Social Enterprise Exchange - Formative Evaluation

October 2017
Social Enterprise Exchange:
Formative Evaluation

Social Enterprise Exchange Formative Evaluation
October 2017
Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
2. Background .....................................................................................................................................5
3. Initial implementation of the SEE project.....................................................................................11
4. Beneficiary feedback data.............................................................................................................25
5. Output performance data.............................................................................................................32
6. Overall project performance.........................................................................................................33
7. Recommendations........................................................................................................................38
Contact
Name Evelyn Hichens
Phone 07494 449840
Email evelyn.hichens@carneygreen.com
www www.carneygreen.com

1 October 2017
1. Introduction
Overview
1.1 This report presents Carney Green LLP’s (“Carney Green”) formative evaluation of the Social
Enterprise Exchange (SEE) project commissioned by Community Media (CM) Solutions. This
report is informed by research activities undertaken between May and September 2017.
Evaluation objectives
1.2 CM Solutions commissioned a longitudinal evaluation of the SEE project. The evaluation
includes the production of a formative (October 2017), interim (April 2018) and final (April
2019) report. These dates are aligned with submission of the quarterly financial returns,
enabling the reports to include analysis of the latest available cumulative performance data.
A longitudinal evaluation approach, means that lessons learnt can be acted upon, and
practical recommendations provided which will inform the ongoing delivery of the project,
allowing for continuous improvement.
1.3 The objectives of the longitudinal evaluation are to assess project performance across three
monitoring themes: results orientated monitoring, output monitoring, and process
monitoring (further detail provided in the following sub-sections). In addition, the evaluation
should also explore key themes in social enterprise, examples are included in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1. Examples of key themes in social enterprise to be explored
Results orientated monitoring
1.4 This strand is based on performance against the top-line Investment Priorities for Priority
Axis 3 of the ERDF Operational Programme 2014-2020, project objectives and associated
indicators.

2 October 2017
1.5 This project specifically aims to support:
• Investment Priority 3a: Promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the
economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new firms, including
through business incubators.
• Investment Priority 3c: Supporting the creation and the extension of advanced
capacities for products, services and development.
1.6 The project aims to promote entrepreneurship, by focusing on increasing awareness of social
enterprise opportunities and reaching out to disadvantaged areas and under-represented
groups which may not have considered social enterprise, or had but are unaware of how and
where to access support. It also aims to support the start-up of new social enterprises and
assist existing social enterprises that demonstrate growth potential.
1.7 The SEE project has three objectives with corresponding indicators which will be used to
measure achievement. These are:
• A: Increased awareness and understanding of social enterprise in the Sheffield City
Region (SCR) including having particular regard to access and opportunity for
disadvantaged communities. The indicators are:
o Number of individuals participating in project activities
o Number of individuals participating that gain increased awareness/understanding
o Number of individuals participating that are from disadvantaged communities
• B: Establishment of new social enterprises in the SCR, including independent start-ups,
charities establishing new trading arms and public-sector spin-outs. The indicators are:
o Number of social enterprise start-ups benefiting from project assistance
o Number of new FTE jobs created within new social enterprises assisted
o Number of social enterprises assisted delivering social or economic impact
• C: Sustainable growth of existing social enterprisers in the SCR including those with high
growth potential and larger social enterprises with capacity to expand. The indicators
are:
o Number of existing social enterprises benefiting from project assistance
o Number of new FTE jobs created within existing social enterprises
o Number of social enterprises increasing their social or economic impact

3 October 2017
Output monitoring
1.8 This strand is based on performance against the ERDF output targets for the project. The
outputs and targets are detailed in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1: SEE ERDF output targets
Output Number
Number of enterprises receiving support 125
Number of enterprises receiving grants 60
Number of enterprises receiving non-financial support 120
Number of new enterprises supported 50
Private investment matching public support to enterprises (grants) £67,200
Employment increase in supported enterprises 60
Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the market products 11
Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the firm products 15
Number of potential entrepreneurs assisted to be enterprise ready 100
Number of enterprises receiving information, diagnostic and brokerage support 120
Process monitoring
1.9 This strand is based on the full programme of activities delivered by the consortium. Each
activity will be evaluated from the perspectives of their relevance, efficiency, effectiveness
and sustainability.
Research methods
1.10 The findings in this report are based on a review of primary and secondary data, which is
used to assess performance against the three strands highlighted above:
• A desk-based review of available project documentation
o Documents reviewed includes: DCLG grant funding agreement, project steering
group minutes, service level agreements, DCLG claims and narrative, and
previous project evaluations.
• A total of 17 telephone interviews comprising of:
o Seven interviews with SEE partners (including lead organisation) – undertaken
between June and July 2017

4 October 2017
o Three interviews with strategic stakeholders (including representatives from the
SCR Growth Hub and Key Fund) – undertaken between June and July 2017
o Seven interviews with recipients of support from the SEE project (hereafter
referred to as beneficiaries) – undertaken between August and September 2017
• Review of output performance data
Report Structure
1.11 Structure of this report includes the following sections:
• Section 2 summarises the key background information relating to the SEE project
evaluation (covering social enterprise, challenges and barriers to social enterprise, the
SCR, the SEE project, and the SEE consortium).
• Section 3 illustrates the development of the SEE project (covering the rationale for the
project, developing the consortium, initial implementation, activities delivered by SEE,
partnership working, and key successes/best practice).
• Section 4 reviews the beneficiary feedback data collected by CM Solutions (covering the
launch conference, roadshow workshops, Accelerate workshops, and Lunch Plus events).
• Section 5 presents the cumulative output data for project from the latest ERDF claim
(Claim 4, quarter 2, 2017).
• Section 6 outlines overall project performance against the three monitoring themes:
results orientated monitoring, output monitoring, and process monitoring.
• Section 7 identifies practical recommendations to be implemented in the remaining
delivery period, providing both operational and delivery actions.

6 October 2017
Challenges and barriers to social entrepreneurship/ social
enterprise
2.5 Despite their recent growth, there are several challenges and barriers to social
entrepreneurship/social enterprise5
:
• A higher proportion of social enterprises compared to small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs) overall seek funding or finance (more than double the figure of
overall SMEs). However, access to funding and finance remains a key barrier for social
enterprises of all sizes. The barriers tend to be navigability of the market, accessibility,
and confidence, rather than the cost of capital or legal structure. This is acting as a
barrier to start-ups but also a challenge to sustainability.
• The need for a joined-up and targeted approach from local public and social sector
agencies.
• The need for skills development, particularly around marketing and branding, whilst
others have also identified the need for technical skills development as a barrier.
• A lack of access to/poor advice/business support for start-up social enterprises
(identified as a barrier for 16 per cent of social enterprises).
• A lack of business experience acting as a barrier to transforming an idea into a viable
social business.
• A lack of confidence in ideas for pre-start-ups.
• Access to other social entrepreneurs (via peer support and networks). It is important
that entrepreneurs engage with one another, as it helps to grow confidence through
speaking with others going through similar situations. These relationships can be
facilitated through incubator space or growth hub initiatives.
The Sheffield City Region
2.6 The Sheffield City Region (SCR) Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was formed in December
2010, and is made up of nine local authority areas, which includes: Barnsley, Bassetlaw,
Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, Doncaster, North East Derbyshire, Rotherham and
Sheffield.
2.7 The SCR’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) identified the region’s enterprise deficit as a key
challenge to overcome.6
The number of new starts in England per 1,000 working age
5
Social Enterprise UK (2015) State of Social Enterprise Survey 2015

7 October 2017
residents is 6.8, whilst the number in the SCR is considerably lower at 4.4. If this gap was
halved over the ten-year plan period, this would result in an additional 6,000 enterprises and
approximately 9,000 jobs, which would equate to an additional 6000 net new businesses per
year. Therefore, the SEE project has the potential to positively contribute towards reducing
the enterprise deficit in the region.
Growth sectors
2.8 The SCR has nine priority sectors, as identified for their role in driving future growth, jobs
and success in the area. The sectors are:
• Advanced manufacturing and materials
• Business and professional services
• Creative and Digital Industries
• Healthcare Technologies
• Logistics
• Low carbon
• Property and Construction
• Retail
• Sport, Leisure and Tourism
Disadvantaged groups
2.9 The SCR has lower than the national averages for all qualification levels, apart from
apprenticeships.7
11.6 per cent of people in the SCR have no qualifications; in order to meet
the national average, a further 28,060 people in the SCR would need to achieve at least a
level 1 qualification or equivalent.
2.10 716,000 people are inactive due to long-term sickness or disablement (26.6% of the
economically inactive population, compared to an average of 20.9% for England).8
Of those
6
SCR (2014) Strategic Economic Plan, A focused 10-year plan for private sector growth 2015-2025
7
SCR (2016) European Structural and Investment Funds Strategy, February 2016
8

8 October 2017
economically inactive, Barnsley has the highest proportion classed as long-term sick (37.1%),
followed by Rotherham (28.9%), Doncaster (28.5%), and Bassetlaw (28.1%).
2.11 Data shows that women in the SCR, are significantly disadvantaged in the labour market.9
Women are nearly three times more likely to be employed part time than men, and less
likely to be self-employed than men; 4.1 per cent of the economically active female
population, compared to 11.5 per cent of the economically active male population. The
gender pay gap in the SCR is -£118.3 (average male full-time weekly gross pay is £517.30
compared to the average female full-time weekly gross pay of £399.00). The gender pay gap
is highest in Rotherham (-£180.50), followed by North East Derbyshire (-£166.80).
2.12 Young people in the SCR experience high unemployment; 22.3 per cent of 16-24-year olds
are unemployment, whilst the number of 16-18 years olds not in education, employment or
training (NEET) is over 3,700.10
2.13 7.4 per cent of the population in the SCR is claiming Employment Support
Allowance/Incapacity Benefits, and 1.4 per cent is receiving disability benefits; this is above
the national average (6.3% and 1.1% respectively).11
Growth Hub
2.14 All LEPs in England have a Growth Hub; they join up national and local business support to
enable businesses to access the support they require. The SCR Growth Hub aims to provide
‘world class’ business support within the LEP region. It is intended to act as a single point of
contact that will provide brokerage to growth services, enabling all entrepreneurs and
businesses within the region to access quality support provision.
2.15 The SCR Growth Hub offers business support across six themed areas, known as strands.
These are: access to finance; skills and training; innovation; export; start-up; and growth
demand. Support is either provided by a team of business advisors at the Growth Hub, or
businesses are signposted to the most appropriate support in the region.
2.16 The SEE project is designed to complement the SCR Growth Hub. The SEE ERDF application
form outlined how the project intended for Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to be
developed to define the relationship between the Growth Hub and SEE project. It also
outlined how the Growth Hub would be expected to refer on all social enterprises to the SEE
9
10
Etherington D. & Jones M. (2016) Devolution and Disadvantage in the Sheffield City Region
11
Etherington D. & Jones M. (2016) Devolution and Disadvantage in the Sheffield City Region

9 October 2017
project, and that the SEE project would refer all business support enquires that fall outside
of the scope of social enterprise support to the Growth Hub.
SEE project
2.17 The project has three delivery strands (strands A, B, and C), which are underpinned by a
project management framework for partnership working, progress monitoring and
evaluation (strand D). The delivery structure is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
2.18 Strand A focuses on promotion and pre-engagement activities, which include targeted
promotion, outreach and recruitment. This strand acts as an entry point to either Strand B or
C; determined by a pre-engagement business diagnostic. Strand B is for start-up social
enterprises and offers each beneficiary an intensive two-day workshop aimed to support
start-ups develop their business idea, specialist advice and support, and access to start-up
grants. Whilst Strand C is focused on supporting existing social enterprises with evidence of
growth potential, through the provision of specialist ‘bespoke’ social enterprise advice,
access to social enterprise incubation space, marketing and promotional support, and the
opportunity to apply for development grants.
Figure 2.1: SEE Strand Overview
Target beneficiaries
2.19 The project targets new social entrepreneurs and existing social enterprises with growth
potential. It is open to beneficiaries throughout the SCR, but prioritises the growth sectors;
areas with low levels of enterprise activity; groups facing social and economic disadvantage;
and businesses showing potential for enterprise growth, sustainability and job creation.
2.20 The project ERDF application form states that:

11 October 2017
4. Initial implementation of the SEE project
Overview
4.1 This section summarises the rationale for setting up the SEE project, how the consortium
was developed and its initial implementation, the activities delivered by the SEE project, and
partnership working.
Rationale for the project
4.2 The Sheffield City Region (SCR) had been subject to periods of high levels of enterprise
support, however, organisations delivering this support were reliant on cyclical European
funding, often resulting in gaps and confusion for individuals/businesses requiring this
support.
4.3 The SCR was characterised by an enterprise deficit. This was indicated by a low business
density, and a low propensity of the local population to start a business. Therefore, by
specifically targeting under-represented groups and pre-start-ups, the SEE project has the
potential to reduce the deficit. It was identified that the project could complement the
activities delivered by the Growth Hub, by providing access to a specific social enterprise
offer. Although, social enterprises share many of the same challenges as other businesses,
partners acknowledged that due the social enterprise business model, specialist advice and
support is required.
4.4 Community Media (CM) Solutions had been informed by the SCR Local Enterprise
Partnership (LEP) that a consortium-led delivery model would be LEP’s preferred approach to
supporting social enterprises, and that the consortium should demonstrate how the project
would lead to sustainable outcomes. Partners were positive about the consortium approach
as they felt it would promote joint working between partners, and enable a more diverse
support offer to be delivered.
Developing the consortium
4.5 A call for proposals under European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Priority Axis 3
(Enhancing the Competitiveness of Small and Medium sized Enterprises) went out on the 10
December 2015, and closed on the 29 January 2016. Projects had to contribute to the
objectives of Priority Axis 3, and one or more relevant Investment Priorities; deliver support
specifically to social enterprises; and meet the local development need (see above).

12 October 2017
4.6 The call for proposals outlined how activities delivered by a project had to be closely aligned
and compliment the activities delivered by the Growth Hub. The call clearly encouraged the
development of consortia to deliver the project – “applicants are encouraged to work on a
consortium basis in order to provide high quality business growth support for the social and
community enterprise sector.” The benefits of a consortium as a vehicle to deliver support
was recognised by the consortium.
“As a partnership we are able to offer a more diverse mix of support.”
Project partner
4.7 The LEP arranged a workshop in January for interested applicants and CM Solutions used this
to make an open call for partners to join a consortium under development with the proviso
that full partners in the consortium would need to be in a position to bring to the project at
least £50,000 in match funding from their own resources. CM Solutions previous experience
of managing similar projects, and existing relationships with partners, encouraged
organisations to sign-up to the project. One partner described how they previously worked
with CM Solutions, and that their effective monitoring procedures and management
approach made the organisation want to work with them again.
4.8 Eight partners (including CM Solutions) agreed to be a part of the consortium bid and the
initial outline application was developed and submitted. Later, due to changes in staffing
internally, Voluntary Action Sheffield decided to no longer be involved. Although partners
recognised the external nature of this factor, it was recognised that it temporarily had a
negative effect on the commitment of partners. However, partners agreed that Voluntary
Action Sheffield’s decision had not negatively impacted delivery as the project, as it still has a
strong consortium presence in Sheffield. Further to this, one partner felt that it had a
positive impact on the project, as it meant the consortium was less Sheffield centric.
4.9 Overall, partners were positive with the process for completing the ERDF application. Partner
meeting were held, and draft copies of the application form were disseminated to the
consortium to comment and provide input.
“We definitely felt that we were very much consulted and part of the whole application
process.”
Project partner
4.10 It was felt that CM solutions successfully matched partners specialisms and experience with
delivery strands. As number of partners had previously worked together, and had experience
of delivering similar projects, collectively they were able to develop a strong bid.

13 October 2017
“Good balance of skill and practice, over a wide geography.”
Project partner
Initial implementation
4.11 It was intended for the project to be delivered over a 36-month timescale, from July 2016 to
June 2019. Although the project was agreed in principle with the DCLG, CM Solutions did not
receive official sign-off until 23 November 2016. Despite this, the consortium proceeded
with delivery at risk, to prevent a delay having a negative impact on project performance.
This was at a slower pace than originally intended due to a more cautious approach to
expenditure and commitment of staff to deliver at risk. The consortium began holding
monthly partnership meetings in April 2016 after receiving verbal confirmation of
acceptance of the Outline Application from the DCLG. Early meetings of the group were
focused on considering and approving consortium policies, and full application document;
and developing the marketing strategy, reporting documents and subcontracts.”
4.12 Despite the contract still not being signed, the consortium officially launched the project on
the 29 October, which was followed by a series of roadshow events. Although activity
commenced, the delay in signing the contract meant that some partners did not have
sufficient capacity to deliver the activities from the initial outset. As would be expected,
partners were reluctant to advertise for new staff, where needed, when a contract was not
in place.
Activities delivered by SEE
4.13 As previously mentioned, activities delivered through the project are structured under four
strands (see below). This analysis has been informed by discussions with project delivery
partners and beneficiaries.
Strand A: Marketing and Promotion
4.14 On the whole, partners were relatively positive about the overall effectiveness of the
project’s marketing and promotional activities. All partners felt that the launch conference
held on the 20 October 2016 was a success. This half day event provided attendees the
opportunity to find out more about SEE, to discuss the challenges and opportunities for
social enterprise, to hear about local social enterprise success stories, and to network. The
subsequent roadshow events held in Bolsover, Chesterfield, Bassetlaw, North East
Derbyshire, and Derbyshire Dales, were also viewed positively, particularly as they helped to
demonstrated that SEE was not a Sheffield centric project. These events were important for

14 October 2017
informing the SCR of the project and for developing an initial pipeline of potential
beneficiaries.
4.15 The project has produced a wealth of marketing materials including: 1,000 flyers, 1,000 pens,
and 50 posters. These have been distributed to libraries, community centres, and partner
organisations, as well as being disseminated at events. Digital marketing of the project is
now beginning to gain traction through the website (although delayed), Twitter, and
Facebook.
4.16 The website went live in tandem with the SEE launch conference. However, initially this was
a single page brochure and did not provide the functionality or content originally envisaged.
Despite this, the website hosted a form which individuals could complete to register their
interest in the project. This was a key contributing factor in the creation of a healthy
pipeline. In the first three months, since the launch of the project, 38 per cent of referrals
were via the website, 42 per cent were through the conference and roadshows, and 10 per
cent were via the Growth Hub (with the remainder through partners and third parties).
4.17 A key challenge with marketing the project has been being able to clearly communicate the
offer of support. This is particularly the case for the ‘Transform’ strand as its delivery
approach tends to be more bespoke, i.e. on a one-to-one basis; whilst for ‘Accelerate’ most
beneficiaries attend a two-day workshop before beginning their support journey. This view
was reflected in discussions with beneficiaries, with a number describing how it was not
clear from the marketing what support was available through the project. One beneficiary
suggested that it would be beneficial for a list outlining the support available to be
developed.
“The difficulty behind the promotion is that all the support is very bespoke. You can’t
advertise what it is because it is many things to many different people.”
Project partner
4.18 To enrol on the project, individuals seeking support complete a diagnostic assessment with a
specialist advisor from one of the partner organisations to determine their eligibility and
support needs. This is undertaken in a three-hour consultation, usually divided over two
face-to-face meetings. The second meeting results in the production of an action plan which
outlines how the project can support the beneficiary, either through the Accelerate or
Transform strand.
4.19 Partners acknowledged that there was a large pipeline of potential beneficiaries, and some
questioned the capacity of the consortium to effectively engage with these individuals. Some
partners described how there had been a lag between the delivery of the initial diagnostic
sessions and beneficiaries accessing support. This has the potential to result in beneficiaries

15 October 2017
disengaging from the project. This concern seems to be justifiable; one beneficiary did not
want to be involved in the evaluation as they did not feel like they had received any support,
whilst two other beneficiaries described how although they had their needs effectively
identified they had not received any subsequent support.
I’ve had no support after the initial meeting, this has delayed decision making, and we have
had to just get on with business”
Project beneficiary
4.20 Other beneficiaries, that had received support, referred to the speed at which the support is
delivered, noting that it could benefit from being timelier as this was impacting the progress
of businesses.
“Support has peaked and troughed; contact was very good at the beginning but then
slowed down.”
Project beneficiary
4.21 Partners agreed that Sheffield Local Television’s involvement in the consortium adds
considerable value to marketing of the project, as well promoting the activities of
beneficiaries. Sheffield Local Television offers a TV and radio platform for the project,
helping to extend its marketing reach. Regular interviews with social entrepreneurs have
been aired both via radio and television. This is helping to increase the awareness of social
enterprises within the SCR.
“Such a lot of really amazing work happening out there…Sheffield Local Television’s
activities means we can make a lot more noise about it.”
Project partner
4.22 Further to this, Sheffield Local Television has recently employed a marketing and strategy
specialist who is providing information, advice and guidance (IAG) to beneficiaries,
supporting them to develop marketing strategies, and delivering social media training.
4.23 Since the launch and roadshow events, a series of LunchPlus events have been delivered.
Each event is focused on a different theme (e.g. using digital technology for social outcomes,
housing, food, and transport). These have experienced good attendance levels and positive

16 October 2017
feedback from beneficiaries has been received. Beneficiaries have found these events useful
for networking with social enterprises with similar interests.
4.24 Although events have been well received, some partners questioned whether the SEE
project was effectively increasing awareness and understanding of social enterprise in the
SCR. One partner stated that they had not supported anyone that they would not have
normally supported.
4.25 The initial marketing strategy was focused on the launch of the project; now there is a
healthy pipeline there is a need to consider focusing on increasing awareness and reaching
disadvantaged groups.
Needs of social enterprises in the SCR
4.26 The project targets both pre-start-ups and existing businesses. Partners described how the
needs of these groups differed and therefore the type of support required.
4.27 For pre-start/start-ups support needs identified includes:
• understanding finance (availability and how to obtain it);
• legal and governance options; and
• business modelling (taking an idea and creating a viable social enterprise).
4.28 Whilst for existing businesses support needs identified included:
• Marketing, particularly around social media (how to use the tools and strategy
development);
• moving away from a reliance on grants towards a greater focus on sustainability; and
• support developing new products and services.
4.29 One partner described how for existing businesses, there was acknowledgement that they
were successful at delivering social outcomes but required support in delivering more
sustainable business models, which are not reliant on accessing external funding.
Strand B: Accelerate
4.30 Beneficiaries enrolled on the Accelerate programme described how they sought general
social enterprise business support, this including advice around governance, structure,
developing a business plan, funding strategies, and general support to increase
sustainability.
4.31 Most beneficiaries enrolled onto the Accelerate strand, begin their support journey by
attending a two-day intensive ‘Accelerator workshop’. This equates to 12 hours of support

17 October 2017
and results in the achievement of a contracted output. Workshop attendees are supported
to develop existing enterprise ideas and identify ways to improve their business cases,
informing a tailored action plan.
4.32 Partners felt that the workshops had worked well and had been adjusted in response to
feedback from beneficiaries. It was suggested that as a consortium they may need consider
when the workshops are delivered. Currently, the workshops are held in the day however,
this may restrict attendance by those who are working or have childcare commitments. It
may be worthwhile exploring interest in evening and weekend sessions.
4.33 The workshops are designed to test attendees’ business models, and therefore acts as a tool
to identify those ideas that are likely to result in the creation of a social enterprise. The
intensity of this approach needs to be reviewed, as the workshops have resulted in some
attendees deciding that they no longer want to pursue setting up a social enterprise. This
could also be impacted by attendees’ previous experience and understanding of social
enterprise. One beneficiary, who attended the Accelerate workshop, described how
attendees were all at different stages and therefore had different support requirements. This
beneficiary suggested that one-to-one support would be more suitable initially, and should
focus on preparing the beneficiary for the workshop. This would ensure beneficiaries all have
the same baseline understanding of social enterprise and are at a similar stage in terms of
support requirements when they attend.
4.34 Having attended the workshops, beneficiaries then have access to one-to-one follow-up
support. Figure 3.1, below, is a case study which illustrates the variety of support that a
beneficiary has received through the Accelerate strand.
4.35 Accelerate beneficiaries have the opportunity to apply for start-ups grants, and access
incubation space. See the Grant and Incubator sub-sections below for further detail.

18 October 2017
Figure 3.1: Face2Face, Case Study

20 October 2017
Figure 3.2: The Suit Works, Case Study

21 October 2017
Figure 3.3: Reach Homes, Case Study

22 October 2017
Grants
4.40 The project offers grants through both the Accelerate and Transform strands. However, the
grant scheme has yet to gain momentum with a low number of applicants and applications
submitted by ineligible applications. One beneficiary described how they found the
application form to be confusing and required additional support to complete it.
4.41 The success of the grant scheme will be explored in more detail in subsequent evaluation
activities.
Incubators
4.42 There have been some delays in commissioning organisations to deliver the incubation
support. Four incubators have been procured to provide additional support for social
enterprise start-up growth.12
Local organisations have been awarded the contracts based on
their ability to provide a range of place-based business support services, including hot desks,
co-working and grow-on space, access to ICTs, client mentoring and first line support,
hosting of project related meetings and events.
4.43 Incubators will be expected to contribute to the SEE project’s ERDF output targets, including
business starts, business assists, and jobs created. These will be achieved through the
recruitment of beneficiaries and through the delivery of mentoring and support.
4.44 The extent to which incubation space was needed was questioned by some of the partners.
VAB already has hot-desking space, but it had not had any take-up from the beneficiaries.
The need for this service will be explored in subsequent evaluation activities.
4.45 The procurement of these incubators has increased the geographic diversity of delivery
locations. It is hoped that the incubators will assist the project in reaching out to
disadvantaged areas and under-represented groups who may not have considered social
enterprise, or had but did not know where they could access support.
4.46 Doncaster CVS has closed and therefore there is no longer a central location or hub for social
enterprises to connect with and receive support. There is a sense that social enterprises
within this area are feeling isolated. As the consortium does not have a Doncaster-based
12
Four incubators were procured and had service level agreements in place at the time of fieldwork. These
were: Bassetlaw community and voluntary service; Kiveton Park and Wales Community Development Trust;
Loundsley Green Community Trust; and Regather cooperative limited.

23 October 2017
partner, it would be beneficial to explore the chance for incubation space to be
commissioned, and outreach events held in this area.
Strand D – Project Management
4.47 All partners were positive regarding the overall management of the project by CM solutions.
The monitoring and evaluation requirements were viewed as appropriate. It helped that
several partners had previously been involved in the delivery of similar projects and
therefore already had appropriate monitoring systems in place.
4.48 There is an SEE management group which has representation from each of the partners, as
well as strand sub-groups. Not all partners felt that the purpose of each group was clear, nor
who should be in attendance.
4.49 There is a sense that partners were meeting too often and this was leading to fatigue.
Partners felt that the frequency of meetings were suitable for the initial implementation of
the project, however, now there is a need for greater focus on delivery. Some partners were
also disappointed in the length of time between meetings and minutes being circulated.
“The number of meetings are onerous and slightly unnecessary.”
Project partner
Partnership working
4.50 For the most part, partners believe the consortium approach is working and partners are
generally working well together. Several of the partners have previous experience of working
together and therefore relationships have already been built. Although these relationships
are a strength of the consortium, some partners noted that this has led to unintended
impacts, in that it has resulted in some partners being reluctant to question the performance
of others and therefore has reduced accountability.
“The partners have known each other for a long time and do not want to upset one
another…it feels like they do not want to rock the boat.”
Project partner
4.51 Five of the seven partners are responsible for leading activities. It was felt that there was a
need to clarify the roles and expectations of consortium partners, and for greater emphasis
to be placed on collaboration and the sharing of responsibility between the leads and

25 October 2017
5. Beneficiary feedback data
5.1 This section presents data from the evaluation feedback forms collected from attendees13
at
the following events:
• SEE launch event (conference)
• Six SEE Roadshow events
• Three Accelerate workshops
• Four LunchPlus events
Launch event
5.2 The launch event was held on the 20 October at the Creative Lounge Sheffield. 82 delegates
had booked onto the event and there were 29 ‘no-shows’, resulting in 53 attendees (65%
attendance rate). 26 delegates completed the evaluation form (49% of attendees).
5.3 All respondents were positive about the content of the workshops (Figure 4.1). 96 per cent
of the respondents described the content of the workshops as ‘Very Good’ (38%) or ‘Good’
(58%), whilst the remaining four per cent described the content as ‘Fair’.
13
The conference, roadshow and Lunch Plus events are part of Strand A (promotion and pre-engagement) and
therefore are accessible to existing SEE clients, as well as members of the public that may be interested in
engaging. The Accelerate workshops are only accessible to SEE clients – this is mainly those receiving support
through the Accelerate strand but can also include those supported through the Transform strand where it
was deemed that they could also benefit from intensive business modelling support.

26 October 2017
Figure 4.1: Content of the workshop
Base: 26
Source: Carney Green, 2017
5.4 Figure 4.2 shows that all respondents found the style of the workshops to be ‘Good’ (69%) or
‘Very Good’ (31%).
Figure 4.2: Style of workshops
Base: 26

27 October 2017
5.5 Respondents described how the workshops had provided them with useful techniques that
they could utilise in the future and that they felt inspired. Respondents suggested that the
style of the workshops could incorporate more opportunities for open discussions, to
facilitate networking and collaboration opportunities at an earlier stage in the project.
SEE Roadshow events
5.6 Roadshow events were held in six different locations across the SCR. The individual locations,
times and attendance rates for each of these events are detailed below:
• The Barnsley roadshow workshop was held on the 23 November. 19 individuals had
booked on the event, and there were 14 attendees (four of these had not booked onto
the event). This represents a 53 per cent attendance rate. Seven evaluation forms (50%
of attendees) were filled out at the event.
• The Bassetlaw roadshow was held on the 30 November. 13 individuals had booked on
the event, and there were eight attendees (three of these had not booked onto the
event). This represents a 31 per cent attendance rate. Six evaluation forms (75% of
attendees) were filled out at the event.
• The Bolsover roadshow was held on the 29 November. 15 individuals had booked onto
the event, and there were 17 attendees (five of these had not booked onto the event).
14 evaluation forms (82% of attendees) were filled out at the event.
• The Chesterfield roadshow was held on the 28 November. 22 individuals had booked
onto the event, and there were 19 attendees (two of these had not booked onto the
event). 17 evaluation forms (89% of attendees) were filled out at the event.
• The Doncaster roadshow was held on 22nd
November. Eight individuals had booked onto
the event, and there were eight attendees (none of these had not booked onto the
event). Five evaluation forms (63% of attendees) were filled out at the event.
• The Rotherham roadshow was held on the 14 November. 18 individuals had booked
onto the event, and there were 21 attendees (four of these had not booked onto the
event). Eight evaluation forms (38% of attendees) were filled out at the event.
5.7 A total of 87 delegates attended the six events. 57 delegates completed an evaluation form,
representing 66 per cent of delegates who attended the sessions.
5.8 Figure 4.3 shows that 93 per cent of delegates rated the content of the workshop as either
‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ and the remaining seven per cent rated the workshops content as
‘Fair’.

28 October 2017
5.9 Figure 4.4 shows that all delegates who completed an evaluation form positively described
the style of workshops. A total of 91 per cent of the respondents rated the workshop as
either ‘Good’ (45%) or ‘Very Good’ (46%). The remaining nine per cent rated the style of the
workshop as fair. There were zero negative responses.
5.10 The main qualitative feedback on the sessions stated that the content, especially the use of
case studies, was very informative and had given attendees the necessary techniques to use
in the future. Other comments stated that the use of complicated terminology was
sometimes hard to follow for the less experienced attendees. In addition, some respondents
suggested that it would have been useful for the roadshow events to conclude by informing
the attendees of the next steps for the project (e.g. what support they would be able to
access moving forward).
Figure 4.3: Content of workshops
Base: 57

29 October 2017
Figure 4.4: Style of workshops
Base: 57
Accelerate workshops
5.11 Accelerate workshops are delivered across the SCR region, evaluation feedback forms have
been provided for three workshops. Details for each workshop are provided below:
• The Chesterfield Accelerate workshops were held on the 6 and 7 March. 23 individuals
had booked onto the event. Data was not provided on the number of attendees. 18
evaluation forms were filled out at the event.
• The Rotherham Accelerate workshop was held on the 14 and 15 June. 24 individuals had
booked onto the event and there were 24 attendees (two attendees had not booked
on). This represents a 92 per cent attendance rate. 19 evaluation forms (79% of
attendees) were filled out at the event.
• The Doncaster Accelerate workshop was held on the 10 and 11 May. 19 individuals were
booked onto the event and there were 13 attendees (none of these had not booked
onto the event). 12 evaluation forms (63% of attendees) were filled out at the event.
5.12 Over the three events, 49 delegates completed an evaluation form.

5 October 2017
2. Background
Overview
2.1 This section summarises the key background information relating to the SEE formative
project evaluation. Specifically, it covers: defining a social enterprise, the challenges faced by
social enterprises, the project’s relevance within the SCR and an overview of the SEE project.
Social enterprise
2.2 The SEE project defines a social enterprise as “A business with primarily social/environmental
objectives, whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or
community rather than mainly being paid to shareholders and owners.”1
This is based on the
Cabinet Office’s definition, which is widely used in the UK.2
2.3 In 2014, it was estimated that there was a total of 741,000 social enterprises in the UK, this
represented an increase of 8.5 per cent since 2012.3
In 2014, the social enterprise sector
employed approximately 2.7 million people, representing a 15.2 per cent growth (300,000)
since 2012.4
2.4 Social Enterprises cover a wide geographic area and are significantly more likely than SMEs
to operate in the most deprived areas of the UK. They also function across a diverse range of
sectors, most commonly food and accommodation, retail and health. The public sector is a
key market and source of income for social enterprises, particularly for those operating in
the most deprived communities.
1
SEE (2016) Full Application Form
2
Cabinet Office (2006) Social enterprise action plan: Scaling new heights
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070108124358/http:/cabinetoffice.gov.uk/third_sector/docume
nts/social_enterprise/se_action_plan_2006.pdf
3
Cabinet Office (2016) Social Enterprise: Market Trends, Based upon the BIS Small Business Survey 2014
4
ibid

32 October 2017
Output performance data
5.19 This section is based on management information taken from the SEE project’s fourth claim
(April to June 2017). Table 5.1, below, shows current performance (actual) compared to
cumulative (up to 30/06/2017), and forecast to 30/06/2017.
5.20 The project is either achieving or overachieving on all project outputs, apart from C2
(number of enterprises receiving grants) and C6 (private investment matching public support
to enterprises). There have been some challenges in the implementation of the grants
scheme (see section 3), this relates to the readiness of beneficiaries to apply and ineligible
beneficiaries applying. The Claim 4 progress report outlined that a second call for grant
applications has been made and it is expected that grants will be awarded in Quarter 3 of
2017 (July to September) and included in Claim 5.
Table 5.1: Claim 4 (April to June 2017) output data
Output Actual this
quarter
Cumulative to
30/06/2017
Forecast to
30/06/2017
Variance
C1: Number of enterprises receiving
support
4 13 8 +5
grants
0 0 5 -5
non-financial support
4 15 10 +5
C5: Number of new enterprises support 1 6 0 +6
C6: Private investment matching public
support to enterprises (grants)
0 0 £5,600 -£5,600
P11: Number of potential entrepreneurs
assisted to be enterprise ready
12 26 20 +6
P13: Number of enterprises receiving
information, diagnostic and brokerage
support
21 41 10 +31

33 October 2017
6. Overall project performance
6.1 This section summarises findings under the three monitoring themes: results orientated,
output, and process monitoring. The subsequent interim and final evaluation will explore key
themes within social enterprise (covering demand and supply).
6.2 This section comments on current performance data. Project delivery will continue until June
2019, with zero new beneficiaries being engaged from December 2018. Therefore,
performance against the monitoring themes will continue to be monitored and reviewed in
subsequent reports.
Results monitoring
6.3 The project is promoting entrepreneurship (3a) and supporting the sustainability of existing
enterprises (3c). The launch conference and subsequent roadshow events were viewed as a
success and provided attendees with the opportunity to hear about the project, learn about
social enterprise, and network with peer organisations. Although the launch conference and
roadshow events seemed more targeted at existing entrepreneurs or those already aware of
social enterprise, the work of Sheffield Local Television is helping to communicate the
benefits and impact of social enterprise in the SCR.
6.4 Although awareness of social enterprise is likely to be increasing, more work is required to
reach out to those that may not have considered setting up a social enterprise and those
that may face barriers to engagement (under-represented groups). It is hoped that the
procurement of incubators will support this through reaching out to their local communities
and working with under-representative groups.
6.5 Existing social enterprises are receiving specialist, tailored, support through the Transform
strand which has included: specialist social media support, support developing marketing
and communicating strategies, the opportunity to create video productions for marketing,
and building/place-based support. Sheffield Local Television and CIQA have been able to use
their specialist expertise to deliver these activities on a one-to-one basis. It is the intention
that this support will support these enterprises grow and become more sustainable, and this
was evidenced through engagement with beneficiaries. Further to this, advisors have been
able to work with enterprises to review their business models to deliver more sustainable
approaches.

34 October 2017
Output monitoring
6.6 The project has met most of its contracted outputs for Claim 4 (Quarter 2 of 2017). It is
currently underperforming on the number of enterprises receiving grants. At this stage,
however, current performance has not affected output forecast compared to contracted
outputs.
Process monitoring
6.7 A summary of findings against each of the delivery strands is provided below (Table 6.1 to
6.4), in terms of their: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. Sustainability of each
strand will be considered in subsequent evaluations.
Table 6.1: Strand A: Marketing and Promotion
Strand A: Marketing and promotion
Relevance
The launch conference and roadshow event enabled the project to
effectively market the project and gain traction during initial implementation
which supported the development of the initial pipeline.
The project website is more accessible to those that already knowledgeable
of social enterprise. To increase the relevance of the marketing approach
more needs to be done to engage with those that have not previously
considered social enterprises or face barriers to engagement.
The project has a large pipeline, and therefore the marketing approach
needs to change focus from engaging beneficiaries to promoting social
enterprise in the SCR region. This is to ensure that capacity of the partners to
deliver the support is not negatively affected.
Effectiveness
The project has effectively engaged with enterprises and is meeting
contracted outputs for this stage.
Efficiency
The website reaching full-functionality was delayed however, individuals
who wanted to understand more about the project could submit a form
online to register their interest. In order to further raise awareness of the
project, social media (Facebook and Twitter) was utilised, as well as radio
and film coverage through Sheffield Local Television.
Impact The work of Sheffield Local Television has helped to promote social
enterprises and the work they are undertaking in the region. By delivering

35 October 2017
roadshow events, the project demonstrated that it was not Sheffield centric
which supported engagement from outside the city.
Table 6.2: Strand B: Accelerate
Strand B: Accelerate
Relevance
The Accelerator workshops have worked well and have been adjusted to
ensure they are relevant to the needs of beneficiaries.
Over 90 per cent of workshop attendees described the content of the
workshops as either good or very good.14
Effectiveness
The project is currently meeting its targets for engaging with new
enterprises.
Over 90 per cent of workshop attendees described the workshops as either
good or very good.
The project is currently underperforming in the number of new enterprises
receiving grants.
The intensity of the workshops may be having a negative effect on the
ongoing engagement of beneficiaries and subsequent achievement of output
targets. Beneficiaries spoke of how workshop attendees had varied levels of
understanding of social enterprise, and were at different stages in their
enterprise journey. This could result in a reduction in the overall
effectiveness of the workshop approach.
Efficiency
The workshop approach supports the achievement of C1: Number of
enterprises receiving support as this combined with the in initial diagnostic
equates to 12 hours of support. This is more cost-efficient approach than
delivering one-to-one support, however, its success may be limited by the
range of beneficiaries in attendance (e.g. level of social enterprise
understanding and stage in enterprise journey).
Impact The workshops have provided beneficiaries with the opportunity to network
14
Based on responses from 49 attendees

36 October 2017
with others interested in social enterprise.
Table 6.3: Strand C: Transform
Strand C: Transform
Relevance
This strand aims to provide specialist and bespoke advice to existing social
enterprises, therefore it is relevant that most of this support is delivered on
a one-to-one basis.
The consortium includes partners that have specialist expertise which is used
to support the development of these enterprises.
The LunchPlus events are theme specific, which helps attract attendees that
are interested in a specific subject matter, and promotes networking
between similar enterprises.
Effectiveness
The consortium has enabled established social enterprises to access
specialist and tailored support.
There has only been one call for the grants scheme in this period. This
resulted in one Accelerate Grant awarded and one Transform Grant
(conditionally) awarded. Adjustments were made to the process and
communication used for the second call launched in June.
Efficiency
Although most of support has been delivered on a one-to-one basis, some
masterclass events have also been held. These have been informed by the
collective needs/interests of social enterprises. It is more efficient to address
these collective needs/interests (e.g. capital development) in a group
session, rather than on a one-to-one basis.
Impact
Access to technical support has had a big impact on existing social
enterprises, and it is hoped that this will support their sustainable growth
moving forward. Whilst access to other social enterprises through LunchPlus
events has enabled them to expand their networks and learn from one
another.

37 October 2017
Table 6.4: Strand D: Transform
Strand D: Project management and evaluation
Relevance
Partners viewed the monitoring and evaluation requirements to be
appropriate to the project. The requirements were in line with similar
projects they had previously delivered, and therefore relevant systems and
processes were already in place to collect this data.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the project management and sub-group meetings could
be improved. Partners do not feel there is clarity on the purpose of the sub-
group meetings, and a delay in dissemination of meeting minutes reduces
effectiveness and accountability.
Efficiency
Partners feel that now that the project is established, they are ‘over’
meeting which is resulting in a reduction in efficiency.
Impact
The clear monitoring and reporting requirements have had a positive impact
on this strand.

Social Enterprise Exchange - Formative Evaluation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Social Enterprise Exchange - Formative Evaluation

Similar to Social Enterprise Exchange - Formative Evaluation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (12)

Social Enterprise Exchange - Formative Evaluation