Interim Report of the Social Enterprise Exchange 2 programme 2019 - 2023

1. EVALUATION DESIGN
PROJECT: SOCIAL ENTERPRISE EXCHANGE 2 (SEE2)
PREPARED FOR: COMMUNITY MEDIA SOLUTIONS
DATE: JANUARY 2022

2. SEE2 Evaluation Design 2
FOREVER CONSULTING
Forever Consulting is the trading name of Forever
Manchester Trading Limited, (Company number
06874910 and VAT number 165922881), a trading
subsidiary of Forever Manchester. Forever Manchester is
a Company limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales (Company number 2785133) and a registered
charity (Charity number 1017504). All surpluses
generated by Forever Consulting are reinvested in
Forever Manchester to support and fund community
activity across Greater Manchester.
Forever Consulting is an independent consultancy
practice. Advice, training, recommendations and
feedback provided by Forever Consulting will be rooted in
experience, evidence and best practice. Organisation
goals, values and ethics of Forever Consulting align with
those set out in the governing documents and
constitution of Forever Manchester.
General and Limiting Conditions
The Report and the information within it is confidential
and may be privileged. If you have received the Report in
error, please notify Forever Consulting immediately. You
should not copy it for any purpose or disclose its
contents to any other person. The Report is qualified in
its entirety by and should be considered in the light of
Forever Consulting’s Terms of Engagement and the
following: Forever Consulting has used its reasonable
endeavours to ensure that the data contained in the
Report reflects the most accurate and timely information
available to it and is based on information that was
current as of the date of the Report.
The Report is based on estimates, assumptions and
other information developed by Forever Consulting from
its independent research effort, general knowledge of the
industry and consultations with you, your employees and
your representatives. No warranty or representation is
made by Forever Consulting that any of the projected
values or results contained in the Report will actually be
achieved.
Any Reports issued or conclusions reached by Forever
Consulting may be based upon information provided by
and on your behalf. We assume no responsibility and
make no representations with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of such information provided by you. No
responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by
you, your employees or your representatives or for
inaccuracies in any other data source whether provided
in writing or orally used in preparing or presenting the
Report.
In no event, regardless of whether Forever Consulting’s
consent has been provided, shall Forever Consulting
assume any liability or responsibility to any third party to
whom the Report is disclosed or otherwise made
available. All intellectual property rights (including, but
not limited to copyright, database rights and trademark
rights) in the Report including any forecasts, drawings,
spreadsheets, plans or other materials provided are the
property of Forever Consulting. You may use, share and
copy such materials for your own purposes.
Contact Details
Claire Lawless, Director
Forever Consulting
1st Floor, Phoenix House
45 Cross Street, Manchester, M2 4JF
0161 214 0940
07538 967 470
claire@foreverconsulting.co.uk
ForverConsulting.co.uk

3. SEE2 Evaluation Design 3
CONTENTS
Notes: Report Version 3 submitted in Feb 22
Introduction 5
The Local Context 6
Project Design and Processes 11
Perfomance Against Outputs 14
Value for Money 17
Recomendations and Next Steps 19
Appendix 1 Stakeholders Consulted 21
Appendix 2 Data and Sources 22
Appendix 3: SRoI 34

4. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 4
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Ref Description
BCVS Barnsley Council for Voluntary Service
CIQA Cultural Industries Quarter Agency
CMS Community Media Solutions Ltd
CRF Community Renewal Fund
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
GSY Groundwork South Yorkshire
LEP Local Enterprise Partnership
NEET Not in Education, Employment or Training
Ref Description
TNLCF The National Lottery Community Fund
SCR Sheffield City Region
SEE2 Social Enterprise Exchange 2
SLTV Sheffield Local Television
SSEN Sheffield Social Enterprise Network
SYCF South Yorkshire Community Foundation
UKSPF UK Shared Prosperity Fund
VfM Value for Money

5. SEE2 Evaluation Design 5
INTRODUCTION
Community Media Solutions Ltd (CMS) commissioned Forever
Consulting to deliver an independent evaluation of the Social Enterprise
Exchange 2 (SEE2) programme. Objectives of the whole evaluation are
defined as:
1. Review of the project design and processes
2. Review of performance against output targets
3. Review of performance against outcomes
4. Review of wider project impacts
5. Assess value for money
6. Recommendations for SEE2 moving forwards
Objectives 3 and 4 are currently excluded from the interim evaluation
and will be explored more fully in the next stage of the evaluation. This
interim evaluation was conducted between June 2021 and December
2021, and is based on the following research tasks:
A review of project information
A review of local contextual conditions using existing data
A review of performance against contracted outputs
Eight interviews with delivery partners and stakeholders
An online workshop with delivery partners (December 21)
A Social Return on Investment Analysis (based on planned targets)
The remaining research and fieldwork will be undertaken in advance of
the final evaluation planned for March 23. In summary, these are:
An online survey of beneficiaries (targeting the 150 businesses and
90 individual entrepreneurs, sample to be confirmed)
One to one interview with 15 beneficiaries (targeting individual
entrepreneurs) and extracting case studies on individuals’ journeys
from these
Further analysis of project and beneficiary evidence.

6. SEE2 Evaluation Design 6
THE LOCAL CONTEXT
This section summarises the local contextual conditions in which the
SEE2 programme is operating. We explore how local conditions have
changed over time, compared with the original context at the time of the
original programme design.
The original context
The rationale and context for SEE2 at the time of programme design is
summarised below. It is based on the evidence provided in the original
funding applications to TNLCF and ERDF for SEE2. Key issues
supporting the need for SEE2 were identified as:
High levels of deprivation experienced across SCR
Higher levels of worklessness, and employment and enterprise cited
as a bigger challenge for certain groups
A low enterprise culture in the SCR
Social enterprise recognised as a driver for inclusive economic
growth, but faced various barriers to start up and growth
A strategic driver for social enterprise recognised in key local
strategies
1
Census 2011 Rural Urban Classification
Evidence of local demand for the project, backed up with evidence
from the earlier phase of the programme (SEE1)
The latest position
We have explored the most recent socio-economic data to understand
how the local context has changed since the SEE1 programme began in
2017 and the impact of the current challenging operational conditions.
SEE2 serves social enterprises and potential entrepreneurs across nine
local authority areas:
Sheffield City Region:
- Barnsley
- Doncaster
- Rotherham
- Sheffield
Chesterfield
Bassetlaw
Bolsover
North East Derbyshire
Derbyshire Dales
Key demographics
There are almost two million people living in the SEE2 area. Most
residents are living in areas with mostly urban characteristics, and
around 17% living in dispersed rural communities1
. There tends to be an

7. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 7
older age profile across the area, with all areas having a higher median
age, except Sheffield, which has a higher number of students and young
people. (See Table 1 in Appendix 2). The area is less ethnically diverse
than the average for England, with above average numbers of White
British people in all areas. (See Table 2 in Appendix 2).
There are pockets of severe deprivation in some
communities which have worsened since SEE2 began…
Four authorities in the SEE2 area rank within the top 20% most deprived
authorities in the country (Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, and
Sheffield). Deprivation across 7 of the 9 local authorities has worsened
from 2015-2019, particularly within the income, employment, health and
disability domains. However, Derbyshire Dales is one of the least
deprived authorities in the country and has improved its ranking. (See
Table 3 in Appendix 2).
Unemployment remains below average in most areas…
Unemployment refers to those out of work who are looking for work,
measured by Claimant Count. Unemployment rates are below average in
most of the SEE2 areas, except for Doncaster and Rotherham with above
average unemployment.
Unemployment rates have increased since the programme began in
2017. This reflects a national trend and is largely influenced by wider
contextual conditions more than locally specific reasons, including the
switch to Universal Credit in 2019 and Covid in 2020. (See Table 4 in
Appendix 2).
… but there remains above average economic inactivity
Economic inactivity is the working age population who don’t work and
aren’t looking to work. Economic inactivity rates remain above the
England average in most of the SEE2 areas, except for Rotherham,
Chesterfield and North East Derbyshire.
Rates of economic inactivity have increased in some of the SEE2 areas
since the programme began. These are Barnsley, Sheffield, Bolsover,
North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales. This is against the backdrop of
an overall improvement in England generally. (See Table 5 in Appendix
2).
Long-term sickness is one of the main reasons for economic inactivity in
most of the SEE2 areas except Sheffield (more commonly students) and
Derbyshire Dales (more commonly retired people). (See Table 6 in
Appendix 2)
…and more people with work limiting disabilities
Further, the number of working age people who have a long-term
disability which substantially affects their ability to work was generally
above average in most areas and remains above average in all the SEE2
areas. (See Table 7 in Appendix 2).
There are fewer active businesses in the area…
There are fewer active businesses in all SEE2 areas, except Derbyshire
Dales. Given the low unemployment rate, this could reflect reliance on
fewer, large employers, reliance on public sector employment and

8. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 8
presence of residents who live in the area but commute out for work.
(See Table 8 in Appendix 2).
Whilst business density rates are lower, business birth rates, death rates
and survival rates across the SEE2 area are similar to the England
average2
. This might suggest there are cultural barriers to starting a
business or locating a business in the area.
…And there are fewer jobs
Job density measures the number of jobs available in a local economy
per working age population. In England, there are on average 0.88 jobs
available per working age resident. Areas with lower job density means
there are fewer jobs available. Job density is below average in all SEE2
areas. (See Table 9 in Appendix 2).
With lower earning potential, possibly in-work poverty….
Earnings (both resident and workplace based) in the SEE2 area are also
lower than the England average and have increased at a slightly slower
pace than the England average since 2017. (See Table 10 in appendix 2)
Lower rates of self-employment …
Another potential measure of enterprise is self-employment. Self-
employment rates across the SEE2 area are below the England average,
except in Rotherham, Bassetlaw, and Derbyshire Dales. (See Table 11 in
Appendix 2).
2
Business Demography, 2019, ONS
With moderate to low prosperity rankings across the SEE2
area…
The UK Prosperity Index 20213
measures institutional, economic, and
social wellbeing across the UK’s 379 local authorities. It recognises that
true prosperity is only possible when citizens can reach their full
potential across broad aspects such as education, entrepreneurial
activity, and community life. It ranks local authority areas against three
broad domains of Inclusive Societies, Open Economies and Empowered
People.
Figure 1, overleaf, shows there is average or good rankings against
factors of open economies across most SEE2 areas. This means the
conditions for enterprise and growth exist but suggest that social factors
are the reasons for lower prosperity in the SEE2 area.
3
https://li.com/reports/uk-prosperity-index-2021/

9. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 9
Figure 1: UK Prosperity Index 2021 by Pillar (1 = most prosperous in the UK)
Source: UK Prosperity Index 2021, The Legatum Institute

10. SEE2 Evaluation Design 10
What can we take from this?
The original rationale and need for SEE2 remains relevant. More
importantly, some local challenges have worsened, suggesting the
need for SEE2 is even greater.
The operating context for the SEE2 programme has changed
dramatically during the delivery period and impacting on both the
delivery of SEE2 and the local circumstances in which it operates,
this should be considered when assessing performance and impact.
These are:
- The introduction of Universal Credit, reducing worklessness but
increasing unemployment
- The Covid-19 pandemic impacting both delivery and wider local
socio-economic conditions
- The impact of Brexit
- Linked to Brexit, a change in funding mechanisms which the
programme previously accessed, from ERDF to new streams
such as CRF and UKSPF.
- Changes in local governance and administration where the
Sheffield City Region now only includes the four boroughs of
Sheffield, Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham.
Outside of the influence of SEE2, there are challenges with income,
employment and worklessness locally, with fewer jobs and lower
earnings, possibly meaning in work poverty.
There are sensitive groups locally who may be more severely
impacted by the challenging local economic conditions, for example:
- Presence of an older workforce
- Below average BAME groups means that existing communities
may be more marginalised than BAME communities in more
diverse cities and towns.
- Above average numbers of workless people who are
economically inactive due to health reasons.
- More people with disabilities which limit their ability to work.
- Rural communities who may face barriers resulting from being
isolated.
Further, wider evidence on the social enterprise sector demonstrates
above average representation of sensitive groups among directors of
social enterprises and to be in more deprived locations.
The UKPI demonstrates the importance of projects like SEE2 in
creating economic inclusion.

11. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 11
PROJECT DESIGN AND PROCESSES
Evaluation of project design and processes is based on a desk top
review of programme information, our observations, and feedback from
consultees (See Appendix 1).
Delivery model
By all accounts, the delivery model is regarded as being very effective in
terms of good governance, good systems and processes, a strong and
committed partnership and good communication. This is evidenced by
the following examples:
Identifying and responding to delivery challenges by issuing a
Project Change Request.
Recognising the role and importance of SSEN and bringing them into
the partnership.
Responding quickly and effectively to a radical change in delivery to
an online model because of Covid.
Rethinking the place-based approach (see below) as a team and
regrouping to decide how this could be addressed moving forwards.
Exploring new funding mechanisms to continue the work of SEE2.
Emphasis on place-based approach
There was an emphasis on delivering a place-based approach as an
evolution from the earlier version of the programme SEE1. This was
intended to deliver services in community settings, achieving a greater
outreach. This would be achieved by working with local organisations
and hubs who would lend office space, or access to broadband and
other support to beneficiaries, referred to as ‘incubators’ in the original
funding bid.
Linking people to local assets and making best use of local assets is
likely to be an effective strategy based on the growing interest and
evidence base around Asset Based Community Development. However,
the onset of Covid and social distancing measures had meant that this
was not feasible in the short term as delivery shifted online. It is not
clear at this interim stage whether this place-based approach will be
established later in the programme.
Strengths and weaknesses
We asked about SEE2 strengths and weaknesses and identified the
following messages:
Strengths
The quality of delivery staff on the programme was described as
‘excellent’.

12. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 12
The service offer has become more user friendly and accessible
over time.
The programme is regarded as well organised.
The programme content is good, it has been developed over many
years and has improved, informed by practice and experience.
Anecdotally, the programme appears to be well-known and well
regarded, with a reputation of being trusted and respected by other
support agencies.
Weaknesses
There was lots of positive feedback on ‘accelerate’ but the
‘transform’ element of the programme seemed to be less well
understood.
One stakeholder said that whilst mechanisms to determine
appropriateness of beneficiaries had improved, there is a potential
risk of supporting businesses with low chances of survival.
The online approach to delivery has been a necessity but bringing
less opportunity to build relationships and enable networking.
There is a lack of follow-up with service users after exiting the
programme to understand their onward journeys.
User experiences
User experiences have not been independently tested at this interim
evaluation stage and will be explored more fully in the subsequent
stage. However, some anecdotal feedback on user experiences was
identified by those interviewed, listed in Appendix 1. Key feedback was:
Feedback from participants in sessions was overall positive in Zoom
polls.
Beneficiaries can access more than one form of support from
different delivery partners, but that the process appears to be
seamless and referral between partners was smooth.
Feedback from other referral partners on user experience was
positive.
One challenge was the prescribed amount of support determined by
ERDF indicators. For example, some organisations didn’t need the
full 12 hours of support but had to receive it to count the outcome.
Success factors
We asked delivery partners and stakeholders about the features of SEE2
that were likely to contribute to its success. At this stage, findings are
anecdotal, but included:
A place-based approach.
A sectoral focus.

13. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 13
Shifting back to ‘in person’ approaches.
Good CRM systems and procedures.
Most stakeholders commented that success was dependent on
policy and decision makers giving social enterprise more recognition
as a solution to inclusive economic growth.
Challenges to delivery
The economic circumstances in which SEE2 operates are difficult
and worsening.
It’s difficult for partners to balance competing demands of the SEE2
programme and those of their own organisations.
The funding mechanisms limit the way in which the programme is
delivered.
There is a lack of reliable data to assess the social enterprise sector
at a local level in terms of stock, start-up rates, survival rates,
sectors and so on.
The ‘transform’ element of the project includes development advice for
organisations wanting to develop local assets or buildings. Project
evidence suggests there is a demand for this service and the market
costs for such advice are prohibitive for most social enterprises.
However, there are some concerns raised regarding it:
It is not reflected in the original programme design for SEE2 as a
built environment service offer.
Some partners don’t understand the purpose or fit with the
programme. Its focus is on developing knowledge and skills around
the built environment rather than enterprise issues. That said,
availability of suitable premises could be barrier to some
enterprises.
Based on our own experience and observation, community led
development can be slow and with a high fall out rate. We would be
concerned that the benefits arising from this element may take
longer to realise than the funding timescales. Further, it is likely to
create benefits which are not being measured by the programme.
For example, area of floorspace developed, or brownfield land being
brought back into use.

14. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 14
PERFOMANCE AGAINST OUTPUTS
Project pipeline
Prior to considering performance against outputs, it is important to
consider the extent of reach and activity required before outputs and
ultimately wider benefits can be measured.
We have used project pipeline data to measure and understand some of
the pre-development work involved. This information also helps to
contextualise outputs and whether targets are realistic.
Referral routes
Since July 2019 to December 2021, SEE2 has received 425 registrations.
96% of these came through the SEE website. The remainder came
through roadshows and other agencies including the Growth Hub and
other delivery partners. This demonstrates the value and importance of
the SEE website in reaching beneficiaries.
Next steps
51% of referrals were allocated to Accelerate
42% of referrals were allocated to Transform
4% requested to be kept informed only
The remainder were referred to other support
Outputs to date
Performance against outputs is based on outputs achieved from
programme inception in July 2019 to December 2021. See Table 1
below. These are the contracted output targets following approval, in
September 2021, of a project change request made by the SEE2
partnership.
Table 1 shows that the partnership has made good progress against
many of the outputs at this interim stage, especially when considering
the extreme challenges to delivery and the difficult economic
circumstances caused by the pandemic.
The targets where performance is further behind target seem to link to
new enterprises, new entrepreneurs, creating new jobs and new
products (C5, C8, C28, C29 and P11).
It is our observation that during the pandemic, many enterprises have
had to focus on survival and consolidating their existing offer. “Stick to
your knitting” is a message that has been frequently quoted during the
pandemic. Developing new products and new firms is often risky in a
non-buoyant economy. And therefore, less likely to be a priority for the
SEE2 target beneficiaries, given the current uncertainty in the economy
caused by Covid and Brexit.
So, whilst they appear to reflect slow performance, we believe this is an
impact of the economic circumstances than a performance issue now.

15. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 15
Table 1: Progress against outputs targets to December 21
Output Target Achieved %
C1 – Number of enterprises receiving
support
165 99 60%
C2 – Number of enterprises receiving
grants
55 46 84%
C4 – Number of enterprises receiving non-
financial support
150 76 51%
C5 – Number of new enterprises
supported
90 35 44%
C6 – Private investment matching public
support to enterprises (grants)
£125,000 £107,762 86%
C8 – Employment increase in supported
enterprises
75 19 25%
C28 – Number of enterprises supported to
introduce new to the market products
15 3 20%
C29 – Number of enterprises supported to
introduce new to the firm products
15 4 27%
P11 – Number of potential entrepreneurs
assisted to be enterprise ready
100 31 31%
P13 – Number of enterprises receiving
information, diagnostic and brokerage
support
100 72 72%
Who benefited?
So far, there are 35 new start‐ups (C5), and 99 enterprises supported
(C1) , 34 enter[rises receiving grants (C2) and 76 enterprises assisted
with non‐financial support (C4). The nature of organisations supported
shows that they represent a diverse mix of groups including sensitive
groups. 31 potential entrepreneurs were assisted to be enterprise ready
(P11) and 19 new jobs were created in the enterprises supported (C8). A
sample of demographic information was analysed for individuals
assisted. Key findings were:
More likely to be female, accounting for 61% of the cohort.
Around 22% from BAME communities which is above average
representation compared with the local population.
A broad mix of age groups although with good representation
among over 50s (39%) and lower representation of young people
under 25 (10%). This broadly reflects the demographic of the area.
A broad geographical spread, most commonly clustered around
Sheffield and often in the more deprived locations. See Map 1
overleaf.

16. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 16
Map 1: Existing SEE2 service users by local authority and IMD 2019 Funding to date
Performance against funding targets is based on spend from
programme inception in July 2019 to December 2021. See Table 2
below. These are the contracted funding targets, although this may
change depending on the outcome of a project change request made by
the SEE2 partnership.
Table 2: Spend to December 21
Source Target Spend %
ERDF (revenue) £1,327,306 £854,210 61%
Private match (total), from:
TNLFC
Partners contributions
Beneficiary contributions
£961,185
£499,097
£387,048
£75,000
£587,108
£236,026
£293,137
£57,945
61%
47%
76%
77%
Total £2,288,451 £1,392,902 61%

17. SEE2 Evaluation Design 17
VALUE FOR MONEY
Value for money has been assessed using a cost benefit analysis. This
involves defining, quantifying, and monetising programme benefits
compared against programme costs to determine the social return per
£1 of investment. The analysis was conducted in line with HM Treasury
Green Book. At this interim stage, the assessment is based on a
speculative analysis, assuming existing contracted spend and outputs
targets are achieved.
Costs
Total programme costs have been used, including ERDF, TNLCF and
wider match funding. In total, this equates to £2,288,451.
Benefits
Benefits have been identified and quantified using programme output
data. This includes a combination of outputs, outcomes and results
indicators collected by SEE2. The analysis is based on the following
monetised programme benefits:
4 GVA per employee from ONS Sub regional productivity, GVA per filled job
dataset. FC applied average of South Yorkshire (£44,546) and Derbyshire and
Nottinghamshire (£48,177) figures (2019 figures published in Jul 2021)
5
100,000 social enterprises accounting for over £60 billion of UK GDP (SEUK,
2019). Estimate per social enterprise is £600,000 GDP. Assume a lower, more
conservative value of £100,000 for start-ups.
Benefit Gross
impact
Valuation proxy used
Jobs created in the local
economy (C8)
75 £46,362 GVA per
employee4
New enterprises created in the
local economy by supporting
entrepreneurs to set up a
business (P11)
165 £100,000 GDP per
enterprise5
The value and benefit of
relevant training to enterprises
(C1)
100 Using Willingness to
Pay value of £100 as a
proxy6
Gross benefits above were adjusted to account for additionality and
derive net impacts. This means estimating the level of impact that would
have occurred anyway without the activities funded. The following
factors are applied:
6
Cost of 'Start-up Business Course 2021' with the Small Business Academy
An online search for business start-up courses on www.findcourses.co.uk
showed courses ranging in price from £49-£580. FC applied Small Business
Academy cost (£100) as a reasonable estimate.

18. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 18
Deadweight - A measure of the amount of outcome that would have
happened even if the activity had not taken place.
Displacement - An assessment of how much of the outcome was
displaced from elsewhere.
Attribution - An assessment of how much of the outcome was
caused by the project versus the contribution of other organisations
or people.
Drop off - The deterioration of an outcome over time.
Valuations were applied to each benefit based on relevant benchmarks
taken from several accepted sources. We also assumed each benefit
would persist for 3 years.
Adjustments
Cost and benefits have been adjusted in line with HM Treasury Guidance
to reflect the following factors. These are:
Adjusting all values to reflect 2021 prices.
Discounting values using a 3.5% discount rate.
The timescale of impact and duration of the effects.
Results
The Cost Benefit Analysis shows that the SEE2 programme represents
excellent value for money based on current contracted outputs and
spend. The appraisal is set out in Appendix 3, with headline information
below. The Net Present Value of the programme is estimated at £15.4m
and giving a return of £7.61 per £1 of programme cost.
Total Discounted Cost (PV) £2,329,877
Total Discounted Benefits (PV) £17,738,720
NPV £15,408,844
Return per £1 £7.61
Caveats
The results should be considered against the following caveats:
Costs and benefits are estimated rather than achieved.
Crude assumptions have been made about when costs and benefits
will be accrued or realised during the appraisal period, which will be
tested further during the final evaluation.
There is possibly double counting between impacts, where a unique
individual or organisation receives more than one intervention. We
will test this further for the final evaluation.
This excludes wider outcomes and impacts which have not been
captured at this interim evaluation stage.

19. SEE2 Evaluation Design 19
RECOMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Report findings and next steps were discussed with the client steering
group at a meeting held in December 2021. Key recommendations and
next steps are:
Recommendations
Partners identified a need to invest in further resource and capacity
under the Transform element, to add value to the existing offer.
There has been an agreed increase in resources available to procure
consultancy under Transform. Partners need to explore what these
requirements might be and how they add value to the existing offer.
The sector survey may help identify needs. Feedback from wider
partners would also be valuable.
Partners have discussed the alternative potential approaches to
delivering a place base approach with outreach into targeted
communities in a peripatetic way. Partners need to agree which
geographic areas should be piloted, which could be based on, for
example:
- Locations identified in the baseline as having high levels of
worklessness and/ or deprivation.
- Locations where there is an existing opportunity, hub, resource
and or local ties and relationships.
- Areas where the partnership has had high or lower engagement
currently based on the map of SEE2 service beneficiaries.
The partnership has identified the need and opportunity to develop
its strategic relationships and positioning of the service at wider
local and national levels for future development and funding. The
support and insight of SSEN is a valuable asset within the
partnership. The partnership plans to explore how this strategic
impact can be maximised paving the way for SEE3.
There was also an opportunity to consider the role of SEE2 in
extending its offer to the wider VCSE, beyond social enterprises. This
should be considered within the context of the wider VCSE
infrastructure support mechanisms which may exist across the SEE2
geography and could be explored as part of the ‘positioning piece’
above.
The partnership has identified an opportunity to develop a sector
level offer for social enterprise to include sector level events and
networking; support for sector research; peer mentoring; and the
provision of specialist business advice. The focus will be on
knowledge sharing, business support and market development. Five
sectors most impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and in which
social enterprises are strongly represented include:
- health and social care;
- environmental sustainability;
- food and hospitality;

20. SEE2 Interim Evaluation 20
- creative, media and digital; and
- skills and employability.
Next steps
The key next steps in the SEE2 evaluation are:
To hold an internal partnership strategy meeting to discuss the
above recommendations and agree roles and responsibilities. (ALL)
SEE partnership to lead the way on a positioning piece starting with:
- one-on-one consultations to be organised by the SEE
consortium with key local actors - local authorities, SCR LEP,
SYMCA, chambers of commerce, universities, Key Fund
- an invitation only round table to bring together as many as
possible of the above with the SEE partnership, to share
progress to date and the interim evaluation, and to seek input
to our forward strategy
- dialogue with TNLCF with regard to potential follow-up funding
for SEE3
- assessment of other funding opportunities additional to UKSPF
and TNLCF
- follow-up to our previous (UKCRF) consultation with potential
beneficiaries / new partners
- responding to the UKSPF call as and when it goes live
Consultant to work with CMS to explore whether further detail on
organisations can be included in monitoring activity, for example sub
sector, size of organisation, age of organisation, etc
Prepare a draft survey design for fieldwork with beneficiaries which
will help to gather further information to inform the
recommendations
Consultants to develop method for targeting and collecting stories/
case studies from entrepreneurs (P11)

21. APPENDIX 1 STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED
We would like to thank the following people for their support and input to
this interim evaluation of SEE2.
Name Organisation
Ruth Willis SYCF
Richard Motley CIQA
Melvyn Lunn BCVS
Matt Smith Key Fund
Morgan Killick Level Up Solutions
Sangita Basudev SLT
Andy Sorsby Growth Hub
Yvonne Asquith Sheffield Council
Steve Buckley CMS
Jodie Marshall SSEN
Hazel Conduit SYCF

22. APPENDIX 2 DATA AND SOURCES
Table 1: Population size and age
Local Authority
District
Total
population
Average Age
(Median)
Barnsley 248,071 42.4
Doncaster 312,785 41.2
Rotherham 264,984 41.9
Sheffield 589,214 35.4
Bassetlaw 118,280 45.7
Bolsover 81,305 44.0
Chesterfield 104,930 44.6
Derbyshire Dales 72,422 51.1
Source: Population estimates 2020, ONS and Local authority ageing statistics, based on 2019 mid-year population estimates, ONS

23. Table 2: Ethnicity ONS population characteristics
Local Authority
District
White British All Other White
Mixed / Multiple
ethnic groups
Asian / Asian
British
Black / African /
Caribbean / Black
British
Other ethnic group
Barnsley 95.9% 2.1% 0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4%
Doncaster 89.3% 5.2% 1.3% 2.3% 1.0% 1.0%
Rotherham 91.6% 1.1% 0.4% 4.2% 1.1% 1.5%
Sheffield 80.8% 2.3% 3.5% 6.3% 4.0% 3.1%
Bassetlaw 94.7% 3.5% 0.0% 1.8% - -
Bolsover 98.7% 1.3% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Chesterfield 95.2% 1.9% - 1.9% 1.0% 0.0%
Derbyshire Dales 98.6% 1.4% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
North East Derbyshire 99.0% 0.0% - 1.0% 0.0% -
England 78.7% 6.2% 1.8% 8.0% 3.5% 1.9%
Source: Population Characteristics Research Tables, 2019, ONS

24. Table 3: IMD 2015 and 2019 (1 is most deprived in England)
Local Authority District IMD Rank
2015
IMD Rank
2019
Change in Rank
2015-2019
Barnsley 39 38 -1
Bassetlaw 114 106 -8
Bolsover 87 84 -3
Chesterfield 81 87 6
Derbyshire Dales 257 263 6
Doncaster 42 37 -5
North East Derbyshire 184 170 -14
Rotherham 52 44 -8
Sheffield 60 57 -3
Source: English indices of deprivation 2015 & 2019, MHCLG

25. Table 4: Unemployment rate
Area June 2017 June 2018 June 2019 June 2020 June 2021
Barnsley 2.3 3.3 3.5 6.5 5.6
Doncaster 2.6 3.2 3.6 7.4 6.8
Rotherham 2.5 2.6 3.3 7.0 6.5
Sheffield 2.4 2.3 2.5 5.9 5.7
Bassetlaw 1.6 2.1 2.7 5.2 4.4
Bolsover 1.4 1.7 2.2 5.1 4.2
Chesterfield 1.9 2.5 3.0 5.8 5.0
Derbyshire Dales 0.5 0.7 1.1 3.4 2.6
North East Derbyshire 1.4 1.3 1.9 4.4 3.7
England 1.9 2.1 2.7 6.3 5.7
Source: Claimants as a proportion of residents aged 16-64, ONS, 2021

26. Table 5: Economic inactivity
2017 2018 2019 2020
Barnsley 25.0% 24.5% 22.6% 27.0%
Doncaster 22.0% 22.3% 22.6% 21.3%
Rotherham 22.5% 22.4% 24.4% 19.7%
Sheffield 24.4% 23.0% 22.6% 24.9%
Bassetlaw 23.7% 24.8% 15.2% 22.4%
Bolsover 22.8% 18.7% 22.3% 27.6%
Chesterfield 26.6% 23.8% 27.7% 18.6%
Derbyshire Dales 19.8% 14.9% 18.4% 21.4%
North East Derbyshire 17.8% 18.6% 19.4% 20.9%
England 21.4% 21.3% 20.8% 20.5%
Source: Annual Population Survey 2017-2020

27. Table 6 Economic Inactivity by Reason
Student Looking after
family/home
Temporary
sick
Long-term
sick
Discouraged Retired Other
Barnsley 24% 25% - 26.2% - 11% 13%
Doncaster 18% 22% - 30.8% - 16% 11%
Rotherham 19% 29% - 24.7% - 19% 7%
Sheffield 32% 20% 3% 21.7% - 6% 18%
Bassetlaw 15% 15% - 45.8% - - 22%
Bolsover - - - 24.2% - - 35%
Chesterfield 25% 21% - 27.8% - 16% -
Derbyshire Dales 22% - - 21.3% - 34% 19%
North East Derbyshire 23% 17% - 34.4% - 16% -
England 27% 21% 2% 22.8% 1% 14% 13%
Source: Annual Population Survey Jan 2020 - Dec 2020, ONS

28. Table 7: Population (aged 16-64) who are EA core or work-limiting disabled
Area 2017 2020
Barnsley 25% 26%
Doncaster 23% 26%
Rotherham 24% 26%
Sheffield 23% 22%
Bassetlaw 21% 36%
Bolsover 24% 29%
Chesterfield 26% 28%
Derbyshire Dales 15% 22%
North East Derbyshire 25% 24%
England 20% 21.3%
Source: Annual Population Survey 2017-2020

29. Table 8: Business Density (Number of active businesses per 1,000 working age people)
2017 2018 2019 2020
Barnsley 42.0 41.6 42.1 43.0
Doncaster 49.4 45.8 47.2 48.8
Rotherham 44.8 44.0 44.3 46.1
Sheffield 41.8 41.1 41.6 41.4
Bassetlaw 57.3 57.0 57.1 56.8
Bolsover 47.9 43.4 44.5 44.8
Chesterfield 51.2 50.4 50.6 52.0
Derbyshire Dales 111.8 112.6 112.7 111.9
North East Derbyshire 55.7 54.7 55.6 56.0
England 66.4 66.1 67.2 67.9
Source: ONS, Population Estimates, , 2017-2020 and ONS, UK business: activity, size and location, 2017-
2020

30. Table 9: Job density
Area 2017 2018 2019
Barnsley 0.60 0.64 0.64
Doncaster 0.74 0.72 0.73
Rotherham 0.70 0.70 0.69
Sheffield 0.77 0.76 0.78
Bassetlaw 0.82 0.83 0.85
Bolsover 0.66 0.67 0.64
Chesterfield 0.87 0.93 0.87
Derbyshire Dales 1.03 1.04 1.11
North East Derbyshire 0.55 0.59 0.54
England 0.87 0.87 0.88
Source: ONS 2021

31. Table 10 a Median full time workplace earnings 2017-2020
2017 2018 2019 2020
Barnsley £530 £522 £542 £550
Doncaster £488 £511 £512 £527
Rotherham £483 £493 £520 £517
Sheffield £526 £542 £539 £541
Bassetlaw £447 £471 £488 £536
Bolsover £450 £470 £458 £495
Chesterfield £475 £470 £519 £506
Derbyshire Dales £530 £500 £536 £487
North East Derbyshire £487 £477 £508 £460
England £556 £575 £592 £590
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2010-2020, ONS

32. Table 10 b Median full time resident earnings 2017-2020
2017 2018 2019 2020
Barnsley £497 £493 £533 £517
Doncaster £480 £521 £526 £564
Rotherham £494 £507 £516 £516
Sheffield £524 £532 £543 £537
Bassetlaw £516 £549 £556 £562
Bolsover £448 £460 £519 £498
Chesterfield £497 £482 £512 £490
Derbyshire Dales £573 £602 £553 £600
North East Derbyshire £539 £569 £568 £542
England £556 £575 £592 £590
Source: Annual Population Survey 2017-2020

33. Table 11: % of residents (aged 16+) in employment who are self employed
2017 2018 2019 2020
Barnsley 11.8% 13.8% 12.1% 11.7%
Doncaster 11.6% 11.4% 11.6% 11.2%
Rotherham 13.0% 12.5% 11.9% 16.0%
Sheffield 11.9% 8.8% 10.7% 11.0%
Bassetlaw 13.0% 15.7% 19.5% 15.0%
Bolsover 6.9% 9.0% 8.1% 7.6%
Chesterfield 10.3% 12.6% 11.9% 9.6%
Derbyshire Dales 25.5% 20.4% 30.0% 32.3%
North East Derbyshire 10.0% 14.2% 11.7% 9.9%
England 15.5% 15.4% 15.6% 14.3%
Source: Annual Population Survey 2017-2020

34. APPENDIX 3: SROI
Appraisal Period 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
Costs
Programme total -£572,112.75 -£572,112.75 -£572,112.75 -£572,112.75
Total Costs -£572,113 -£572,113 -£572,113 -£572,113 £0 £0
Discount rate 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Discount factor 1.07 1.04 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.90
Total Discounted costs (PV) -£612,861 -£592,137 -£572,113 -£552,766 £0 £0
Benefits
New jobs created in the local economy £0 £0 £1,499,128 £1,499,128 £1,499,128 £0
Entrepreneurs access information and support that increases their business skills and capabilities £0 £0 £8,547 £8,547 £8,547 £0
More entrepreneurs start up a business/social enterprise £0 £0 £4,311,418 £4,311,418 £4,311,418 £0
Jobs supported in the local economy (through the running of the programme) £0 £219,872 £219,872 £219,872 £219,872 £0
Total Benefits £0 £219,872 £6,038,965 £6,038,965 £6,038,965 £0
Discount rate 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Discount factor 1.07 1.04 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.90
Total Discounted Benefits (PV) £0 £227,568 £6,038,965 £5,834,749 £5,637,439 £0
Cashflow -£612,861 -£364,569 £5,466,852 £5,281,983 £5,637,439 £0