Policy paper

Evaluation of the Social Enterprise Boost Fund

Published 11 July 2025

Applies to England

Executive summary

The Boost Fund was a £3.3 million government investment from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) aimed at growing the social enterprise sector in 6 high-deprivation areas of England by: (1) supporting the creation of new social enterprises; and (2) boosting early-stage social enterprises. This initiative was delivered by 4 local delivery partners (LDPs): Firstport and PNE in Sunderland and South Tyneside, North East BIC in County Durham, the SEBF West Midlands consortium in Sandwell and Wolverhampton, and Social Enterprise Kent in Thanet.

This report draws on interviews and group discussions with social entrepreneurs supported by the Fund, the LDPs, DCMS, and local and national stakeholders. It incorporates a survey of social entrepreneurs who had been supported by the Fund, and monitoring data collected by the LDPs. The evaluation examines the design, set-up, and delivery of the Boost Fund, as well as the Fund’s outcomes and impacts on social entrepreneurs, and their perceived impact on their local communities. Additionally, it assesses the Value for Money (VfM) of the Boost Fund, based on the ‘economy’, ‘efficiency’, and ‘effectiveness’ of the Fund’s delivery. The evidence indicates that the Boost Fund has achieved the following outcomes, and in doing so, has achieved its aim of supporting the creation of new social enterprises, and boosting early-stage social enterprises:

(1) The Fund improved the skills, knowledge, confidence, and resilience of social entrepreneurs. The Boost Fund helped social entrepreneurs develop business skills such as marketing, finance, bid writing, and business planning. Social entrepreneurs credited the Boost Fund with increasing their confidence to start and grow their social enterprises. The Fund also improved their business resilience, ability to reinvest profits, and better equipped them to apply for future grants. Through the Fund, social entrepreneurs developed sustainable business models with which they hope to be able to maintain their cash reserves.

(2) The Fund supported the creation of new social enterprises and boosted early-stage social enterprises. The Fund enabled social entrepreneurs to develop the skills that laid the foundation for business growth and the establishment of new social enterprises. Many entrepreneurs reported that without the Fund, their growth would have been significantly slower or not possible at all.

(3) The Fund strengthened local networks and partnerships that support social enterprises. LDPs facilitated partnership building with other social entrepreneurs through networking events and meetings organised by 1:1 business advisors. LDPs built and strengthened relationships with local authorities, local VCSE organisations, and community centres, some of which they had not worked with previously.

(4) The Fund increased social enterprises’ perceived ability to support communities in their target areas. Social entrepreneurs reported stronger awareness of community needs and improved ability to meet community needs effectively. They increased support in areas such as mental health, education, and family support, leading to spillover benefits including reduced NHS workloads.

(5) The Fund showed what works to support social enterprises. Including: (1) Effective approaches for reaching/targeting social entrepreneurs e.g. referrals from local organisations such as district councils and VCSE organisations; (2) Tailoring projects to local needs by engaging with the local community (through feedback forms and visiting community centres), desk research, engagement with stakeholders (through events, steering groups); and (3) The importance of having a dedicated grants officer and a single point of contact for social entrepreneurs to ensure consistent, bespoke support with grant applications.

(6) Unit costs of the business support provided appear to be lower compared to other government-funded programmes. Two-thirds (63 per cent) of the Boost Fund was spent on capability building support activities, 34 per cent on onward grants and 3 per cent on administrative costs. The average Boost Fund cost per social entrepreneur was £3,267, ranging between £2,092 for those who received capability business support and £5,086 for those who received grants^{[footnote 1]}. Previous government schemes have shown that business support can cost anywhere between £2,000 and £15,000 and our analysis showed that Boost Fund expenditure was at the lower end of this spectrum^{[footnote 2]}.

1. Summary

1.1 Boost Fund background and context

The Boost Fund ran from March 2023 to March 2025. It supported pre-start up and start-up phase social enterprises located across 6 high deprivation local authorities in England. Activities in these areas were delivered by the following 4 local delivery partners (LDPs): Firstport and PNE in Sunderland and South Tyneside, North East BIC (NE BIC) in County Durham, SEBF West Midlands, a consortium of 5 delivery partners (Initiative for Social Entrepreneurs [iSE], Access to Business [A2B], Sandwell Council of Voluntary Organisations [SCVO], Skills Work and Enterprise Development Agency [SWEDA], and Wolverhampton Voluntary Community Action [WVCA]) in Sandwell and Wolverhampton, and Social Enterprise Kent (SE Kent) in Thanet.

The aims of the Boost Fund were to, by March 2025:

• grow the social enterprise sector in targeted areas, by supporting the creation of new social enterprises and boosting early-stage social enterprises
• enable targeted high-deprivation local authorities and the local voluntary and community sector in these places to implement sustainable systems and processes that encourage social enterprise growth
• build and disseminate evidence on:
  • scalable and sustainable place-based interventions that work in growing the social enterprise sector in disadvantaged areas
  • the extent to which and how social enterprises support communities and economies in disadvantaged areas

The SEBF West Midlands project delivery closed 6 months earlier than planned, in September 2024. This early closure was due to difficulties experienced by the consortium during the delivery of its activities. The other 3 LDPs completed delivery as originally intended in March 2025.

The final funding amount across the 4 LDPs was £3,274,548.

DCMS commissioned RSM UK Consulting LLP (RSM) and the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to conduct an independent evaluation of the Boost Fund.

1.2 Data used in the report

This evaluation answers process, impact, and ‘value for money’ (VfM) related research questions (RQs) at the Fund and individual LDP levels. It provides lessons learned and recommendations against the RQs. Process questions relate to the Fund set up, implementation and LDP delivery. Impact questions relate to outcomes that LDPs achieved and the impacts these outcomes led to for social enterprises and local communities, as explained in the Theory of Change (ToC). VfM questions explore the Fund’s economy, efficiency, and effectiveness to the extent that available data allows. The full list of RQs is available in Annex A. To answer the RQs, this report draws on findings from 91 interviews and 3 group discussions with social entrepreneurs, LDPs, DCMS, local VCSE and local authority representatives, and national VCSE representatives; monitoring data reported by LDPs; Common Minimum Dataset (CMD) monitoring data collected by LDPs about social entrepreneurs and their social enterprises; and 131 responses to a survey we conducted with 448 social entrepreneurs.

1.3 Key findings

Below is a summary of the evaluation’s key process, impact, and VfM findings.

1.3.1 Process evaluation

Fund design: The Boost Fund design process worked well despite tight timeframes, with effective sectoral stakeholder engagement and drawing on lessons from other DCMS funds.

LDP selection: DCMS received 21 applications from organisations interested in the role of LDP, indicating high demand for the Fund.

Fund set-up: Grant agreements were signed quickly and efficiently, however, the LDPs and DCMS faced some issues in the latter part of set-up. Staff turnover at both DCMS and the LDPs likely contributed to the lengthy review process and insufficient capacity of LDPs to meet DCMS requests. LDPs felt there was a lack of clarity from DCMS regarding the information they were required to provide for onward grants distribution.

Onward grant funding: In total, the LDPs provided £1,115,233.06 of grants to social entrepreneurs. Each LDP’s approach to grant usage, size and administration was different.

Non-grant support for social entrepreneurs: LDPs provided a range of non-grant support including 1:1 business advice, workshops, and networking opportunities. The most common support provided was 1:1 business advice, which entrepreneurs found valuable as it gave them regular access to expert knowledge and advice. Demand was highest for in-person activities and events.

What worked well: LDPs effectively tailored delivery to local needs through research and community engagement, ensuring appropriate support for social entrepreneurs. This helped social entrepreneurs avoid duplication of services provided by local authorities and local VCSE organisations and businesses.

What worked less well: Potential areas of improvement included offering more sector-specific training (e.g. focused on arts and culture or education) and expanding focus from Community Interest Companies (CICs) to other types of social enterprise.

Targeting and reaching social entrepreneurs: The Boost Fund supported 734 entrepreneurs across its 6 delivery areas. LDPs used various strategies to reach entrepreneurs, including advertising, referrals from local organisations (such as district councils and VCSE organisations), and social media, with referrals proving most effective. LDPs reached their target audience.

Who have the LDPs reached? Demographically, the majority of social entrepreneurs supported were aged 35-54, predominantly female, and mostly white. Many had higher-level qualifications and were in paid work. The demographics of Boost Fund participants show a higher representation of women and ethnic minorities compared to general social enterprise trends, indicating the Fund’s effectiveness in engaging diverse groups (see Section 3.3.2 for more details).

Evidence of replicability and scalability: Interviewees emphasised the importance of local knowledge, understanding local needs and context, and having relationships in the area in delivering 1:1 business advice, workshops, and training. They reported that scaling delivery may limit organisations’ capacity to deliver this personalised approach, potentially diluting the impact for entrepreneurs.

1.3.2 Impact evaluation

Outcomes for social entrepreneurs: The Boost Fund improved social entrepreneurs’ business skills, confidence, resilience, and growth. 69 per cent (N=131) of entrepreneurs reported that the Boost Fund helped them develop business and entrepreneurial skills, these included bid writing and marketing skills, boosting their confidence to start and grow their enterprises. 60 per cent (N=131) of entrepreneurs agreed that the Boost Fund helped them develop the confidence to start a social enterprise, and 58 per cent (N=130) agreed that the Fund helped them develop their capability to do so. The Fund helped entrepreneurs build local networks and partnerships, increasing their ability to support communities through delivering in partnership with other social enterprises. Entrepreneurs felt that in the absence of the Boost Fund their social enterprises would be less developed, with a few stating that they would not have been set up at all. The Boost Fund played a vital role in their enterprise’s development and sustainability.

Understanding how to identify and meet local need: 69 per cent of entrepreneurs (N=131) reported that participating in the Boost Fund directly improved their awareness of community needs and 70 per cent (N=128) agreed that the Boost Fund enhanced their ability to meet local community needs more effectively. Entrepreneurs reported better awareness and improved effectiveness through methods including day-to-day activities, community events, and social media.

Outcomes for LDPs: LDPs built and strengthened relationships with local stakeholders, such as local authorities, national social enterprise support bodies, local VCSE organisations, and community centres, some of which they had not worked with previously. This has led to new projects for some LDPs, for example, working with their local council to deliver a new programme supporting social enterprises. Additionally, a few LDPs reported an increased understanding of the local landscape and context through delivering Boost Fund support, learning to work in new ways, with new communities, and in new geographies.

Outcomes for local communities: Most social entrepreneurs targeted their operations locally, with some expanding regionally through the Boost Fund. The primary sectors of activity were arts, education, and health, with many positive outcomes reported around mental health, social isolation, and food poverty. Social entrepreneurs also noted spillover benefits, such as reducing NHS workload and enhancing community pride through events and activities. These outcomes were self-reported by social entrepreneurs rather than by members of local communities. Data collection with members of local communities was outside the scope of the evaluation.

Based on the available evidence, the evaluation finds that the Fund strongly contributed to social entrepreneurs’ sense of resilience by increasing their ability to weather poorer economic times, reinvesting profits back into their social enterprise, and accessing additional support and funding outside of the Boost Fund from other social enterprises, local authorities, and local and national charities. The Fund also strongly contributed to social enterprises’ perceived ability to support communities in their target areas. There is also some evidence that the Fund helped social enterprises build their local networks, through the creation and strengthening of local partnerships with other social enterprises. Finally, the Fund allowed social entrepreneurs to build key business skills that laid the foundation for business growth. In Section 4.5 we detail the strength of evidence underpinning these contribution findings.

1.3.3 Value for money^{[footnote 3]}

Proportion spent on Boost Fund activities: In total, just under two-thirds (63 per cent) of the Boost Fund was spent on capability building support activities, such as business advice, workshops, and networking opportunities. Just over a third (34 per cent) of overall funding was spent on onward grants to social entrepreneurs. Boost Fund administrative costs comprised 3 per cent of the funding^{[footnote 4]}.

Boost Fund cost per beneficiary: The average cost of accessing the Fund per beneficiary was £3,267 and this varied between those who received grants (£5,086) and those who received capability building support (£2,092).

Cost of creating a new social enterprise: According to our core effectiveness scenario, we estimate that the Boost Fund created an additional 287 new social enterprises, at a unit cost of £11,410 per social enterprise. This core scenario assumes that all social enterprise creation identified in the CMD, and survey data can be attributed to the Boost Fund. However, it is only possible to estimate the cost per new social enterprise created with a high level of uncertainty. More conservative assumptions find that only half or two-thirds of recipients who aspired to create a new social enterprise did so because of the Boost Fund. This represents deadweight of one-third to one-half, as not all social enterprise creation can be attributed to the Fund. Under these scenarios and additional sensitivity analysis, we conclude that the unit cost is somewhere between £10,257 and £50,633 (full details available in Annex A)^{[footnote 5]}. As a comparison, research from Social Enterprise UK showed that the median annual turnover of micro social enterprises is £30,000^{[footnote 6]}. Therefore, the amount spent on creating a new social enterprise seems reasonable in comparison with the annual economic contribution of social enterprises of similar size to the UK economy.

1.4 Recommendations for similar interventions

The evaluation makes the following recommendations aimed at any future interventions of a similar nature or focus. Section 6 includes further detail for each recommendation.

1. DCMS (or other funding bodies) should engage with key stakeholders in the early design stages of a fund through a stakeholder workshop or consultation process. This is particularly important when there is a lack of existing quantifiable evidence on effective strategies for supporting social enterprises.
2. DCMS (or other funding bodies) should ensure clarity of communications about their expectations for LDPs during the set-up stage, including the necessary information they will need to provide. This would enable applicants to prepare the required information once notified of their success, leading to a more efficient set-up process.
3. DCMS (or other funding bodies) should implement more frequent monitoring and communication during the set-up phase. This will mitigate the impact of potential staff turnover and ensure a consistent approach for delivery partners.
4. During grant applications LDPs should encourage or mandate an initial discussion between social entrepreneurs and business advisors regarding their grant applications. This will help assess applicants’ motivations and readiness, provide valuable feedback, and improve the quality of applications.
5. LDPs should provide grants upfront rather than in arrears for pre-start or early-stage social enterprises. Pre-start or early-stage social enterprises often lack the financial resources to pay for expenses upfront and claim them in arrears, so this can address their cashflow limitations.
6. LDPs should offer a hybrid approach of online and in-person delivery. This accommodates the diverse preferences and accessibility needs of entrepreneurs.
7. DCMS should consider conducting a follow-up study on longer-term outcomes and impacts of the Boost Fund. This will enable DCMS to assess the sustainability and legacy of the Boost Fund.

2. Method

2.1 Evaluation overview

This report draws on findings from interviews, group discussions, monitoring data, and a survey. This section briefly describes the data collection approach taken. Annex A provides full details on the methodology, including data collection, analysis, and the limitations of the evaluation. Annex C outlines the theoretical basis for the evaluation.

2.2 Data used in this report

2.2.1 Interviews

This report draws on findings from 91 interviews and 3 group discussions with the following groups:

• Social entrepreneurs: Between November 2023 and November 2024, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with social entrepreneurs. These interviews focused on their involvement in and experience with the Fund, their aims and objectives, and the outcomes and impacts achieved, including for their local communities.
• LDPs: In October 2023 and in September 2024, we conducted 15 in-depth interviews with representatives from all LDPs. These interviews explored their experiences with the application process, LDP project set-up, delivery, the reach of the Fund, reflections on different approaches used, and what worked well and less well in supporting entrepreneurs.
• DCMS: In November 2023 and February 2024, we conducted 3 in-depth interviews with DCMS policy and evaluation personnel. These interviews reflected on the Fund design process, management of LDPs, and programme delivery. In November 2024, we held 2 group discussion with these personnel to reflect on their experiences managing the LDPs and the relative merits of various approaches taken by LDPs in their delivery.
• Local authority and local VCSE representatives: Between November 2023 and September 2024 we conducted 3 in-depth interviews with local authority representatives from Boost Fund areas, as well as 12 interviews with representatives from VCSE organisations local to these areas. These focused on the local landscape for social enterprises, interventions to support them, and local level demand for their products/services.
• National VCSE representatives: In February 2024, we conducted 3 in-depth interviews with representatives from national VCSE organisations. These interviews focused on barriers and facilitators faced by social enterprises, national/regional support initiatives, and their perspectives on the Boost Fund. In October 2024, we held a group discussion with representatives from national VCSE organisations to explore what does and does not work to support social enterprises, the wider social enterprise landscape and reflections on the Boost Fund.

2.2.2 Common Minimum Dataset

The CMD is a monitoring data collection form designed to ensure that the LDPs collect uniform monitoring data for the evaluation. The CMD includes demographic information of social entrepreneurs, information about their social enterprises, grant applications, and activities/events attended by the social entrepreneurs. Annex D contains comprehensive details of the data captured by the CMD. Throughout the delivery period, LDPs completed and returned the CMD every 6 months. The data used for this report is from the October 2024 data collection, covering data from the commencement of delivery up to 30 September 2024^{[footnote 7]}.

2.2.3 Social entrepreneur survey

The social entrepreneur survey captured evidence from the entrepreneurs supported by the Boost Fund including questions on their involvement in the Boost Fund, outcomes for their social enterprises, outcomes experienced by the entrepreneurs, and other support and funding accessed outside of the Boost Fund. We emailed the survey to 448 eligible entrepreneurs. Eligibility required at least 7 months of participation in the Boost Fund, determined by their entry date in the CMD collected by their LDPs. This approach ensured that participants had sufficient time to experience outcomes and impacts. The final analysis includes 133 usable responses after discounting duplicates and opt-outs. This is a complete response rate of 30 per cent.

2.3 Limitations

We have identified the following limitations with our evaluation:

• Reporting timelines: We wrote this final report before the delivery finished in March 2025. Consequently, the data collected on outcomes and impacts is limited to what can be meaningfully observed within the timeframes for analysis and reporting. We are not in a position to examine impacts related to sustainability and legacy. Instead, we report on indicators that suggest potential for future sustainability.
  • Recommendation: DCMS should consider a follow-up study on longer-term outcomes and impacts to assess the sustainability of social enterprises in practice. The CMD includes business registration details to enable such follow-up studies in the future.
• Community data collection: We have not conducted any wider community data collection as this was outside the scope of our evaluation. Therefore, any reported outcomes and impacts on the wider community are based on observations from entrepreneurs or LDPs, rather than direct reports from community members.
  • Recommendation: DCMS should consider future consultations or data collections to address these knowledge gaps and better understand social enterprise impacts.
• Data on turnover, profit and employment: We are limited in our ability to answer RQ9 regarding growth in turnover, profit, and employment. Turnover, profit, and employment levels are outcomes that take longer to (a) change, and (b) be traceable in data such as annual reports. Therefore, in the available timelines, the evaluation team and DCMS agreed to focus on qualitative feedback on business skills and likelihood that these would influence things like revenues and turnovers. This means the evaluation does not measure quantified estimates of business growth.
• High-level expenditure data: For our VfM analysis, we use expenditure data reported by LDPs. This data is very high-level and does not break down capability building support into different types of activities or events, preventing detailed VfM analysis at that level. DCMS did not request more detailed expenditure data from LDPs.
• Data collection period of expenditure data: At the time of report writing, 2024/25 expenditure data is incomplete and therefore the VfM analysis focused on the 2023/24 financial year, rather than the full period of Boost Fund delivery.
• Data availability for the VfM: Expenditure data included in the VfM analysis was based on data reported by LDPs. Therefore, it does not include DCMS administrative costs associated with designing and delivering the Fund. At the time of writing, there is also limited data on the full long-term impact of the Boost Fund, which made cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency analysis limited.

3. Process evaluation findings

This section presents findings relating to the design, set up and delivery of the Boost Fund. The section draws upon findings from interviews and group discussions with DCMS, LDPs, social entrepreneurs, local and national VCSE organisation representatives and local authority representatives, as well as CMD data. Headline key findings are presented in blue shaded boxes with the supporting evidence and detail underpinning those findings. Where relevant, we complement this with lessons learned that may be informative in relation to the design of future, similar funds.

3.1 Fund design and set-up

3.1.1 Fund design

Key findings:

The Boost Fund design process worked well, despite tight timeframes. Engagement with key sectoral stakeholders through a DCMS-led stakeholder workshop and drawing on lessons from other DCMS funds (e.g. the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund) proved particularly effective in helping design the Fund. This resulted in a fund that was well-suited to meet the needs of social enterprises.

DCMS staff conducted desk-based research to understand the needs of social enterprises and the existing social enterprise support landscape in England. They found a lack of robust, quantifiable evidence on effective strategies for supporting social enterprise start-up and growth.

Stakeholder workshop

In August 2022, DCMS organised a workshop with stakeholders involved in funding and/or supporting social enterprises and entrepreneurs across England. The workshop gathered views on how DCMS could transform its commitment to supporting social enterprises and entrepreneurs in disadvantaged areas, as outlined in the Conservative government’s Levelling Up White Paper^{[footnote 8]}, into a workable solution.

Lesson learned: Engaging with key stakeholders early in the design stage of the Boost Fund was crucial for designing an effective support programme for social enterprises, especially given lack of existing quantifiable evidence on effective strategies or what works.

Defining geographical target areas

To define target areas for the Boost Fund, DCMS selected the same 27 geographical areas identified for the concurrent Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) Fund, based on analysis of socio-economic disadvantage and community needs. From these 27 areas, DCMS aimed to choose 4 to 6 for the Boost Fund, ensuring a spread across England and providing adequate funding to each area.

Timelines

DCMS conducted the design process at pace to have the Fund operational by the end of the 2022-23 financial year. DCMS staff acknowledged that more time would have been beneficial to define expected outcomes and to plan the communication approach for promoting the Fund. Despite these challenges, they concluded that the process was ultimately robust.

3.1.2 LDP application process

Key findings:

The LDP application process generally worked well for both DCMS and the LDPs. However, the application deadline just before Christmas 2022 presented challenges for some LDPs in developing their applications.

DCMS opened the Boost Fund LDP application window on 30 November 2022 and closed it on 21 December 2022. The application process followed a standard grant competition format and collected information about applicants’ suggested LDP project approach and knowledge of local context. DCMS conducted a ‘Q&A’ session for interested organisations to seek clarification about the Fund before applying. Applications were submitted through an online portal. DCMS conducted follow-up calls with shortlisted applicants.

DCMS reflections on the application process

DCMS felt the application process was successful. To expedite the application set-up, DCMS utilised existing materials developed for the KYN Fund, adjusting them to ensure alignment with the economic focus of the Boost Fund compared to the social focus of the KYN Fund. DCMS staff believed this approach was crucial for their ability to mobilise within a short timeframe.

Lesson learned/recommendation: Communication among DCMS colleagues involved in the design of different funds facilitated the use of existing application materials from previous similar funds for the Boost Fund application process, enabling efficient set-up within tight timeframes.

DCMS staff acknowledged that the tight application timescales and the Christmas deadline were challenging for applicants, and a longer process would have been beneficial.

LDP reflections on the application process

The LDPs generally found the application process straightforward. They felt the questions and required information were reasonable and appropriate. The main challenge was the deadline timing, a few days before Christmas. Half of the LDPs faced difficulties, with 1 LDP having all colleagues on leave, leaving 1 person to write the bid.

Recommendation: To reduce challenges, DCMS should avoid closing application windows near the Christmas period and provide guidance to applicants on planning application development in detail and well in advance to avoid staff absences.

3.1.3 LDP selection

Key findings:

DCMS received a high number of LDP applications and were satisfied with the selected LDPs.

DCMS received 21 LDP applications for the Boost Fund, exceeding expectations. Staff noted that engagement and buy-in from key stakeholders drove this interest. In January 2023, DCMS staff contacted each of the LDPs via email to notify them of their selection.

Stakeholder engagement was really important and helped with shaping the programme and generating a healthy amount of applications.

– DCMS.

Lesson learned: The number of applications greatly exceeded the number of LDPs selected, indicating a clear demand from LDPs for more funds of this type in the target geographical areas in the future.

DCMS staff reported general satisfaction with the selected LDPs. They highlighted several strengths, including the LDPs’ deep knowledge of the local enterprise landscape and VCSE sector and their extensive pre-existing local networks. These attributes were crucial for providing effective support, enabling LDPs to understand the unique challenges and opportunities for social enterprises in their regions and tailor their approach to ensure support reached areas with the greatest need and untapped demand.

3.1.4 Fund set-up

Key findings:

Key set-up issues for LDPs included a lack of clarity and communication about the application requirements from DCMS and insufficient capacity of LDPs to meet DCMS requests.

Within approximately 3 weeks of LDP selection, all LDPs signed their grant agreements. DCMS staff felt this part of the set-up was successful.

DCMS required the review and approval of all information and application materials for social enterprise applicants. This included application forms, applicant guidance, eligibility criteria, and the grant application assessment process. DCMS said that in doing so, they wanted to ensure the Fund would achieve its purpose before disbursing public funds.

It was very important for us to see that documentation to ensure that the delivery partners would be reaching the types of organisations and individuals that the grant was designed to have an impact on, and to ensure it was in line with the Fund objectives. It can be quite easy for these things to get watered down through the process, so we have to ensure the wording remained tight and was in line with what we wanted to achieve.

– DCMS.

During this stage, DCMS conducted a due diligence process on the LDPs which included a fraud risk assessment, financial accountability checks, checks of the terms and conditions and subsidy control. All selected LDPs underwent this review process for DCMS risk management purposes. While LDPs were generally responsive, some lacked the capacity to meet all DCMS’s requests resulting in delays in launching the grant programmes.

What worked less well

The LDPs felt there was a lack of clarity from DCMS regarding the information that LDPs were required to provide for onward grants distribution. LDPs noted that it took longer than expected to receive feedback on grant application materials, causing delays in signing off materials. Staff turnover at both DCMS and the LDPs likely contributed to the lengthy review process.

DCMS staff noted the need for better communication about their expectations during the set-up stage. Although partially outlined in the application process, more effective communication was needed regarding their requirements for approving onward grant materials and the resources required from LDPs. This is particularly important for LDPs working with a central government department for the first time, ensuring they understand expectations such as requiring capacity for direct engagement with the funder. LDPs would have benefitted from earlier communication about the necessary information they would be required to provide during the set-up stage. This proactive approach would allow LDPs to prepare the required information upon notification of their success, leading to a more efficient set-up process. Regardless of changes in DCMS personnel or internal changes, LDPs are then aware of what is required and when, facilitating a smoother transition.

Recommendation: DCMS should ensure clarity of communication about their expectations for LDPs in the set-up stage. They should sufficiently inform LDPs about the necessary information they will need to provide during the set-up stage (such as information and data for financial accountability checks, fraud risk checks and subsidy control). This should be done earlier in the process, such as during the application stage.

DCMS staff believed that more frequent monitoring and communication about LDP progress during the set-up phase would have been beneficial. This could have mitigated the impact of frequent staff changes at DCMS and ensured a consistent approach for LDPs.

Recommendation: DCMS should implement more frequent monitoring and communication during the set-up phase to mitigate the impact of potential staff turnover and ensure a consistent approach for delivery partners.

3.2 LDP project delivery

3.2.1 Onward grant funding

Key findings:

314 entrepreneurs submitted 400 applications, with 220 grants awarded, resulting in a 55 per cent award rate. In total the LDPs provided £1,115,233.06 of grants, with most grants between £4,001 and £6,000. LDPs had varied approaches to grant sizes and administration, with 1 LDP requiring expenditure before reimbursement. Social entrepreneurs valued the 1:1 business advisor support during the grant application stage and generally found the language used in the grant application to be accessible.

Grant funding was a core component of the LDPs’ Boost Fund offering. Social entrepreneurs could apply for grants of up to £10,000, to support the creation and growth of new and early-stage social enterprises. These grants provided financial support to develop income-generating activities for social enterprises and encourage social entrepreneurs to take the initial steps in establishing their social enterprises.

According to the CMD^{[footnote 9]}, across the 4 LDPs a total of 314 entrepreneurs submitted 400 grant applications, with some applying for multiple grants. Of these, 220 grants were awarded, resulting in a 55 per cent award rate.

Table 1 presents the value of the grants awarded to social entrepreneurs and across the 4 LDPs. In total, the LDPs provided £1,115,233.06 of grants to entrepreneurs, with grants ranging from £640 to £10,000. The majority of grants (61 per cent) were between £4,001 and £6,000.

Table 1 - Number and value of grants awarded by LDP

LDP	Grants awarded	Value of grants awarded
Firstport and PNE (in South Tyneside and Sunderland)	90	£417,750
NE BIC (in County Durham)	64	£275,912
SEBF West Midlands (in Sandwell and Wolverhampton)	32	£223,463.98
SE Kent (in Thanet)	34	£198,107.08

Differences in demand from social entrepreneurs led to differences in sizes of onward grants distributed by the LDPs, as detailed in Annex E. Firstport and PNE and NE BIC distributed smaller grants, with none exceeding £5,000. In contrast, SE Kent and SEBF West Midlands had more varied grant sizes, ranging from less than £1,000 to £10,000. Notably, 50 per cent of SEBF West Midlands grants were large, between £8,000 and £10,000.

Grant application process

The LDPs used different grant application processes. 1 LDP allowed entrepreneurs to submit applications over the phone, in person, or online, with a 1:1 session with a business advisor optional. For other LDPs, entrepreneurs could not apply online directly and instead had to complete a ‘factfinder’ form online initially, followed by a compulsory detailed discussion with a business advisor. This process aimed to understand the applicant’s motivations and ensure they were applying for the right reasons and at the right time. The business advisors provided feedback on applications to help entrepreneurs best present their application and to ensure its quality. The grants officers then presented the application to an impartial panel for assessment against the application criteria. LDPs found that this process worked very well, with 1 LDP stating that:

For those that are turned down for the funding, the emphasis is on providing feedback for them so they can come back and reapply. We don’t intend to shut the door in someone’s face or shut down their ideas. But there are simply some projects where giving them funds too early before they have sorted out certain issues is potentially setting them up to fail.

– LDP.

Recommendation: LDPs should mandate an initial discussion between social entrepreneurs and business advisors for grant applications. This approach, proven successful in the Boost Fund, helps assess applicants’ motivations and readiness, provide valuable feedback, and improves application quality.

Most social entrepreneurs interviewed had a positive experience with the grant application process. Social entrepreneur interviewees said that the 1:1 business advisors were able to give them guidance around what the application assessors were looking for. Social entrepreneurs interviewed said this was important to the success of their applications. Other facilitators to the application process cited by social entrepreneur interviewees included the simple language used in the application forms and the proportionality of the application requirements, in comparison to the size of the grants available.

LDPs felt that having a dedicated grant officer and a single point of contact for social entrepreneurs ensured consistency and a personalised approach. This approach helped the grant officer understand social entrepreneurs’ contexts thoroughly and provide bespoke support on their grant applications. 1 LDP noted that having the same grant officer for all applications provided a comprehensive overview of participants, their needs, and challenges. This approach made it easier to identify weaknesses in assessments and notice trends, such as a regional weakness in impact measurements.

A few of the social entrepreneurs interviewed said that receiving grants up front rather than in arrears was very important to them due to cashflow limitations. A few social entrepreneurs interviewed who had to claim grants in arrears cited this as a difficulty^{[footnote 10]}. A few other social entrepreneurs interviewed said that they had difficulty spending their grants in short timelines (3 months).

Recommendation: Provide grants upfront rather than in arrears for pre-start or early-stage social enterprises. These social enterprises often lack the financial resources to pay for expenses upfront and then claim them back, this approach addresses this cashflow limitation.

Social entrepreneurs interviewed were generally positive about the size of the grant funding they received. According to the social entrepreneurs interviewed, whilst the size of the funding was not enough to sustain their social enterprises for a significant time, it was large enough to help with social enterprise set-up and the delivery of early operations and projects.

I used the grant funding for everything in my business in regard to buying resources, paying for rent and my business insurance, everything that I’ve needed to set up the business… What I’ve done with £10,000 is a lot. I’ve done a lot with it, to get this premises and get it up to where it is now. Where we are now, it’s really a big achievement.

– Social entrepreneur.

3.2.2 Non-grant related support

Key findings:

The 4 LDPs provided a range of well-received non-grant support to help social entrepreneurs establish and grow their enterprises including 1:1 business advice, workshops, training, networking opportunities, and events. The most common support provided was 1:1 business advice, which entrepreneurs found valuable for various aspects of setting up and running their enterprises. Demand was highest for in-person activities and events, other highly demanded support included networking events, and workshops on (Artificial Intelligence) AI and impact measurement.

The LDPs offered a range of non-grant related support aimed at supporting social entrepreneurs establish and grow their social enterprises. LDPs offered 1:1 business advice through regular meetings and ad-hoc channels like email or phone call, which was the most common type of support accessed. LDPs also offered workshops (e.g. marketing, finance, AI etc.), training to support social entrepreneurs’ development of skills, support developing grant applications, networking opportunities to meet and share learnings with other social enterprises, events, and creation of social enterprise clusters linking together social enterprises involved in the same theme to create connections and share learnings.

Demand for non-grant related support

LDPs highlighted that the most demanded support included 1:1 business support, networking events (especially face-to-face), and specific workshops on AI and impact measurement. Several LDPs noted low demand for online activities and events, attributing this to people being tired of using video conferencing platforms since the Covid-19 pandemic. To address the preference of face-to-face interaction, they adapted by delivering more sessions in person.

Given access to finance is a major challenge for start-up and newly established social enterprises. LDPs and national and local VCSEs expressed concern that people might become “grant grabbers” that focus solely on obtaining grants without engaging in the wraparound business support, training, and networking. 1 LDP observed this behaviour during their delivery of the Boost Fund. However, 2 LDPs were positively surprised by the high interest in business support as well as the grant. Another LDP intentionally started their programme without mentioning the grant for 6 months, allowing them to understand local community needs and tailor the support and the grant accordingly.

We purposefully started off our programme in year 1 for about 6 months without even mentioning the grant. We wanted to get in, find out what communities needed, tailor our grant to suit, and make sure people weren’t just coming to the table as ‘grant grabbers’, taking the grant and then disappearing.

– LDP.

Activity and event feedback scores

We provided the LDPs with questions and scoring criteria to include in their activity/event feedback forms. The forms asked social entrepreneurs to rate the extent to which the activities/events delivered (a) were clear, (b) met their objectives, and (c) met the needs of the social entrepreneurs, using a scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“to a very large extent”). Overall, the scores consistently average 4.6 out of 5, indicating high satisfaction among social entrepreneurs for the various aspects rated.

3.2.3 What worked well – reflections on delivery

Key findings:

Most social entrepreneurs interviewed found that the 1:1 business support worked well as it gave them regular access to expert knowledge and advice. Workshops and networking events were also highly valued, particularly for their relevance and flexible delivery modes. LDPs effectively tailored the Boost Fund to local needs through extensive research and community engagement, ensuring appropriate support and avoiding service duplication.

The 1:1 business support was viewed as a key facilitator to progress for most social entrepreneurs interviewed. A range of factors made the 1:1 business support useful for social entrepreneurs:

• Bespoke support: Social entrepreneurs interviewed said that the 1:1 business advisors took the time required to learn in a deep and meaningful way what the social entrepreneurs wanted to achieve and how they wanted to achieve it. This allowed the 1:1 business advisors to give bespoke support to social entrepreneurs when setting up their business plans.
• Expert knowledge: Most social entrepreneurs interviewed viewed the 1:1 business advisors as experts within the field, which were able to help with most issues encountered.
• Ad-hoc support: Whilst business advisors were available within regular catch-up sessions, social entrepreneurs interviewed valued the ad-hoc support available as it allowed the social entrepreneurs to access support when they needed it.
• Facilitating networking: 1:1 business advisors were also able to facilitate networking. Due to the 1:1 business advisors’ in-depth knowledge of each of the social entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs interviewed said that the relationships cultivated through the advisors were more relevant and more likely to lead to partnership working.

They [1:1 business advisor] were really supportive, they were excellent. They gave us good guidance at the start because going into it, like most people, we were a little bit blind. We were doing lots of Googling, but that can be quite confusing, and it doesn’t necessarily tell you everything you want to know. They helped us with completing some of the documentation that is needed to become a CIC.

– Social entrepreneur.

Social entrepreneurs interviewed were positive about the workshops. Social entrepreneurs, particularly less experienced entrepreneurs, found the sessions relevant to their needs, which helped them in the early stages of setting up their social enterprises. Social entrepreneurs interviewed felt sessions around marketing and legal and financial responsibilities were particularly valuable. Many social entrepreneurs interviewed also appreciated that sessions were a mix of in-person or online. This meant they had the benefits of in-person sessions (e.g. networking with other social entrepreneurs) and the benefits of online sessions (e.g. flexibility). Linked to this, social entrepreneurs interviewed said that the networking events held were also valuable and led to numerous examples of partnership working. Social entrepreneurs said that it was vital that these sessions were held in-person to better facilitate this networking.

The business support has exceeded my expectations, with the content and the people being relatable and open. The atmosphere at the networking events is supportive and collaborative, which is a refreshing change from other networking events I’ve attended.

– Social entrepreneur.

Recommendation: LDPs should provide a hybrid approach of online and in-person delivery to accommodate different preferences and accessibility needs of entrepreneurs.

Tailoring the project to local need

The LDPs used a combination of approaches to identify local need and shape their approach to designing the Boost Fund:

• LDPs used their existing knowledge of local needs, gained from long-term knowledge and experience from delivering similar programmes in their local areas.
• LDPs conducted desk research and gathered evidence from secondary data sources. 1 LDP mapped needs across local ward areas, while another used the local city council’s strategy, which is based on data about skills shortages, unemployment, and start-ups.
• LDPs engaged directly with the local community to understand their needs and issues. This included sending out feedback forms and attending community centres and networking events. 1 LDP noted that this engagement added depth to the evidence found through desk research.
• LDPs engaged with stakeholders through events, boards, steering groups, and existing relationships with local authorities and other business support services.

LDPs tailored advice to social entrepreneurs based on local needs, ensuring they did not duplicate what local authorities, VCSE or business support organisations already offer.

3.2.4 What worked less well – reflections on delivery.

Key findings:

A few social entrepreneurs highlighted potential areas of improvement for the Fund, including offering more sector specific training and expanding focus from CICs to other types of social enterprise.

Whilst most social entrepreneurs interviewed were positive about how the Boost Fund was delivered, a few social entrepreneurs reflected on what could have been improved.

• Focus on CICs: A few social entrepreneurs interviewed highlighted that most of the workshops were tailored to those wanting to set up a CIC. They found these sessions less relevant to them if they were wanting to set-up a different type of organisation, such as a co-operative.
• Generic training: Some social entrepreneurs interviewed said that the sessions were too generic, and did not go into depth about areas they were interested in learning more about. 1 social entrepreneur interviewed said that they would have liked a sector specific session, such as for the arts and cultural sector.
• Lack of accessibility: There were conflicting views about the relative merits of delivering support online versus in-person. A few social entrepreneurs, notably those with additional needs and work and family commitments, said that the in-person sessions were difficult to attend and therefore felt like they missed out on learning.

3.3 Who did the funding reach?

3.3.1 Targeting and reaching social entrepreneurs

Key findings:

The LDPs used a broad approach to targeting social entrepreneurs. 1 LDP conducted targeted outreach in underrepresented geographic areas. LDPs used various strategies to reach entrepreneurs, including advertising, referrals, and social media, with referrals proving most effective. Challenges included attracting suitable candidates and reaching early-stage entrepreneurs who initially felt they did not need support.

The LDPs took a broad approach to targeting social entrepreneurs, without focusing on specific demographic groups or types of social enterprises. However, 1 LDP conducted targeted outreach in specific geographic areas identified as underrepresented based on their application assessment data. The LDPs generally felt that the entrepreneurs involved in the Fund reflected the demographics of their areas and represented a diverse mix of social enterprises, making a targeted approach unnecessary.

We are not targeting specific groups: We try to be as flexible as we possibly can within the eligibility criteria. We hope to get something a bit different and exciting coming through.

– LDP.

The LDPs used various strategies to reach entrepreneurs, including advertising and referrals through local organisations (such as district councils and VCSE organisations), social media campaigns, posters and flyers, and hosting launch events.

Some LDPs found referrals to be the most effective approach. Interviews with social entrepreneurs supported this, with the most common route being through relationships and word of mouth from a range of sources, including peers, business consultants, other funders and from personal relationships with staff from the LDPs. The LDPs believed that due to having a strong reputation and being trusted by local communities and organisations meant that others were happy to sign-post them to entrepreneurs.

Several LDPs emphasised the importance of using appropriate language and avoiding technical business jargon when promoting the Fund through these means. They noted that in some communities, people do not identify with terms such as “entrepreneur” or “social enterprise”, even if they are engaged in such activities. Understanding the local context is crucial for using language that resonates with the community. This finding was also mentioned in local VCSE interviews. Whilst most social entrepreneurs interviewed found that the terminology used in the application forms was accessible, a few found it overly complicated.

There is lots of socially enterprising activity happening in the community, but people do not realise they are doing it. For example, there is a woman running a community pantry and sells food at a cheaper price for deprived communities. But she doesn’t realise she is a social entrepreneur. If you called her an entrepreneur, she wouldn’t resonate with it. So, you have to be thoughtful about how you word things. Language is huge. Certain language will work in certain parts of [our area] but not in others.

– LDP.

Lesson learned: Understanding the local context and using language that resonates with the community is crucial for effective engagement and communication. Avoiding technical jargon and terms that may not be familiar or relatable to the community ensures broader participation and inclusivity.

3.3.2 Who have the LDPs reached?

Key findings:

The Boost Fund supported 734 entrepreneurs across its 4 LDPs. Demographically, the majority of social entrepreneurs supported were aged 35-54, predominantly female, and mostly white. Many had higher-level qualifications and were in paid work, with a notable proportion having disabilities affecting their daily activities.

As of 30 September 2024^{[footnote 11]}, the Fund had supported 734 entrepreneurs across its 4 LDPs: SEBF West Midlands (253, 34 per cent), Firstport and PNE (199, 27 per cent), and NE BIC and SE Kent (141, 19 per cent each). These entrepreneurs were categorised by the LDPs in the CMD as either “established social entrepreneurs” or those “aspiring to start a social enterprise”. Among the supported entrepreneurs, 305 (42 per cent) were classified as “established,” having had a social enterprise prior to receiving Boost Fund support. The remaining 429 (58 per cent) were “aspiring” entrepreneurs^{[footnote 12]}.

Social entrepreneur demographics

The section below provides an overview of Boost Fund social entrepreneur demographics^{[footnote 13]}. Different numbers of social entrepreneurs provided data for each demographic category. Please refer to Table 15 in Annex E for a detailed demographic breakdown.

• Age: Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) of the social entrepreneurs fell between the ages of 35 and 54. Very few social entrepreneurs were under the age of 25 (2 per cent) or over the age of 64 (2 per cent).
• Sex: The majority (61 per cent) of the social entrepreneurs were female, 36 per cent were male and 3 per cent preferred not to disclose.
• Ethnicity: Over 2 thirds (67 per cent) of the social entrepreneurs were White, 30 per cent were from other ethnic groups, and 3 per cent preferred not to disclose^{[footnote 14]}.
• Disability: 21 per cent of the social entrepreneurs had physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more, 74 per cent did not and 6 per cent preferred not to disclose. Among those with a disability and/or health condition, 62 per cent felt that it reduces their ability to conduct day-to-day activities either a little (42 per cent) or a lot (20 per cent).
• Highest qualification of the entrepreneur: The majority (61 per cent) of entrepreneurs had a higher-level qualification (including doctorate, master’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and foundation degree).
• Employment status of the social entrepreneur: The vast majority (72 per cent) of social entrepreneurs were in paid work, either employed (32 per cent) or self-employed (40 per cent) whilst they were participating in the Boost Fund. 7 per cent are not currently in employment or looking for paid work, 10 per cent have other employment statuses, 1 per cent are in education or training, and 3 per cent preferred not to disclose.

Types of social enterprises supported

In the CMD, the LDPs reported on the standard industrial classification (SIC) codes of 219 social enterprises they supported, which explains the nature of the business^{[footnote 15]}.

• Arts, entertainment and recreation (23 per cent) including performing arts, artistic creation and support activities to performing arts
• Education (17 per cent) including sports and recreation education and education support activities
• Human health and social work activities (17 per cent) including other human health activities, other social work activities without accommodation and child day-care activities

3.4 Evidence of replicability and scalability

Key findings:

Interviewees reflected on which elements of the Boost Fund could be successfully replicated or scaled. They emphasised the importance of local knowledge, understanding local needs and context, and having connections in the area. Additionally, recognising the demand for social enterprise support and the availability of alternative support in the local area is key. LDPs reported that scaling delivery may limit organisations’ capacity to deliver this personalised approach, potentially diluting the impact for entrepreneurs.

LDPs and local and national VCSE organisations provided insights on which elements of the Boost Fund can be replicated or scaled, and the necessary conditions for such replication:

• The grant framework, including how the grants are assessed, administered, awarded, and monitored, can be replicated elsewhere. Unlike other aspects of the Boost Fund, LDPs described how this does not require as much tailoring for local needs and context.
• Non-grant related delivery including 1:1 business advice, workshops, and training can also be replicated, but must be delivered by individuals/organisations familiar with the local area and its nuances. As demonstrated in Section 3.2.3 and Section 4.1, social entrepreneurs benefit from the expert local knowledge and connections of business advisors delivering the Boost Fund.

What can’t necessarily be replicated is what advice to provide the social enterprises on the ground. You would struggle applying what works for a homeless organisation in Kent, taking that model and scaling it up to the North East. This would be difficult… There needs to be a level of nuance for each particular area which only comes with time in understanding the area and working within the local communities.

– National VCSE.

• Scaling the Boost Fund’s 1:1 business advice element may risk losing the personalised nature of the approach. Through the Boost Fund, social entrepreneurs benefitted from personalised ad-hoc support provided by business advisors and having a dedicated grant officer as a single point of contact, ensuring consistency and a personalised approach. Scaling may limit organisations’ capacity to deliver this personalised approach, potentially diluting the impact for entrepreneurs.
• The Boost Fund was delivered in areas with a lack of other social enterprise-specific funding and support, as noted by local VCSEs and LDPs, leading to pent-up demand. For example, a local VCSE noted that the recent reduction in European Research Development Fund (ERDF) in their local authority has created a gap in support for entrepreneurs. Boost Fund may not be successful in areas where the supply of alternative social enterprise support is high.

3.5 Facilitators and barriers to social enterprise set-up and growth

Key findings:

The responsiveness of 1:1 business advisors and collaboration with peers were crucial facilitators for social enterprise set-up and growth. Entrepreneurs valued timely support and networking opportunities, which helped them quickly address challenges and build partnerships. Barriers included limited time to access social enterprise support due to employment and family commitments, lack of baseline business knowledge and expertise, and challenging application processes for additional funding.

Facilitators

Interviewed social entrepreneurs viewed the responsiveness of the 1:1 business advisors as a key facilitator to social enterprise set-up and growth. They appreciated being able to contact their advisors via email or phone calls and receiving timely responses. The ad-hoc support helped social entrepreneurs set their social enterprises up quickly, without having to wait for scheduled catch-up meetings for advice.

Setting up a bank account was so difficult… to be able to pick up the phone to [my 1:1 business advisor] and say, ‘I’m really struggling to find the best bank account’. They asked a few other peers, and they came back and said look, people have done this and this and that was just a big help for me. That was just one thing, but it was pretty crucial.

– Social entrepreneur.

Social entrepreneurs saw collaboration with other social entrepreneurs as a facilitator. They used their networks to gather advice from peers further along in development about the set-up process. Entrepreneurs developed relationships in their network into partnership working, which facilitated growth. This is further detailed in Section 4.1.5. Networking sessions offered through the Boost Fund were integral to building these networks.

Going to [our LDP] conference was extremely useful because it gave us a network of people we could talk to and interact with. There is another business we want to get involved with who will make us t-shirts, so we were able to use them rather than go to a company we didn’t know.

– Social entrepreneur.

The relationships held by the LDPs and 1:1 business advisors played a crucial role. The LDPs and advisors are well connected with local stakeholders, including other social enterprises, social prescribers and local authority contacts. They facilitated introductions between social entrepreneurs and local stakeholders, helped social entrepreneurs attract more beneficiaries, develop their profiles, and grow their enterprises.

[My 1:1 business advisor] introduced me specifically to another business that they thought we would instantly find crossovers with, and we instantly did.

– Social entrepreneur.

Barriers

Social entrepreneurs reported barriers to growth and set-up in their interviews. The main barrier cited by entrepreneurs was that employment and/or family commitments often limited the time they could dedicate to their enterprises. Some took time away from employment to focus on their enterprises, but this introduced additional financial pressures, exacerbated by the cost of living.

The application processes for wider grant funding posed a barrier. While most found the Boost Fund application proportional, some noted that other funding applications were not as proportional, creating barriers to accessing additional funding. Other social entrepreneurs interviewed also noted that the Boost Fund application was the first grant application they have written, so were unsure what detail to include.

4. Impact evaluation findings

This section presents findings relating to outcomes and impacts experienced by social entrepreneurs, LDPs, and local communities, drawing on findings from interviews, group discussions and the social entrepreneur survey. Due to the scope of our evaluation and lack of direct data collection with social enterprises’ beneficiaries, we report on social entrepreneurs’ observations of community outcomes rather than first-hand experiences. This section concludes with an assessment of the extent to which the Boost Fund has contributed to the observed outcomes.

4.1 Outcomes for social entrepreneurs

Key findings:

The Boost Fund improved social entrepreneurs’ business skills, confidence, resilience, and growth, thereby improving enterprises’ sustainability. Entrepreneurs developed crucial skills through workshops and 1:1 support, boosting their confidence to start and grow their enterprises. The Fund helped build local networks and partnerships, increasing the entrepreneurs’ ability to support communities.

4.1.1 Development of business skills

According to the social entrepreneur survey (N=131), 69 per cent of entrepreneurs reported that the Boost Fund helped them develop business and entrepreneurial skills. 64 per cent reported that it helped them gain knowledge about how to start a social enterprise. Most social entrepreneurs interviewed also stated that they developed their business skills through the Boost Fund, primarily through workshops and 1:1 business support. The most commonly cited business skills developed included:

• Business plan development skills: Social entrepreneurs learnt what a high-quality business plan should include and how to plan the sustainability of their social enterprises. A few experienced entrepreneurs adopted new tools and techniques such as ‘business canvassing’.
• Navigating financial and legal responsibilities: Through workshops, less experienced social entrepreneurs developed knowledge in areas such as payroll, Human Resources (HR), company structure and how to register a business with Companies House.
• Marketing skills: Social entrepreneurs learnt how to create a marketing plan, develop a social media presence, and establish a brand. These skills helped them grow the profile of their social enterprise in their local area.
• Bid writing skills: Through bid writing workshops and feedback from 1:1 business advisors on their Boost Fund grant applications, social entrepreneurs improved their bid writing skills. A few social entrepreneurs interviewed used these skills to apply for other grants, as detailed in Section 4.1.4.

Accessing the activities and services through [the LDP] has had a significant impact on the development of my business skills, specifically in how to run a non-profit [organisation]… I didn’t know the nuances of non-profits, such as setting them up, forming legal entities, and creating articles of association. The support from [the LDP] has been invaluable in gaining this knowledge.

– Social entrepreneur.

A minority of social entrepreneurs interviewed said they were already comfortable with their business skills and only participated in the Boost Fund to apply for a grant. Given that this was expressed by very few social entrepreneurs interviewed, this would suggest LDPs were successful in targeting social entrepreneurs that needed holistic support.

4.1.2 Increased confidence to start a social enterprise

In the social entrepreneur survey (N=131), 60 per cent of entrepreneurs agreed that the Boost Fund helped them develop the confidence to start a social enterprise and 58 per cent (N=130) agreed that the Fund helped them develop their capability to do so. Interviewed social entrepreneurs also reported that participating in the Boost Fund boosted their confidence. A key mechanism cited by social entrepreneurs which helped them develop their confidence was the availability of 1:1 business advisors and peer support. These relationships allowed social entrepreneurs to gather feedback on ideas and seek guidance when uncertain, making them more confident in their actions and reducing feelings of isolation. Additionally, social entrepreneurs said the various business skills they developed through the Boost Fund further increased their confidence.

The support has also had a significant impact on my confidence and capabilities in starting the business. Whilst I would have eventually got around to it, the process [of setting up the social enterprise] would have been much slower and more challenging without the support [from my 1:1 business advisor]. Having a sounding board and someone to share the journey with has been crucial.

– Social entrepreneur.

Social entrepreneurs interviewed stated that the confidence gained through the Boost Fund helped them in a variety of ways. The most commonly cited benefit was the confidence in their skills to set-up their social enterprises.

4.1.3 Increased resilience and sustainability

In the social entrepreneur survey (N=107), entrepreneurs reported on how their ability to weather poorer economic times changed as a result of the Boost Fund, an indicator of resilience for their social enterprise. 61 per cent reported a significant or a slight increase in this ability and 24 per cent reported no change.

Since participating in the Boost Fund, 62 per cent of social entrepreneurs surveyed (N=107) reinvested profits back into their social enterprise, while 30 per cent did not. The main reason for social entrepreneurs not reinvesting was that their social enterprises were still in the set-up stage and had not yet made profits to reinvest. Of those who reinvested (N=66), 45 per cent reinvested between 81 and 100 per cent of their profits. A third of entrepreneurs were unsure of the percentage reinvested, likely due to the early stage of their enterprises and limited financial records. Table 23 in Annex E details how the profits were reinvested back into the social enterprises.

In addition, social entrepreneur interviewees noted some early indications that the Boost Fund has contributed to increased resilience. They stated that the support offered through the Boost Fund improved their bid writing skills and made them more confident in applying for grants. Additionally, 1:1 business advisors signposted available grants or provided tools to identify them. A few social entrepreneurs said their 1:1 business advisors gave them tips on how to track impact, which helped them better demonstrate the benefits of their activities when writing bids.

Multiple social entrepreneurs have subsequently gained further funding from organisations such as The National Lottery Community Fund and Innovate UK using the bid writing skills developed through the Boost Fund. This increased ability to attract further grant funding is one way social entrepreneurs have looked to increase the resilience of their social enterprises. Additionally, in the social entrepreneur survey (N=58), 69 per cent of entrepreneurs reported that, as a direct result of the Boost Fund, they accessed a lot more (29 per cent) or a little more (41 per cent) local social enterprise support outside of the Boost Fund. This indicates that, as a result of the Fund, social entrepreneurs have gained more knowledge of the local social enterprise support landscape and have strengthened their networks, both of which are key to long term resilience and sustainability.

Social entrepreneurs interviewed said that some of the knowledge and skills they developed through the Boost Fund will help them make their social enterprises more resilient. LDPs delivered workshops on building sustainable business models and the importance of cash reserves. Social entrepreneurs felt these sessions better prepared them to ensure the sustainability of their social enterprises.

[The Boost Fund] has impacted our readiness for emergencies. We are now able to have more money going towards a reserve in case it is needed for something. Confidence wise, it has allowed us to try things out as well that we might not have been able to try because we were worried about wasting resources.

– Social entrepreneur.

4.1.4 Fostering growth

Two-thirds of social entrepreneurs surveyed (N=100), reported an increase in their social enterprise turnover due to their participation in the Boost Fund, either a lot (22 per cent) or slightly (44 per cent). For just over half (53 per cent) of social entrepreneurs (N=106), participation in the Boost Fund contributed to an increase in their profits, either a lot (6 per cent) or slightly (47 per cent). Although we do not have precise definitions for “a lot” or “slightly,” this indicates the positive impact of the Fund on social enterprise turnover and profits, with a greater impact observed on turnover than profits. A very small number of social entrepreneurs (3) self-reported a decrease in business turnover and/or profits due to the Boost Fund, with no clear trend, as they were supported by different LDPs and received various types of support.

Social entrepreneurs interviewed who received grant funding under the Boost Fund said they were able to use it to grow their social enterprises. They used their grant funding in a variety of ways, generally falling into 2 categories. Some spent their grant funding on core operations such as staff costs, premises cost and licenses, which helped to grow the capacity of their social enterprises. Others used their grant funding to finance specific projects or activities, such as community music events, sports and exercise classes, cooking classes, documentary filming and art workshops. These new and/or enhanced projects and activities allowed the social enterprises to reach more beneficiaries, growing their audience.

The main reason for seeking funding was to ensure that the artists participating and performing were paid properly. As an artist myself, I know how little we often get paid. Supporting local artists means they can invest back into the community.

– Social entrepreneur.

Interviewed social entrepreneurs also said that the Boost Fund has helped them grow their reputation in their local area. They achieved this through the networking opportunities (with social entrepreneurs and social prescribers) offered by the Boost Fund and through their increased capability to market their social enterprises as a result of Boost Fund workshops. With this increased reputation in their local area, social entrepreneurs said they have been able to reach more beneficiaries, increasing their impact.

The Boost Fund has had a significant impact on our organisation. We are now well known in [the local area], and we have made valuable connections.

– Social entrepreneur.

Of the 31 social entrepreneurs interviewed who “aspired to start a social enterprise”, at least 17 successfully established a social enterprise during their participation in the Boost Fund. While we cannot directly attribute this to the Boost Fund, many interviewees mentioned that the Boost Fund played a partial or substantial role in it.

4.1.5 Creation or strengthening local networks and partnerships

A key benefit of participating in the Boost Fund, widely cited by social entrepreneur interviewees, was the improved and expanded networks they were able to develop. Social entrepreneurs interviewed were able to expand their networks through networking events held by LDPs and through the relationships facilitated by LDPs and their 1:1 business advisors. Interviewed social entrepreneurs cited a range of benefits from these improved and expanded networks.

Firstly, they valued having an established network of like-minded individuals who they could contact for support and guidance, which made them feel less isolated. A few social entrepreneurs used their networks to work in partnership with other social entrepreneurs participating in the Boost Fund. Examples of partnership working include delivering workshops for each other, applying for further funding in partnership together, referring beneficiaries to each other, co-delivering community events, and the development of promotional materials. In the social entrepreneur survey (N=107), entrepreneurs shared how they have worked with other social entrepreneurs in their local area primarily through sharing learnings (68 per cent), enhancing visibility (61 per cent), using referrals (52 per cent), and pooling resources (36 per cent). Only 15 per cent of social entrepreneurs surveyed had not worked with other social entrepreneurs locally.

With the Boost Fund, we created a documentary about someone else who was also on the Boost programme. It is about a local [organisation] that works with differently-abled individuals, helping them get [involved in sports]. They collaborate with engineers to build specialised [equipment] that accommodate various abilities… We managed to get [a sports retailer] involved as the brand, and they provided merchandise for the team to use. They have been very supportive, promoting the documentary, organising a premiere in their store, and arranging a special sale in aid of the film’s release.

– Social entrepreneur.

4.1.6 What would social enterprises/entrepreneurs have done in the absence of the Boost Fund?

When asked about where they would have been without the Boost Fund, most entrepreneurs interviewed said that their social enterprises would be less developed, with a few stating that they would not have been set up at all. Additionally, they noted that without the Boost Fund, they would have been unable to deliver their activities or build relationships with local social entrepreneurs and sector stakeholders.

We are in a really good position now to actually provide a good 20-30 [young people] with activities a week…Without Boost and without that funding, we would not have been able to do that. So, it has been transformative not only for us but also the young people that came in and took part.

– Social entrepreneur.

A few social entrepreneurs mentioned that in the absence of the Boost Fund, they would have sought other grant funding opportunities. However, as noted by interviewees, their capability to write grant applications was improved by the Boost Fund, so they may have not been successful in applying for funding elsewhere.

In the social entrepreneur survey, respondents reported the range of local and national support they accessed outside of the Boost Fund. 44 per cent of respondents (N=131) used local social enterprise support outside of the Boost Fund. Details of these support sources can be found in Annex E. Additionally, surveyed entrepreneurs (N=107) shared information on other funding sources they used to help establish their social enterprise, which are detailed in Annex E. Notably only 24 per cent did not use any other funding sources, indicating high awareness and usage of alternative funding among Boost Fund entrepreneurs.

4.2 Outcomes for LDPs

Key findings:

The main outcome for LDPs was building or strengthening relationships with local stakeholders. This led to new projects for some LDPs. Additionally, a few LDPs reported an increased understanding of the local landscape and context through delivering Boost Fund support, learning to work in new ways, with new communities, and in new geographies.

4.2.1 Working in partnership with local stakeholders

Most LDPs interviewed reported building or strengthening relationships with local stakeholders including with local authorities, chamber of commerce, national social enterprise support bodies, local VCSE organisations, and community centres. As a result, 2 LDPs are starting new projects with local stakeholders to support social enterprises as a result of the work they have done on the Boost Fund. For example, 1 LDP developed a strong relationship with their local council through the Boost Fund, leading to a spin-off programme working with established social enterprises to help increase their productivity.

2 LDPs, which prior to the Boost Fund provided broad business support, reported that delivering social enterprise support through the Boost Fund raised their profile locally as organisations that specifically provide social enterprise support.

We have raised our profile in the local marketplace because we hadn’t offered direct social enterprise support funding prior to this [the Boost Fund]. We are now recognised in the marketplace as an important organisation in this area and this has also enabled us to raise our profile with the local authority.

– LDP.

4.2.2 Increased understanding of the local landscape

A few LDPs reported an increased understanding of local landscape and context as a result of delivering Boost Fund support. This was achieved through various means. For instance, 1 LDP learned about working in new communities through working in partnership with another organisation in their delivery of the Boost Fund. Another LDP expanded their delivery to different geographical areas within their local authority, gaining learnings about delivering projects in rural versus urban settings. Additionally, 1 LDP enhanced their knowledge of community economic development by using new approaches due to the Boost Fund allowing them more scope to engage in community economic development animation work.

4.3 Outcomes for local communities

4.3.1 Increased benefits for individuals and local communities

Key findings:

Social entrepreneurs reported positive outcomes in mental health, social isolation, and food poverty. They also noted spillover benefits, such as reducing NHS workload and enhancing community pride through events and activities. Additionally, social enterprises provided crucial family support services, improving the wellbeing of families with additional needs and offering supported contact for separated families.

The majority of social entrepreneurs interviewed delivered at a local level meaning that their impacts were almost exclusively local. Social entrepreneurs interviewed said they were able to achieve more positive outcomes for their beneficiaries as a result of their increased activity. Many aimed to support positive outcomes around mental health and social isolation. They used a variety of delivery methods to achieve these outcomes, including through less direct mechanisms, such as sports and exercise groups, coffee mornings, and art workshops. They reported that these sessions helped beneficiaries form social connections with each other and helped reduce isolation and improve mental health.

Other social entrepreneurs delivered activities to tackle mental health issues more directly, including mental health and grief counselling sessions. These sessions were found to be impactful for the beneficiaries who accessed them, especially in disadvantaged areas with high levels of mental health difficulties. Social entrepreneurs noted that their activities could have spillover impacts on the NHS, as they offer alternatives to services offered on the NHS which are in high demand and have long waitlists. Therefore, beneficiaries accessing these services would need NHS services less frequently, helping to alleviate long waitlists locally.

The CIC’s services can reduce the local NHS workload by providing timely and effective mental health support. Many people on NHS waiting lists seek private therapy to avoid long waits… By offering comprehensive and ongoing mental health services, we can reduce the number of patients who need to return to the NHS repeatedly.

– Social entrepreneur.

Another key area of impact was food poverty. A few social entrepreneurs provide food parcels, meals in warm hubs, and community cooking classes to help alleviate food poverty in their local area. Social entrepreneurs thought the cooking classes were particularly effective, as they taught people from disadvantaged backgrounds how to identify and cook affordable ingredients. Social entrepreneurs also found spillover impacts of these sessions, including impact on mental wellbeing, as the classes encouraged social connection between beneficiaries.

Other social entrepreneurs focused on family support, including supporting family members of people with additional needs and providing supported contact for separated families. These services improved the wellbeing of beneficiary families, for example, by improving their understanding of how to care for their children with autism.

Other common areas of focus included the creative arts and employability skills. Social entrepreneurs interviewed emphasised the importance of improving the accessibility of the arts to people from disadvantaged backgrounds and providing employability skill sessions in areas with higher levels of unemployment.

Obviously we see the need for some of the [beneficiaries], and it will hopefully get them into employment. We can supply them with the knowledge and the expertise to get a job within the [arts] profession, this is a community need especially in [the local area] because it’s quite a deprived area.

– Social entrepreneur.

A few social entrepreneurs interviewed noted their activities led to community-wide benefits, including increasing pride in their local areas. Events organised by social entrepreneurs such as community concerts, carnivals, and festivals brought together local people from diverse backgrounds and helped them feel more connected to their local community. Some social enterprise activities also provided ways to bring people together and explore their local area, such as walking in the woods or visiting the local beach for swimming lessons, or working to improve it, such as maintaining community gardens and parks. According to some social entrepreneurs and local VCSE representatives, these activities encouraged people to enjoy and appreciate their local area while fostering social connections.

Many entrepreneurs reported spillover impacts for their local communities through providing increased work opportunities, due to social enterprises hiring staff or commissioning work to local freelancers and other organisations (e.g. designing and managing websites, marketing, delivering dedicated workshops, and landscaping).

It [the Fund] has definitely enabled us to have a bigger impact in terms of beneficiaries, we’re able to provide freelance work within the creative sector here in [our local area].

– Social entrepreneur.

4.3.2 Understanding how to identify and meet local need

Key findings

The Boost Fund improved social entrepreneurs’ reported awareness of and ability to meet community needs. 69 per cent reported better awareness of community needs, and 70 per cent enhanced their effectiveness in meeting community needs. Networking opportunities and support from 1:1 business advisors were crucial in increasing their capability to research and meet local needs.

In the social entrepreneur survey (N=131), 69 per cent of entrepreneurs reported that as a direct result of participation in the Boost Fund they have an improved awareness of community needs, while 8 per cent disagreed. 70 per cent of entrepreneurs surveyed (N=128), agreed that as a direct result of participation in the Boost Fund they have developed their ability to meet local community needs more effectively, with 7 per cent disagreeing. Table 2 below outlines the approaches used by entrepreneurs to identify local community needs.

Table 2 - Approaches to identify local community needs

Approaches to identify local community needs (N=128)	N	%
Insights gained through day-to-day activities	91	71%
Community events	82	64%
Social media	62	48%
Consultations with local VCSE organisations	53	41%
Community interviews or focus groups	52	41%
Drawing on existing secondary data sources	51	40%
Surveys	46	36%
Consultations with local authority contacts	42	33%
Asset-based community development	29	23%
Prefer not to say	6	5%
Other	4	3%

Social entrepreneurs improved their capability to identify and meet local needs in a variety of ways. One of the most commonly cited facilitators by social entrepreneurs interviewed was the Boost Fund’s networking opportunities. Forming relationships with other social entrepreneurs and with social prescribers (through networking events and 1:1 business advisors’ connections via LDPs) from their local area increased their knowledge of local needs, as they could discuss the range of beneficiaries they help and better reach them. Through partnership working and referring beneficiaries to each other, a few social enterprises were able to provide more holistic support for their beneficiaries’ wide range of needs.

Regarding the support I received through [the LDP], it has definitely improved my ability to support the local community and potential service users. We spoke with the local social prescribing team and set up a future contact.

– Social entrepreneur.

Social entrepreneurs said that participating in the Boost Fund, particularly through support from 1:1 business advisors, increased their capability to research local needs. Their 1:1 business advisors directed them to social research relevant to their aims and objectives, allowing them to identify and target specific local needs and helping them evidence the need for their activities when applying for other grant funding.

A few social entrepreneurs mentioned that they had been working and delivering activities in the local area for many years, so they already had a good awareness of local needs and how to meet them.

4.4 Contribution analysis

Using evidence gathered through interviews, group discussions and the social entrepreneur survey, we have found the evidence of the Boost Fund’s contribution to each of the following results, detailed below. The analysis also considers evidence of other factors that contribute to the observed result. The categories of contribution are strong contribution, some contribution and negligible contribution. We have detailed these findings in Table 9 of Annex A which outlines the strength of the Boost Fund’s contribution to the result as well as the strength of evidence of underpinning these findings.

Contribution statement 1: The Boost Fund contributed to growth of social enterprises in the target areas. The Fund allowed social entrepreneurs to build key business skills that laid the foundation for business growth. Some social entrepreneurs have reported setting up social enterprises as a result of participation in the Boost Fund and growth in employee numbers. However, there is not yet sufficient evidence to suggest that Boost Fund activities have already helped stimulate enterprise growth, including turnover and profits. Therefore, the evaluation finds that the Fund has had some contribution to the growth of social enterprises in the target areas.

Contribution statement 2: The Boost Fund contributed to social enterprises’ sense of their resilience. The evaluation finds that the Fund strongly contributed to social enterprises’ sense of resilience by increasing their ability to weather poorer economic times, reinvest profits, and accessing more local social enterprise support outside of the Boost Fund, as a result of the Boost Fund, reported in the social entrepreneur survey. Many social entrepreneurs interviewed indicated increased resilience, such as better preparedness for grant applications, developing sustainable business models and understanding the importance of cash reserves.

Contribution statement 3: The Boost Fund contributed to building of local networks and structures that support social enterprise in the target areas. The evaluation finds that the Fund had some contribution to social enterprises building their local networks. Some entrepreneurs directly attributed the building of local networks and partnerships to the Boost Fund, with entrepreneurs noting how LDPs have facilitated partnerships with other social entrepreneurs through networking events and relationships organised by LDPs. LDPs also reported building and strengthening relationships with local stakeholders involved in supporting social enterprises, such as local authorities, local VCSE organisations and community centres. However, the evidence does not indicate that the Fund contributed to establishing any formalised structures, such as alumni networks or peer support groups, that would outlast the Fund.

Contribution statement 4: The Boost Fund contributed to social enterprises’ perceived ability to support communities in the target areas. The evaluation finds that the Fund strongly contributes to social enterprises’ perceived ability to support communities in their target areas. The majority of social entrepreneurs reported improved awareness of community needs and an increased ability and capacity to meet these needs more effectively due to the Boost Fund. Entrepreneurs began or increased their support for local communities, focusing on various aspects including mental health, education, food poverty and family support. Perceived spillover benefits included reducing NHS workload and improving community pride.

5. Value for Money

The Value for Money (VfM) assessment is focused on the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness associated with the Boost Fund delivery during the evaluation period. The assessment is mainly conducted on a Fund-wide level but includes LDP-level breakdowns where relevant. It explores the following elements, utilising CMD, survey, and LDP expenditure data:

• Economy: This includes an assessment of the degree to which inputs are provided in the right quantity and at the right price, including an assessment of whether inputs have been minimised and resources used as required. In the context of the Boost Fund, we analysed how expenditure was distributed and spent, including the proportion spent on different grant and business support activities.
• Efficiency: This includes an assessment of how efficiently the Fund delivered its outputs, considering the rate at which inputs were converted to outputs and its cost-efficiency. In the context of the Boost Fund, we analysed the unit cost per Fund beneficiary, including a split between beneficiaries who received onward grants and non-grant related support.
• Effectiveness: This includes an assessment of achieved outcomes relative to the Fund’s objectives, with a focus on the changes that beneficiaries experienced as a result. Since the evaluation was conducted before the Fund was finished, there is limited evidence of its effectiveness. Considering this limitation, we used available data to construct assumptions and estimate the unit cost per new social enterprise created as a result of the Boost Fund.

5.1 Economy assessment

Key findings:

In total, just under two-thirds (63 per cent) of the Boost Fund was spent on various capability building support activities, such as business advice, workshops, networking opportunities, and others. Just over a third (34 per cent) of the overall funding was spent on onward grants received by social entrepreneurs. Boost Fund administrative costs were kept relatively low with just 3 per cent of the funding being spent on those.

All 4 LDPs provided a breakdown of their expenditure costs for delivering the Boost Fund. The data included a breakdown of the proportion of the overall funding spent on capability building support, onward grants, and wider administrative costs.

Whilst the Fund was delivered between March 2023 and March 2025; the economy assessment analysis focuses on the expenditure data solely for the financial year between April 2023 and March 2024. This is because at the time of writing expenditure data for the 2024/25 financial year was still being finalised.

Table 3 presents the proportion of Boost funding spent on different support activities and administrative costs overall and across the 4 LDPs for 2023/24. In total, just under two-thirds (63 per cent) of the overall funding was spent on various capability building support activities, such as business advice, workshops, networking opportunities, and others. This is in line with earlier process evaluation findings that show non-grant support as highly valued by entrepreneurs.

Most entrepreneurs valued non-grant related support alongside their grant. They used 1:1 business advice to help develop business plans or grant applications, and used business support, workshops, training, and networking to build skills, knowledge, and partnerships to use their grant funding effectively. A small number of entrepreneurs found non-grant support more valuable than the grant itself. In contrast, a few participated in the Boost Fund solely for the grant, showing no interest in non-grant support.

Just over a third (34 per cent) of the overall funding was spent on onward grants received by social entrepreneurs. This differed between the 4 LDPs, with NE BIC spending the largest proportion (42 per cent) of their funding on onwards grants. This is interesting as NE BIC had a unique approach to distributing grants, with entrepreneurs having to first spend that money and claim it back in arrears to reduce financial risk.

On the other end of the spectrum, SEBF West Midlands spent the smallest proportion (30 per cent) of their funding on grants, followed by Firstport and PNE (32 per cent). Interestingly, SEBF West Midlands also spent the largest proportion of their funding on large grants, with a value of £8,000 and £10,000, whilst Firstport and PNE focused on distributing smaller grants (see Table 17, Annex E). Therefore, the size of the grants distributed does not seem to have impacted the overall proportion of the funding spent on onward grants for entrepreneurs.

Table 3 - Proportion of funding spent per type of support activity in 2023/24

	Capability building support	Onward grants
Firstport and PNE	65%	32%
NE BIC	55%	42%
SEBF West Midlands	68%	30%
SE Kent	60%	37%
Fund-level 2023/24	63%	34%

5.2 Efficiency assessment

Key findings:

The average cost of accessing the Fund per beneficiary was £3,267. This varied between LDPs though not substantially, with values ranging from £2,497 to £3,797. The average cost of grants awarded was £5,086 and the average cost of capability building support was £2,092 at a fund-level for 2023/24.

There are limitations to assessing Boost Fund efficiency and cost-efficiency, as there is limited data on Fund outputs. However, LDP expenditure reports, in combination with CMD data, allow us to calculate the unit cost per beneficiary who accessed the Boost Fund. Data also allows us to split these costs for beneficiaries who received capability building support, and onward grants. Similar to the economy assessment, the below analysis focuses on 2023/24 financial year.

Cost of Boost Fund support per beneficiary

Table 4 presents the overall number of entrepreneurs who engaged with the Boost Fund during the 2023/24 financial year, as well as a split between those who received onward grants, and capability building support. Looking at the 2023/24 financial year, 513 entrepreneurs benefited from the Boost Fund.

Table 4 - Boost Fund cost per type of support provider and beneficiary^{[footnote 16]}

		Financial year 2023/24	Cost per type of support/beneficiary
Fund-level	Onward grants	112	£5,086
	Capability building support	507	£2,092
	Overall beneficiaries	513	£3,267

Overall, 112 Boost Fund onward grants were awarded across the 4 LDPs to support the creation and growth of new and early-stage social enterprises, and 507 beneficiaries received some sort of capability building support, ranging from workshops to training events.

Table 4 also shows that there is a significant overlap between entrepreneurs who received onward grants and capability building support, with all but 6 entrepreneurs who received grants also receiving capability building support^{[footnote 17]}. This finding was strongly supported by interviews with entrepreneurs which showed that most grantees who also benefited from various business support, including participating in 1:1 sessions and wider workshops, found those particularly helpful.

We were awarded the pre-start funding, which we are spending on branding and website development. I was also assigned a business advisor who supported me through the whole process.… This support has been invaluable, as navigating the information about CICs was a new and complex area for me. My business advisor made the process a lot easier, helping me overcome impostor syndrome, answer questions, and provide a sounding board for ideas.

– Social entrepreneur.

The average cost of accessing the Fund per beneficiary was £3,267. This varied between LDPs though not substantially, with values ranging from £2,497 to £3,797. The average cost of grants awarded was £5,086. The variation between LDPs was much greater, with average cost of grants ranging from £3,700 to £8,593. This is in line with findings from the process evaluation about the size of grants awarded. For instance, although all grant applicants could receive multiple grants totalling up to £10,000, Firstport and PNE and NE BIC did not offer single grant awards greater than £5,000 to social enterprises, whereas applicants to SE Kent and SEBF West Midlands could receive a single grant award of up to £10,000.

Finally, the average cost of capability building support was £2,092 at a Fund-level for 2023/24. There was very limited variation across LDPs, with costs ranging between £1,366 and £2,356. Whilst there is little comparable information to help benchmark these numbers, previous government figures show that participating in business support programmes can cost between £2,000 and £15,000, depending on the needs and size of the business^{[footnote 18]}. Our analysis shows that the Boost Fund capability building support costs are much closer to the lower end of this spectrum This likely reflects the nature of the Fund, as those supported are start-ups or recently established and are likely to be small in size. Therefore, the unit costs of the business support provided appear to be appropriate and raise no concerns about the value for money of the Fund.

5.3 Effectiveness assessment

Key findings:

We estimated the unit cost per social enterprise created as a result of the Boost Fund by constructing a series of assumptions and scenarios. According to our core scenario, we estimate that the Boost Fund created an additional 287 new social enterprises, at a unit cost of £11,410. It is only possible to estimate the cost per new social enterprise created with a high level of uncertainty as it is not known how many of these new social enterprises would have been established in the absence of the programme. Conducting analysis with different assumptions for the share of the new social enterprises that would have been created without the programme shows that it is reasonable to assume this unit cost lies between £10,257 and £50,633.

At the time of writing, there was limited feasibility of evaluating the effectiveness of the Boost Fund due to lack of detailed data on long-term fund-level outcomes. However, triangulating LDP financial data, CMD, and survey data allowed us to assess a measure of effectiveness by calculating the unit cost per social enterprise created as a result of the Boost Fund.

Cost of setting up a new social enterprise

As a first step, CMD data was used to extract the overall number of survey respondents who aspired to create a new social enterprise. This was triangulated with survey data to identify the proportion of these respondents who successfully established a new social enterprise after receiving the Boost Fund (see Annex A).

The data showed that, among survey respondents, just over two-thirds (67 per cent) of Boost Fund beneficiaries who stated that they aspired to set up a new social enterprise successfully did so by the time survey data was collected. Assuming that this survey finding is representative of all recipients and that two-thirds of all beneficiaries who aspired to set up a new social enterprise did so, this implies that 287 new social enterprises were created at a unit cost of £11,410 per new social enterprise (see detail in Table 5 below).

One limitation of this approach is that it assumes that all of the Boost Fund spending was aimed at contributing to the creation of new social enterprises, whereas in reality some spending was targeted at existing social enterprises. As it is not known what share of the Fund was targeted at existing social enterprises, the calculations in Table 5 are based on the assumption that all funding was channelled to new social enterprises. This is a necessary assumption given the lack of alternative approaches available to estimate the cost of setting up a new social enterprise, but it may mean that the unit cost of £11,410 is overestimated^{[footnote 19]}. This is later adjusted for in our sensitivity analysis (see Annex A).

Table 5 - Cost per social enterprise created

Overall survey responses	133
Survey respondents who outlined they want to set up a new social enterprise in the CMD dataset	49
Beneficiaries who created a new social enterprise out of those aspiring to create one	33
% of those aspiring to create a new social enterprise who created one by the time CMD data was collected	67%
Overall CMD responses	734
Overall number of beneficiaries aspiring to create a social enterprise (CMD)	429
Assumed number of people aspiring to create a new social enterprise who managed to create one as a result of SEBF (based on central assumption)	287
Overall funding received for the SEBF period	£3,274,548
Funding per new social enterprise created	£11,410

Whilst there are no similar funds focused on creating new social enterprises to compare with, this finding is in line with the Fund’s original intention, which was providing up to £10,000 towards social enterprise start-up and development costs, in combination with additional business support activities. Furthermore, a report from Social Enterprise UK shows that the median turnover of micro social enterprises in the UK is £30,000 per year^{[footnote 20]}. Therefore, by the estimates in Table 5, the Boost Fund’s unit cost to set up a new social enterprise is around a third of the annual economic contribution of the average micro social enterprise. While this can’t be read as a direct comparison of the costs and benefits of the Fund, it does suggest that the costs per new social enterprise created may be commensurate with the economic contribution of social enterprises.

However, not all this social enterprise creation can be attributed to the Fund, as some or many of these social enterprises would have been set up in its absence. Qualitative fieldwork with beneficiaries who had established new social enterprises found that roughly half said that they still would have been able to set up their social enterprise without support from the Boost Fund. If we assume that half of the social enterprises created would have still been created without the Fund, then the Fund would have created an additional 144 social enterprises (that would not have been set up without the Fund). In that scenario the unit cost would be double at £22,740 per additional social enterprise created (see full calculation in Table 12, Annex A).

A more conservative estimate would be to assume that three-quarters of the social enterprises would have been set up in the absence of the Fund, implying that the Fund would have created an additional 72 social enterprises at a unit cost of £45,480 per additional social enterprise created.

It is important to also recognise the uncertainty around the survey finding that two-thirds of recipients who aspired to set up a business did so. We therefore conducted sensitivity analysis of the cost per beneficiary if this percentage was higher or lower than the central estimate implied by the survey. Due to this uncertainty, sensitivity analysis was conducted to assume the proportion of beneficiaries who successfully set up a new social enterprise under alternative scenarios, which is fully detailed in Annex A.

While it is only possible to estimate the cost per new social enterprise created with a high level of uncertainty, it is reasonable to assume this unit cost was between £10,257 and £50,633.

6. Recommendations

The evaluation makes the following recommendations aimed at any future interventions of a similar nature or focus. Each recommendation briefly notes why it is important.

Recommendation 1: DCMS should engage with key stakeholders in the early design stages of a fund through a stakeholder workshop or consultation process.

• Why it is important: This worked well in the Boost Fund and was crucial in gaining a greater understanding of the social enterprises landscape, particularly important when there is a lack of existing quantifiable evidence on effective strategies for supporting social enterprises.

Recommendation 2: DCMS should ensure clarity of communications about their expectations for LDPs in the set-up stage, including the necessary information they will need to provide (such as information and data for financial accountability checks, fraud risk checks and subsidy control).

• Why it is important: This proactive approach would enable applicants to prepare the required information once notified of their success, leading to a more efficient set-up process. It ensures that, regardless of changes in DCMS personnel or internal changes, delivery partners are aware of what is required from them and when, facilitating a smoother transition.

Recommendation 3: DCMS should implement more frequent monitoring and communication during the set-up phase.

• Why it is important: This will mitigate the impact of potential staff turnover and ensure a consistent approach for delivery partners.

Recommendation 4: During grant applications LDPs should encourage or mandate an initial discussion between social entrepreneurs and business advisors regarding their grant applications.

• Why it is important: Mandatory discussions help assess the applicant’s motivations and readiness, provide valuable feedback, and improve the quality of applications, leading to better outcomes for both the entrepreneurs and the LDPs.

Recommendation 5: LDPs should provide grants upfront rather than in arrears for pre-start or early-stage social enterprises.

• Why it is important: Early-stage social enterprises often lack the financial resources to pay for expenses upfront and then claim them in arrears. Providing grants upfront addresses this cashflow limitation, making it a more suitable approach for supporting these early-stage organisations.

Recommendation 6: LDPs should provide a hybrid approach of online and in-person delivery to accommodate different preferences and accessibility needs of entrepreneurs.

• Why it is important: A hybrid approach offers flexibility and caters to varying levels of accessibility, allowing entrepreneurs to choose the method that best suits their needs. This approach also maximises the benefits of both formats, combining the flexibility of online sessions with the effective networking opportunities of in-person interactions.

Recommendation 7: DCMS should consider conducting a follow-up study on longer-term outcomes and impacts, exploring the business growth and survival rates of social enterprises. The CMD includes business registration details to enable such follow-up studies in the future

• Why it is important: This report was written prior to delivery conclusion in March 2025. Consequently, we have been unable to collect long-term outcomes and impacts within our analysis and reporting timeframes and cannot examine impacts relating to sustainability and legacy. This will enable DCMS to assess the sustainability and legacy of the Boost Fund.

7. Glossary

Term	Definition
Aspiring, new and established social entrepreneur	Career stages that describe the experience of a social entrepreneur: ‘Aspiring’ social entrepreneurs are in the pre-start phase with their first social enterprise, while ‘new’ social entrepreneurs are in the start-up phase and ‘established’ social entrepreneurs have a set-up business.
Beneficiaries	The individuals or organisations that benefit from a policy/intervention. These can be grouped into 2 groups. Primary beneficiaries: Current and aspiring social entrepreneurs and social enterprises (with employees or sole proprietor). Secondary beneficiaries: Service users/customers of the services delivered by social enterprises funded and/or supported by Social Enterprise Boost Fund (SEBF) and local communities where the social enterprises funded and/or supported by SEBF are based.
Common Minimum Dataset (CMD)	Uniform data collected by local delivery partners from each of the social entrepreneurs they support, in any way, through the Boost Fund, and shared with RSM.
Community Interest Company (CIC)	A limited company which operates to provide benefit to the community they serve. The purpose of a CIC is primarily one of community benefit rather than private profit. A CIC is a type of social enterprise.
Contribution analysis	An evaluation approach to assessing the contribution of activities and programmes towards an outcome or outcomes for beneficiaries. Contribution analysis is particularly useful in situations where the programme is not experimental and where attribution of outcomes or impacts is not required or possible.
DCMS	Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The Fund	This report uses the terms ‘the Fund’ and ‘the Boost Fund’ interchangeably.
Fund-level evaluation	Evaluation of the entire programme.
HM Government	His Majesty’s Government is a formal term referring to the Government of the United Kingdom.
Impact evaluation	Investigates the impact of effects of the programme asking questions of a causal nature (i.e. whether observed impacts are due to the activity and/or programme being evaluated and to what extent) to understand beneficial or detrimental outcomes and whether the programme is the cause of these.
Local Delivery partners (LDP)	The 4 organisations/groups of organisations leading delivery of social enterprise and social entrepreneur support and grant making: (1) Firstport and PNE, (2) NE BIC, (3) SEBF West Midlands and (4) Social Enterprise Kent (SEK).
National VCSE organisations	Organisations in the Voluntary, Community and Social enterprise sector who provided context to the research from a national perspective. Their remit covers improving access to information on social investment for charities and social enterprises, projects for community businesses and a network of businesses with a social purpose.
Pre-startup phase social enterprises	Involves an aspiring social entrepreneur who has not set up their business yet.
Process evaluation	Investigates the different stages of funding and local delivery partner implementation to understand what was provided, how this was done and why, as well as what different groups think about how this process worked.
Qualitative data	Non-numerical data (e.g. data from interviews).
Quantitative data	Numerical data (e.g. age).
Social Entrepreneurs	This term covers the project participants, who are seeking support for their enterprise business These direct beneficiaries include social entrepreneurs and social enterprises participating in projects.
Start-up phase social enterprises	Involves a social entrepreneur who has recently set up their new business.

8. Annexes

8.1 Annex A: Detailed method

Evaluation aims

The goals of this evaluation were to identify approaches to support social enterprises to grow and thrive within local areas, which are:

• Cost-effective
• Scalable
• Transferable to other areas
• Sustainable

We delivered a LDP project-level process and impact evaluation that assessed the effectiveness, benefits, outcomes and value for money of individual projects, administered by LDPs in high-deprivation areas. We brought this together into an overarching programme level evaluation by providing a summary of learning across the LDP projects, and a consideration of how findings from this programme can be built on in future interventions in other policy areas.

This evaluation also provides an assessment of how social enterprises contribute to levelling up missions within communities, as part of the broader programme level impact evaluation.

8.1.1 Research questions

The RQs for this evaluation are set out in Table 6 and 7 below.

The table indicates which RQs the interim and final reports answer. The table below indicates the extent to which evaluation questions are not included (NI), partially addressed (PA) and fully addressed (FA) in the reports.

Table 6 - Process evaluation questions

Process evaluation questions	Interim report	Final report
1. How were the projects delivered?</p><p>- How have the LDPs adapted to local needs?	PA	FA
2. How did different types of activities help meet objectives of the Fund?	PA	PA
3. Who did the Fund reach?	PA	FA
4. How was the Fund experienced by beneficiaries?	PA	FA
5. What was the impact on the area/wider context on delivery and outcomes?	PA	FA
6. How did social enterprises contribute to local community needs?	NI	FA

Table 7 - Impact and value for money evaluation questions

Impact and value for money evaluation questions	Interim report	Final report
7. To what extent the Fund meets its key objectives (outcomes and shorter-term impacts outlined in the ToC) in the targeted disadvantaged areas?	PA	FA
8. To what extent did the projects have spillover impacts to the wider community including on well-being and pride in place?	PA	FA
9. At a project level: (a) What role did the Fund have in contributing to the creation of new and the support of existing social enterprises in the local area? (b) How did the Fund contribute to growth in turnover and employment for the supported social enterprises? (c) What, if any, other types of local economic opportunities did the Fund help to create or increase?	PA	PA
10. How did the Fund influence change for local networks and structures to support local social enterprises? What were the types of change that the Fund achieved?	PA	PA
11. How did the Fund contribute to social entrepreneurs’ ability to identify local community needs?	PA	FA
12. In what ways did social enterprises provide for community needs through the services they deliver or develop?	PA	FA
13. To what extent were the projects and their different components (grants, capacity building): (a) Cost-effective – ie are benefits commensurate to costs? (b) Scalable - ie would it be feasible to use them in the next spending review cycle to reach enough beneficiaries to meaningfully contribute to levelling up missions? (c) Transferable - ie would they work in other settings? (d) Sustainable - ie would benefits persist if/when government funding is withdrawn?	NI	FA

8.1.2 Data used in this report

This section provides an overview of the data sources used to produce this interim report.

Social entrepreneur interviews

Between November 2023 and November 2024, we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with social entrepreneurs receiving support from the Boost Fund. We used the CMDs received in October 2023, April 2024 and October 2024, which included contact information, as a basis for sampling and contacting the social entrepreneurs. Sampling criteria were primarily LDP and whether the social entrepreneur already had an established enterprise or was aspiring to start an enterprise. Table 8 below outlines the sample of entrepreneurs interviewed.

Table 8 - Social entrepreneur interview sampling

LDP	Total number of social entrepreneurs	Established enterprise	Aspiring to start an enterprise
Firstport and PNE	18	9	9
NE BIC	8	2	6
SEBF West Midlands	16	7	9
SE Kent	13	6	7
Total	55	24	31

The interviews explored the social entrepreneurs experience of the Fund, their aims and objectives, and any emerging outcomes and impacts achieved.

LDP interviews

In October 2023 and in September 2024, we conducted 15 in-depth interviews with representatives from all the LDPs involved in the Boost Fund. DCMS provided contact details for each of the lead LDPs, and they, in turn, supplied contact details for the partners they were working in partnership with. The 6 interviews in October 2023 focused on the LDPs’ experiences with the application process and LDP project set-up, the targeting, recruitment and onboarding of beneficiaries, experiences of project delivery and their plans for evidence collection. The 9 interviews conducted in September 2024 explored project delivery, the reach of the Fund, reflections on different approaches used, and what worked well and less well in supporting entrepreneurs.

DCMS interviews and group discussion

In November 2023 and February 2024, we conducted 3 in-depth interviews with DCMS policy and evaluation personnel. These interviews reflected on the Fund design process, management of LDPs, and programme delivery. In November 2024, we held 2 group discussion with these personnel to reflect on their experiences managing the LDPs and the relative merits of various approaches taken by LDPs in their delivery. The selection of DCMS staff for the interviews and group discussion was based on their involvement in designing and managing the Boost Fund. This ensured we received a comprehensive overview of the different stages of the Boost Fund. We tailored our discussions to focus on the areas of expertise of each DCMS staff member.

Local authority interviews

In January and February 2024, we conducted 3 in-depth interviews with local authority representatives from Boost Fund areas. We requested contact details from the LDPs to reach out to staff working at the relevant local authorities. Out of the 7 local authority contacts provided by the LDPs, we arranged 3 interviews due to either contact availability or lack of awareness of the social enterprise landscape in the area.

The interviews with local authorities focused on exploring the local context for social enterprises, including the role of social enterprises in the area, interventions to support them and the local level demand/need for their services. We discussed what works to support social enterprises as well as their views on the Boost Fund, and any suggested changes to its delivery. Additionally, we explored recommendations for the future of the Boost Fund and potential future funding to support social enterprises. Our discussions were tailored based on the interviewee’s awareness and knowledge of the Boost Fund and its delivery in their local authority.

Local VCSE interviews

Between November 2023 and September 2024, we conducted 12 in-depth interviews with representatives from VCSE organisations local to the areas where Boost Fund LDPs are delivering. We requested that the LDPs provide us with contact details for local VCSE organisations that were either involved in supporting with delivery of the Boost Fund (such as leading a workshop or assisting with targeting and recruitment of social entrepreneurs) or had substantial knowledge of the social enterprise landscape in the delivery areas.

Local VCSE interviews covered the same topics as the local authority interviews and were also tailored based on the interviewee’s level of knowledge and awareness of the Boost Fund and its delivery in the local area.

National VCSE interviews and group discussion

In February 2024, we conducted 3 in-depth interviews with representatives from national VCSE organisations. DCMS provided us with contact details for 6 national VCSE organisations that had participated in the stakeholder workshop held by DCMS in August 2022 to gather views on developing a programme to support social enterprises in disadvantaged areas. Out of 6 contacts provided by DCMS, we interviewed 3 national VCSE organisations. The interviews focused on various topics, including the importance of social enterprises, barriers and facilitators for social enterprise start-up and delivery, awareness of national and regional support available for social enterprises, and effective strategies to support social enterprises. We also discussed their perspectives on the Boost Fund, expectations regarding its outcomes and recommendations for DCMS for the future of the Fund.

In November 2024, we conducted a group discussion with representatives from national VCSE organisations. We used the same contact details provided by DCMS for the initial interviews. The group discussion focused on what does/does not work to support social enterprises, social enterprise landscape and reflections on the Boost Fund.

CMD

We developed a CMD to ensure uniform data collection across the LDPs. The CMD captures data on various aspects of the Fund, including demographic information of social entrepreneurs, data on their social enterprises, grant applications, and activities/events attended by the social entrepreneurs. Annex D contains comprehensive details of the data captured by the CMD. Throughout the delivery period, LDPs complete the CMD and return it to RSM via upload to the online data portal every 6 months. The data used for this report is from the October 2024 CMD data collection which covers data from the commencement of delivery up to 30 September 2024^{[footnote 21]}.

Social entrepreneur survey

The social entrepreneur survey captured evidence directly from the entrepreneurs supported by the Boost Fund. It included questions on their involvement in the Boost Fund, outcomes for their social enterprises, outcomes experienced by the entrepreneurs, and other support and funding accessed outside of the Boost Fund. The survey was live from June to November 2024. We emailed the survey to 448 eligible entrepreneurs, sending 2 reminders during this period. Eligibility required at least 7 months of participation in the Boost Fund, determined by their entry date in the CMD collected by their LDPs. This approach ensured that participants had sufficient time to experience outcomes and impacts. As more entrepreneurs became eligible over time, we reached out to them accordingly.

We received 201 responses including 140 complete responses and 61 partial responses. The final analysis includes 133 usable responses after discounting duplicates and opt-outs. This is a usable response rate of 30 per cent.

8.1.3 Analysis

Mapping data collected to key research areas

Based on the ToC detailed in Figure 1 (Annex C: Theory of Change), and expected causal pathways for outcomes and impacts, we proposed 4 contribution statements. Evidence has been mapped against each of these statements to assess the extent to which they hold true and can be evidenced by primary and secondary sources of data.

• Contribution statement 1: The Boost Fund contributed to growth of social enterprises in the target areas.
• Contribution statement 2: The Boost Fund contributed to social enterprises’ sense of their resilience.
• Contribution statement 3: The Boost Fund contributed to building of local networks and structures that support social enterprise in the target areas.
• Contribution statement 4: The Boost Fund contributed to social enterprises’ perceived ability to support communities in the target areas.

Using evidence gathered through interviews, group discussions and the social entrepreneur survey, we have found the evidence of the Boost Fund’s contribution to each of the following results, detailed in Table 9. The analysis also considers evidence of other factors that contribute to the observed result. The categories of contribution are:

• Strong contribution - indicates that the Boost Fund has achieved substantial results with few or no other contributing factors.
• Some contribution - indicates that the Boost Fund has achieved some, but no substantial results with evidence that other contribution factors are at play.
• Negligible contribution - indicates that the Boost Fund has not or not yet achieved any or only very limited results or that the results are effects of other contributing factors.

In addition, the contribution analysis assesses the strength of evidence underpinning the contribution findings as follows:

• Strong evidence - is evidence from multiple sources that is clear with limited need for interpretation or prompting.
• Weak evidence - indicates that participants and others discussed the result but that there is either only limited evidence for it materialising or that the evidence needed interpretation or prompts.
• Negligible evidence - indicates that there is no or very little evidence for the result.

Table 9 - Contribution analysis

Contribution statement	Evidence	Strength of the Boost Fund’s contribution to the result	Strength of evidence underpinning the findings
1: The Boost Fund contributed to growth of social enterprises in the target areas.	The social entrepreneur survey reported a 66 per cent increase in business turnover and 53 per cent increase in profit as a result of the Boost Fund. Many social entrepreneurs cited various examples of social enterprise growth including increased delivery of activities, new projects, and hiring new employees. Of the 31 social entrepreneurs interviewed who “aspired to start a social enterprise”, at least 17 successfully established on during their participation in the Boost Fund. Some entrepreneurs stated that without the Boost Fund, their enterprises would be less developed, with a few indicating they would not have been set up at all.	Some contribution: The survey evidence directly attributes financial growth to the Boost Fund. However, interview evidence does not directly attribute growth to the Boost Fund, with the potential for other factors resulting in this growth. There is no counterfactual to compare the impact of the Boost Fund against what would have happened without it.	Weak evidence: Interview and survey evidence about the growth of social enterprises is strong. However, there is a lack of quantitative on the size of financial growth including business turnover and profits as well as evidence on the size of employee growth.
2: The Boost Fund contributed to social enterprises’ sense of their resilience.	The social entrepreneur survey reported increased resilience, with the majority of entrepreneurs noting an increased ability to weather poorer economic times, reinvest profits, and accessing more local social enterprise support outside of the Boost Fund, as a result of the Boost Fund. Although some entrepreneurs interviewed felt it was too early to fully assess the impact on resilience, many indicated increased resilience or future potential, such as better preparedness for grant applications, developing sustainable business models and understanding the importance of cash reserves.	Strong contribution: Both the survey and interview evidence indicate increased resilience for the majority of entrepreneurs, directly attributed to the Boost Fund. Some attributed it to specific components of the Boost Fund including the grant funding and 1:1 business advice.	Strong evidence: The survey and interview evidence are clear and covers various aspects of resilience and many entrepreneurs interviewed mentioned these indicators of resilience without prompting.
3: The Boost Fund contributed to building of local networks and structures that support social enterprise in the target areas.	A large portion of social entrepreneurs reported creating and strengthening local partnerships, facilitated through networking events and relationships organised by LDPs. LDPs also reported building and strengthening relationships with local stakeholders involved in supporting social enterprises, such as local authorities, local VCSE organisations and community centres, resulting in new projects focused on supporting social enterprises in the local area.	Strong contribution: Interview evidence directly attributes the building of local networks and partnerships to the Boost Fund, with entrepreneurs noting how LDPs have facilitated these partnerships.	Weak evidence: Only a portion of entrepreneurs and LDPs reported creating and strengthening local partnerships. The evidence focuses more on relationships and partnerships rather than formalized structures and networks.
4: The Boost Fund contributed to social enterprises’ perceived ability to support communities in the target areas.	The majority of social entrepreneurs reported improved awareness of community needs and an increased ability to meet these needs more effectively due to the Boost Fund. Entrepreneurs began or increased their support for local communities, focusing on various aspects including mental health, education, food poverty and family support. Spillover benefits included reducing NHS workload and improving community pride.	Strong contribution: Interview evidence indicates that the Boost Fund significantly improved social enterprises’ ability to understand how to identify and meet local needs. Entrepreneurs directly attributed their improved capacity and ability to the Boost Fund’s support, including networking and business advice.	Strong evidence: The interview evidence is comprehensive and covers various aspects of how the Boost Fund contributes to improved ability to support communities. Although direct evidence from communities was not collected, the evidence strongly indicates the perceived ability to support communities.

Interview analysis

Interviews were conducted online over Microsoft Teams and lasted between 30 minutes to 1 hour depending on the stakeholder group. These were recorded for transcription purposes. Interview recordings were transcribed directly into an analysis framework with separate spreadsheets dedicated to each stakeholder group. The data was coded into the analysis framework with relevant sections from the interviews transcribed to corresponding sections in the framework. This framework was structured around the interview guides for each stakeholder group which were driven by the Boost research questions and objectives.

Themes and trends were identified for each section of the framework for different stakeholder groups with keyword search employed to draw out evidence against specific outcomes. The qualitative framework was updated iteratively as we conducted interviews and found new themes and we used this to shape new interview guides for future waves of interviews.

CMD analysis

We reviewed the CMD data received from the LDPs, addressing any data discrepancies by requesting clarification from the LDPs. After updating the dataset post-clarification, we cleaned the data in preparation for analysis. We then conducted descriptive statistics (e.g. totals, averages, maximum and minimum values) and developed tables in Excel, analysing the dataset as a whole rather than by individual LDPs. This approach enabled us to gain insights and identify trends across the entire Boost Fund.

Social entrepreneur survey analysis

We received 201 responses including 140 complete responses and 61 partial responses. We discounted duplicates and opted-outs, this process yielded 133 usable responses. We conducted a review of the quality of responses and identified and removed outliers in the dataset. Data cleaning ensured all responses were in the appropriate format for analysis in Excel. The survey included a routing question to determine if the respondent’s had a social enterprise being supported through the Boost Fund, or whether they were an individual being supported through the Boost Fund without a social enterprise yet. Based on this, respondents were asked nearly identical questions, with wording tailored to fit their status. We combined responses for the corresponding questions and analysed them as a single group rather than splitting responses for analysis. We conducted an analysis of survey results, producing descriptive statistics for each question.

8.1.4 Value for Money approach

Percentage spent per type of support

All 4 LDPs provided a breakdown of their expenditure costs for delivering the Boost Fund. The data includes a breakdown of the proportion of the overall funding spent on capability building support, onward grants and wider administrative costs. It was used to calculate the proportion of their overall funding spent on the different types of support.

Table 10 - Amount spent per type of support 2023/24

LDP	Capability building support	Onward grants	Admin cost	Overall 23/24
Firstport and PNE	£336,911	£166,500	£13,320	£516,731
NE BIC	£150,238	£114,849	£9,553	£274,640
SEBF West Midlands	£374,139	£163,258	£13,061	£550,458
SE Kent	£199,172	£124,992	£9,999	£334,163
Fund-level 2023/24	£1,060,460	£569,599	£45,933	£1,675,992

Cost per social enterprise created and sensitivity analysis

As a first step to the approach, CMD data was used to extract the overall number of survey respondents who aspired to create a new social enterprise. This number was kept at a fund-level, as sample sizes for the 4 LDPs was quite small. This was triangulated with survey data to identify the proportion of these respondents who successfully established a new social enterprise after receiving the Boost Fund. Whilst there is no way to attribute impact directly to the Boost Fund, a similar proportion (68 per cent) of interview participants who did not have a social enterprise before receiving the Boost Fund support, set one up during the time they were receiving the Fund support. That is why Scenario 1 assumed that 67 per cent of all Boost Fund beneficiaries who aspired to create a new social enterprise did so. The overall Boost Fund expenditure was divided by this number to calculate the assumed cost of creating a new social enterprise. All calculations are summarised in Table 11 below.

However, not all this social enterprise creation can be attributed to the Fund, as some or many of these social enterprises would have been set up in its absence. That is why Scenario 2 assumes that 50 per cent of the social enterprises set up would have been set up in the absence of the Fund. A more conservative Scenario 3 assumes that three-quarters of the social enterprises would have been set up in the absence of the Fund (Table 12).

Table 11 - Cost per social enterprise created

Overall survey responses	133
Survey respondents who outlined they want to set up a new social enterprise in the CMD dataset	49
Beneficiaries who created a new social enterprise out of those aspiring to create one	33
% of those aspiring to create a new social enterprise who created one by the time CMD data was collected	67%
Overall CMD responses	734
Overall number of beneficiaries aspiring to create a social enterprise (CMD)	429
Assumed number of people aspiring to create a new social enterprise who managed to create one as a result of SEBF (based on central assumption)	287
Overall funding received for the SEBF period	£3,274,548
Funding per new social enterprise created	£11,410

Table 12 - Cost per social enterprise created: Alternative Scenarios

	Assumptions attributing impact	Assumed number of people aspiring to create a new social enterprise who managed to create one as a result of SEBF	Funding per social enterprise created
Scenario 1	All beneficiaries who intended to set up a social enterprise and were successful did so because of the Boost Fund. Based on survey responses this is 67% of 429 of beneficiaries.	287	£11,410
Scenario 2	Half of all beneficiaries who intended to set up a social enterprise (50% of 287) and were successful did so because of the Boost Fund.	144	£22,740
Scenario 3	A quarter of all beneficiaries who intended to set up a social enterprise (25% of 287) and were successful did so because of the Boost Fund.	72	£45,480

Sensitivity analysis

There is considerable uncertainty around the above estimates, as CMD data collection was finalised prior to the end of the Boost Fund period. That is why sensitivity analysis was completed in Table 13 below to explore alternative scenarios. The sensitivity analysis looked at 2 additional scenarios where the proportion of beneficiaries who successfully created a social enterprise was 10 per cent lower or higher than the central scenario of 67 per cent. The sensitivity analysis was also conducted for all 3 scenarios summarised in Table 12 above. Please see the sensitivity analysis results summarised below.

Table 13 - Cost per social enterprise created (Sensitivity analysis)

		Low	Central	High
% of those aspiring to create a new social enterprise who successfully created one		60%	67%	74%
% of new social enterprises attributable to the programme	Scenario 1 (all SEs created attributable to the programme)	259	287	316
	Scenario 2 (50% attributable to the programme)	129	144	158
	Scenario 3 (25% attributable to the programme)	65	72	79
Funding per new social enterprise created	Scenario 1	£12,658	£11,393	£10,357
	Scenario 2	£25,317	£22,785	£20,714
	Scenario 3	£50,633	£45,570	£41,427

8.1.5 Limitations

We have identified the following limitations with our evaluation:

• Reporting timelines: We wrote this final report before the delivery finished in March 2025. Consequently, the data collected on outcomes and impacts is limited to what can be meaningfully observed within the timeframes for analysis and reporting. We are not in a position to sufficiently examine impacts related to sustainability and legacy. Instead, we report on indicators that suggest potential for future sustainability. DCMS should consider a follow-up study on longer-term outcomes and impacts to assess the sustainability of social enterprises in practice.
• Community data collection: We have not conducted any wider community data collection. Therefore, any reported outcomes and impacts on the wider community are based on observations from entrepreneurs or LDPs, rather than direct reports from community members. DCMS should consider future consultations or data collections to address these knowledge gaps and better understand social enterprise impacts.
• Data on turnover, profit and employment: We are limited in our ability to answer RQ9 regarding growth in turnover, profit, and employment. We considered including quantitative questions on these metrics but focused more on qualitative insights due to concerns that early-stage social enterprises might not have complete data or returns yet. Consequently, any figures would likely be estimates and not particularly useful or reliable.
• High-level expenditure data: For our VfM analysis, we use expenditure data reported by LDPs. This data is very high-level and does not break down capability building support into different types of activities or events, preventing detailed VfM analysis at that level. DCMS did not request more detailed expenditure data from LDPs.
• Data collection period of expenditure data: At the time of report writing, 2024/25 expenditure data is incomplete and therefore the VfM analysis focused on the 2023/24 financial year, rather than the full period of Boost Fund delivery.
• Data availability for the VfM: Expenditure data included in the VfM analysis was based on data reported by LDPs. Therefore, it does not include DCMS administrative costs associated with designing and delivering the Fund. At the time of writing, there is also limited data on the full long-term impact of the Boost Fund, which made cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency analysis limited.

8.2 Annex B: Categorisation of social entrepreneurs

Through interviews, we found that our categorisation of “established”, and “aspiring” entrepreneurs does not fully capture the diversity and complexity of those accessing the Boost Fund. Entrepreneurs come from various backgrounds and stages of development. The key types identified are:

• Entrepreneurs at the ideation stage with a strong social mission to base their social enterprise on, but no prior experience or business acumen.
• Entrepreneurs at the ideation stage with a strong social mission and prior experience and/or business acumen.
• Entrepreneurs wanting to convert their existing business into a social enterprise. Typically, they have lots of prior experience and business acumen directly related to running a business not a social enterprise.
• Entrepreneurs with an early-stage social enterprise looking to scale its operations and impact.
• Entrepreneurs with a well-established social enterprise that has been trading for a few years, generally with stronger business acumen and recognition and networks in their local area.

These have varying levels of business knowledge, experience, connections, lived experience and understanding of needs in their local area.

8.3 Annex C: Theory of Change

Figure 1 - Theory of Change diagram

8.4 Annex D: CMD measures

Table 14 - CMD measures

Management information category	Brief guidance	Data values
Date	Delivery partner to enter the date that data is inputted.	Date
Social entrepreneur information
Unique identification number	Delivery partner to enter the unique identification number assigned to the social entrepreneur. This number should be retained throughout the programme.	Numerical/letters
Established social entrepreneur or individual aspiring to be social entrepreneur	Delivery partner to indicate whether social entrepreneur is already established with a business or aspires to start a social enterprise.	Person aspiring to start a social enterprise; established social entrepreneur
Social entrepreneur name	Delivery partner to provide full name of the social entrepreneur.	Letters
Social entrepreneur email address	Delivery partner to provide the email address of the social entrepreneur.	Numerical/letters
Age	Delivery partner to indicate the age of the social entrepreneur by selecting from drop down list.	Numerical
Ethnicity	Delivery partner to indicate the ethnicity of the social entrepreneur by selecting from drop down list.	White: English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British; White: Irish; White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller; White: Any other White background; Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean; Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: White and Black African; Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: White and Asian; Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: Any other mixed / multiple ethnic background; Asian/ Asian British: Indian; Asian/ Asian British: Pakistani; Asian/ Asian British: Bangladeshi; Asian/ Asian British: Any other Asian background; Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British: African; Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British: Caribbean; Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British: Any other Black / African / Caribbean background; Chinese; Arab; Other ethnic group; Prefer not to say.
Sex	Delivery partner to indicate the social entrepreneur’s sex by selecting from drop down list.	Female; Male
Gender	Delivery partner to indicate if the gender the social entrepreneur identifies with is the same as their sex registered at birth by selecting from drop down list.	Yes; No, enter gender identity; Prefer not to say
Gender	If gender IS NOT the same as the sex registered at birth, delivery partner to indicate the gender (free text).	Letters
Disability / health conditions	Delivery partner to indicate if the social entrepreneur has any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more by selecting from drop down list.	Yes; No; Prefer Not to Say
Disability / health conditions	Delivery partner to indicate if the condition or illness/any of the conditions or illnesses reduce the social entrepreneur’s ability to carry-out day-to-day activities by selecting from drop down list.	Yes, a lot; Yes, a little; No; Prefer Not to Say
Highest qualification of the social entrepreneur	Delivery partner to select from drop down list.	GSCE or equivalent; A levels or equivalent; BTEC, BEC, TEC or equivalent; Apprenticeship; Foundation Degree; Undergraduate or bachelor’s degree; master’s degree; Doctorate; Any Other Qualification; None of these; Prefer Not to Say
Employment status of the social entrepreneur	Delivery partner to select the employment status of the social entrepreneur at the point at which they assign a unique ID, from drop down list.	In paid work: employed; In paid work: self-employed; Looking for paid work; In education or training; Not in Employment or Looking for Paid Work; Any Other Status; Prefer Not to Say
Social enterprise information
Date	Delivery partner to enter the date that data is inputted (if different to date above)	Numerical
Pre-start, newly established or existing SE	Delivery partner to select appropriate option from drop down list.	Prestart; Newly established; Already existing
Business email address	Delivery partner to provide the email address for the social enterprise if available.	Email address
Postcode of the business	Delivery partner to provide the Postcode of the business (as per the registered address).	Postcode
Name of the business	Delivery partner to provide the full name of the business, as per the business registration	Letters/numerical
Business legal form	Delivery partner to indicate the business legal form by selecting from drop down list.	Unincorporated: Sole Trader; Unincorporated: Partnership; Limited Company; Community Interest Company; Industrial and Provident Societies; Limited Liability Partnership; Any Other Form
Company registration number	Delivery partner to provide the company registration number as per the social enterprise’s Companies House registration, if applicable.	Letters/numerical
Date on which business starts to trade	Delivery partner to provide the date on which the business started to trade.	Date
Business standard industrial classification code	Delivery partner to provide the business’ standard industrial classification.	Numerical
Number of employees (absolute)	Delivery partner to enter the absolute number of employees (at the point at which a unique ID is assigned).	Numerical
Number of employees (full time equivalent)	Delivery partner to enter the number of FTE employees (at the point at which a unique ID is assigned).	Numerical/decimal
Number of volunteer hours	Delivery partner to enter the number of monthly volunteer hours (at the point at which a unique ID is assigned)	Numerical
Business turnover	Delivery partner to enter the latest annual turnover of the social enterprise.	£-value
Business profits	Delivery partner to enter the latest annual business profits or losses of the social enterprise.	£-value
Growth plan / social enterprise	Delivery partner to indicate whether a growth plan or strategy has been developed.	Yes; No
Grant funding information (up to 3 entries possible)
Date grant application received	Delivery partner to provide the date on which they received the grant application.	Date
Value of application	Delivery partner to provide the value of the grant applied for.	£-value
Acceptance or rejection	Delivery partner to indicate acceptance or rejection by selecting from drop down list.	Accepted; Rejected
Value of grant awarded	Delivery partner to provide the value of the grant approved.	£-value
Award date	Delivery partner to provide the date on which they made the grant award.	Date
Date funds transferred	Delivery partner to indicate the date they paid the grant.	Date
Support activities and events attended
Unique identification of event / support attended used 1-10	Delivery partner to enter the unique ID of the business support activity or awareness event attended. Repeat this for each activity / event attended. The ID can then be linked to information on the event and training below.	Numerical/letters
Event and training information
Date	Delivery partner to enter the date that data is inputted.	Date
Unique identification number	Delivery partner to enter the unique identification number of the event/activity.	Numerical/letters
Business support or awareness raising	Delivery partner to indicate the type of activity / event by selecting from drop down.	Business support activity; Awareness raising activity
Business support / awareness raising detail	Delivery partner to indicate the detail of the activity / event by selecting from drop down.	<p>Business support activity: please specify from below:</p><p>General Social Enterprise business support; Social enterprise set up support; Social enterprise growth training; Finance training; Legal training; Property planning training; Corporate sponsorship training; Governance and leadership training; Grant application and bidding training; Social Impact and Impact Measurement training; social media and marketing training; EDI training; Health and Safety training; Safeguarding training; Other business support activity</p><p>/ Awareness raising activity: please specify from below:</p><p>Launch event; Annual conferences; Expo events / trade fairs; Peer networking sessions; Wider networking events; Local community events; Other awareness raising activity</p>
Date of support / awareness raising	Delivery partner to indicate the start date of the support/awareness raising.	Date
Date of support / awareness raising	Delivery partner to indicate the end date of the support/awareness raising. If one-day activity, partner to select N/A.	Date
Number of attendees	Delivery partner to indicate the total number of attendees at the event/activity.	Numerical
Delivery mode of business support	Delivery partner to indicate the delivery mode of the event/activity by selecting from drop down list.	1:1 remote; 1:1 in-person; Workshop remote; Workshop in person; Other
Continuous or one-off support?	Delivery partner to select from drop down to indicate whether the business support is ongoing (e.g. a course) or a one-off support activity.	Continuous; One-off
Clarity, Meeting Objectives and Helpfulness scores	Delivery partner to enter the average clarity, meeting objectives and helpfulness scores of the event/activity.	Numerical/decimal

8.5 Annex E: Data tables

8.5.1 CMD

Table 15 - CMD – Demographic data

Age (N=638)	N	%
16-24	13	2%
25-34	99	16%
35-44	228	36%
45-54	175	27%
55-64	108	17%
65-74	14	2%
75-84	1	0%
Sex (N=710)	N	%
Female	437	62%
Male	255	36%
Prefer not to say	18	3%
Gender (N=691)	N	%
Yes	671	97%
No	2	0%
Prefer not to say	18	3%
Ethnicity (N=686)	N	%
Arab	2	0%
Asian/ Asian British: Any other Asian background	5	1%
Asian/ Asian British: Bangladeshi	4	1%
Asian/ Asian British: Indian	31	5%
Asian/ Asian British: Pakistani	10	1%
Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British: African	23	3%
Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British: Any other Black / African / Caribbean background	11	2%
Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British: Caribbean	59	9%
Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: Any other mixed / multiple ethnic background	11	2%
Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: White and Asian	2	0%
Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: White and Black African	8	1%
Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean	29	4%
Other ethnic group	11	2%
White: Any other White background	29	4%
White: English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British	425	62%
White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller	1	0%
White: Irish	5	1%
Prefer not to say	20	3%
Disability (N=688)	N	%
Yes	142	21%
No	507	74%
Prefer not to say	39	6%
Highest qualification of the social entrepreneur (N=648)	N	%
A levels or equivalent	53	8%
Any Other Qualification	38	6%
Apprenticeship	7	1%
BTEC, BEC, TEC or equivalent	38	6%
Doctorate	18	3%
Foundation Degree	38	6%
GCSE or equivalent	68	10%
Master’s Degree	129	20%
None of these	15	2%
Undergraduate or bachelor’s degree	207	32%
Prefer Not to Say	37	6%
Employment status of the entrepreneur (N=655)	N	%
Any Other Status	64	10%
In education or training	8	1%
In paid work: employed	211	32%
In paid work: self-employed	261	40%
Looking for paid work	45	7%
Not in Employment or Looking for Paid Work	44	7%
Prefer Not to Say	22	3%

Table 16 - CMD - Number of grant applications by LDP

LDP	Total applications	Accepted	Rejected
Firstport and PNE	163	90	73
NE BIC	101	64	37
SEBF West Midlands	94	32	62
SE Kent	42	34	8

Table 17 - CMD - Size of awarded grants by LDP

Firstport and PNE (N=90)	N	%
Under £2,000	8	9%
£2,001 - £4,000	1	1%
£4,001 - £6,000	81	90%
£6,001 - £8,000	0	0%
£8,001 - £10,000	0	0%
NE BIC (N=64)	N	%
Under £2,000	0	0%
£2,001 - £4,000	17	27%
£4,001 - £6,000	47	73%
£6,001 - £8,000	0	0%
£8,001 - £10,000	0	0%
SEBF West Midlands (N=32)	N	%
Under £2,000	3	9%
£2,001 - £4,000	6	19%
£4,001 - £6,000	3	9%
£6,001 - £8,000	4	13%
£8,001 - £10,000	16	50%
SE Kent (N=34)	N	%
Under £2,000	2	6%
£2,001 - £4,000	12	35%
£4,001 - £6,000	4	12%
£6,001 - £8,000	4	12%
£8,001 - £10,000	12	35%
Total	N	%
Under £2,000	13	6%
£2,001 - £4,000	36	16%
£4,001 - £6,000	135	61%
£6,001 - £8,000	8	4%
£8,001 - £10,000	28	13%

8.5.2 Social entrepreneur survey

Table 18 - Before participating in the Boost Fund, had you set up any other social enterprises?

Response (N=107)	N	%
Yes	20	19%
No	87	81%

Table 19 - What sources of funding have you used to help you set up your social enterprise, other than the Boost Fund?

Other funding sources (N=107)	N	%
Personal capital	52	41%
Local authority or similar funds or grants	36	28%
None	30	24%
Investment from other national charitable organisations	24	19%
Other UK government funds or grants	22	17%
Investment from other local charitable organisations	21	17%
Other private investment sources	8	6%
Other	7	6%
Don’t know	7	6%
Bank or building society loans	2	2%
Prefer not to say	1	1%

Table 20 - To what extent would you say Boost Fund has impacted your…

Business turnover (N=100)	N	%
Increased a lot	22	22%
Increased slightly	44	44%
No change	24	24%
Decreased	2	2%
Don’t know	8	8%
Profits (N=106)	N	%
Increased a lot	6	6%
Increased slightly	50	47%
No change	37	35%
Decreased	3	3%
Don’t know	10	9%

Table 21 - To what extent has your ability to weather poorer economic times changed as a result of the Boost Fund?

Q13. Weather poorer economic times (N=107)	N	%
Increased a lot	25	23%
Increased slightly	41	38%
No change	26	24%
Decreased	1	1%
Not sure	3	3%
N/A	11	10%

Table 22 - Since participation in the Boost Fund, has your social enterprise made dividend payments?

Response (N=107)	N	%
Yes	0	0%
No	79	74%
Not applicable	28	26%

Table 23 - Since participation in the Boost Fund, have you reinvested profits back into your social enterprise?

Response (N=107)	N	%
Yes	66	62%
No	32	30%
NA	5	5%
Prefer not to say	4	4%

Table 24 - What percentage of profits have you reinvested back into your social enterprise’s mission?

Percentage of profits (N=66)	N	%
51 – 60%	6	9%
61 – 70%	3	5%
71 – 80%	4	6%
81 – 90%	2	3%
91 – 100%	28	42%
Not sure	22	33%
Prefer not to say	1	2%

Table 25 - In which aspects have you reinvested?

Reinvested profits (N=66)	N	%
Activities linked to our mission	42	64%
Marketing and advertising	28	42%
Skills development	20	30%
Digital infrastructure	18	27%
Stock and inventory	18	27%
Infrastructure and facilities	15	23%
Operational efficiency	15	23%
Research and development	9	14%
Health and safety	6	9%
Other (please specify):	3	5%
Not sure	0	0%

Table 26 - Has your social enterprise donated to a registered charity since your support from the Boost Fund started?

Donated to a registered charity (N=107)	N	%
No	76	71%
Yes – to a local charity	15	14%
Not applicable	13	12%
Yes – to a national charity	2	2%
Prefer not to say	1	1%

Table 27 - In what ways have you worked with other social entrepreneurs in your local area?

Working with other social entrepreneurs in the local area (N=107)	N	%
Shared learnings	73	68%
Enhanced visibility	65	61%
Referrals	56	52%
Resource pooling	38	36%
Increased advocacy power	23	21%
We have not worked with other social entrepreneurs in the local area	16	15%
Reduced duplication of services	9	8%
Other	8	7%

Table 28 - To what extent has your enterprise been enabled to increase the benefits you deliver locally?

Poverty reduction (N=101)	N	%
Strongly agree	16	16%
Agree	20	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	29	29%
Disagree	6	6%
Strongly disagree	0	0%
NA	30	30%
Support for young people (N=107)	N	%
Strongly agree	34	32%
Agree	33	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	14	13%
Disagree	4	4%
Strongly disagree	1	1%
NA	21	20%
Support for refugees (N=102)	N	%
Strongly agree	7	7%
Agree	14	14%
Neither agree nor disagree	34	33%
Disagree	6	6%
Strongly disagree	2	2%
NA	39	38%
Support for older people (N=103)	N	%
Strongly agree	14	14%
Agree	36	35%
Neither agree nor disagree	18	17%
Disagree	4	4%
Strongly disagree	0	0%
NA	31	30%
Environmental sustainability (N=100)	N	%
Strongly agree	16	16%
Agree	26	26%
Neither agree nor disagree	27	27%
Disagree	3	3%
Strongly disagree	1	1%
NA	27	27%
Reducing economic inequality (N=104)	N	%
Strongly agree	19	18%
Agree	30	29%
Neither agree nor disagree	25	24%
Disagree	4	4%
Strongly disagree	0	0%
NA	26	25%
Support for cost of living (N=102)	N	%
Strongly agree	14	14%
Agree	24	24%
Neither agree nor disagree	28	27%
Disagree	2	2%
Strongly disagree	0	0%
NA	34	33%

Table 29 - To what extent do you agree that the Boost Fund helped you to develop the following?

Readiness to start a social enterprise (N=131)	N	%
Strongly agree	36	27%
Agree	39	30%
Neither agree nor disagree	20	15%
Disagree	5	4%
Strongly disagree	3	2%
NA	28	21%
Confidence to start a social enterprise (N=130)	N	%
Strongly agree	38	29%
Agree	40	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	21	16%
Disagree	5	4%
Strongly disagree	3	2%
NA	23	18%
Capability to start a social enterprise (N=130)	N	%
Strongly agree	36	28%
Agree	39	30%
Neither agree nor disagree	18	14%
Disagree	9	7%
Strongly disagree	4	3%
NA	24	18%
Knowledge about how to start a social enterprise (N=131)	N	%
Strongly agree	29	22%
Agree	55	42%
Neither agree nor disagree	17	13%
Disagree	3	2%
Strongly disagree	3	2%
NA	24	18%
Business / entrepreneurial skills (N=131)	N	%
Strongly agree	28	21%
Agree	63	48%
Neither agree nor disagree	23	18%
Disagree	3	2%
Strongly disagree	2	2%
NA	12	9%

Table 30 - As a direct result of the Boost Fund, to what extent do you agree that you have developed your…

Awareness of existing local support for social entrepreneurs and/or social enterprises outside of the Boost Fund? (N=131)	N	%
Strongly agree	49	37%
Agree	51	39%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	11%
Disagree	6	5%
Strongly disagree	2	2%
NA	8	6%
Awareness of local community needs? (N=131)	N	%
Strongly agree	36	27%
Agree	55	42%
Neither agree nor disagree	23	18%
Disagree	8	6%
Strongly disagree	2	2%
NA	7	5%

Table 31 - Have you used any social enterprise support locally outside of the Boost Fund?

Response (N=131)	N	%
Yes	58	44%
No	61	47%
Don’t know	9	7%
Prefer not to say	1	1%
NA	2	2%

Table 32 - As a direct result of the Boost Fund, to what extent have you changed your use of existing social enterprise support locally outside of the Boost Fund?

Change (N=58)	N	%
Accessed a lot more	16	28%
Accessed a little more	24	41%
No change	18	31%

Table 33 - From whom have you received this support, outside of the Boost Fund?

Other social enterprise support (N=58)	N	%
Other social enterprises	31	53%
Social enterprise network	29	50%
Local charity or non-profit organisation	18	31%
Local authority	14	24%
Community foundation	10	17%
Business incubator or accelerator	8	14%
Chamber of commerce	6	10%
Local university or business school	5	9%
Other LDP from Boost Fund	5	9%
Local marketing or PR agency	1	2%

Table 34 - What approaches have you used to identify local community needs?

Approaches to identify local community needs (N=128)	N	%
Insights gained through day-to-day activities	91	71%
Community events	82	64%
Social media	62	48%
Consultations with local VCSE organisations	53	41%
Community interviews or focus groups	52	41%
Drawing on existing secondary data sources	51	40%
Surveys	46	36%
Consultations with local authority contacts	42	33%
Asset-based community development (e.g. leveraging a community’s existing strengths to drive positive change)	29	23%
Prefer not to say	6	5%
Other	4	3%

Table 35 - As a direct result of the Boost Fund, to what extent do you agree that you have developed your ability to meet local community needs effectively?

Ability to meet local community needs effectively (N=128)	N	%
Strongly agree	36	28%
Agree	54	42%
Neither agree nor disagree	22	17%
Disagree	7	5%
Strongly disagree	2	2%
Not sure	6	5%
Prefer not to say	1	1%

Table 36 - What community need(s)/challenge(s) do you aim to address as a social enterprise?

Community needs/challenges (N=129)	N	%
Social inclusion and diversity	92	71%
Health and well-being services	91	71%
Education and training	71	55%
Community regeneration	40	31%
Local economic development	28	22%
Environmental initiatives	27	21%
Cultural and heritage preservation	22	17%
Other (please specify):	3	2%
Prefer not to say	2	2%

1. The average Boost Fund cost per social entrepreneur was derived by dividing the overall Boost Fund spent by the number of social entrepreneurs supported by it. ↩

2. Intellectual Property Office, Business Support for SMEs, 2014. Available at: Business Support for SME’s ↩

3. VfM analysis is at the Fund-level and not disaggregated by LDP. ↩

4. These administrative costs were specifically associated with onward grant funding and represented 8 per cent of grants awarded. ↩

5. The wide range for the estimated unit cost is due to uncertainty about how many of the new social enterprises created following support through the Fund would have been created in the absence of the Fund. ↩

6. Social Enterprise UK, The Future of Business, 2017. Available at: Social Enterprise UK ↩

7. Due to the early closure of the SEBF West Midlands delivery, their CMD covers data from the commencement of delivery up to 31 August 2024. ↩

8. Available at: Levelling Up the United Kingdom (Accessed 12/12/2024). ↩

9. CMD data spans from the start of delivery up to 30 September 2024, as reported by the LDPs. However, due to the early closure of the SEBF West Midlands delivery, their CMD data covers data from the commencement of delivery up to 31 August 2024. ↩

10. NE BIC had a different approach to grant administration compared to the other LDPs. Entrepreneurs awarded grants by NE BIC had to first spend that money and claim it back in arrears. ↩

11. 31 August 2024 for SEBF West Midlands due to their early closure of the Boost Fund. ↩

12. Annex B provides a detailed consideration of the usefulness of categorising entrepreneurs as “established” or “aspiring”. ↩

13. The Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research (CEEDR) Social Enterprise: Market Trends 2019 report finds that 59 per cent of social enterprises are led by people between the age of 35 and 54, 14.7 per cent are women-led, and 5.5 per cent are ethnic minority-led.Social Enterprise: Market Trends 2019 (Accessed 12/12/2024). ↩

14. This can be contextualised considering that 82 per cent of the population of England and Wales is of white ethnicity, according to Office for National Statistics 2021 Census data. Breakdown by local authorities being targeted by the Boost Fund: County Durham = 96.8 per cent Sandwell = 57.3 per cent, South Tyneside = 94.3 per cent, Sunderland = 94.6 per cent, Thanet = 92.9, and Wolverhampton = 60.5 per cent. Ethnic group, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (Accessed 12/12/2024), ↩

15. We looked at the top 3 categories of SIC codes reported for social enterprises in the CMD to illustrate the main sectors and types of activities Boost Fund social enterprises are providing for their local communities. It is important to note that the outcomes of these activities may be broader, such as using artistic creation to improve people’s mental health. ↩

16. There are differences between the number of onward grants listed in the VfM section and Annex A, as the VfM section focuses on the 2023/24 financial year, while the Appendix looks at all grants distributed between 2023 and 2025. The VfM section looked at the 2023/24 period only due to limited expenditure data being available post this period at the time of writing. ↩

17. 106 entrepreneurs benefited from both the grants and the capability building support and therefore, the average cost for those beneficiaries is the sum of the onward grants cost and capability building support cost in Table 3 (£7,178). ↩

18. Intellectual Property Office, Business Support for SMEs, 2014. Available at: Business Support for SME’s ↩

19. There is no way to split the spent for capability building support between new and existing social enterprises. However, CMD data shows that a larger proportion of the grants (62 per cent) were spent on established versus new (38 per cent) social enterprises. ↩

20. Social Enterprise UK, The Future of Business, 2017. Available at: Social Enterprise UK ↩

21. Due to the early closure of the SEBF West Midlands delivery, their CMD covers data from the commencement of delivery up to 31 August 2024. ↩