Research and analysis

County Durham UKSPF evaluation: interim findings

Updated 3 December 2025

Applies to England

Executive Summary: County Durham interim findings

Introduction

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) provides a total of £3.5 billion of funding for local investment over four years (2022 to 2026), with all places in the UK receiving an allocation via a funding formula. Local decision-makers work with their local communities and partners to deliver interventions under three investment priorities: Communities and Place, Supporting Local Businesses and People and Skills.

This interim report presents the emerging findings from the place level evaluation of UKSPF in County Durham, based on research conducted between September and December 2024. It outlines the progress made to date and presents interim evaluation findings.

Key process evaluation findings

Intervention Design

• Interventions were shaped by County Durham’s Inclusive Economic Strategy (IES), and developed through extensive local consultation and economic analysis. Building on this, the design process prioritised local needs and aimed for strategic alignment with long-term goals.
• Durham County Council (DCC), acting as the Lead Local Authority (LLA) for the funding, adopted a co-design approach, involving community engagement and stakeholder input. While this process generated important learning for intervention delivery, it was time-intensive and challenged by tight delivery timelines.
• DCC used the flexibility of the UKSPF programme to create tailored interventions, for example combining capital and revenue funding to support community assets and volunteering. Interventions were designed to work together, with success in one area supporting others, for example, enterprise roadshows delivered under the Supporting Local Businesses priority supported community development activity by using new community spaces.

Portfolio Implementation

• The intervention portfolio focused on fewer, larger programmes in high-priority areas to ensure depth and impact.
• With partner input, DCC developed the intervention package for each investment priority, opting for a delivery mix of direct implementation by DCC, commissioned services, and an open call for tenders.
• DCC designed and issued the calls, including open calls, commissioning/ procurement, and in house delivery. The Funding and Programmes Team appraised applications which were then reviewed by the Technical Funding Group (TFG). Final recommendations were made by the Funding and Programmes manager to DCC’s senior leadership.

Intervention Delivery

• Around 90% of interventions were led by DCC, with significant partnership involvement to ensure county-wide delivery and focused, specialist approaches.
• Delivery teams faced challenges due to compressed timelines, particularly when onboarding SMEs and economically inactive individuals. Stakeholders emphasised that long-term change requires long-term funding.
• The programme benefited from strong collaboration and pre-existing relationships among stakeholders, enhancing delivery quality and responsiveness and strengthening strategic connections in the area.

Data Collection and Monitoring

• DCC leveraged its experience with complex funding to implement robust data collection processes across all investment priorities. Monitoring data was collected from delivery partners and supplemented with contextual indicators (e.g., footfall, retail vacancies).
• As the investment plan had to be submitted while interventions were still being designed, there was some misalignment between initial output/outcome targets and actual delivery focus, which led to skewed reporting in national returns.
• The LLA commissioned a range of local evaluations. Their findings have already informed adjustments to delivery, demonstrating a commitment to iterative practice.

Programme Oversight

• County Durham Economic Partnership (CDEP) provided strategic oversight, with operational management delegated to the TFG. Governance structures were praised for being collaborative, inclusive, and effective in challenging and supporting delivery partners.
• Interviewees noted that the TFG’s diverse membership, including public, private, VCSE, education and housing sectors, enriched decision-making and ensured broad representation.

Progress to date: expenditure, outputs and outcomes

County Durham was allocated £30.8 million in UKSPF funding, with a spend profile that increased significantly in Year 3 (2024/25) to allow for project development and beneficiary recruitment. Funding was primarily allocated to Supporting Local Businesses (£14.2 million), followed by People and Skills (£9.7 million) and Communities and Place (£6.5 million). Additional funding included £3.5 million from the Rural England Prosperity Fund and £2.8 million from Multiply, with no match funding secured.

Management information showed mixed progress towards outputs and outcomes at the time of reporting.

• Communities and Place: Strong performance, with 6 out of 18 output targets met, including capital improvements to commercial spaces and public realm, and high engagement in public events and community infrastructure projects. Some delays in outputs related to energy efficiency and accessibility improvements. Cultural and community events played a key role in achieving 100% of outcome targets for increased footfall, visitor numbers, and improved perception of facilities.
• Supporting Local Businesses: Delivery was slower due to early-stage challenges such as contracting delays, staff recruitment, and high initial demand. Only 6% of the target for enterprises receiving grants had been achieved at time of reporting, but 50% of feasibility study targets and 57% of entrepreneur support targets were met. Longer-term outcomes such as innovation adoption and market expansion had yet to materialise, however early outcome targets achieved include job creation (56%) and enterprise creation (64%).
• People and Skills: Output performance was mixed, with a high proportion of targets for socially excluded people accessing support (96%), sustained employment support and effective keyworker collaboration (100%) achieved. Progress was slower for outputs related to qualifications, job search, and basic skills, which are expected to improve as delivery matures. However, 45% of supported employment and 42% of employability skill development targets were achieved. Longer-term outcomes such as qualifications and sustained employment are still developing and will be explored further in the final evaluation.

Early impact findings

Although many interventions were in early stages during the first phase of research, initial evidence from monitoring data, stakeholder interviews, and interim evaluations suggests that UKSPF activity is beginning to deliver positive results.

Perceptions and use of local areas have improved, with targets for footfall, visitor numbers, and improved perception of facilities already met. These outcomes are largely attributed to community infrastructure projects, cultural events, and place branding. Further qualitative research will explore the broader impacts on civic pride and community cohesion. Participation in arts, culture, and heritage has also increased significantly. A total of 97 community-led cultural programmes have been delivered, including town centre “vibrancy events” that have supported both cultural engagement and economic vitality.

Early findings show strong progress in enterprise and job creation. Over half of businesses in the Business Productivity and Growth programme reported improved growth or productivity, and 13% had created new jobs. The Enterprising Durham Framework has received positive feedback and is expected to boost start-up activity. Skills and employability outcomes are emerging. The ROAD continuation project exceeded targets for education, training, and qualifications achieved. Year 3 People and Skills interventions have shown strong engagement and retention, with early signs of increased employability and supported employment. Longer-term outcomes such as sustained employment and formal qualifications are still developing and will be explored in the final evaluation.

Outcome areas such as volunteering, innovation, local skills alignment, economic growth, and wellbeing, require further evidence. These will be addressed in the next phase of the evaluation through additional stakeholder interviews, beneficiary research, and analysis of survey and monitoring data.

The outcomes and impact of UKSPF in County Durham will be explored in more depth in the final evaluation report.