Local Economic Growth What Works Centre
Lead Research Organisation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Department Name: Geography and Environment
Abstract
The What Works Centre aims to significantly improve the use of evidence in the design and delivery of policies for local economic growth and employment leading to more effective policies and policymaking in these areas.
To achieve this aim the Centre will bring together leading experts from three different institutions: the London School of Economics, Centre for Cities and Arup. LSE would lead the Centre, coordinating the work of all three partners. It would ensure the Centre's independence and oversee the work of an academic panel providing world-class expertise to ensure the Centre's work is robust and rigorous, and viewed as such by users. CfC would lead on engagement, drawing on many years' experience working with local actors, plus extensive networks and contacts, to ensure that users are able to access and use the work of the Centre. Arup would lead on evidence-gathering and synthesis, drawing on expertise in evaluation, best practice review, developing best practice guidance, and project management. They would work with the academic panel to ensure timely delivery of robust evidence reviews that will constitute the Centre's core written outputs.
We believe that the immediate, year one, priorities of the Centre should be to i) identify key policy interventions where there is sufficient evidence to properly assess effectiveness; ii) undertake systematic reviews to rank these interventions; iii) ensure that the findings are accessible to policy makers. To deliver these immediate priorities we will develop a transparent methodology to rank interventions relevant to local economic growth; conduct a systematic assessment of the existing evidence base, and develop an online toolkit allowing users to compare interventions ranked using a common currency.
In the medium term (years two to three), the Centre will focus on developing effective knowledge exchange and capacity-building, using our evidence base and engagement tools. We will aim to i) ensure that the evidence base is used to improve policy making; ii) further enhance the policy areas covered by of the evidence base (responding to user feedback and emerging needs). We will do this through promoting the benefits of good monitoring and evaluation; developing guidance for public sector policymakers; and working with a small number of leading local actors to develop best practice and guidance for others.
The longer term aims of the Centre are to ensure that evidence is widely used in the development of policy, to ensure that new policies are effectively evaluated and that individuals and organisations have the capacity to feed the findings back into future policy development. Realistically, these long term aims can be partially but not fully achieved within the initial three years of funding. To help secure these longer-term goals, we will work with local and central government to improve data management; partner with selected local actors to develop demonstration projects; and identify outstanding research gaps and funding opportunities to fill these.
To ensure that the work of the Centre is useful to, and thus used by, policy makers the Centre will operate as an open, flexible, learning organisation. We will develop mechanisms to allow users to help shape the Centre's priorities and development; and expand and update our evidence base to reflect changing needs and new evidence that emerges.
We will also actively participate in the What Works network, working with the National Advisor to develop the network and common standards, working to achieve accreditation and participating in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the What Works network.
To achieve this aim the Centre will bring together leading experts from three different institutions: the London School of Economics, Centre for Cities and Arup. LSE would lead the Centre, coordinating the work of all three partners. It would ensure the Centre's independence and oversee the work of an academic panel providing world-class expertise to ensure the Centre's work is robust and rigorous, and viewed as such by users. CfC would lead on engagement, drawing on many years' experience working with local actors, plus extensive networks and contacts, to ensure that users are able to access and use the work of the Centre. Arup would lead on evidence-gathering and synthesis, drawing on expertise in evaluation, best practice review, developing best practice guidance, and project management. They would work with the academic panel to ensure timely delivery of robust evidence reviews that will constitute the Centre's core written outputs.
We believe that the immediate, year one, priorities of the Centre should be to i) identify key policy interventions where there is sufficient evidence to properly assess effectiveness; ii) undertake systematic reviews to rank these interventions; iii) ensure that the findings are accessible to policy makers. To deliver these immediate priorities we will develop a transparent methodology to rank interventions relevant to local economic growth; conduct a systematic assessment of the existing evidence base, and develop an online toolkit allowing users to compare interventions ranked using a common currency.
In the medium term (years two to three), the Centre will focus on developing effective knowledge exchange and capacity-building, using our evidence base and engagement tools. We will aim to i) ensure that the evidence base is used to improve policy making; ii) further enhance the policy areas covered by of the evidence base (responding to user feedback and emerging needs). We will do this through promoting the benefits of good monitoring and evaluation; developing guidance for public sector policymakers; and working with a small number of leading local actors to develop best practice and guidance for others.
The longer term aims of the Centre are to ensure that evidence is widely used in the development of policy, to ensure that new policies are effectively evaluated and that individuals and organisations have the capacity to feed the findings back into future policy development. Realistically, these long term aims can be partially but not fully achieved within the initial three years of funding. To help secure these longer-term goals, we will work with local and central government to improve data management; partner with selected local actors to develop demonstration projects; and identify outstanding research gaps and funding opportunities to fill these.
To ensure that the work of the Centre is useful to, and thus used by, policy makers the Centre will operate as an open, flexible, learning organisation. We will develop mechanisms to allow users to help shape the Centre's priorities and development; and expand and update our evidence base to reflect changing needs and new evidence that emerges.
We will also actively participate in the What Works network, working with the National Advisor to develop the network and common standards, working to achieve accreditation and participating in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the What Works network.
Planned Impact
In addition to the funders, a wide range of stakeholders, particularly in local and central government are expected to benefit from the Centre's work.
The main users of the Centre's work will be Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Local Authorities (LAs) in England, with LAs the main users in the rest of the UK. Within LEPs, the main individual users will be LEP Boards and Chairs, plus supporting officials. Inside LAs, the main users will be officers working on economic development, plus senior officials and Councillors with relevant portfolios.
The Centre will also need to work with regional bodies, such as the South West Regional Observatory and the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Economic Intelligence Unit; with housing providers, especially larger social landlords; and with central government, such as DCLG, BIS, HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, DfT and DWP in England; the Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Executive, and the Welsh Assembly Government.
The Centre's main users face a number of challenges in the coming years. Under localism, LA, LEPs and other local actors will 1) receive greater policy and financial powers. But they will also 2) be expected develop new partnerships with each other and with the private sector; and they will 3) face substantial resource constraints. Further, users' capacity and experience to 4) effectively design and deliver economic growth policies, and to 5) work across organisational / spatial boundaries varies hugely across the country.
For all these reasons, the What Works Centre is needed to systematically evaluate evidence; effectively communicate this to users; engage users and build their capacity; lay the foundations for more effective future policy-making and evaluation; and operate in an open and flexible fashion, responding to user feedback and adjusting to meet new needs.
Users will benefit from the Centre via:
- Better, richer information on 'what works'. We will develop a comprehensive evidence base, structured around systematic evidence reviews that use a common currency to rank interventions . Users will have access to an online, interactive database, and research findings packaged in easy-to-use formats (briefings, detailed impact reviews, blog posts and email summaries) which are tailored to different user groups.
- Easier access to information. We will develop a high-quality user engagement programme, including rich web content; email lists; social media tools (blogs, twitter, LinkedIn groups); news media activity; an annual, national events programme; placements and secondments; and ad-hoc direct engagement.
- Greater capacity to design, deliver and evaluate policy. The outreach programme will help develop user communities of interest, around the User Panel, local events and online discussion. We will also run peer-to-peer training, develop a LEP Action Learning Set, work with selected LAs/LEPs on demonstration projects, and explore staff placements / secondments / exchanges.
- Stronger long-term foundations for policymaking. We will take actions to grow users' future evidence base, via demonstration projects and by working with central/local users on improving data collection. We will also actively identify research gaps, and look for funding opportunities to fill these.
- The Centre's flexibility and openness. Users will be able to influence the Centre's shape and processes from start-up onwards, via formal platforms and informally. In turn, this will help the Centre be flexible to changing user needs.
These user impacts should result in positive longer term outcomes: robust evidence will be better embedded in the development of policy, new policies will be more effectively evaluated, and findings will be fed back into future policy development. Ultimately, local economic growth policies and policymaking should become more effective.
The main users of the Centre's work will be Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and Local Authorities (LAs) in England, with LAs the main users in the rest of the UK. Within LEPs, the main individual users will be LEP Boards and Chairs, plus supporting officials. Inside LAs, the main users will be officers working on economic development, plus senior officials and Councillors with relevant portfolios.
The Centre will also need to work with regional bodies, such as the South West Regional Observatory and the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Economic Intelligence Unit; with housing providers, especially larger social landlords; and with central government, such as DCLG, BIS, HM Treasury, Cabinet Office, DfT and DWP in England; the Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Executive, and the Welsh Assembly Government.
The Centre's main users face a number of challenges in the coming years. Under localism, LA, LEPs and other local actors will 1) receive greater policy and financial powers. But they will also 2) be expected develop new partnerships with each other and with the private sector; and they will 3) face substantial resource constraints. Further, users' capacity and experience to 4) effectively design and deliver economic growth policies, and to 5) work across organisational / spatial boundaries varies hugely across the country.
For all these reasons, the What Works Centre is needed to systematically evaluate evidence; effectively communicate this to users; engage users and build their capacity; lay the foundations for more effective future policy-making and evaluation; and operate in an open and flexible fashion, responding to user feedback and adjusting to meet new needs.
Users will benefit from the Centre via:
- Better, richer information on 'what works'. We will develop a comprehensive evidence base, structured around systematic evidence reviews that use a common currency to rank interventions . Users will have access to an online, interactive database, and research findings packaged in easy-to-use formats (briefings, detailed impact reviews, blog posts and email summaries) which are tailored to different user groups.
- Easier access to information. We will develop a high-quality user engagement programme, including rich web content; email lists; social media tools (blogs, twitter, LinkedIn groups); news media activity; an annual, national events programme; placements and secondments; and ad-hoc direct engagement.
- Greater capacity to design, deliver and evaluate policy. The outreach programme will help develop user communities of interest, around the User Panel, local events and online discussion. We will also run peer-to-peer training, develop a LEP Action Learning Set, work with selected LAs/LEPs on demonstration projects, and explore staff placements / secondments / exchanges.
- Stronger long-term foundations for policymaking. We will take actions to grow users' future evidence base, via demonstration projects and by working with central/local users on improving data collection. We will also actively identify research gaps, and look for funding opportunities to fill these.
- The Centre's flexibility and openness. Users will be able to influence the Centre's shape and processes from start-up onwards, via formal platforms and informally. In turn, this will help the Centre be flexible to changing user needs.
These user impacts should result in positive longer term outcomes: robust evidence will be better embedded in the development of policy, new policies will be more effectively evaluated, and findings will be fed back into future policy development. Ultimately, local economic growth policies and policymaking should become more effective.
Publications
Waights S
(2016)
Blog - How to use our new scoring guide
What Works Centre
(2015)
Evidence Review on Broadband
What Works Centre
(2015)
Evidence Review on Estate Renewal
What Works Centre
(2015)
Business Advice Evidence Review - Case Study - Statistical Approach
What Works Centre
(2014)
Evidence Review on Employment Training
What Works Centre
(2015)
Business Advice Evidence Review - Case Study - Randomised Control Trial
What Works Centre
(2014)
Public Realm Briefing
What Works Centre
(2014)
Evidence Review on Sports and Culture
What Works Centre
(2014)
Evidence Review on Access to Finance
| Description | Our evidence reviews and toolkits highlight a huge range of key findings summarised in a way that is useful for decision makers. Here are some examples: • ABIs with local hiring conditions did bring jobs to targeted areas (although some of these jobs may be displaced from surrounding areas). Interestingly schemes with local hiring requirements were slightly more likely to create jobs in the ABI - about three quarters showed positive job creation compared to around a third of schemes without a requirement. • Export Credit Agencies are a fairly effective way to increase exports. A higher proportion of studies report positive effects compared to more costly Export Promotion Agency support. Furthermore, (cheaper) insurance provision may be more cost-effective than (more expensive) credit provision. In many cases accellerators and incubators help firms survive, but we also found some evidence that they may 'kill' more as well. This may not be a bad thing: It's plausible that this is down to programme managers helping founders identify weak ideas and kill them, allowing entrepreneurs to develop new ideas. • In addition to funding, accelerators often provide firms with intensive mentorship, networking, and co-working space. There is limited evidence on which of these have the largest effect on firm outcomes, so providers should experiment to see what configuration of these works best for them. • For incubators, targeting a specific sector produces better results for firm survival. On the other hand, networking events do not appear to be effective and providing training is only effective in areas with more competition. There is limited evidence here, however, so providers should experiment to see what configuration of these works best for them. • What is the value added of accelerator vs. incubator business models? We didn't find any studies that directly compare the two approaches. • Households in underserved areas may not use broadband even when infrastructure is provided. In this case, government may need to pursue complementary policies that make broadband more appealing if it wants to increase adoption. One study finds that complementary programmes - providing digital literacy programmes or subsidising computers - are more effective than provision programmes alone. • Neighbourhood Saturation approaches to employment support may work best for individuals that belong to highly concentrated minority ethnic groups (and within these communities women may fare much better than men). This may reflect greater spillovers within tight-knit communities and suggests that saturation may be more effective when combined with community building measures. • Congestion charging can be effective at reducing congestion, and improving air quality, based on robust studies of London, Milan, and Singapore. Our briefing on this subject can be used by cities around the world considering charging schemes. We have run dozens of workshops to help build Local Authority capacity to use evidence and undertake evaluation. As part of our broader work, we have developed advice for local authorities in disadvantaged areas. These local authorities are often among the most lacking in funding and staffing. We have taken a light touch approach to helping them make better use of evidence in their work. Collaborating with the other WWCs enabled us to look at their problems with a broad range of expertise. Simple approaches like making sure that relevant departments are signposted to evidence base may enable them to make incremental improvements in delivery. Cross WWC working with these places also produced two toolkits : • SMS reminders may be most effective at reaching those with the most chaotic lives - often most in need of LA support; • Mentors can be helpful across a range of areas, but careful consideration should be given to how the relationship is structured, as well as the lifecycle. Poorly terminated relationships can cause more harm than good. Through our evaluation projects, we identified 4 recurring barriers to completing evaluations: funding problems, ethical concerns around RCTs, fear of reporting failures, and lack of sufficient scale and take-up. We will use our stimulus fund to help address these barriers in the next phase of our work. We have also undertaken work to understand impact of existing interventions. For example, • Our work suggests that the limited and even negative effects of devolving AGE might be the result of local authorities negotiating flexibilities on the wrong margins. This suggests that future efforts might be better targeted at other means for increasing the number of apprenticeships • We have been able to provide some advice about how to improve our understanding of the link between housing development and transport investment. Reviewing several investments which were made on the basis of their ability to unlock housing delivery, we advise DfT and others to be more explicit in location and timing for future schemes in their forecasting, and to follow up on what was delivered more diligently. This information can be used to refine our understanding of the links between transport investment and housing development. |
| Exploitation Route | Ongoing work of the Centre with Central and Local Government |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Education,Financial Services, and Management Consultancy,Leisure Activities, including Sports, Recreation and Tourism,Government, Democracy and Justice,Manufacturing, including Industrial Biotechology,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections,Transport |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org |
| Description | In the first three years we made excellent progress against our objectives - in particular completing 10 systematic evidence reviews covering a wide range of policy areas, sifting over 15,000 pieces of evidence to provide detailed reports, case studies and short summaries. Our newer strand of toolkit work builds on the systematic reviews by drawing on a wider literature, to identify 'what works better' in terms of programme design. We have five toolkits out, covering 16 different design issues, and have more underway. Users' response to both has been very positive. Progress on developing a community of interest in evaluation and evidence has been excellent - and better than anticipated. Audiences at our workshops and roundtables have been varied and enthusiastic with some robust and challenging discussions. Overall, there is great interest in using the findings to improve cost-effectiveness and building the evidence base through better evaluation practices. We have delivered much of our training with New Economy Manchester and with Arup. The peer-to-peer approach, combined with the experience (and positive track record) of both organisation has worked well to encourage local policymakers to think seriously about the usefulness of good evidence. Reflecting this, the workshops we have held around the country have been very well received. Attendance is good and the group size (restricted to below 30) allows for constructive interaction. Content is tailored to each group, as areas of experience and knowledge vary greatly. We had originally planned to run two of these workshops per year; but they have been so useful for us, and popular with the audience, that we have run roughly one a month for the last three years. We have also produced a range of resources to help support areas in developing and improving evaluation - including our scoring guide, a 'how to evaluate' guide and case studies of different approaches to robust evaluation covering all of the policy areas in our systematic reviews. We think that this range of accessible resources contributes greatly in a field where much guidance is overly technical. The popularity of these sections of our website suggest that these guides have an audience around the country. We have provided advice to a diverse range of organisations that have expressed interest in undertaking demonstrator projects (projects where organisations commit to implementing robust evaluation and that hold scalable lessons for others). Levels of interest are high, but progress in finalising projects has been slow - partly because of capacity and budget constraints within originating organisations. In recent years, we have further increased our impact in a range of areas Toolkits: Our toolkits offer policy design guidance drawing upon a wider range of evidence than in the original reviews (although with a continued focus on evaluation evidence). We have completed and published ten toolkits over the last year and they continue to get steady traffic on the website. We have completed and will shortly publish a briefing on Local Procurement policy - an area of current policy interest for which there is little robust evidence. We are currently scoping a further ten toolkits in relation to the Local Industrial Strategy, covering employment training and business support topics. Capacity Building: We have stepped up our workshops, and Lynne Miles from Arup is now running the programme. The new format is more easily customised to meet the need of the places and we are doing more preparatory work with the teams attending. Our workshops continue to be popular, and we have added a number of 'open access' workshops around the country, for those looking for an overview of best evaluation practice. Response to the new format has been positive. We run around a seminar a month. We will expand this work in the next three years by recruiting a new head of evidence to lead on this work. Demonstration projects: In the last three years in line with the conditions of funding we are placing increased focus on our demonstration projects. The stimulus fund will allow us to increase our efforts further in the next three years Our team have provided advice to over 100 organisations around the country, including many local authorities and 10 government departments. We have now engaged with all of the LEPs in the UK. Our work on Local Industrial Strategies has been widely used (as reported in separate funding stream) |
| First Year Of Impact | 2017 |
| Sector | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Education,Financial Services, and Management Consultancy,Government, Democracy and Justice,Manufacturing, including Industrial Biotechology,Culture, Heritage, Museums and Collections,Transport |
| Impact Types | Societal,Economic,Policy & public services |
| Description | Apprenticeships report meeting and the use of RCTs |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Meeting to discuss apprenticeships review and the use of RCTs |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Blog: Discussing personas as a way of thinking about the evidence base |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | In early 2019, the What Works Network came together to use our collected expertise to support evidence-based policymaking in disadvantaged places. The What Works Network has been helped in this project by Wakefield and Grimsby, two places in the UK facing these challenges. We organised two-day workshops with both places to discuss how our evidence base and knowledge offered insights to help address local policy priorities. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/discussing-personas-as-a-way-of-thinking-about-the-evidence-base/ |
| Description | Blog: Discussing the apprenticeships evidence base with Stefan Wolter |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | We held the first expert roundtable discussions last week at Centre for Cities. We took advantage of the fact that Stefan Wolter was in town and we wanted to hear about Stefan's work and discuss the evidence base around apprenticeships with UK experts. In particular, we wanted to understand how we might go about filling gaps in our evidence and policy knowledge. Professor Wolter's work covers all aspects of apprenticeships, and he is one of the world experts in this field. During his talk he looked in depth at how companies think about apprenticeships: an area we know surprisingly little about. In spite of their insistence that decisions about whether or not to use apprentices were not made on a financial basis, the evidence - from Switzerland and Germany - told a different story. Details cost-benefit analysis quantifying the impact of apprentices on the bottom line showed that companies were acting in line with their financial best interest. Overall, companies who ran apprenticeships had a net benefit from the programme, and those that did not would have seen net costs. Conclusion reached was that there are number of gaps in our evidence base which might be relatively easy to study and would provide especially valuable insights. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2020 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/discussing-the-apprenticeships-evidence-base-with-stefan-wolter/ |
| Description | Blog: Identifying disadvantaged places: lessons from a profiling exercise |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Launch of report: Evidence-based policy in disadvantaged places. One of recommendations within the report is for places to share their learning and to be open and transparent about their findings, irrespective of whether they were successful or not. In the spirit of this advice, we share what we learnt from our efforts to identify and profile places that we could work with on this project. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/identifying-disadvantaged-places-lessons-from-a-profiling-exercise/ |
| Description | Blog: Lessons on how to help left behind places |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | There is currently a lot of talk about 'left behind places' from national and local policy makers. These places have high proportions of vulnerable people with complex needs and low levels of economic activity. This compounds their problems, as long-term unemployment, poverty, mental illness, and poor health often go hand in hand. Budget cuts under the last 10 years of austerity have further hampered the ability of councils to address these complex challenges. Centre for Cities found earlier this year that the five urban areas that have seen the largest council budget cuts are all in the North of England. So how can we help these places begin to buck the negative trend that many find themselves in? Money is being allocated by the government to help through the new Towns Fund, Future High Streets Fund, and the proposed Shared Prosperity Fund. But we still lack a clear understanding of how this money should be effectively spent. It is too often tempting for policy makers to use disadvantaged places as incubators for policy innovation and trying new things. Although experimentation is important, too much experimentation is arguably the wrong approach for these places. Instead of lots of 'piloting' and experimenting with new initiatives in disadvantaged places, we need to start with an approach that is based primarily on evidence of what works elsewhere. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/lessons-on-how-to-help-left-behind-places/ |
| Description | Blog: Multipliers from input-output analysis tend to overstate any additional local employment generated |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A broadcast e.g. TV/radio/film/podcast (other than news/press) |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Some months ago, we launched a toolkit on local multipliers. Broadly speaking, local multipliers estimate how many `indirect jobs´ would be created in a local economy if an economic development project generates new jobs. For example, if a government subsidy brings a new car manufacturer to an area, local multipliers aim to estimate how many additional jobs will be created in other local manufacturing firms in the supply chain, local service sector jobs in shops and restaurants, etc. The evidence we summarise in the toolkit is different to that which underpins most multipliers used in policymaking decisions. Rather than using multipliers derived from `input-output´ modelling (the I-O multipliers) it looks at available empirical evidence on the size of local multipliers that have been generated in practice. That is, it is based on what has happened when employment changed in a given location. This overcomes one of the main caveats of the I-O multipliers - that they might miss general equilibrium effects, such as price changes by suppliers, that may be very important for the size of any multiplier in practice.In this blog, we provide a summary of the comparison between I-O multipliers from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the ones that we provide in our local multipliers toolkit. We used the table of I-O multipliers to calculate tradable-to-tradable multipliers and public-to-private multipliers. Unfortunately, the table of I-O multipliers does not allow us to calculate tradable-to-non-tradable multipliers. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/multipliers-from-input-output-analysis-tend-to-overstate-any-additi... |
| Description | Blog: Projecct QUEST: an employment training programme with promising results |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | We are always looking for robust evidence offering insight into policies that work. Due to some very good outcomes, the QUEST job training strategy started in San Antonio in the US and is now being replicated in other communities across the Southwestern United States. We'll keep following their progress to see whether these initiatives manage to get the same stunning results. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/project-quest-an-employment-training-programme-with-promising-resul... |
| Description | Blog: Reflections on evidence-based policy in disadvantaged places |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | WWCLEG launched latest publication 'Evidence-based policy in disadvantaged places', and this blog is a summary of authors reflections from the event and from having worked closely on the project. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/reflections-on-evidence-based-policy-in-disadvantaged-places/ |
| Description | Briefing on findings of transport review to Lord Adonis' National Infrastructure Committee |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Briefing on findings of transport review, use of findings in policymaking and improved evaluation of policy outcomes |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Briefing on systematic review findings to Policy Professionals Network at BIS |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Briefing on systematic review findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Briefing on the CEP report on Brexit, as it relates to cities |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | Blog written by Prof Henry Overman discussing the research conducted by the CEP which looks at the difference in predicted effects across all Local Authority Areas and across Primary Urban Areas under a 'soft' and a 'hard' Brexit scenario (the former involves zero tariffs, but increased non-tariff barriers with the EU, the latter involves non-zero tariffs and even higher non-tariff barriers). It also provides some initial analysis on whether these predicted impacts are likely to exacerbate or alleviate existing disparities and looks at how the predicted economic impacts of Brexit correlate with voting patterns from the referendum. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/blog/the-local-economic-impacts-of-brexit/ |
| Description | Conservative Party Conference Roundtable: Local economic growth - what works? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | With the squeeze on public finances set to continue well into the next parliament, the next government will need to implement policies that are proven to deliver growth and provide value for money. This roundtable during Conservative Party Conference will ask just how much policy makers look into 'what works' when making decisions around local economic growth. How can LEPs and local business be supported through more evidence-gathering, and how can they support policy makers in ensuring outcomes from policy decisions, such as those in business support and workforce training, can be better evaluated? |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/conservative-party-conference-roundtable-local-economic-growth... |
| Description | DCLG/BEIS data workshop |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | To understand LEPs data needs and capacity; develop a single government / WWC / ERC / LEP Network offer. Participants found the meeting v useful, agreed to have regular updates, developed a core agreed 'offer' to LEPs (in WWC's case, re-emphasising what we already offer) . |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Discussing policy approaches to major economic shocks |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | A presentation was given showing an overview and critical assessment of the use of Task Forces to bring together stakeholders and provide a coordinated response to, for example, the closure of a major auto production plant. The presentation emphasised the strengths of the task force model: they are collaborative and often innovative, can evolve into a longer standing institution in a local area, and demonstrate the political commitment to a strong response. They can however, be overused, and there have not been any robust evaluations of their effectiveness at mitigating the impact of a major closure. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2020 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/blog/discussing-policy-approaches-to-major-economic-shocks-with-andy-pik... |
| Description | Discussion of adult skills with the No.10 Delivery Unit |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Briefing on our findings relating to skills. Use of our findings used in government policy making. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Evaluation event for Civil Servants |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Workshop run to help economic development practitioners think about how they can evaluate the economic impacts of their local economic growth policies more effectively. The open access workshops are open to Institute of Economic Development members, and employees of Local Enterprise Partnerships, Local Authorities and Combined Authorities.These workshops are targeted at policy and programme officers, monitoring and evaluation officers, procurement officers and strategic decision makers in LEPs and Local Authorities. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/events/evaluation-workshop-london/ |
| Description | Five meetings with senior officials at BIS to discuss findings of business support and innovation |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Briefings with national policymakers on the evidence with regard to business support and innovation. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Growth programme board evaluation national sub-committee |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | The group advises DCLG and other departments (mainly DWP) on monitoring and evaluation issues for ESF, ERDF and other European programmes in the 2014-2020 round. WWC has provided advice in meetings and in 1:1 follow ups (e.g. in particular, we are quoted in the EDRF evaluation framework and have provided feedback to DCLG and consultants developing the evaluation systems) . |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Implications for Growth Deals |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Presentation to BIS outlining systematic review findings. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Improving access to broadbank: what does the evidence say? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable looks at the impact of programmes to improve broadband provision in an area. It examined questions like whether the government subsidising broadband in rural areas, or making internet access easier for excluded groups, leads to increased prosperity. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/improving-access-to-broadband-what-does-the-evidence-say/ |
| Description | Improving local transport: what does the evidence say? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable looks at the impact of road and rail infrastructure investments. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/improving-local-transport-what-does-the-evidence-say/ |
| Description | Investing in apprenticeships: what does the evidence say? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable talk about the initial findings of our review into the local economic impact of apprenticeships. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/investing-in-apprenticeships-what-does-the-evidence-say/ |
| Description | Keynote lecture at PBL Autumn School (based in Rotterdam) |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | PBL is a Dutch What Works agency funded by the national government. The autumn school was a two-day symposium with city and national policymakers to explore what works in economic development. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Keynote talk at Regional Science Association Conference - Portland - Improving the evaluation of urban and regional policy |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Keynote talk to wide audience giving overview of findings and getting lots of publicity for WWC |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.narsc.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/finalprogram41.pdf |
| Description | LSE Works Event - Do we know - or care- what works - London School of Economics |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | A discussion on what we know about the effectiveness of different policies in driving local economic growth and asks what role, if any, this evidence plays in formulating policy. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.lse.ac.uk/Events/2017/01/20170118t1830vHKT/Local-Economic-Growth |
| Description | Labour Party Conference Roundtable: Local economic growth - what works? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | With the squeeze on public finances set to continue well into the next parliament, the next government will need to implement policies that are proven to deliver growth and provide value for money. This roundtable during Labour Party Conference will ask just how much policy makers look into 'what works' when making decisions around local economic growth and what level of evidence is required to make these decisions. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/labour-party-conference-roundtable-local-economic-growth-what-... |
| Description | Local Authority teaching sessions. |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Third sector organisations |
| Results and Impact | 10 workshops - 4 open access, 5 local in Cambridgeshire, Leeds, Nottingham, Bristol, Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, West Yorkshire, East Riding, London. Set up to teach Local Authorities how to evaluate a specific policy, or develop a more general understanding of evaluation approaches. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Local Growth - Manchester |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | The event provided an opportunity to reflect on what the Centre (Local Enterprise Partnership) has learnt over the last 3 years and what's next for place to that wish to use and create more evidence for local economic policy. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.lepnetwork.net/event/local-growth-manchester/ |
| Description | Local Growth Bristol - after 3 years of analysis: what works and what's next |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | The event provided an opportunity to reflect on what the Centre (Local Enterprise Partnerships) has learnt over the last 3 years and what's next for places that wish to use and create more evidence from local economic policy. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.lepnetwork.net/event/local-growth-bristol/ |
| Description | Local Industrial Strategy events |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Third sector organisations |
| Results and Impact | Five individual events held in: London (launch), Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle. Worked through 10 Principles document in collaboration with Cities Team which is in charge of helping local places develop their Local Industrial Strategy. Attended by people working for local authority, central government and private sector |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| Description | Meeting with DWP and DCLG about cost benefit analysis |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | This was a briefing on use of CBA to better analyse policy choices |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Meeting with Federation of Small Businesses |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | Briefing on findings related to business support and innovation. Also brought publicity to target audience regarding business support. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Meeting with HMT about devolution |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Briefing on evaluation of devolution deal outcomes and improved evaluation of devolved policy |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Meeting with Work Foundation |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Gave a briefing on WWC work with aim of a possible collaboration. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Meeting with senior officials at DfT to give advice on better evaluation |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Meeting to give advice on better evaluation and collaboration on more robust evaluation of transport investment decisions |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Panellist at Brussels International Economic Forum - Is Europe back on a growth track with its energy union and in promoting innovation? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Presentation on WWC findings |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/events/conference-series/brief/brief-archive/brief-2015/brief-201... |
| Description | Presentation to Earn or Learn Task Force |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Presentation showing findings related to NEETs policy |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Presentation to the World Bank Competitive Cities |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | An overview of WWC findings and the need for evaluation. Also gave publicity to WWC. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | Rountable events focussed on themes from the Local Industrial Strategies work |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | We held four workshops in four different UK cities (Shefffield, Coventry, Leeds and Bristol), each one focusing on one of the 'foundations of productivity' - people, ideas, business environment and infrastructure - and its interaction with our foundation of interest. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/resources/infrastructure-what-works-in-upgrading-infrastructure-to-boost... |
| Description | SERC and What Works Seminar: Evaluating entrepreneurship training programs in the US |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Postgraduate students |
| Results and Impact | Robert Fairlie, Professor and Chair of Economics at UC Santa Cruz, for an academic seminar at the LSE discusses new research on hiring patterns in startups, and the factors that explain why new firms hire their first employee. The research is based on one of the world's largest entrepreneurship randomised control trials, Project GATE. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/serc-and-what-works-seminar-evaluating-entrepreneurship-traini... |
| Description | Skills Bank meeting in Sheffield |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Gave advice on evaluation of the skills bank programme to officials in Sheffield |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| Description | The Evidence Life Cycle Workshop |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Aim of workshop is to use local policy issues to work through the evaluation process with local authority practitioners. The workshop examines how to: define the intervention; develop a logic model for the intervention; develop a Cost Benefit Analysis Model; effectively evaluate the intervention. More rigorous evaluation not only helps to improve cost-effectiveness, but is likely to play a key role in the negotiation of significant devolution deals with central government. This session will help local areas to develop their evidence and evaluation frameworks to meet both these objectives. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/the-evidence-life-cycle-workshop-warwickshire-county-council/ |
| Description | The Future of Business Support |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | In an interactive panel session between key sector contributors, we look at what business support might need to look and feel like in the future to ensure our member organisations remain sustainable and in a position to continue their social purpose. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://www.nationalenterprisenetwork.org/what-we-do/2016-annual-conference-nov-2016/ |
| Description | The local economic impacts of Enterprise Zones and Area-based Initiatives |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The open discussion ranged widely touching on questions such as "what influences firms' location decisions?", "will business rate retention make local areas more or less keen to develop enterprise zones?", and "are benefits of reduced business rates really the businesses themselves or are they likely to be capitalised into land and rental values. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/the-local-economic-impacts-of-enterprise-zones-and-area-based-... |
| Description | Transforming a city through better use of evidence with Governor Martin O'Malley |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable meeting on how regional policymaking and local economic growth can be transformed through making better use of evidence. We are delighted to be joined at this meeting by Martin O'Malley, Governor of Maryland, who will discuss his experiences of using data to support economic growth during his time as Mayor of Baltimore. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/transforming-a-city-through-better-use-of-evidence-with-govern... |
| Description | Two 2-day study visits - Grimsby and Wakefield |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Policymakers in the UK understand that there are towns and cities around the country which face deep economic decline, and have done for some years. Whether geographical isolation or the rapid decline of industry, these disadvantaged places face huge policy challenges that are not just economic, but include health and social factors too. This project, led by the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth and working across the What Works Network sought to develop a detailed picture of two places that have been facing sustained economic decline. By focusing on two towns, the Disadvantaged Places project aimed to develop a deep understanding of these places gathering all the available evidence from well-being, to crime statistics and specific and localised health challenges. A team from the Network will work closely with the local authorities involved, getting to grips with the kinds of policy interventions that have taken place, and where evidence from the What Works Network may present alternative solutions. This project was the first time that the What Works Network came together in this way, and it was the first time we have explored as deeply the socioeconomic challenges of individual places. It is an experimental approach in a crowded field, and the places we are working with have been chosen both because of the myriad challenges they face, but also they have some resource internally to support the project and take an active role. Research on inclusive growth and supporting left-behind places is more prevalent than ever. However, the project aimed not to change the economic fortunes of two towns, but to use the collective expertise and evidence of the local authority practitioners and the What Works Network to introduce small interventions in different areas of policy that the evidence has shown to be effective. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019,2020 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/policy-challenges/disadvantaged-places/evidence-based-policy-in-disadvan... |
| Description | What Works Growth Workshop |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Aim of workshop is to use local policy issues to work through the evaluation process with local authority practitioners. The workshop examines how to: define the intervention; develop a logic model for the intervention; develop a Cost Benefit Analysis Model; effectively evaluate the intervention. More rigorous evaluation not only helps to improve cost-effectiveness, but is likely to play a key role in the negotiation of significant devolution deals with central government. This session will help local areas to develop their evidence and evaluation frameworks to meet both these objectives. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-growth-workshop-cambridge/ |
| Description | What Works Growth Workshop |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The workshop, examines the opportunities and challenges faced by local authorities in using and developing evidence to inform local economic policy, and running through New Economy's Green Book-approved cost benefit analyses and how these methods can be used in other places. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-growth-workshop-taunton/ |
| Description | What Works Growth Workshop - Chelmsford |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Aim of workshop is to use local policy issues to work through the evaluation process with local authority practitioners. The workshop examines how to: define the intervention; develop a logic model for the intervention; develop a Cost Benefit Analysis Model; effectively evaluate the intervention. More rigorous evaluation not only helps to improve cost-effectiveness, but is likely to play a key role in the negotiation of significant devolution deals with central government. This session will help local areas to develop their evidence and evaluation frameworks to meet both these objectives. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-growth-workshop-chelmsford/ |
| Description | What Works Growth Workshop - Greater London Authority |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Intended purpose of workshop was to build a team at a local authority who have a shared understanding of how to use evidence and can work together to implement it across departments. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-growth-workshop-greater-london-authority/ |
| Description | What Works Growth Workshop - Nottingham |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Aim of workshop is to use local policy issues to work through the evaluation process with local authority practitioners. The workshop examines how to: define the intervention; develop a logic model for the intervention; develop a Cost Benefit Analysis Model; effectively evaluate the intervention. More rigorous evaluation not only helps to improve cost-effectiveness, but is likely to play a key role in the negotiation of significant devolution deals with central government. This session will help local areas to develop their evidence and evaluation frameworks to meet both these objectives. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-growth-workshop-nottingham/ |
| Description | What Works Network Event |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Launch of a new report showcasing our collective findings about how and where public investment should be prioritised. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-network-event/ |
| Description | What Works Roundtable - the local economic impacts of innovation policy |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Four things learned from the evidence review: •Validating the previous theoretical literature, the evaluations indicate that R&D subsidies have a stronger impact on SMEs than on large firms. •It looks like these programmes have more of an effect on employment than on productivity. This could mean that more spend goes towards hiring new employees rather than funding innovative activities. •Surprisingly, the evidence suggests targeted programmes might not be as effective as general measures. •Despite popular belief, public funding doesn't seem to be crowding out private investment - but the findings are still a bit mixed. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-roundtable-the-local-economic-impacts-of-innovation... |
| Description | What Works Roundtable: How can we improve business advice and mentoring in the UK |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Toundtable to discuss the emerging findings from the second evidence review being undertaken by the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, which focuses on business advice and mentoring policy in the UK. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-roundtable-how-can-we-improve-business-advice-and-m... |
| Description | What Works Roundtable: How can we improve employment training in the UK? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable to discuss the emerging findings from the first evidence review being undertaken by the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, which focuses on employment training policy in the UK. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-roundtable-how-can-we-improve-employment-training-i... |
| Description | What Works Roundtable: SME access to finance |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable looks at the local economic impacts of SME access to finance. We will discuss some of the key findings from the Review and the implications for local and national policy makers in the UK. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-roundtable-sme-access-to-finance/ |
| Description | What Works Roundtable: The local economic impact of sport and culture |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable will discuss the emerging findings from our third evidence review which focuses on the local economic impacts of sports and cultural events and facilities. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-roundtable-the-local-economic-impact-of-sport-and-c... |
| Description | What Works Roundtable: The local economic impacts of estate renewal |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Roundtable meeting on local economic impacts of estate renewal. The related impacts upon on crime, health and wellbeing, and deprivation. Given the level of spending in this area, very little good evidence has so far been found to evaluate these schemes. This will be an opportunity to talk about what the evidence says about estates renewal policy, but also to examine why - especially in the more prominent programmes - the evidence falls short in telling us anything useful. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-roundtable-the-local-economic-impacts-of-estate-ren... |
| Description | What Works Workshop: How to use and produce evidence to inform policy? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | A workshop examining the opportunities and challenges faced by areas in using and developing evidence to inform policy on local economic growth. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-workshop-how-to-use-and-produce-evidence-to-inform-... |
| Description | What works for cities: will smart cities help us make better choices? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | A presentation on our findings and the importance of data for evaluation. Also publicity to an international audience |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://www.ub.edu/economiaempresa/butlleti/publicacio/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Programa_14G.pdf |
| Description | What works for disadvantaged places |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Launch of the What Works Network to answer the question: What works for disadvantaged places? Places around the country are often called 'left behind' or 'deprived' e.g. Grimsby and Wakefield. These towns and cities have high levels of unemployment and poverty, poor health outcomes and other social problems. With scarce resources and limited capacity, 'what works?' is a perennial question. The result of this project - setting out principles for better evidence-based policy - was launched at this event. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/events/what-works-for-disadvantaged-places/ |
| Description | Workshop held at Cheshire and Warrington LEP |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
| Results and Impact | Primary goal of event was to build the capacity at the local authority across project teams with regards to evaluation in general and WWCLEG |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/evaluation-workshop-cheshire-and-warrington-lep/ |
| Description | Workshop held at Coast to Capital LEP |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Primary goal of event was to build the capacity at the local authority across project teams with regards to evaluation in general and WWCLEG |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/evaluation-workshop-coast-to-capital-lep/ |
| Description | Workshop held at Humber LEP |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Primary goal of workshop was to build the capacity at local authorities across project teams with regards to evaluation in general and WWCLEG findings in particular. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/evaluation-workshop-humber-lep/ |
| Description | Workshop held at Leicestershire LEP |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Workshop held to increase knowledge of the evidence that exists on local economic growth and to build capacity and interest in helping to grow that evidence by piloting and testing programmes and investments. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/leicestershire-lep-evaluation-workshop/ |
| Description | Workshop run at Sheffield LEP |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Primary goal of event was to build the capacity at the local authority across project teams with regards to evaluation in general and WWCLEG |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
| URL | http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/events/sheffield-city-region-lep-evaluation-workshop/ |
| Description | Workshops for National Infrastructure Commission, Transport for London, DCCMS, Exeter CC, Transport for the North, Black Country LEP, Norfolk and Somerset |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Writing an effective Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) is currently a prime focus for Combined Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) up and down the country. Strategies have recently been published in West Midlands and Greater Manchester, but there are still plenty more to go before all areas have them in place. Last summer, we published our 10 principles that places should bear in mind when developing their LIS. This was followed by two series of workshops held across the country. The first series focussed on the principles themselves. The second looked at how 'Place', one of the pillars of productivity identified by the Government's Industrial Strategy interacts with the other pillars - 'People', 'Ideas', 'Business Environment' and 'Infrastructure'. Using the pillars to structure the sessions allowed us to both build on the higher-level principles and discuss specific interventions and case studies, joining up conversations at the local and national levels. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2019 |
| URL | https://whatworksgrowth.org/resources/reflections-on-our-local-industrial-strategy-workshops/ |