Performance management overview 9.1.1 England, Scotland and Wales Lead local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales will be asked to report data to us to ensure that allocations are being spent to agreed timescales and milestones, including achievement of outputs and outcomes at the project level. We will also ask local authorities to report individual project outputs and outcomes at UK Parliament constituency level. The milestones, expectations and timescales will be set out in a Memorandum of Understanding with each lead local authority. There will be a formal reporting request every six months, with qualitative updates on a more frequent basis also required. Prior to each annual payment, lead local authorities will also be asked to complete a report. Depending on timings of the first payment, for the second annual payment, lead local authorities may be asked to submit a report earlier than six months after the first report is submitted. Lead local authorities who are unable to meet milestones will be supported by Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government officials to ensure delivery gets back on track. If lead local authorities wish to make changes to their planned activity this can be reviewed. We will ask each lead local authority to notify us of any current or emerging operational or financial risks, or issues, and any contingency measures put in place. This will be requested in each place’s investment plan and in each report thereafter. This will help us determine the level of support we may provide, and/or enhanced monitoring that we may require. This may also result in reduced delegation, reduced payment periods or withholding of funds in the affected area. Lead local authorities will also be expected to report on technical delivery aspects such as fraud and risk. Further detailed information, including, the reporting format and process, will be set out in detailed guidance in the summer. 9.1.2 Northern Ireland In Northern Ireland, individual projects will be performance managed by officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Specific requirements will be set out in a grant funding agreement, or alternative approaches depending on circumstances. We will measure whether funding is spent to agreed timescales and milestones, including achievement of outputs and outcomes. There will be a formal reporting request to manage every six months, with informal updates also required. Project deliverers in Northern Ireland who are unable to meet milestones will be supported by government officials to ensure delivery gets back on track. If project deliverers wish to make changes to their planned activity this can be reviewed with us. Project deliverers in Northern Ireland will also be expected to report or adhere to technical delivery aspects and legal requirements such as branding, risk and State Aid or subsidy control. Further detailed information, including, the reporting format and process, will be set out in detailed guidance in the summer.
9.2 How we will monitor and evaluate the Fund at UK-level The Fund will be evaluated based on a theory of change aligned with the objectives of the Levelling Up White Paper, its theory of change[footnote 10] and the resulting outcomes that the government wants to achieve across the Levelling Up agenda. Lead local authorities will need to refer to these outcomes and indicators in their investment plan. We are developing a national approach to evaluation, including a scoping study in partnership with the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth. The evaluation methodology cannot be fully specified until we have received investment plans and understood the range of activities to be funded. This may include pooling or synthesising data from several different areas. The national evaluation will evaluate the Fund as a whole through two related lenses:
Fund-level process evaluation/s to demonstrate accountability and understand what worked well, what did not, and why, in the design and delivery of the Fund. Performance indicators from lead local authorities or project deliverers will contribute to the programme-level process evaluation. In addition, places may be required to cooperate with process evaluation activity undertaken by or on behalf of us.
Exploring the feasibility of causal impact evaluation. How to evaluate value for money delivered by the Fund will also be considered. Places may be required to cooperate with impact, or value for money evaluation activity (including data collection) undertaken by or on behalf of us.
We will work closely with other departments to evaluate UKSPF, including the Department for Education for Multiply interventions. We will publish further details on our evaluation approaches for the Fund (including the overarching Fund-level evaluation) once the investment plans have been reviewed.
9.3 Monitoring and evaluation requirements for local places Theories of change Any bespoke interventions proposed by lead local authorities will need to be supported by their own Theory of Change, Logical Framework or Logic Chain in their investment plans. This should be based on numeric evidence where possible. Monitoring We expect all lead local authorities to, at minimum, monitor spend, outputs and outcomes against agreed indicators and submit this information to us to assist with programme-level evaluation. This needs to include relevant metrics from the Levelling Up White Paper. Further information about indicators can be found in section 9.4. Locally-led process evaluations All lead local authorities are advised to carry out process evaluation/s of each project they fund to demonstrate the effectiveness of delivery of the interventions pursued. This can help contribute towards local accountability and provide learning on what worked in terms of delivery. Locally-led causal impact evaluations To build the evidence base on what works for local pride interventions, lead authorities are also strongly encouraged to conduct their own causal quantitative impact evaluations for certain projects, where feasible. This should be proportionate to their allocations and investment plans. For example, the opportunities to undertake causal impact evaluations are expected to be greater for larger allocations. Moreover, a lead local authority may prioritise causal impact evaluations on particular projects, if impact evaluations on some other projects are unlikely to provide meaningful results. We value quality over the quantity of impact evaluation, including attempts to define causality or contribution. Where an increase in the proportion of local budget beyond the 4% allocated for administration and evaluation could lead to a significant improvement in quality and ability to learn lessons, this case should be set out in the investment plan. UK government led causal impact evaluations We also intend to use the UKSPF to build the evidence base on what works for local pride, life chances, and local growth interventions, by robustly evaluating a number of those interventions delivered through the Fund (using experimental or quasi-experimental methods, if appropriate) to determine their effectiveness. These evaluations will also feed into the evaluation of the fund as a whole. We will determine which interventions will be evaluated at which level and using which methods, after reviewing the local investment plans. In order to evaluate different types of intervention, places may be required to cooperate with evaluation activity undertaken by or on behalf of us (through, for example, providing specified data). We may make specific asks of places in what they collect, to allow us to look across a range of areas or types of intervention. As well as before and after outcome data, lead local authorities should also expect to be asked for other data that helps us to do this. Likely asks could include project location data (e.g., postcodes) and unique identifiers for people or business (e.g., National Insurance numbers or Company Registration Numbers) to allow us to identify matched control groups. Areas should have this in mind when developing their investment plans and make preparation for the collection, storage and (controlled) sharing of such data. We may also ask you to consider staggering interventions to allow us to exploit differences in timing of roll out to learn more about impacts. UK government-led causal impact evaluations will not duplicate any locally led ones.
9.4 Fund indicators Each place, and each intervention across the UK must use common indicators, as set out for each intervention to measure outputs, outcomes and impacts. This ensures that we can compare similar interventions in different places, and undertake and synthesise evaluation activities. It also means that places will be able to work together more easily, and organisations delivering in multiple places will be able to deliver their interventions more efficiently. See the Indicative Fund indicators that are set out for each intervention. These should be used by lead local authorities as a guide when drafting local investment plans. Final indicator definitions will be confirmed in the summer, prior to the submission date of the investment plans, when further guidance will be published on GOV.UK.