual CO2 emissions; accident rate; casualty rate; nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions; traffic noise levels at receptor locations; annual average daily and peak hour passenger boarding; bus/light rail travel time by peak period; modal share (%); households with access to specific sites by mode within threshold time; jobs connected to the intervention

Additional metrics: N/A

Baseline BIS metrics: N/A

Additional metrics: GVA, employment, unemployment, business counts, births / deaths, resident economic activity; town footfall; property values (around station sites), travel to work patterns.

Source: Hertfordshire LEP monitoring submission to BIS

9.6 The “transport” related outputs and outcomes outlined in Table 9-1 will be collected by

various transport teams in Hertfordshire County Council and the scheme promoter. The

Business Intelligence Unit, Spatial and Land Use Planning, Transport Planning and Data,

Transport Access and Safety, and Highway teams in the County Council already collect these

metrics through established data collection systems. The most relevant data collection

locations (i.e. where to collect day-to-day travel time information) will be determined by the

local transport teams.

9.7 In addition to the metrics outlined above, the analysis of contextual socio-economic factors

will be required by the evaluator to understand baseline economic performance in Watford.

This will be sourced from ONS datasets; updates of the East of England Forecasting Model

(EEFM) for GVA and employment growth projections; and the land registry for data on

property values and footfall at key station sites and the town centre.

22

Evaluation Methodology: Mixed Methods

9.8 Typically a post opening project evaluation (POPE) is adopted for transport infrastructure

evaluations. For CRL, the LEP is interested in both these and the regeneration and wider

economic impacts of the intervention, such as agglomeration, land use change, labour

market and inward investment impacts. These are harder to capture in evidence terms and

tend to be collected using qualitative research methods. Attribution using statistical analyses

is often not possible due to significant “noise” in background data. For example, improved

performance of local businesses (e.g. at the Clarendon Road Business Park in Watford)

would be difficult to attribute to CRL through data analysis.

9.9 A process, outcome and theory-based approach is appropriate for the evaluation of CRL.

This will test the causal relationships in the intervention logic – which builds a conceptual

framework – for the transport related and wider-economic impacts of CRL. Inherent in this

process will be a baseline assessment of Watford carried out both before and after the

completion of CRL using ONS datasets to populate the indicators outlined in Table 9-1. This

will build up a sense of how Watford performs, both socio-economically and geographically.

It will also include analysis of key land use indicators at the new station sites and in Watford

town centre.

9.10 In addition to the baselining activity, extensive business and wider stakeholder surveys will

be carried out (one, three and five years) after the construction of CRL. Survey work will be

targeted at different sets of stakeholders in order to build a comprehensive picture of the

economic costs and benefits:

Travel behaviour and demand (one and five years after3). This will include a

passenger travel survey at key sites (e.g. new stations and Watford Junction), and

analysis of passenger data using WebTAG modelling consistent with the ex-ante

business case. The analysis will serve to identify any differences between outturn

passenger numbers and forecasts. Collecting postcode information will allow for a

detailed spatial analysis of CRL’s “reach” and its impact on travel behaviour.

Travel times, reliability and accidents (one and five years after). This will be

included in the passenger travel survey and triangulated with transport data

collected on (peak) travel movements and accident data.

Wider economic impacts (one and three years after). Data will be collected using

a targeted stakeholder consultation with local businesses and potentially residents.

Statistical transport modelling such as LUTI is not deemed appropriate, nor

affordable, in this context. Instead, further consultation will be carried out with local

transport and planning bodies, local planning authorities and wider land use

stakeholders to understand the role of the CRL in “unlocking” wider development.

The consultations will collect evidence on factors like social inclusion, housing

delivery, job creation, regeneration, business growth, and business re-investment as

a minimum.

3 This is mandatory under retained transport scheme evaluation guidance set out by the DfT.

23

9.11 Together, this survey work will generate primary evidence on travel behaviour; how and

why businesses locate in Watford, their relationship with London and what Croxley means

for their business in terms of the labour market; any potential land use changes; and housing

market impacts which might arise as a result of CRL investment. It will triangulate this with

relevant evidence and/or literature from other similar transport projects. Target areas of

interest in this instance will be Watford Town Centre, South Oxhey and West Watford.

9.12 Consideration might also be given to relevant comparator areas to triangulate the findings of

primary survey work and baselining activity. An initial assessment suggests Croydon in

South London has some similarities, both in socio-economic terms and in its proximity to

central London with a direct link to the over ground system. Hertfordshire LEP is working

with the What Works Centre to see how comparator areas may be used to enhance

evaluation techniques for the wider economic benefits of CRL.

Timings

9.13 Baseline indicators will be captured pre and post-post opening between 2015/16 and

2022/23. Consultations with key stakeholders will be carried out in 2018/19 and 2020/21

and 2022/23 (one, three and five years post opening). Evaluation activity for CRL is

summarised below in Table 9-2.

Table 9-2: Croxley Rail Link Evaluation – Timeline

Use of evaluation

9.14 The evaluation will examine whether CRL played an instrumental part in delivering the

expected outcomes identified in the intervention logic. In this context, there are two “types”

of outcomes associated with CRL: transport, and regeneration and business impacts. The

former will be robust, with updated counterfactuals generated through WebTAG analysis.

The latter will rely on qualitative evidence gathering, from which it will not be possible to

robustly attribute impact. The evaluation will be of importance for Hertfordshire LEP,

Hertfordshire LTB, Hertfordshire County Council and other local authorities/LTBs located

on the London fringe.

24

10. Little Hadham bypass

Overview

10.1 Hertfordshire County Council is currently progressing plans for a bypass at Little Hadham

(on the A120) to cut journey times between Bishop’s Stortford and the A10, and to create a

more reliable route. The A120 is an important east-west link in Hertfordshire’s primary road

network and this project is part of the Growth Deal M11/A10 transport package. A single

carriageway bypass takes the A120 around Bishop’s Stortford, but at Little Hadham, road

users experience severe congestion and delays as result of a signal controlled junction in the

centre of the village that allows traffic through in one direction at a time only. LGF funding is

a small proportion of total project funding; to our knowledge, no other evaluation is planned.

Objectives

10.2 While the scheme’s principal objectives are concerned with addressing congestion, Little

Hadham bypass also has links to strategic housing delivery. An important question for

Hertfordshire LEP is whether the scheme will play a role in accelerating housing delivery,

particularly at Bishop’s Stortford North. The bypass also has a wider role in flood alleviation

in Little Hadham (with the embankment acting as a dam between the residential area of

Little Hadham and the River Ash).


Figure 10-1: Little Hadham bypass intervention logic

25

Data and metrics




Table 10-1: Little Hadham Bypass metrics


Inputs BIS metrics: expenditure; funding breakdown; in-kind resources.


Outputs BIS metrics: job creation; length of resurfaced / newly built roads; type of service improvement; type of infrastructure;


Outcomes BIS metrics: follow on investment at site; commercial floorspace constructed / refurbished / occupied; commercial rental values; average daily traffic movements peak/non-peak; average AM PM peak journey time per mile on key routes; day-to-day travel time variability; average annual CO2 emissions; accident rate; casualty rate; nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions; traffic noise levels at receptor locations; modal share (%); households with access to specific sites by mode within threshold time; jobs connected to the intervention



Additional Metrics: evidence on: business demography; GVA; economic activity; (un)employment; business count; housing starts / completions


10.4 The transport related outputs and outcomes outlined in Table 10-1 will be collected by

various transport teams in Hertfordshire County Council and the scheme promoter. The

Business Intelligence Unit, Spatial and Land Use Planning, Transport Planning and Data,

Transport Access and Safety, and Highway teams in the County Council already collect these

metrics through established systems. The most relevant data collection locations (i.e. where

to collect day-to-day travel time information) will be determined by the local transport

teams.

10.5 In addition to the metrics outlined above, the analysis of contextual socio-economic data will

be required by the evaluator to understand baseline economic performance in the Little

Hadham and Bishop’s Stortford area. This will be taken from ONS datasets and updates in

the East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM) for GVA and employment growth statistics.

Methodology: Mixed Methods

10.6 The proposed evaluation methodology for the Little Hadham Bypass is a mixed methods

approach including outcomes and process evaluation.

10.7 Due to the significant lead-in time to the Little Hadham Bypass, it is possible to collect and

review evidence on contextual factors (baseline and outcomes indicator type in Table 10-1),

both before and during construction. The purpose of the review is to consider potential

impacts and implications of changes in the scheme context to feed into each element of the

ex-post assessment. This provides a baseline of relevant background indicators to

understand (wider) changes in the Little Hadham/Bishop’s Stortford area.

26

Outcomes evaluation

10.8 The outcomes evaluation will focus on measuring before / after outcomes (through a time

series and webTAG analysis), to test the intervention logic, and the assumptions generated

for the economic case in the ex-ante business case4. Evidence gathering, in addition to

annual monitoring, will be carried out one and five years post opening5 and specifically will

cover:

Travel behaviour and demand. This will use webTAG analysis to understand

changes in travel behaviour and demand along the A120, drawing on travel survey

data carried out as part of the evaluation. The analysis will serve to identify any

differences between outturn journey numbers and forecasts. It can also serve to

identify the counterfactual (i.e. what would travel users have done without the

bypass). The survey will also collect postcode information to allow for a detailed

spatial and characteristic analysis of those using the bypass in order to better

understand connectivity between Little Hadham, Bishop’s Stortford and Standon.

Travel times, reliability and accidents. This will be included in the passenger

travel survey and triangulated with transport data collected on (peak) travel

movements and accident data.

Wider economic impacts. This will be considered using a targeted stakeholder

consultation, both with local businesses, largely in Bishop’s Stortford, and residents

at Little Hadham. It will provide a qualitative assessment of the impact of the bypass

on expanding labour markets and the role this plays in encouraging business

investment and growth.

10.9 The economic case for the ex-ante business case will be updated using out-turn outcome

values generated from the evidence gathering process. This will be supplemented with

information generated as part of the travel and wider stakeholder surveys carried out one

and five years post opening of the bypass.

Process Evaluation

10.10 The role of road improvements in “unlocking” housing is currently an untested assumption

in many spatial development strategies. The process evaluation of Little Hadham will seek to

test this, both in Little Hadham and Bishop’s Stortford North. It will include developing a

detailed process map which outlines “steps” in the planning and development process.

Consultations will form a key part of the evidence gathering for this part of the evaluation.

Local planning authorities, developers, local businesses and transport bodies will be key

consultees in this context.

Timings

10.11 An indicative programme of action is outlined in the table below with evaluation activities

not starting until 2019/2020. The process evaluation and transport related outcomes

4 ARUP A120 Bypass (Little Hadham) Business Case http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/a/ltbA120doc.pdf 5 Little Hadham bypass is part of a retained transport scheme by the DfT. The evaluation timings of transport related outcomes are therefore in accordance with retained scheme guidance.

http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/a/ltbA120doc.pdf

27

evaluation will take place in 2019/20. A further survey (for transport related outcomes

only) is planned for 2023/24. This is aligned with the DfT’s retained scheme guidance.

Table 10-2: Little Hadham Bypass Evaluation – Timeline6

Use of evaluation

10.12 The mixed methods evaluation will generate evidence on the impact of the bypass on

connectivity around Little Hadham; the impact on local businesses; and the role of the

bypass in bringing forward housing delivery. This will be of direct use to Hertfordshire LEP

and Hertfordshire County Council in delivering similar road infrastructure schemes, and

particularly assessments of how and where they can deliver greatest impact in terms of

housing delivery and urban connectivity. By extension it will also be of use to developers and

local planning authorities.

6 WEI = Wider economic impacts

28

11. Growth Area Forums

Background and overview

11.1 Hertfordshire’s three Growth Area Forums are flagship ventures from the Strategic

Economic Plan. The intention is that they will engage with private sector businesses in these

areas to identify the priority projects needed to take economic growth forward and to

accelerate the delivery of housing over the medium-long term. The Growth Area Forums

have an important development role; they will help coordinate development activity in the

Growth Areas which span multiple local authorities, and ensure they build capacity to

commission and take forward key projects, some of which will be resourced through LGF.


11.2 The Growth Area Forums are designed to accelerate long term growth, particularly housing

delivery. They ought to help break down barriers in the planning system and ensure greater

coordination between Local Planning Authorities. However, throughout they will have a

strong business focus, ensuring that all three Growth Areas can thrive economically and in a

way that is locally appropriate. A full intervention logic is found at Figure 11-1.

Figure 11-1: Growth Area Forum Intervention logic

29

Data and metrics


BIS in autumn 2014 (in relation to Growth Area projects). Where relevant it also shows a

few additional indicators which will need to be populated for evaluation purposes.

Table 11-1: Growth Area Forums metrics


Inputs BIS metrics: expenditure; funding breakdown; in-kind resources provided.


Outputs BIS metrics: area of site reclaimed / (re)developed or assembled.


Outcomes BIS metrics: Jobs connected to the intervention; commercial floor space constructed / occupied; housing unit starts / completions; utilities installed; follow on investment at site; commercial floor space refurbished; commercial rental values;



Additional metrics: DCLG housing starts, housing completions


11.4 The monitoring data outlined above will largely be collected by scheme promoters and local

planning authorities.

Methodology: Process evaluation

11.5 Growth Area Forums are anchored in an holistic – and private sector-led – process of

growth. Crucial for the LEP is understanding the role of the Growth Area Forums in driving

forward the delivery of growth (particularly housing) in Hertfordshire over the medium

term. A process evaluation will be important in this context. It is intended to examine the

way in which the development of Growth Area Forums has supported the LEP, Local

Planning Authorities, scheme promoters and other key stakeholders in delivering growth. A

detailed process map will be developed as part of this.

11.6 The process evaluation will require consultation with major stakeholders (i.e. local planning

authorities, the LEP, scheme developers, businesses). It will summarise views on what was

effective and ineffective and what might be changed to improve and streamline delivery. It

will particularly focus on the role of key players in reducing barriers to delivery and the

coordination of planning authorities to deliver housing and other growth priorities.

Timings

11.7 It is important when considering timings for the process evaluation that enough time has

passed for the process map to be completed, but not too much time such that key

stakeholders forget key events or information. An appropriate timeline for the evaluation of

the Growth Area Forums is outlined in Figure 11-2.

30

Figure 11-2: Growth Area Forums Evaluation – Timeline

Use of evaluation

11.8 There are no other evaluations planned for the Growth Area Forums so the process

evaluation delivered by the LEP will significantly contribute to growing the local evidence

base in terms of: what drives the process of growth in Hertfordshire; what barriers exist and

how these might be overcome; and the role of the private sector throughout. Its prime use

will be to assist local planning authorities, developers, and Hertfordshire LEP to deliver

future housing and wider economic growth priorities in response to a business-led growth

vision.

31

12. Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst

Overview

12.1 Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst (SBC) is the UK’s first open innovation bioscience campus,

pioneering a new approach to early stage biotech, pharma and medtech developments. The

Catalyst provides small biotech and life sciences companies and start-ups with access to the

expertise, networks and scientific facilities traditionally associated with multinational

pharmaceutical companies. Phase I of the facility is currently reaching capacity. Through the

Growth Deal, LGF funding of £3m (in 2015/16) has been secured to support the

development of Phase II of SBC. This will be used in the early pre-planning and planning

stage of the development.

12.2 Although outside the Growth Deal, Hertfordshire LEP has also played a key role in securing

investment linked to the £55m Cell Therapy Catapult advanced manufacturing centre. The

project funded through the Growth Deal lends itself to a process evaluation. However the

intention is to position the evaluation more broadly so that in due course, it can be

broadened to consider wider outcomes, including those linked to the manufacturing facility

(which is scheduled to open in 2017, although there are some uncertainties).

Scheme level intervention logics

12.3 The scheme-level intervention logics linked to SBC Phase II are outlined in the graphic

below.

Figure 12-1: Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst Phase II: (a) intervention logic linked to immediate LGF investment

32

Figure 12-2: Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst Phase II: (b) wider intervention logic

Data and metrics


BIS in autumn 2014 (note that these relate principally to the Growth Deal investment in SBC

Phase II). Where relevant it also shows a few additional indicators which will need to be

populated for evaluation purposes.

Table 12-1: SBC Phase II metrics


Inputs BIS Metrics: Expenditure; funding breakdown; in-kind resources.

Additional Metrics: N/A

Outputs BIS metrics: N/A

Additional Metrics: SBC successfully navigates the planning process; supporting infrastructure facilities and site preparation activities provided

Outcomes BIS metrics: Jobs connected to the intervention; commercial floor space constructed / occupied;

Additional metrics: no. of new enterprises supported; beneficiary characteristics; other support provided to applicant firms; no. of enterprises assisted to cooperate with research entities/institutions incl. SMEs; No. of open data initiatives launched; patents filed for research projects; private equity and research funding obtained by bio start-ups to advance novel treatments and medicaments; business employment and turnover growth for occupant firms.


12.5 Responsibility for gathering these data will rest principally with Stevenage Bioscience

Catalyst.

33

Methodology: Process (and – later – outcomes evaluation)

Process evaluation – focusing on the immediate LGF investment

12.6 Growth Deal funding for SBC Phase II is targeted at an early stage of the development

process. It is a fundamental and inherent part of infrastructure delivery which – in

evaluation terms – lends itself to process evaluation. An evaluation pitched in this way will

generate evidence on how to help enable the delivery of similar science and research related

infrastructure.

12.7 The process evaluation will require consultation with major stakeholders (i.e. relevant local

authorities (Stevenage Borough Council) and funding partners (GSK, Wellcome Trust and

others)). It will summarise views on the role of the early funding in facilitating the

development of Phase II.

Outcomes evaluation (downstream) – linked to the wider scheme

12.8 Of greater interest overall, however, is the question of the outcomes that may be achieved

through subsequent investment in Phase II (plus, potentially, that associated with the £55m

Cell Therapy Catapult advanced manufacturing centre).

12.9 The outcomes evaluation for a project of this type is complex. Many of the outcomes

generated will not be quantifiable. Nor will many allow for a straightforward time series

analysis. As a result, the outcomes evaluation will rely largely on qualitative evidence

gathering through business consultations, and discussions with key stakeholders. Statistical

analysis on some metrics such as business GVA, turnover and employment – although

theoretically possible – will not generate meaningful evidence due to small business sample

sizes.

12.10 Where possible, drawing on metrics already collected by SBC, the intention should be to

build a picture of how outcomes vary over time (i.e. in relation to business support;

collaboration and networking; occupancy rates; spending on research and development).

This, however, will only provide partial evidence; it will provide little insight into the

effectiveness of “open innovation”. It may therefore be appropriate to complete a

consultation process with businesses (including those new to the site) which will seek to

determine the impact of the SBC/Catapult facilities, and “new” approach to innovation on

business performance, and research activities. It will also track business performance on key

indicators such as turnover, employment and GVA over time. Depending on the number of

occupants of Phase II, this may require some form of telephone, or online survey. In terms of

timings, the first consultation process will take place one year post opening, the second

three years post opening to understand the long term impacts of research carried out by

businesses at the SBC.

Timings

12.11 The process of advancing Phase II has LGF funding in 2015/16. Therefore the process

evaluation – focusing on the role of LGF in relation to the early stages of delivering a major

science-based resource – will take place in 2016/17.

34

12.12 Phase II of SBC should be operational in 2019/20 and – in principle – the intention is to

complete outcomes-based evaluation activity from (approximately) 2020-2022. However

there is considerable uncertainty with regard to this second strand, and its links to LGF

funding are indirect.

12.13 Table 12-2 outlines an indicative timetable for evaluation.

Table 12-2: Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst (Phase II) Evaluation – Timeline

Use of evaluation

12.14 Hertfordshire is renowned as a location of bioscience research at the centre of the Golden

Triangle. In many ways, it is championing the approach of open innovation, and the planned

evaluations will generate evidence on the way in which LGF resources can contribute to this

process at a relatively early stage; and the downstream implications. It should therefore be

of national interest.

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst evaluation 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23

Scheme completed Feasibility Construction

Evaluation commissioned

Outcomes data collection Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

Consultation / Fieldwork

Interim / Final reporting Process Outcomes Outcomes

35

13. West Hertfordshire College

Overview

13.1 West Hertfordshire College is a large further education college with three campuses (in

Watford, Hemel Hempstead and King’s Langley). It is embarking on a strategic

redevelopment plan, due to be completed in 2016 in Hemel Hempstead to rejuvenate the

College campus in line with other further education colleges with the aim of:

improving local skills and employability and promoting local economic growth;

providing buildings that are more open and approachable to their communities;

attracting more students; and

providing better quality social spaces.

13.2 Hemel Hempstead – as one of Hertfordshire’s New Towns – requires investment in

infrastructure to reinvigorate the town centre. The Dacorum campus is located in the heart

of Hemel Hempstead town centre, and the refurbishment is designed to improve the

condition of the current estate and embed more modern facilities. This is with a view to

provide better working and learning environments for staff, students and local communities.

36


Figure 13-1: West Hertfordshire College Intervention Logic

Data and metrics




Table 13-1: West Hertfordshire College metrics

Type of indicators Metrics



Outputs BIS metrics: N/A

Additional metrics: new build learning floor space; floor space rationalised; area of public realm improved.

Outcomes BIS metrics: Skills - no. of additional learners undertaking certified employability courses; no. of 16-18 learners on NVQ level 1 and NVQ level 2 courses; no. of additional qualifications / apprenticeships delivered that relate to priority skills needs within local area at L2 and above; no. of additional NVQ level 2 (and above) qualifications achieved by adults by 2020;

Additional metrics: Skills - no. of students attending open days; no. of applications; greater student satisfaction rankings; regeneration outcomes - Town footfall and property values; inward investment in Hemel Hempstead town centre.


Additional metrics: Mid-level super output data (where available) for Hemel Hempstead, Dacorum and Hertfordshire: GVA, business count and birth and

37

Type of indicators Metrics

death rate, economic activity, employment, unemployment, social deprivation, resident qualifications, and educational attainment


13.4 In addition to the metrics outlined above, the analysis of contextual socio-economic data will

be required by the evaluator to understand baseline economic performance in the Hemel

Hempstead area. ONS datasets will be important in this context.

Methodology: Outcomes evaluation

13.5 An outcomes evaluation is suitable for an infrastructure project such as West Hertfordshire

College. The analysis will consist of a pre-post study of outcomes, supplemented with

contextual Mid-layer Super Output Level Area (MSOA), baseline data for the area. It will be

grounded in the intervention logic and – in a qualitative sense – confirm whether the theory

of change developed as part of the evaluation was justified. This will be supplemented with

information from the West Herts College business case, developed as part of the strategic

redevelopment plan.

13.6 There are two broad ‘types’ of outcomes which are reflected in the objectives of the campus

redevelopment: skills-based outcomes and regeneration-based outcomes. Both are

important in delivering the SEP, although timescales for benefits realisation may be

different.

I – Skills based outcomes

13.7 Evaluation of the skills based outcomes will involve an analysis of the outcomes data for

Hemel Hempstead (in Table 13-1). Many of these will be collected directly by the College and

will be cross referenced with the baseline data on resident skills in Hemel

Hempstead/Dacorum (and the wider catchment area which is stratified at two levels: South

West Hertfordshire, and Hertfordshire). The outcomes – and baseline – will be collected

both before and after the Campus redevelopment identifying any key changes e.g. number of

students qualifying to NVQ level 2 or equivalent. This will be required over a substantive

period of time, given the typical length of courses delivered by the College of up to three

years. While changes to baseline data will not materialise for over three years, the

consultation process to gather qualitative evidence will need to occur over a shorter time

period. A process consultation with College staff, as well as a “thin and wide” survey of

students is proposed for 2017/18 to understand the impact of the improved facilities on

educational experience to supplement the outcomes data above. Further “thin and wide”

survey work will be carried out in 2020/21 – to allow time for students to graduate – to

investigate the longer term outcomes related to securing employment, career progression

and salary.

13.8 Note that there may be scope to use one or more comparator Colleges to benchmark outcomes

data. Hertfordshire has a number of further education institutions which could be used as a

reasonable comparators. An initial assessment shows that the Oaklands College (Welwyn

Garden City campus) may be suitable. BIS is also developing a “bank” of potential FE institutes

that could be used as comparators for the national level evaluation of Growth Deals. Scheme

evaluators will need to take note.

38

II – Regeneration based outcomes

13.9 The impact of the Campus redevelopment on the wider economy in Hemel Hempstead is also

important. Similar to the skills based outcomes, this will require baselining the socio-

economic performance of Hemel Hempstead/Dacorum (see Table 13-1) and monitoring of

regeneration outcomes. The evaluation will heavily rely on primary evidence gathering

using qualitative research methods in 2020/21 to understand impacts on business

performance, town centre uses and attractiveness of Hemel Hempstead as a place to live and

work. Stakeholder consultation will test the links in the intervention logic confirming (or

rejecting) the type of impacts West Hertfordshire College has on the local economy. Key

stakeholders will include Dacorum Borough Council, local businesses and town centre area

managers.

Timings

13.10 An indicative timing for evaluation activity for West Hertfordshire College refurbishment is

outlined in Table 13-2.

Table 13-2: West Hertfordshire College Evaluation – Timeline

Use of evaluation

13.11 The evaluation will consider the role of the intervention in delivering the expected

outcomes. It will however – without the use of comparator colleges – not be possible to

robustly attribute impact from this type of evaluation. Nevertheless, it will assist local

education and planning authorities in developing similar schemes and identifying the type of

outcomes which they might achieve.

39

14. Stevenage First (Joint Venture)

Overview

14.1 Stevenage First is a new joint venture which aims to bring the key stakeholders in Stevenage

together to define a creative new vision for the town, based on a clear economic narrative.

Stevenage, despite its strategic location in the heart of the “Golden Triangle” and its excellent

position in the national rail network, performs poorly on most socio-economic indicators,

and is some way adrift of the Hertfordshire average. Stevenage has a town centre which is

in urgent need of investment and regeneration, yet the town is well-connected and across

the railway line, there are some world class businesses. The overall aim is to create and

implement a new vision for the town, and one that provides good opportunities for local

people whilst also enabling the wider business population to invest and thrive.


Figure 14-1: Stevenage first intervention logic

Data and metrics

14.2 The table below outlines the monitoring metrics identified by Hertfordshire LEP and

submitted to BIS in autumn 2014. Where relevant it also shows a few additional indicators

which will need to be populated for evaluation purposes.

40

Table 14-1: Stevenage Joint Venture (Stevenage First) metrics

Type of metric Metric



Outputs BIS metrics: area of site reclaimed, (re-developed) or assembled; utilities installed


Outcomes BIS metrics: Jobs connected to the intervention; commercial floor space constructed /refurbished / occupied; housing unit starts; housing units completed; follow on investment at site


Source: Hertfordshire LEP monitoring return to BIS

14.3 Many of the outcome metrics outlined above will be captured in Stevenage town centre, but

direct attribution to the JV programme will not be possible. Scheme evaluators should be

mindful of socio-economic baseline data for Stevenage and how these change over time.

Methodology: Mixed Methods

14.4 At this stage, a process and outcomes evaluation is appropriate for the Stevenage Joint

Venture scheme. Note that in due course it may be appropriate to make provision for an

impact evaluation. However this cannot be specified further until the co-ordinated plan for

investment has been developed.

Process Evaluation

14.5 Stevenage First is designed to anchor and prioritise strategic infrastructure investment to

regenerate Stevenage. The process by which change is delivered in Stevenage is important.

A detailed intervention logic and process map will be at the heart of this analysis outlining

the key steps and expected mechanisms by which the JV programme is intended to influence

and deliver socio-economic development. It will require a targeted stakeholder consultation

with Stevenage Borough Council, local businesses, and local developers and asset managers.

It will also require some dialogue with external observers. The assessment will therefore be

a largely qualitative exercise, although there may be a number of quantitative outcomes to

measure in terms of the JV programme’s role in leveraging private sector investment and

stimulating local business confidence in Stevenage. A single consultation process, targeted in

the right year which leaves enough time for the JV programme to influence development, but

not too much time to avoid memory decay, is proposed.

Outcomes evaluation

14.6 The process evaluation outlined above will be supplemented with a basic outcomes

evaluation. This will simply consider baseline evidence in terms of Stevenage’s

circumstances and will be based largely on secondary data. [As noted above, an impact

evaluation may be appropriate in due course]

41

Timings

14.7 The timeline linked to the process and outcomes evaluation of Stevenage First is set out in

Table 14-2.

Table 14-2: Stevenage First Evaluation – Timeline

Use of evaluation

14.8 The evaluation of Stevenage First will be of direct use within Stevenage; and for

Hertfordshire LEP (and others) it should help also to identify lessons that might be

transferred to other New Town regeneration processes.

42

15. Business Growth Hub

Overview

15.1 The Hertfordshire Business Growth Hub is being delivered through a partnership between

the University of Hertfordshire, Exemplas (business support specialist) and Hertfordshire

LEP. The Business Growth Hub will work in partnership with high-growth Hertfordshire

businesses across the county to understand goals and tailor appropriate support packages.

There is £350,000 of LGF allocated to support the Business Growth Hub in 2015/16. The

core services of the Business Growth Hub include expert business advice, access to finance,

management training and general business training events.


15.2 The underlying intervention logic developed for Hertfordshire’s Business Growth Hub is

outlined in Figure 15-1.

Figure 15-1: Hertfordshire Growth Hub intervention logic

Data and Metrics




43

Table 15-1: Business Growth Hub metrics

Indicator type Metric



Outputs BIS metrics: no. of enterprises assisted to cooperate with research entities / institutions; no. of enterprises supported to introduce new to the market / firm products; no. of businesses entering leadership and management and/or supporting employee training; no. of SMEs referred to business support programmes.

Additional metrics: no. of enterprises receiving (non) financial support [note that contact details will need to be provided]; leverage (including from Innovate UK)

Outcomes BIS metrics: no. of businesses introducing external public and private sector finance; no. of businesses entering into (new to the firm) export markets

Additional metrics: GVA; jobs connected to the intervention; business investment; turnover; no. of partnerships with FE / HE institutions and businesses; number of positive referrals

Baseline: BIS metrics: N/A

Additional metrics: GVA, employment, turnover, business demography at LEP level

15.4 Output data will be collected directly by the Business Growth Hub. This will need to include

contact details of beneficiaries in a form that can be shared with third party evaluators.

Assuming BIS will facilitate access, basic business outcomes data collection will rely on ONS

IDBR time series data.

Methodology: Impact Evaluation

15.5 Business support programmes often lend themselves to more robust evaluation than other

types of Growth Deal interventions; larger sample sizes (of businesses) allow for more

robust statistical analyses to be carried out. This is achieved by comparing “treated” groups

of businesses (receiving funding) and “untreated” groups (not receiving funding) over time.

15.6 An impact evaluation is proposed for the Business Growth Hub using business data from

IDBR and wider survey work7. By comparing the “pre-post” performance of treated

businesses (those that receive support) and non-treated businesses, statistical analysis can

reveal robust assessments of cause and effect, and by extension, impact. Two potential

approaches which could be adopted in this context are difference in difference analysis

and/or propensity score matching. By tracking the performance of businesses deemed to be

sufficiently similar in terms of core indicators (such as business turnover and employees),

this approach will better attribute changes in performance to the Business Growth Hub than

other evaluation methods.

15.7 In terms of timing, the evaluation will run from 2015/16 through to 2018/19 given the time

taken for changes in business performance to materialise, and the potential extension of

Growth Hub funding beyond the 2015/16 (through ERDF). This will also help gather a

sufficient sample size for statistical analysis. Wider qualitative survey work focusing on

supported businesses should also reveal changes in other performance metrics such as

productivity, capital investment, etc.

7 At this stage it is uncertain whether the BIS will commission a national evaluation of Growth Hubs, which could follow a similar methodology to that set out here. Hertfordshire LEP and the potential scheme evaluator should monitor any developments from within HMG in this context

44

15.8 Data from businesses will be supplemented with baseline economic performance indicators

at the Hertfordshire level to understand changes in the wider context for business activity

over time. This will allow inferences to be made about how Business Growth Hub “treated”

businesses perform in relation to the Hertfordshire average. Further qualitative survey

work will be required for non-business metrics such as partnerships between businesses

and FE institutions.

Timings

15.9 Evaluation activities will start in 2015/16 with pre-post monitoring of businesses and initial

survey work carried out in the same year. Survey work will be required in 2016/17 and

2018/19. Table 15-2 summarises the timeline for the main evaluation activities.

Table 15-2: Business Growth Hub Evaluation – Timeline

Use of evaluation

15.10 The evaluation will be used to determine whether the Business Growth Hub has had an

impact on business performance. It will also – through the consultation process – generate

evidence on unexpected outcomes or unintended consequences. The evaluation will be used

by the LEP and potentially other organisations to design future iterations of business

support programmes.

A-1

Annex A: Intervention Logic Analysis

Top-Down, SEP Level Intervention logics (IL)

A.1 The top-down intervention logics are based on the four key priorities outlined in the SEP.

The four priorities and their intervention logics are considered in the figures below.

Global Excellence in Science and technology logic chain

Harnessing our relationships with London & elsewhere logic chain

A-2

Re-invigorating our places for the 21st Century logic chain

Foundations for Growth logic chain

A-3

Bottom-Up Intervention Logics

A.2 The Bottom-up intervention logics, were primarily used to develop the monitoring metrics

for the different interventions split by theme. The themes include land and housing;

transport; business growth; and skills interventions.

Business Growth Theme logic chain

Skills Theme logic chain

A-4

Housing & Land logic chain

Transport Theme logic chain

Spatial Intervention Logics

A.3 The spatial intervention logics are based on the three Growth Areas outlined in

Hertfordshire LEP’s strategic economic plan. The intervention logic’s are for the growth

areas are outlined in the figures below.

A-5

M11/A10 Growth Area logic chain

A1 (m) Growth Area logic chain

A-6

M1 / M25 logic chain

B-1

Annex B: Project selection justification

B.1 Table B-1 shows how each of the projects chosen for evaluation score in terms of the

selection criteria. This is the basis for the justification of the “short listed” projects.

Table B-1: Project selection against key criteria

Croxley Rail Link (CRL)

Little Hadham Bypass

Growth Area Forums

Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst

Stevenage JV

Business Growth Hub

West Hertfordshire College

Hertfordshire LEP Interest

High interest - particularly around CRL as a regeneration tool

High interest - particularly around the role in accelerating housing delivery

High interest - the core spatial delivery mechanism of the SEP is through growth areas

High interest - relates directly to two of the priorities of the SEP

High interest – especially around New Town regeneration

High interest – key and sole programme to specifically support business

High interest – directly relates to re-invigorating places priority in the SEP and skills provision.

Themes in the SEP

Town Centres / Accelerating housing delivery / London Fringe / better local jobs

Town Centres / Accelerating housing delivery / Growth Area

Virtually all themes depending on growth area choice

Bioscience / Missing middle of SME's / New Towns / better local jobs/ Town Centres

Town Centres / Better local jobs /bioscience

Better local jobs / Missing Middle / London Fringe /

New Towns / Town Centres / Accelerating housing delivery / local jobs /

Size and Proportionality

£50.5m (£4m in 15/16)

Up to £48.4m (£4.7m in 15/16)

Significant funding depending on growth area choice

£3m 2015/16

Initially £2m but likely to increase

£0.35m in 2015/16

£5m (£3m in 15/16)

Evidence Base

Local evidence base limited (aside from business case) - wider evidence base on transport schemes extensive

Local evidence base limited - wider evidence base on transport schemes extensive

Local baseline evidence is extensive, but growth area delivery impact evidence is non-existent.

Evidence base for baselines and innovation hubs reasonably extensive.

Evidence base limited in terms of specific structures and opportunities

Strong local evidence base in terms of baseline data, but limited evidence on business support programmes.

Local evidence base limited in terms of Hertfordshire network - wider evidence base on transport schemes extensive.

Data Collection

Possibility of using comparison towns, or before-after type studies

Possibility of using comparison towns, or before-after type studies

Data Collection is complex. Unlikely to find comparator areas.

Likely to find comparison hubs which have not received support.

Unlikely to find comparators that are appropriate

Likely to find comparator businesses, across Hertfordshire, which don’t receive funding.

Possibility of using comparison areas - but could be challenging.

Technical Consideration

2-3 on the Maryland Scale



3 on the Maryland Scale


3 -4 on the Maryland Scale.

2 on the Maryland Scale

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (v18)mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/BH-Herts/cms... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (v18)mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/BH-Herts/cms... ·...