  |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
COMPLETED PROJECTS
Evaluation of first group of completed CNCP projects
The ultimate stage of CNCP projects involves evaluation: the final assessment of results, analysis of the effectiveness with which funding has been used, and formulation of conclusions on the fulfillment of the programme’s aims. For a short version of the соrresponding report completed by CNCP expert Charles Monck, which was considered by the Programme Steering Committee on 19 February, see pages below This is the first in a series of internal evaluation reports of completed projects. The purpose of these evaluations is to assess the impact of the CNCP programme on the creation of long term sustainable jobs including those for former employees in the City Forming Enterprises engaged in nuclear and defence related work. The evaluation of each project takes account of the following documentation:
Declarations are made by each beneficiary in the CNCP quarterly monitoring report, which include the name and age of all new employees, the date that they joined and whether they were former employees of the nuclear establishment. This information is checked with the labour books for each employee retained by the company by the CNCP auditor. In addition, structured interviews were carried out with each beneficiary to gather their views and additional information to enable judgements to be made in the following areas:
The targets for overall job creation and the number of jobs filled by former employees of the nuclear weapons complex have been met in almost all cases, and in some cases these targets have been exceeded. These projects have led to the creation of 536 jobs (476 jobs in the plans) of which 268 (254 in the plans) were for former weapons scientists (50%). The % of grant provided to these projects averaged 46%, varying from 34% in Zheleznogorsk, where there a number of large investments in existing firms, to 75% in Snezhinsk, where projects tended to be smaller and have a higher technology content. One way of assessing efficiency is to consider the grant cost per job. The grant cost per job in terms of the total employment created was found to average £2,800. If the cost per job is restricted to jobs for former nuclear workers, the average actual figure is £5,600. However, there is a considerable variation in the cost per job between cities and projects, which reflects the type of business opportunities in each city. In Snezhinsk, for example, where the focus of employment has been on research and development, projects have tended to be smaller and involve the application of more advanced technologies. In Ozersk and Zheleznogorsk, which are more oriented towards production, projects tend to be larger in scale and production oriented and thus requiring people with lower skills. The common feature of all projects is that they generally led to a diversification of the business through the introduction of new production equipment and enabled new and better quality products to be produced to higher quality standards. This has led to a growth in turnover profits and employment enhancing their longer term sustainability as key employers in the Closed Cities. Several companies have moved from a survival strategy to a strategy based on growth. During the interviews, each beneficiary was asked what they would have done if there had been no CNCP grant. Most said that they would not have gone ahead with the investment a minority said that they might have proceeded but on a reduced scale with a more modest investment spread over several years depending on their capacity to fund it. From the interviews, it was clear that most of the firms did not have access to bank finance at the time of the project decision. All the projects evaluated in Snezhinsk and Ozersk were indigenous businesses set up by people who live in the closed city. In Zheleznogorsk, there were several businesses which also have a branch in Krasnoyarsk, some 20 miles from the closed city, who chose to expand their facilities in the Closed City rather than in the regional capital. Most of the beneficiaries paid close attention to meeting their employment obligations particularly the need to recruit former nuclear staff from the Closed Cities. In a few instances, companies experienced difficulties in meeting this target. Beneficiaries indicated that there have been a number of reasons:
Each of the beneficiaries was asked to comment on the CNCP process. Most firms welcomed the discipline of undertaking market research and the preparation of a business plan. Several firms indicated that it had played a significant role in improving their understanding of the market and the dynamics of their business, and in some cases it enhanced their confidence to invest. Several firms found their Supervisor helpful. In a number of instances, firms are planning significant new developments, based on the success of their CNCP project and the growth of the market. The 6 firms evaluated in Snezhinsk and Ozersk hope to create an extra 100 jobs in the next 3 years. Charles Monck, CNCP Expert, | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Home
Grant Aid
Overview
Completed projects