Research and analysis

UKSPF intervention-level evaluation final findings report: support for communities and place – executive summary

Updated 28 August 2026

About this evaluation

This report presents findings from the intervention-level evaluation of selected UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) Communities & Place capital projects. It was prepared by Frontier Economics and BMG Research for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The findings are intended to support policy makers and local authorities when deciding on future funding and investments. More detailed findings are presented in the final findings report, with further information on the methodology and analysis provided in the technical annex.

Local authorities used UKSPF funding to support Communities & Place projects. They designed and delivered projects to meet the needs of their local communities, with variation across contexts. While these capital works enabled new services and new users, the funding and delivery of services or activities in these community facilities fall outside of the UKSPF capital funding.

To reflect the diversity of UKSPF Communities & Place interventions, this evaluation groups similar projects across the country into three “study groups”. This enables lessons to be drawn across similar types of intervention while recognising local flexibility in prioritisation, design and delivery.

Each study group represents a different type of support:

• major refurbishments of community buildings;
• substantial investments in new or improved playground equipment; and
• major investments in sports pavilions or pitches.

Eight projects across England and Wales were included across the study groups. Together, the evaluated projects totalled £9.4 million of local spending.

All projects aimed to increase pride in place, which is defined by MHCLG (2024) as the emotional attachment, belonging and contentment people feel towards their local area, shaped by factors such as safety, community participation, culture, amenities and infrastructure. All projects also aimed to improve wider community outcomes, including social cohesion, local area satisfaction and loneliness. These are complex outcomes with subtle differences. Each study group also had additional specific aims. These were increasing skills (community buildings), activities for children (playgrounds) and sport engagement (sports facilities).

A contribution analysis evaluation approach was used, underpinned by a theory of change. Nine contribution claims were tested using evidence from:

• Your Community, Your Say survey data from residents near funded and matched comparison facilities;
• qualitative interviews and focus groups with local authorities and beneficiaries; and
• monitoring data where available.

The strength of the evidence for each claim was assessed using a bespoke framework. This considered the quality, volume and consistency of evidence, and the extent to which alternative suggestions could be ruled out. Findings were classified high-, medium- or low-strength. Many findings are medium-strength (at least reasonably clear that the project contributed to the outcome). Others are either low-strength and indicative or lack sufficient evidence to determine impact at this time.

The evaluation distinguishes between three (mutually exclusive) groups of local residents defined according to their survey responses. This division is important for understanding the findings that follow:

1. Not aware: respondents do not know about the specific facility (by definition they cannot be using the facility).
2. Aware but not using (non-users): respondents know of the specific facility, but they are not using it. For instance, they may walk past the library and know what it offers but do not go into the library to access any services or activities.
3. Users: respondents are using the specific facility (and by definition are aware of it). For sports facilities and playgrounds, this includes people using the parks and recreation areas around the facilities.

The evidence captures short-term outcomes only (typically 3 to 12 months after project completion). Many longer-term outcomes may not yet have emerged. The findings are also based on the selected projects and are not representative of all UKSPF Communities & Place interventions but provide an initial evidence base that can be tested and expanded over time.

Summary of key findings across the three study groups

Study group	Funding contributed to…	Who benefitted most?	Evidence strength
Community Buildings	Improved pride in place	Non-users who are aware of the facilities and non-working residents (users and non-users combined)	Medium
Community Buildings	Improved skills	Users	Medium
Playgrounds	Reduced perceptions of anti-social behaviour	Users	Medium
Playgrounds	Increased activities for children	Non-users who are aware of the facilities and young residents (users and non-users combined)	Medium
Sports facilities (based on one project)	Improved sports participation	Users, especially young users	Low
Sports facilities (based on one project)	Improved social cohesion and pride from the facility	Users	Low
Sports facilities (based on one project)	Reduced perceptions of anti-social behaviour	Users	Low

Community buildings: key findings

Medium-strength evidence shows that renovating community buildings contributed to positive impacts on pride in place and skills:

• Pride in place increased by around 4 percentage points for all local residents, and by 11 percentage points for residents who were aware of the facility but did not use it. This suggests that visible investment in high-profile community buildings can influence wider perceptions of a local area, including among non-users.
• Skills increased by around 6 percentage points among facility users which is attributed in qualitative evidence to better spaces, digital access, co-location of services and space for community-led activities.

Despite some qualitative and monitoring (low-strength) evidence suggesting that the frequency and length of visits had increased, no significant quantitative changes were identified within 3-12 months’ completion of the renovations for: facility awareness, usage, social cohesion, local area satisfaction, anti-social behaviour or loneliness.

Playgrounds: key findings

Medium-strength evidence shows that renovating playgrounds contributed to improved usage, perceptions of anti-social behaviour and perceived availability of activities for children:

• Usage increased by around 6 percentage points for playgrounds and surrounding parks.
• Perceptions of anti-social behaviour reduced by around 5 percentage points, especially among users, supported by improved lighting, CCTV, better pathways, increased footfall and natural surveillance.
• Perceived availability of activities for children improved by around 7 percentage points, especially among younger residents (users and non-users combined) and aware non-users.

There is low-strength evidence of possible improvements in pride in place and social cohesion within 3-12 months of the renovations. There is no clear evidence yet of wider area-level changes in local area satisfaction, loneliness or the area’s suitability for children.

Sports facilities: key findings

For this study group, findings should be interpreted cautiously because follow-up survey data was available for only one of the two projects, and the survey took place shortly after completion, when some facilities were not yet fully operational.

Low-strength evidence shows that renovating sports facilities (parks and pavilions) contributed to improved awareness, social cohesion and pride in place among users of the facilities.

Overall, awareness of the sports pavilions and pitches increased by 8 percentage points although this was not statistically significant.

Among users or those aware of the facilities:

• perceptions of anti-social behaviour decreased by 7 percentage points;
• perceptions of social cohesion increased by 28 percentage points; and
• sports engagement increased by 12 percentage points for weekly participation and 14 percentage points for monthly participation, both among adults aged 25 to 49.

For users specifically, pride felt in their area increased by 28 percentage points.

No wider area-level impacts, such as pride in the local area, were identified at this stage. This likely reflects the short follow-up period before peak summer usage and partial reopening of the surveyed facility.

Stakeholders expected these effects to become more material as facilities become fully operational, clubs expand activity and wider park improvements are delivered.

Delivering value for money

Across the three study groups, UKSPF Communities & Place support is likely to have delivered at least acceptable value for money.

Value for money was assessed using methods appropriate to each type of intervention over a five-year period by comparing project costs with observable benefits, consistent with relevant sector best practice, HM Treasury Green Book guidance and MHCLG value for money categories. Given differences in methods and evidence, estimates should not be interpreted as directly comparable across interventions.

The results provide indicative evidence that benefits exceed costs over a five-year period. Relevant benefits, including pride in place, skills, activities for children and sports engagement, were monetised where possible, and non-monetised benefits were also considered.

This is not a complete assessment and should be interpreted cautiously without longer-term evaluation as the estimates reflect short-term impacts, exclude some wider benefits that could not be robustly monetised and remain uncertain given the short timeframe since project completion.

Implications for policy makers

Key findings include:

• In the first 3 to 12 months after completion, community building refurbishments were more likely to improve area-wide pride in place, playgrounds investments were more likely to improve anti-social behaviour perceptions and provision for children, and refurbishments of sports facilities were more likely to improve outcomes for users including sports participation.
• Visibility and usage appear to matter in different ways depending on the outcome. Visible investments can influence perceptions among residents who are aware of the investment, even if they do not use the facility. Behavioural and social outcomes, including sports participation, social cohesion and perceptions of anti-social behaviour, appear more closely linked to use, meaning that accessibility, which services are enabled and community engagement remain important.
• Further evidence is needed on how these short-term outcomes translate into longer-term change. Pride in place and anti-social behaviour perceptions may shift relatively quickly, while local area satisfaction, loneliness, wellbeing and sustained social cohesion are likely to require longer timeframes and complementary activity.
• Delivery was shaped by funding flexibility, the “oven-ready” nature of projects, strong delivery partnerships and capability. Monitoring requirements were manageable but not always aligned with project milestones.

Taken together, the findings provide an initial framework for building study group evidence over time and testing whether these early patterns hold across more projects.