Research and analysis

Regulators' Pioneer Fund round 3 final evaluation report: executive summary

Published 20 May 2026

About the RPF

The Regulators’ Pioneer Fund (RPF) was first established in 2018 by the Better Regulation Executive (BRE) in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and now is being delivered by the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The programme supports UK regulators and local authorities to adopt new and experimental regulatory approaches which seek to remove barriers to innovation and help businesses get their innovative products and services to market faster.

Since 2018, there have been 3 rounds of RPF funding, providing up to £10 million to 14 projects in its first round, up to £3.7 million to 21 projects in its second, and up to £12 million to 24 projects in its current third round.

About the evaluation

This is the final evaluation report for the third round of the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund (RPF3), which addressed 3 key questions:

1. The impact of RPF3 and the longer‑term effects of earlier rounds
   
2. The lessons learned about programme and project delivery
   
3. What government and wider stakeholders can take from the programme’s overall approach and outcomes.

Insights were drawn from 99 qualitative activities, including interviews with leads from all 24 RPF3 projects, businesses, benefiting regulators, programme staff, an innovation expert, RPF1 project leads, and regulators that did not participate in RPF3.

A Theory of Change (ToC), developed in collaboration with the RPF team, guided the assessment of the programme’s outcomes and impacts by setting out how the RPF is expected to work and what it aims to achieve. Using a Contribution Analysis approach, 6 ‘contribution claims’ were then developed from the ToC to assess how the programme contributed to its intended outcomes. The outcomes identified across these claims were:

1. RPF creates a culture of enabling innovation within regulatory authorities, who following the programme see innovation as part of their role.
   

2. RPF increases the capability of regulatory authorities to enable innovation and support compliance.
   

3. Regulatory authorities establish processes of working together and collaborating during project delivery, which leads to greater capacity to tackle regulatory issues into the future.
   

4. RPF projects produce innovative regulatory solutions that influence other regulatory authorities to explore new approaches to regulation.
   

5. RPF encourages greater engagement between regulatory authorities and innovators through the project activities and the regulatory solutions they create. This allows for a better understanding of the relationship between regulation and innovation by both regulatory authorities and industry.
   

6. The RPF creates an improved regulatory environment that fosters innovation and supports compliance. Regulatory authorities support innovators with the development of their ideas, increasing confidence for investors who have greater incentive to invest in the UK and reducing risks for consumers who are more likely to adopt innovations.

Overall, the evaluation found that the programme continued to play an important role in supporting innovation within regulatory authorities. It strengthened collaboration between regulators and industry, enabled the development of innovative regulatory approaches, and contributed to a more supportive regulatory environment. Although evidence of wider systemic change is still developing, early signs indicate progress towards longer‑term impacts, including increased investor confidence and improved consumer protection.

The following sections expand on these insights, outlining how the RPF3 programme was delivered, what worked well, what could be improved, and the outcomes and emerging impacts observed.

What can be learned about the process of applying for, setting up and delivering the fund and innovative projects?

Insights on fund entry, setup, and delivery should be viewed in relation to 2 key factors. Firstly, the programme has evolved since 2018, with changes such as a longer application window and the option for short‑ and long‑term projects. Project leads valued this flexibility, as it was better suited to the varied timeframes of each project. Secondly, suggestions for improving setup and delivery need to be seen within the programme’s constraints, including government governance processes, grant‑funding rules, open‑competition requirements, and limited resources. These factors limit the ability to change aspects such as financial‑year spending, arrears‑based payments, and the support offered to projects

Turning to applicants’ experiences, the RPF3 application process was supported by well-received pre-application programme activities – such as stakeholder events, Q&A sessions, and a networking hub – that applicants found played a useful role in helping them shape their proposals. The extended submission window, compared to previous rounds, allowed broader stakeholder engagement and stronger applications. While experienced applicants found the process clearer and more manageable, some first-time applicants faced challenges with the application form language and the submission timeframe, particularly during the summer period.

Suggestions for improving future application rounds included introducing a pre-assessment stage to help applicants to understand whether their ideas needed further development prior to applying, offering mentoring from programme staff and sharing examples of previously successful RPF applications. Some unselected applicants also requested more detailed feedback and scoring transparency to better prepare for future rounds.

After funding notifications in November 2022, selected RPF3 projects entered a setup phase: 5 weeks for short‑term projects, and up to 10 months for long-term ones that opted to start preparatory work before funding was released. This phase included recruitment, procurement, and stakeholder engagement. The potentially longer lead-in time for long-term projects allowed for better setup preparation, but it also created challenges such as staff turnover, loss of stakeholder engagement, and difficulties in forecasting budgets. In contrast, the short setup window for short-term projects – especially over the Christmas period – created time pressures that hindered recruitment and partnership building, leading to calls for longer setup periods in future rounds.

Projects that navigated setup successfully often did so through preparatory work – such as stakeholder engagement and contractor discussions – even before official funding confirmation. However, early recruitment was financially challenging for some, particularly local authorities, unless they received pre-project funding. Delays also arose from navigating unfamiliar or rigid internal recruitment processes, leading some projects to rely on existing relationships or internal hires to expedite onboarding.

Delivery experiences across the programme were primarily shaped by 4 factors:

• support provided by the RPF
• effective project co-ordination
• strength of partnership working
• ability to navigate governance processes effectively

RPF support played a central role in helping them deliver on time and within scope. Monthly check-ins between RPF staff and project leads were particularly valued for their focus on identifying and resolving emerging challenges early. This regular engagement helped maintain project momentum and provided a space for troubleshooting and learning. The programme’s flexibility – especially in adapting to different spend profiles in exceptional circumstances – was also crucial, allowing projects to adjust plans with minimal delivery compromises. Additionally, the RPF’s role in connecting projects to each other and to wider government expertise helped accelerate learning and foster a sense of community across the programme.

Effective project coordination complemented RPF support in enabling timely delivery. Smaller projects often relied on agile working methods, requiring teams to be flexible and responsive in managing limited resources and tight timelines. In contrast, larger projects faced the added complexity of coordinating across multiple teams or organisations, which demanded more structured collaboration approaches, as discussed further below. 

Strong and productive working relationships were also central to successful delivery, with projects typically engaging 3 distinct groups: regulatory partners, contractors, and external stakeholders.

1. Partners, typically other regulators, supported larger projects with resources and expertise. Strong partnerships relied on regular communication, senior buy-in, and managing organisational differences.
   

2. Contractors delivered specific technical or operational tasks. While prior relationships eased onboarding, it was essential for projects to actively manage contractors through clear communication, progress tracking, and early issue resolution.
   

3. External stakeholders, including industry representatives, helped shape project direction. Effective engagement required early involvement, clear communication, and trust built through respect for commercial sensitivities and inclusive dialogue.

Finally, governance procedures at programme, project, and wider government levels presented both challenges and opportunities. At the programme level, some projects struggled to align financial years and forecast spend, though RPF staff helped mitigate this through its flexibility in supporting revised planning under exceptional circumstances. At the project level, organisational changes – such as restructuring or shifting priorities – sometimes threatened continuity, but RPF funding often provided a financial buffer to protect resources. At the broader level, navigating government processes, such as securing approvals for digital innovations, delayed delivery but also helped refine project approaches.

Did the RPF achieve it’s set outcomes and impacts?

The programme aimed to deliver 3 broad outcomes: fostering a culture of innovation within regulatory organisations, strengthening collaboration between regulators and industry, and contributing to an innovation-enabling regulatory environment. The evaluation found evidence of short- and medium-term progress across all 3 areas, with indications of how these may support longer term change.

There was strong evidence that the RPF helped regulatory authorities become more willing and able to support innovation by funding projects that tested new approaches to regulatory challenges. However, this cultural shift was typically concentrated within project teams, with limited signs of wider organisational change.

Funded projects also promoted collaboration between regulatory authorities, encouraging more joined-up approaches to emerging regulatory issues. While these partnerships were effective within projects, there was limited evidence that they influenced the practices of regulators beyond the immediate project.

The programme also supported engagement between regulators and industry, with moderate evidence emerging that projects involved innovators in shaping regulatory solutions. This was most effective where businesses had sustained and meaningful contact with regulators throughout the project delivery period.

Finally, while the RPF set out to foster a more innovation-enabling regulatory environment, evidence of this longer-term outcome is still emerging. This is expected given the time required for systemic change, but encouraging early signs indicate that progress here is underway.

In understanding outcomes, project leads consistently reported that RPF funding was the critical enabler of outcomes, as it allowed them to pursue regulatory innovations beyond their core activities. They highlighted the importance of a dedicated innovation fund in providing resources and low-risk conditions for experimentation. Central to this was the RPF’s flexibility, which supported iterative learning and development during delivery, rather than rigid adherence to predefined outcomes.

Beyond the immediate outcomes, the evaluation also examined potential longer-term impacts. Although evidence of these impacts was limited – particularly in relation to government priorities such as net zero – there were signs that projects could help advance these objectives. For example, the RPF supported the deployment of low-carbon technologies to drive progress toward net zero and worked to reduce barriers and operating costs for businesses, contributing to efforts to lower the cost of living. Furthermore, the evidence suggests the programme could play an important role in fostering future investment and accelerating innovation diffusion by promoting a more integrated and enabling regulatory environment – reducing investor uncertainty while safeguarding consumer safety.