For combined authorities, agencies and growth hubs
"We put 200 companies through the programme" won’t survive the next settlement.
Throughput was often sufficient when budgets were growing. When budgets are reallocated, commissioners need evidence of what changed. Programmes that can show movement have stronger evidence for the funding conversation.
The commissioning problem
A throughput figure counts activity. It does not show the pattern of need within the cohort.
A throughput figure shows that provision took place. It does not, by itself, show where the next pound or intervention should go, because it does not describe the commercial constraint within each company.
Measure the same cohort on one instrument and the pattern of need becomes visible. Needs are not always evenly distributed; recurring stages or causes may show where provision could be concentrated.
That gives commissioners a basis for reporting the current programme and designing the next one.
Illustrative only; not observed data. The example shows how needs may cluster within a cohort.
What the report contains
The quarterly report, page by page.
Cohort movement
Companies measured at intake and exit. The report shows the proportion that moved, the average movement and the stage in which movement occurred.
Position and indicated cause
Where each company stands, the root cause indicated by the result, the support category the method points towards and what changed at the next measurement.
A common language
Each programme uses the same published instrument, so findings from one delivery partner can be compared with findings from another. Provision can then be planned against the pattern of need recorded across the portfolio.
The sentence you take to the next settlement changes. From "we put 200 companies through" to "we measured 200 companies, this proportion improved, and here is the intervention that did it".
Two ways to fund adoption
One may use existing support budgets.
- The authority licenses it centrally and asks its programmes to use it.
- Or each delivery partner funds it from support money already allocated to delivery, without a new central budget line where the funding rules allow.
Because the method is published, delivery partners can also run it themselves. The aim is wider adoption while keeping the underlying measurement comparable across implementations.
A result your funders can check for themselves
Every assessment carries a reference. Anyone a company shows it to can confirm the result is genuine, without seeing anything the company did not choose to share.
- Attach a reference to an evidence pack and the reader can verify it rather than take it on trust
- A delivery partner reporting movement is reporting something checkable, not a claim
- An auditor or an evaluator can confirm the instrument and version behind a figure
- No company data is disclosed by verification. The company decides what it shows
A reference confirms four things only: that the result is real, which method version produced it, when it was taken and whether it is still current, and its evidence level. Never the score, the company name or any answer. How the register works. Verification is specified and not yet live
The line you report against
A relevant outcome measure: indicator 1.3.
Outcome 1, indicator 1.3 of the Integrated Settlement Outcomes Framework asks for supported businesses demonstrating improved practice against five named dimensions.
This instrument covers three of the five dimensions. The report states that it does not cover the other two. It does not ask about product innovation or access to finance; the latter is outside scope because Growth Score is not a credit or eligibility signal.
It can provide a company-level evidence set for that part of the return, with its exclusions stated. A count of businesses supported provides activity evidence, not the same outcome measure.
What each company receives
A ten-page report a delivery partner can use: the company's position, the root cause indicated by the result, the support category the method points towards and a plan with a 90-day follow-up point.
Free to the company, whether or not it later speaks to the delivery partner. The same result aggregates into institutional reporting, giving both audiences a common record rather than separate views that can diverge.
What changes in the job
- Provision can be commissioned against a reported pattern of need. If one root cause recurs across the portfolio, it can inform where funding or support is concentrated
- Referrals have a common starting point. The “no wrong door” promise is supported by a shared way to describe need
- Delivery partners use one language. A finding from one implementation can be compared with a finding from another when both follow the published method
- A quarterly evidence report can be generated from delivery data, subject to the stated limits, rather than commissioned as a separate exercise
- The outcomes framework gets a business support measure that is not throughput and not three years late
The payoff
| Measure | Current view | After one cycle |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome evidence per programme | Throughput, often self-reported by the provider | Movement per company, using the same instrument across participating providers |
| Findings across delivery partners | Different measures, difficult to combine | One published scale, allowing the portfolio to be read on a common basis |
| Where support money may concentrate | Committee judgement and aggregated activity data | Recurring stages and causes identified across the portfolio |
| The evidence report itself | Commissioned occasionally and separately | Available quarterly from the measurement record, subject to the stated limits |
For assurance, the method, arithmetic and conformance vectors are public. That gives reviewers material they can inspect before implementation. Growth Score supports measurement and reporting; it is not an automated decision about a person or business.