Research and analysis

Newton Fund Evaluation: assessing progress towards impact (executive summary)

Published 6 May 2026

Executive summary

The Newton Fund supported partnered research between UK researchers/institutions and counterparts in 16 middle-income countries. It spent GBP 641,667,065^{[footnote 1]} from financial quarter (FQ) 1 2014/15 to FQ2 2023/24. The Fund, administered through the UK government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) (at that time, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – BEIS), was delivered by 15 UK research funding agencies^{[footnote 2]}. It covered a wide range of research topics and focused on priority research needs of the middle-income countries (MICs) that participated. It was defined by 3 pillars which underpin development research:

• people (strengthening research capacity in researchers and their institutions)
• research (understanding development challenges and exploring solutions)
• translation (translating research into useful products for policy and commercial use)

This final evaluation aims to assess whether (and how) its intended long-term outcomes and impacts have been achieved. It focuses on 3 core objectives:

1. evidencing the Fund’s longer-term results to support accountability
2. assessing value for money (VfM) to inform both accountability and learning
3. generating insights to guide the design and delivery of future research and innovation (R&I) funds, particularly those with official development assistance (ODA) funding.

This study builds on the 4 phases of external evaluation conducted between 2015 and 2020, and addresses gaps in the evidence base by extending the time frame to cover years 7 to 10 of the Fund’s Theory of Change (ToC). With the Fund’s final granting year in 2021, this evaluation provides a timely opportunity to synthesise a decade of learning.

The evaluation was designed around 6 evaluation questions (EQs), reframed from the original specification to better reflect the Fund’s long-term ambitions. These cover:

• the outcomes achieved (EQ1)
• progress towards intended impacts (EQ2)
• contributions to R&I systems in the UK and partner countries (EQ3)
• enabling and constraining factors (EQ4)
• VfM and its evolution (EQ5)
• key learning (EQ6)

Each question is addressed through dedicated evaluation modules, with detailed sub-questions mapped against the ToC.

The evaluation is theory-based, equity-focused, and designed for utilisation. It draws on the Newton Fund’s ToC to guide design, data collection and analysis, and to support cross-module synthesis. It is based on a sample of projects purposively drawn to reflect the diversity across partner organisations (POs), research domains and geographies.

Key findings

The findings are structured around the 2 main areas that address the mandate of this evaluation – long-term outcomes and impacts, and strategic and operational findings.

Long-term outcomes and impacts

Research capacity strengthening stands out as a significant achievement of the Newton Fund, particularly with regard to support to early career researchers (ECRs). In parallel, support to the institutional management of research was an important contribution, as were efforts to strengthen the research ecosystem, through both active participation of government agencies and the development of networks within and across MICs supported by the Fund. These were foundational to furthering policy and practice as well as commercialisation contributions of Newton-funded research.

Policy and practice influence has been limited to this point however the Fund has been effective in laying the foundation for policy influence by improving the enabling conditions. Overall, the Fund strengthened capacity for policy engagement but fell short of delivering systemic influence. Future programmes will need longer funding horizons, dedicated resources for translation, and institutional mechanisms to sustain engagement. The successes that have been identified through our sample have tended to be among research partnerships with pre-existing relationships who were building on earlier research. It is unclear if the Fund is on track to achieve its objectives, given the limited relationships established with relevant policy and practice decision makers and communities.

Commercialisation outcomes and impacts have been limited. As with policy and practice influence, short time frames and the limited resources dedicated to research translation have inhibited success. Proof-of-concept has been achieved in a number of research partnerships, but links to the communities who can bring innovations to market were not a priority in the short project cycles (24-36 months). It is unclear if those that achieved proof-of-concept are on track to deliver commercially viable products based on their innovations.

Strategic and operational findings

Matched funding was found to be valuable in increasing ownership of the research agenda by institutions in partner countries and in the UK. Matched funding also supported equity in participation in the implementation of awards, where it could be achieved. Matched funding was more likely in higher middle-income countries, whereas matched effort was more likely in lower middle-income countries.

Government-to-government collaboration was an important contributor to ensuring the relevance of the research and to ensuring access to relevant agencies and data.

Partnership management did not always demonstrate equity in decision making in design, implementation and oversight of R&I awards. Imbalances and lack of transparency in management processes sometimes weakened the participation of the MIC research partners. Partnership management tended to be stronger where there was matched funding. Partnership achievements tended to be stronger where there were pre-existing relationships among members of the research teams.

The VfM assessment of the fund, based on the data available, showed the Newton Fund to deliver good VfM.

Enablers and constraints to success were identified across the evaluation modules and are listed in Table 1. These factors operated at individual, institutional and national ecosystem levels, and their influence varied across contexts. The factors are explained in detail in the section titled Enabling and constraining factors in Newton Fund success.

Table 1. Summary of enabling and constraining factors

Enabling factors: Fund-level context	Constraining factors: Fund-level context
Capacity strengthening set the foundation for policy and innovation impact	Short project duration limited depth and sustainability
Alignment with national priorities increased traction with government stakeholders	Asymmetries in administrative resource between UK POs and partner country institutions undermined equity
Government-to-government collaboration unlocked systems access	Lack (or limited) account of contextual variation, limited ability to tailor support and respond to local needs
Interdisciplinary approaches addressed complex challenges	Lack of strategic planning limited the potential for success
Matched funding promoted ownership and equity in partner relationships and research implementation	Underinvestment in the translation pillar limited the potential to translate research into policy or commercial ventures
Formalised partnerships helped foster collaboration	Lack of follow-on funding stalled innovation

Enabling factors: Partner context	Constraining factors: Partner context
Institutional readiness and leadership commitment made impact more likely	Political and regulatory barriers delayed delivery
Pre-existing partnerships accelerated progress
Shared interests and opportunities for exchange were important for successful partnerships

Conclusions and recommendations

The conclusions are presented against the 2 main areas of the report. They are followed by 4 recommendations which we see as important considerations in future funds that rely on the ODA envelope and are geared to strengthening research, especially equitable research partnerships.

Conclusions

Long-term outcomes and impacts

Strengthening national research ecosystems requires engagement at the researcher, research institution and research ecosystem levels.

Building capacities at all 3 levels of a research system is foundational to furthering development contributions (policy and practice as well as commercialisation) of Newton-funded research.

The Newton Fund is on track^{[footnote 3]} in contributing to stronger R&I systems through its system-wide approach to capacity strengthening.

Limited progress was made in contributing to policies and practices.

Inadequate support to build the connections and relationships with policy makers, limited resources applied to research translation, and structural challenges within the Fund mitigated against policy and practice influence. Where successes were identified, these tended to be among the research teams that had pre-existing relationships and were building on existing research efforts.

It is unclear if the Fund is on track to achieve the intended policy and practice impacts.

As with efforts to influence policy and practice, limited progress has been made in commercialisation.

The reasons stated above for the limits to policy and practice influence also largely apply in this case. Without the active involvement of the investment and commercialisation actors who could realise the potential of innovations that achieved proof-of-concept, the likelihood of success and contributions to trade and foreign direct investment remains low.

It is unclear if the Fund is on track to achieve the intended commercialisation of innovations.

Strategic and operational considerations

The Newton Fund was a partnership fund which sought equitable partnerships between UK research institutions and middle-income country institutions. The design of the Fund had features that supported its successes and features that limited its potential. In terms of strategic and operational considerations that strengthened the awards:

• matched funding enhanced ownership by all parties, leading to more equitable partnerships
• government-to-government collaboration ensured relevance and eased access to data and government agencies
• capacity strengthening across the research system played an important role in setting the foundations for policy and practice influence, and the potential for commercialisation
• interdisciplinary approaches promoted by the Fund supported the ability of the awards to focus on complex development challenges.

These design features of the Fund were especially important where there was partner readiness and leadership commitment, where there were clear shared interests and goals, where partnerships were formalised, and in pre-existing partnerships where policy and practice influence or commercialisation was the goal.

Some structural features of the Fund made success more challenging:

• short time frames and underinvestment in the translation pillar limited progress
• contextual variation across countries, including regulatory and administrative barriers, was not adequately considered in the design of the Fund
• asymmetries in administrative resources between UK POs and partner country institutions were not sufficiently considered in the design of the Fund.

Finally, a lack of strategic planning and the absence of a VfM framework at the launch of the Fund (later rectified for VfM) limited the potential for adequate data gathering and for monitoring and evaluation of progress.

Recommendations

We focus on 4 key recommendations that emerged from the findings and conclusions of this evaluation. Because the Newton Fund is closed, these recommendations are targeted at future ODA R&I funds.

1. Support stronger research ecosystems

Strengthening research ecosystems means working at all 3 levels of a research system – individual, institutional, and national ecosystem.

Funder

Continue to explicitly include support for capacity strengthening at all 3 levels of a research ecosystem that especially values the contributions of early career researchers and the strengthening of institutions and networks.

Partner organisation

Collaborate in design with MIC partners on an approach to capacity strengthening that accommodates the needs of the country and is informed by an assessment of the institution’s leadership, research systems and ways of working. Expectations and indicators of success should match the capacities and priorities of the country.

---

2. Prioritise knowledge translation

The absence of a deliberate strategy and resources applied to knowledge translation, whether of policy influence, practice influence or commercialisation, meant limited focus on an aspect of the Newton Fund that is central to its goals of contributing to economic and social development.

Funder

Make knowledge translation an explicit requirement in the design of a fund. Provide support to POs for its development. Ensure that an exit plan or sustainability strategy is in place before the end of an award, to enhance the potential for follow-up.

Partner organisation

In collaboration with the MIC partner, develop a clear and resourced knowledge translation plan, and monitor and adapt it as needed over the life of the award.

---

3. Consider multiple delivery modalities

The Newton Fund was developed largely as a one-size-fits-all fund (with some exceptions, such as the Newton Prize).^{[footnote 4]} Adaptations were made by POs and their MIC partners, but the overall design placed common structures and goals on all awards. A more flexible approach that meets different needs in countries does not mean a less rigorous approach but rather a more rigorous approach, with careful monitoring and evaluation of progress.

Funder

Consider a portfolio approach in a fund strategy that accommodates different priorities and partnership experience. Monitor progress to ensure the goals are being met.

Partner organisation

Together with POs, assess the priorities that can be addressed in awards or award programmes to build an appropriate portfolio.

---

4. Improve data and knowledge management

The gaps we note throughout have limited DSIT, POs^{[footnote 5]} and partner countries in their management of the Fund resources, and they limit what we can say about the outcomes and impacts of the Fund. In terms of both management of public resources and ODA compliance, it is crucial to continue to improve data management and use.

Funder

Prioritise a strategy and a monitoring and evaluation plan from the start. Monitor progress on an ongoing basis. Anticipate new funding programmes with skeleton data frameworks and guidance. Ensure ODA requirements are integrated into any strategy for an ODA-supported fund.

Explicitly aim to reduce the structural barriers and asymmetries of partnerships by supporting institutions with the processes, systems and resources to deliver the research partnership effectively.

Partner organisation

Research funded through ODA is focused on supporting development improvements. As such, it has different reporting requirements and expectations from research funding through programmes for foundational research. This should be taken into account in programme design and management, and it may require new data and knowledge management systems.

1. This figure is rounded to the nearest pound when adding the spend per country. See Figure 3 for a breakdown of spend per country. ↩

2. Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS), Arts & Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), British Academy, British Council, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Innovate UK, Medical Research Council (MRC), The Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), Royal Society, Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), and UK Research & Innovation (UKRI). ↩

3. ‘On track’ refers to the 15-year mark at which the Newton Fund ToC proposes that long-term outcomes and impacts should be achieved. ↩

4. The Newton Prize was not included in the evaluation sample. ↩

5. Some POs had more data available than others, but the gaps remain at all levels. ↩