Research and analysis

UKSPF intervention-level evaluation final findings report: support for local businesses – 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) local business support projects. It was prepared by Frontier Economics and BMG Research for the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. 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 areas used UKSPF funding to support local businesses to innovate, grow and improve their productivity and environmental sustainability. They designed and delivered projects to meet local business needs, with variations across contexts. Each project supported all eligible local businesses whose application was successful.

To reflect the diversity of UKSPF business support 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 business support:

• building digital capabilities (digital study group);

• providing grants to facilitate investment (grants study group); and

• reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency (decarbonisation study group).

Across the eight projects in the study groups, UKSPF support per business averaged around £4,300 and more than 8,700 businesses were supported. Support typically began with an initial diagnostic discussion or audit, after which businesses received tailored packages of advice, audits, training and, in some cases, grant funding.

All projects aimed to improve business outcomes, with a different focus for each study group:

• Digital support aimed to help businesses build the confidence and capability to adopt digital tools and use them to improve their operations and performance.

• Grant support aimed to enable and accelerate business investment and innovation that could improve productivity, growth and workforce outcomes.

• Decarbonisation support aimed to help businesses understand and implement practical measures to reduce energy use and carbon emissions.

A contribution analysis evaluation approach, underpinned by theories of change for each study group, was used to assess whether and how the support contributed to the outcomes observed. Six contribution claims were tested using project monitoring data, quantitative survey evidence from 415 supported businesses, and qualitative evidence from local authorities, delivery bodies and participating businesses.

For each claim, the analysis considered changes in outcomes, businesses’ own assessment of the influence of the support, evidence on how the support led to change and other factors that could have also influenced the outcomes. As no counterfactual group was available, the approach assessed whether the support plausibly contributed to the outcomes rather than establishing causality.

Evidence strength for each contribution claim was assessed using a structured framework the technical annex. This considered the quality, volume and consistency of evidence, and the extent to which alternative explanations could be ruled out. Findings were classified high-, medium- or low-strength. All six contribution claims are rated as either high-strength or medium-strength, meaning that it is at least reasonably clear that the support contributed to the outcomes.

The evidence captures short-term outcomes only, usually within three months of project completion. Many longer-term outcomes may not yet have emerged. The findings are based on selected projects and should not be considered representative of the whole UKSPF business support programme 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	Funded support contributed to…	Evidence strength
Digital support	Increased readiness and confidence to adopt digital tools	High
Digital support	Improved online visibility, productivity and business performance	Medium
Grant support	Increased and accelerated investment and innovation	High
Grant support	Improved productivity, growth and workforce outcomes	Medium
Decarbonisation support	Increased knowledge and capability to reduce energy use and carbon emissions	Medium
Decarbonisation support	Uptake and acceleration of energy-saving and carbon-reducing measures	Medium

Digital support: key findings

Businesses that received digital support were typically small, and most were sole traders (with no employees) or micro-businesses (less than ten employees). These businesses reported that they had faced several barriers to adopting digital technologies prior to receiving support. Most commonly, these were a lack of funds (reported by 67% of surveyed businesses), limited team capacity (47%) and a lack of awareness of digital opportunities (41%).

Overall, high-strength evidence shows that digital support contributed to increasing businesses’ readiness and confidence to adopt digital tools, and medium-strength evidence shows that it contributed to improving online visibility, productivity and business performance.

Businesses reported an improved understanding of digital opportunities and greater confidence in implementing new technologies. Following support, the share of businesses that reported high readiness to adopt digital technologies increased from 54% to 61%, and the share that reported fairly high or very high confidence to do so increased from 67% to 74%.

These improvements reflect the role of personalised support, particularly one-to-one advice and digital audits, in helping businesses to understand their digital capability gaps and identify appropriate actions. However, some businesses reported lower confidence after receiving support, which may reflect a more informed assessment of their capability gaps as their understanding increased.

Improved confidence and readiness to adopt digital tools helped to increase digital presence and activity. Online visibility was a challenge for 63% of businesses surveyed prior to support. This fell to 37% after the support.

Increased online presence took several forms including websites, apps and selling products or services online. The share of businesses with a website or app increased from 84% to 91%, and the share that engaged in online sales increased from 35% to 40%.

Many businesses reported that the support helped them maintain or further develop their use of digital tools, and that improvements would otherwise have taken longer or been deprioritised. Survey evidence indicates that more than half of businesses attributed these changes, at least in part, to the support received.

Other factors, such as advice and guidance that was already available online or knowledge generated from peers or previous support, could have influenced these outcomes. However, the evidence suggests that digital support projects made an important contribution to these outcomes.

Grant support: key findings

Businesses that applied for grants reported that they had faced several barriers to growth, expansion and productivity prior to receiving support. These included cost pressures (for 47% of survey respondents), difficulty accessing finance (32%), market competition (32%) and a lack of online visibility (31%).

Overall, there is high-strength evidence that grant support contributed to increasing and accelerating investment and innovation, and medium-strength evidence that it contributed to improved business productivity, growth and workforce outcomes.

Grant support with one-to-one advice enabled businesses to invest and innovate. New or upgraded equipment was introduced by 72% of businesses surveyed, around 69% developed or launched new products or services, and a similar share (69%) introduced new processes and working practices.

Support unlocked investment and significantly accelerated outcomes. Without the support, 62% of surveyed businesses reported that these activities would have been delayed and 39% said they would have scaled them down. Twenty percent of businesses reported that the actions would not have been undertaken at all without the support.

Central to these outcomes was the combination of grant funding with one-to-one support from an advisor who could understand their unique challenges. Advisory support was reported as important by 82% of businesses. It helped them identify appropriate investments, and grant funding helped implement them. Matched-funding contributions were reported by around 80% of surveyed businesses, which increased the scale of investment beyond UKSPF funding alone.

These outcomes were often achieved with modest grant awards of less than £5,000. Although grants varied in scale, most were modest, and 92% of businesses reported that their grant was appropriate for their needs.

Grant support contributed to improved business productivity, growth and workforce outcomes. Of businesses surveyed, 63% reported a significant or moderate impact of the support on turnover, around half reported a similar impact on skills and 37% reported a similar impact on the number of employees.

Qualitative evidence highlighted how investments improved operational efficiency through investment in new or upgraded capital equipment or marketing. Competitiveness improved as some businesses reported that they were, as a result, better placed to win new customers and expand their market reach. This boosted their activity and, in some cases, supported or safeguarded jobs. Wider effects were also reported through supply chains as well as across local business networks, as businesses reported sharing their experiences.

Confidence in future growth also increased following grant support. The share of businesses that reported they were fairly confident or very confident in their future growth increased from 79% to 92%. The share that reported low confidence fell from 10% prior to support to 4% after support, although wider economic conditions may also have influenced these changes.

Decarbonisation support: key findings

Businesses that sought decarbonisation support reported that they had faced several barriers to reducing energy use and carbon emissions prior to receiving support. While findings for this study group are based on a relatively small survey sample, the most common challenge for decarbonisation was high costs or lack of available funding (73% of surveyed businesses), followed by a lack of clarity on what actions to take (45%) and limited time or capacity to implement changes (38%).

Overall, medium-strength evidence shows that decarbonisation support contributed to increasing businesses’ knowledge and capability to reduce energy use and carbon emissions, and that it supported the uptake and acceleration of energy- and carbon-saving measures.

Decarbonisation support improved knowledge and capability to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. Energy audits and one-to-one advice helped businesses understand where energy savings could be made and what appropriate actions to take. Most (84%) of surveyed businesses found the audits useful. The share of surveyed businesses that reported a lack of clarity about what to invest in fell from 45% prior to support to 17% after. Actions that some businesses had not previously considered were often identified.

Decarbonisation support increased and accelerated the uptake of energy reduction and carbon-saving measures. The support helped almost half of surveyed businesses to act sooner than would otherwise have been possible, and 23% reported that it had expanded the scale of investment. However, a small number of businesses reported that the support had had no impact or reduced the scale of planned activity. This may reflect cases where businesses previously had ambitious plans, or where the support clarified the scale of investment required.

The most common actions were installing energy-efficient measures at the premises, replacing equipment with lower-energy options and improving recycling or reducing waste.

Grant funding, where it was received by businesses in this study group, was mostly used for capital investment. Solar panels were the most common grant-funded investment, undertaken by 32% of surveyed businesses. Installation of double or secondary-glazed windows or doors was reported by 16%, and others invested in battery storage heating systems, lighting or staff training.

These actions translated into operational benefits for some businesses. More than a third reported reductions in energy usage, typically in the range of 5-10%.

Economic factors such as energy price inflation are likely to have influenced outcomes. Inflation increased in the UK during 2021 and 2022, peaking at 11% in October 2022, and energy prices were a key driver of increased costs. Some businesses reported that the primary motivation for engaging with decarbonisation support was to reduce energy costs rather than to reduce carbon emissions. This additional motivation helped deliver benefits both to businesses, through lower energy bills, and to society, through reduced carbon emissions.

Delivering value for money

Across the three study groups, UKSPF business support is likely to have delivered at least acceptable, and most likely high, 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.

As no counterfactual was available, the analysis included only the proportion of outcomes that businesses reported were attributable to the support. The analysis presents benefit-cost ratios both excluding and including local employment effects. Excluding local employment impacts is consistent with Green Book guidance which, from a national perspective, considers that employment impacts may reflect displacement rather than net additional benefits. Including local employment impacts is, however, appropriate when considering a local place-based perspective as employment benefits are considered net additional to those local areas.

The evidence shows that the business support projects across the three study groups contributed to enhanced skills and capabilities, improved business confidence to take action, accelerated investment and innovation, and, in some cases, supported employment and environmental outcomes. These changes were observed immediately after the support, and the value for money assessment includes both monetised and qualitatively described outcomes over a relatively short timeframe. They do not capture longer-term benefits, such as increased innovation capacity and future investment, which could arise for some businesses over time.

Implications for policy makers

Key implications include:

• All businesses differ and, for support to be effective, it must address the specific challenges they individually face. Personalised support packages, underpinned with one-to-one support, enable challenges to be better understood and business opportunities to be identified.

• One-to-one advisory support combined with small grants (often less than £5,000) can be highly effective in unlocking investment and accelerating innovation. Where these contribute to higher productivity and turnover, this can in turn support or safeguard jobs.

• Accessibility of support requires marketing and awareness-raising through different channels and ensuring that the benefits of support are communicated. Requirements for initial capital outlay or matched funding for grants may, however, hinder some businesses’ involvement.

• Local project team knowledge, experience and capability, combined with the flexibility in how funding is used, are important factors in effective delivery. Learning from experience informed improvements in UKSPF project design over time to better meet local needs.