Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund evaluation

Footnotes

1 KTIF applications were considered and scored by the Project Assessment Committee (PAC) – see section on award process and criteria.

2 Initially, four separate applications for Monitor Farms were submitted. Following feedback, these were consolidated into one application. The total includes the single consolidated application only. Some applications were resubmitted following feedback from PAC – these applications are also counted once.

3 Some applications were resubmitted following feedback – these applications are counted once.

4 Some applications were resubmitted following feedback – these applications are counted once. This figure includes the consolidated Monitor Farms application only and not the four separate applications made earlier.

5 See section on award process and criteria – applications were considered and scored by the Project Assessment Committee (PAC).

6 This includes legacy Skills Development Scheme (SDS) figures. SDS was part of the SRDP 2007-2013.

7 Please note that due to EC recording rules expenditure figures were only included in the year when funds were paid out to projects – therefore projects could have been approved and started to be implemented in earlier years.

8 Excludes Monitor Farms which is a notable outlier at £1,249,340. If Monitor Farms is included, the average grant size increases to £131,271. See section on Monitor Farms for more detail on the project.

9 Excludes Monitor Farms which is a notable outlier at £1,199,110. If Monitor Farms is included, the average spend increases to £127,441.

10 Excludes Monitor Farms. If included, total average grant award across KTIF is £152,729.

11 Excludes Monitor Farms. If included, total average spend across KTIF is £144,965.

12 Figures for 2014 & 2015 and 2016 include figures from the Skills Development Scheme (SDS) which was part of the SRDP 2007-2013.

13 Although the initiative also has a significant knowledge transfer element by design.

14 However, it is helpful to note for context – as pointed out by a participant – that issues such as confirming budgets, receiving Ministerial approval to proceed with funding rounds, and ensuring enough time is available for assessing applications can cause delays and lead to truncated timelines.

15 Note that there was a conflict of interest process in place when PAC members’ organisations had submitted funding application – please see page 21 for more information.

16 Key: KT = Knowledge Transfer; INN = Innovation