Research and analysis

UK Shared Prosperity Fund evaluation: impact and lessons for places – executive summary

Published 28 August 2026

This summary brings together evidence from 33^{[footnote 1]} place-level case studies to show how the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) has delivered change across the UK. It takes a place‑based view, focusing on how combinations of interventions work together to support local priorities. The analysis highlights key outcomes and drivers of change across the Fund’s 3 investment priorities:

• Communities and Place
• Supporting Local Businesses
• People and Skills

The executive summary is intended for policymakers designing future local growth and community interventions, combined and local authorities, and delivery partners across public, private and Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sectors. It draws together evidence from a wide range of interventions and places, to highlight outcomes of greatest policy interest. Further detail is in the full synthesis report and individual place-level evaluation summaries.

The place-level case studies tested a common set of 28 contribution hypotheses using mixed methods, including monitoring and administrative data, beneficiary and stakeholder interviews and surveys, and secondary data sources. Each place-level case study assessed a different number and combination of hypotheses and the evidence was synthesised thematically across places for each hypotheses. A contribution hypothesis sets out how an intervention is expected to influence an outcome, and is tested against the available evidence to determine whether it can be supported or refuted. For a subset of outcomes, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was used to explore which contextual (geographic, organisational and socio-demographic) and delivery factors were most commonly associated with stronger results. Findings indicate contribution to outcomes rather than definitive causation.

1.1  Main UKSPF impacts

Across the evaluated places, UKSPF contributed to visible improvements, including stronger community activity, more resilient and innovative SMEs, and large‑scale gains in skills, employability and job entries. Positive outcomes were strongest and most widely observed where delivery models funded dedicated UKSPF management teams (rather than adding UKSPF responsibilities on top of existing roles), when micro‑grants were used alongside advisory support, and where capital-funded improvement to public spaces was paired with a subsequent programme of cultural events.

The impact of different types of place (e.g. geographical or socio-demographic factors) on outcomes was not strongly observed through our primary analytical tool, the QCA. The most common place characteristics identified as important for influencing outcomes were structure of local government (e.g. combined authority, or single tier LA models) and urban/rural locations, both of which are explored in greater detail in the full report. Places with larger funding allocations (enabling activity at greater scale) and places with a history of delivering similar funding under past EU programmes both achieved greater volume of outcome delivery, particularly on business growth.

1.2  Community and Place

Compared with other investment priorities, fewer evaluated Community and Place outcomes showed strong contribution from UKSPF interventions. This was partly because it was hard to isolate the contribution of UKSPF where multiple interventions to improve public spaces and community pride were ongoing. In contrast, interventions improving community engagement and capacity (of the VCSE sector) were more often assessed as supported (see Table 1) and therefore a key success of UKSPF delivery.

Table 1.1 Contribution hypothesis assessment for Community and Place outcomes

Contribution hypothesis	Number of places where hypothesis tested	Proportion of places where hypotheses rated “supported” (%)
Perceptions of place and community pride Refurbishing facilities and improving infrastructure leads to better public perception of specific local areas/facilities	13	62%
Refurbishing facilities and improving infrastructure leads to increased community pride	4	50%
Town centre improvements lead to improved perception of the town centre	7	29%
Improvements to public places lead to improved perception of the local area	12	58%
Improvements to public places lead to increased community pride	4	75%
Increased footfall and usage UKSPF funding creates new facilities that meet local demand, resulting in increased usage.	3	100%
UKSPF funding improves facilities that meet local demand, resulting in increased usage.	11	64%
Arts/cultural/heritage events attract more people to key locations/town centres	7	86%
Increased community engagement Capacity building support creates more volunteering opportunities	10	90%
Capacity building support leads to increased volunteering	6	83%
Community engagement activities lead to participation in community life	9	89%
Increased community capacity Support for voluntary/community organisations increases their capacity and reach, leading to more community-led activity.	12	100%
Anti-crime and anti-social behaviour measures Upgrading anti-crime/anti-ASB infrastructure reduces crime and ASB in the local area	7	43%
Upgrading anti-crime/anti-ASB infrastructure and reduction in crime and ASB reduce fear of crime/ASB among residents	4	50%
Overall	–	71%

Improved perception of place and pride in place

In just over half of places that assessed these outcomes, refurbished community assets, greener and cleaner public realm, improved accessibility, and visible safety measures were associated with better perceptions of facilities and local areas. However, clear attribution of UKSPF interventions to changes in community pride was harder to achieve. In total, 55% of contribution hypotheses (22 of 40) assessing outcomes related to perception and pride in place were supported.

How change happened:

• capital improvements and revitalisation of public spaces signalled care and recovery, especially where visible neglect had been long‑standing
• programming (events, cultural activity) turned capital works into lived experiences
• co‑design, volunteering and heritage activity strengthened community ownership and identity
• safety measures (lighting, CCTV, visible patrols) reduced perceived and actual risk of ASB

Greater community engagement and volunteering capacity

Capacity‑building grants and support created additional volunteering opportunities, increased the number of local volunteers, and grew community‑led activity—especially where supported by funded staff posts (coordinators), small grants (e.g. <£5,000) and training. In total, 92% of contribution hypotheses (34 of 37) assessing community engagement outcomes were supported.

How change happened:

• VCSE organisational support (governance, leadership, volunteer management) led to a higher number and better design of volunteer roles
• capital upgrades (e.g. to community facilities) made volunteering more attractive and practical
• community funds and small grants multiplied local engagement activity

QCA insights: factors that worked together

Qualitative Comparative Analysis indicated that places which were both rural and of lower deprivation reported relatively higher numbers of people engaged in community activities. Higher levels of engagement were associated with delivery models where all of the following factors were in place:

• creating a pathway of schemes between different new and existing community engagement programmes
• investment in digital recruitment methods
• the use of direct commissioning (i.e. without competitive tendering), when combined with referrals from non-UKSPF programmes

1.3  Supporting Local Businesses

Overall, 93% of hypotheses relating to Supporting Local Businesses interventions were supported. Hypotheses that UKSPF improved business innovation through research and development (R&D) and supported business survival through grants/advice were less likely to be assessed as supported than other types of intervention. Business support to improve growth prospects and develop new products or technologies were most successful. Employability programmes were frequently assessed as helping individuals secure employment.

Table 2. Contribution hypothesis assessment for Supporting Local Businesses outcomes

Contribution hypothesis	Number of places where hypothesis tested	Proportion of places where hypotheses rated “supported” (%)
Business growth / increased turnover Business support programmes support growth for beneficiary businesses	20	75%
Business births Business support programmes support the establishment of new businesses	18	100%
Increased innovation Business support is associated with businesses developing and launching new products, technology, or processes, as a result of financial support, training, or advice	12	83%
R&D support enables businesses to be more confident in undertaking innovation	3	33%
Increased productivity Business support (grants, training, advice) helps businesses implement changes that increase productivity	10	70%
Business survival Grants and business support services help increase outputs/lowers costs, improving cash flow and leading to increased business survival	6	33%
Jobs created / employment gained Business support enables businesses to hire new staff	16	75%
Employability and skills-based learning programmes help individuals secure employment	11	91%
Overall	–	93%

Business growth, innovation, productivity and survival

Across many places, small capital grants plus tailored advisory support helped SMEs to invest, modernise processes, enter new markets, and grow sales/turnover and profit. The adoption of new‑to‑firm technologies/processes was widespread and measurable (but small scale) productivity gains were reported. In total, 77% of contribution hypotheses (53 of 69) assessing outcomes relating to business growth were supported.

How change happened:

• grants de‑risked equipment, premises and digital investments
• one‑to‑one diagnostics and mentoring turned intent into operational change (pricing changes, advice on cash flow, upskilling on marketing/sales approaches, process mapping)
• digital/branding/export support expanded reach and conversion
• energy/process efficiency reduced costs and freed resources for growth
• trading infrastructure and networks created low‑risk routes to market

QCA insights: factors that worked together

Qualitative Comparative Analysis highlights a correlation between the level of funding spent and the number of businesses reporting an increase in productivity. Reflecting on process evidence, the range of methods to provide financial support, advice and skills brokerage may have had a cumulative effect as interventions could be combined in a pathway with more options as funding increased. Places in England and Scotland were also more likely to report higher proportion of businesses experiencing increased productivity.

1.4 People and Skills

People and Skills hypotheses were frequently assessed as supported, particularly for interventions which helped beneficiaries gain qualifications and interventions which provided employability support to increase job search activity.

Table 3. Contribution hypothesis assessment for People and Skills outcomes

Contribution hypothesis	Number of places where hypothesis tested	Proportion of places where hypotheses rated “supported” (%)
Move towards employment Employability and skills-based learning programmes help individuals/beneficiaries become economically active.	16	81%
Upskilling and qualification programmes improve career prospects and lead to progress towards employment (e.g. job interviews)	16	94%
Interventions increase individuals/beneficiaries’ confidence in entering the labour market.	17	94%
Employability support leads to increased job searches among beneficiaries/in the local area.	8	100%
Increased skills Interventions help individuals/beneficiaries gain a life/soft skill.	17	94%
Interventions help individuals/beneficiaries gain a qualification.	14	100%
Overall	–	78%

Skills, qualifications, employability and movement into work

Across the 33 places, considerable volumes of people gained life/soft skills, basic skills and accredited qualifications/licences; many became more economically active, engaged in job search, and moved into employment. In total, 78% of contribution hypotheses assessing outcomes related to skills and movement into work were supported.

How change happened:

• person‑centred, keyworker‑led models triaged barriers and sequenced small steps especially for those furthest from the labour market
• volunteering and group‑based activities rebuilt self-confidence to engage with further learning
• accredited training was aligned to local employer demand
• digital inclusion enabled greater access to services/learning
• collaboration with employers, colleges and VCSE partners improved pathways into work and learning

QCA insights: factors that worked together

For interventions aiming to improve economic activity outcomes through employability and skills-based learning programmes, Qualitative Comparative Analysis highlighted that places were more likely to report greater increases in the number of people moving into economic activity where the following combination of factors were found:

• higher funding allocation per capita
• referrals between different UKSPF projects in a pathway of support
• the governance model was single-LA (not a Combined Authority model)

For job search outcomes, Qualitative Comparative Analysis highlighted that places were more likely to report higher proportions of beneficiaries engaging in job searches where the following combination of factors was found:

• higher funding allocation per capita
• referrals between different UKSPF projects in a pathway of support
• leveraging existing delivery partners

1.5 Economic evaluation

Using the National Audit Office’s 4Es framework, place‑level value‑for‑money assessments consistently found acceptable or high performance overall, with common enablers and recurring constraints.

Economy (55% of places rated High or Adequate to High)

Factors that enabled economical delivery included: open calls and active pre‑market engagement to increase the number of bidders to deliver projects, the use of established frameworks for procurement, as well as using digital portals and mixed procurement routes to broaden the available supplier base. In several cases, pooled commissioning across authorities enabled economies of scale, contributing to lower unit costs and more consistent pricing. However, a range of constraints included compressed delivery timelines and changes to guidance (creating additional uncertainty during commissioning). In rural or niche markets, limited supplier availability reduced competition.

Efficiency (55% of places rated High or Adequate to High)

Active budget management and the use of established provision supported by experienced staff were key success factors. Delivery models based on micro‑grants enabled a larger number and range of locally delivered projects. In some cases, projects were commenced at risk to preserve delivery windows, mitigating the impact of external delays. Combining UKSPF funding with other permitted funding streams also improved efficiency. However, conversion of inputs to outputs was constrained by recruitment and retention difficulties associated with fixed‑term programme funding. Governance and approval processes (both internal MHCLG delays and staged processes within multi-LA and combined authority models) added time and administrative burdens. External factors such as planning requirements and supply‑chain disruptions delayed delivery and reduced throughput.

Effectiveness (33% of places rated High or Adequate to High)

The integration of programmes with complementary funding streams enabled longer delivery pathways and outcome achievement. This included aligned funding (using private and central government sources e.g. the Towns Fund and Adult Skills Fund), contributions from internal LA sources (e.g. Section 106 fund and the Community Infrastructure Levy) and locally determined matched funding requirements. Effective programme management, including ongoing monitoring and operational adjustments - such as refinements to grant design or the introduction of outreach roles - contributed to improved conversion from outputs to outcomes. Constraints on effectiveness primarily reflected timing and external factors. Short delivery periods limited the ability for outcomes to fully materialise during the evaluation window, particularly for interventions focused on skills progression and business productivity.

Equity (52% of places rated High or Adequate to High)

Equity of benefit distribution was strengthened by the clear articulation of priority groups within investment plans. Community‑based grant schemes enabled participation by smaller and grassroots organisations, widening access for underserved groups. Partnerships with VCSE organisations and person-centred delivery approaches supported inclusion and responsiveness to local need. However, compressed timelines (both internal MHCLG delays up to April 2023 and staged processes within multi-LA and combined authority models) limited opportunities for early targeting and outreach. Under‑representation of specific demographic groups persisted in certain locations and factors such as rurality, geographic dispersion and uneven local delivery capability reduced the consistency of access.

1.6  Lessons for future programmes

This section summarises practical lessons from the UKSPF place‑level evaluation to inform future programme design and delivery by policymakers, Mayoral Strategic Authorities, local authorities and delivery partners.

Overarching lessons

Provide multi‑year funding with guidance finalised and communicated ahead of programme initiation to enable robust planning, better local engagement and design, improved supplier competition and realistic delivery windows.

Continue to pair regional strategic oversight with local decision‑making and ensure central coordination capacity is funded (e.g. in MSAs) where delivery is devolved.

Encourage design of cross‑project pathways (including referrals) so beneficiaries experience a coherent local offer. Make MSAs and LAs monitoring and evaluation “ready” at the outset, using realistic metrics, baselines for capital sites, clear definitions (e.g. productivity), and obtain consent from beneficiaries for longitudinal follow‑up where proportionate.

Communities and Place

Pair capital works with interventions which actively use revitalised spaces and enable local ownership (e.g. coordinators, volunteer pathways).

Prioritise inclusive, accessible, family‑friendly designs to widen participation (accessible toilets, wayfinding).

Use micro‑grants to multiply community‑led activity.

Provide budgets for outreach and partnership‑working, especially in rural or disadvantaged areas.

Co‑locate visible services (e.g. police/neighbourhood bases) alongside environmental measures to improve actual and perceived safety.

Supporting Local Businesses

Combine grants with tailored advisory/mentoring of individuals and businesses to unlock investment, adoption and commercial practice change — particularly effective for micro and small firms.

Align offers to local sector strengths and wider government policies (e.g. the low‑carbon transition).

Leverage academic partnerships for knowledge transfer, student placements and applied R&D support.

Plan interventions as a coherent suite to improve visibility of support pathways and improve uptake; this may reduce duplication and overlap of local provision.

People and Skills

Use keyworker‑led, person‑centred models that triage barriers and sequence confidence‑building, basic/digital skills, volunteering and accredited training.

Invest in digital inclusion to unlock access to services, particularly in rural settings.

Maintain continuity of provision (where this is working) and build strong employer/college/VCSE partnerships to help tailor support and adapt delivery quickly.

1. Northern Ireland’s place‑level evaluation was process‑only and is not included here. ↩