Research and analysis

Hastings UKSPF evaluation: impact and value for money findings – executive summary

Updated 28 August 2026

Applies to England

Introduction

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was launched by the UK Government in April 2022. It provided £2.6 billion funding for local investment by March 2025, with an additional £900 million available for 2025-26. Local decision-makers worked with their local communities and partners to deliver interventions under three investment priorities: Communities and Place, Supporting Local Businesses, and People and Skills. UKSPF empowered places to identify and build on their own local strengths and needs, with a focus on enhancing community pride and increasing life chances.

Hastings received £1 million of funding for UKSPF for the period 2022/23 to 2024/25 across three investment priorities: Communities and Place (£0.7 million) and Supporting Local Businesses and People and Skills (a single project covering both investment priorities, £0.2 million). An additional £0.5 million was allocated for 2025/26 which falls outside this study’s scope.

Hastings is a coastal borough in East Sussex with a population of around 91,000. While the town benefits from a strong cultural identity and historic environment, it faces persistent socio‑economic challenges including high levels of deprivation, low productivity, lower-than-average wages and employment rates, and barriers to business creation. These challenges are particularly prominent in Broomgrove, one of the borough’s most deprived neighbourhoods. Hastings Borough Council (HBC) adopted a neighbourhood‑focused approach, concentrating a significant share of investment in Broomgrove to maximise impact and avoid dispersing resources too thinly.

Key impact evaluation findings

Communities and Place

Perception of place

UKSPF-funded interventions contributed to improved perceptions of the local environment and increased community engagement in Broomgrove. Investment in green spaces, public realm and community infrastructure led to the creation or improvement of outdoor and indoor spaces as well as cultural activities and support. Monitoring data and resident feedback indicate that these improvements enhanced perceptions of accessibility, facilities and overall attractiveness of the area. The refurbishment and expansion of Broomgrove Community Centre created a focal point for local engagement and enabled a wider range of activities to be delivered locally.

Community engagement

UKSPF interventions also strengthened community participation and social connection. The Social Supermarket, delivered from the refurbished Community Centre, provided affordable food and household goods while acting as a gateway to wider support. All consulted participants described the service as welcoming and safe, with many reporting increased awareness of other local services and support offers. Coordination between delivery partners improved during the programme and continued beyond it through the establishment of the Broomgrove Network, supporting more joined‑up local service delivery.

Supporting Local Businesses

Business births and growth

UKSPF-funded business support contributed to new business creation and business growth. Qualitative evidence from beneficiaries indicates that start‑up workshops, mentoring and peer‑to‑peer support helped participants clarify business ideas, develop plans and accelerate progress towards trading. Several beneficiaries reported that participation shortened the time taken to start a business or provided the confidence and knowledge needed to scale existing activity.

People and Skills

Improved confidence and skills

UKSPF-funded activities contributed to improved confidence, skills and wellbeing among participants. Monitoring data and survey evidence from delivery partners show high levels of engagement in physical activity and skills development, with many participants reporting improvements in physical and mental health. The RISE programme supported residents to take steps towards employment, self‑employment or further learning, with evidence of reduced structural barriers to participation in the labour market and positive progression outcomes.

Key economic evaluation findings

The UKSPF programme in Hastings demonstrated adequate to high value for money across the 4Es framework.

• Economy - Adequate: HBC adopted a pragmatic combination of co‑commissioning with trusted local providers and open procurement for larger contracts. This approach reflected the need for a high degree of local knowledge and trust, as well as a requirement to mobilise resources within short timescales, but did potentially limit competition and access for new providers.
• Efficiency - High: Most output targets were met or exceeded, often within budget, despite delivery being concentrated in the final year of the programme. Unit costs for business and employment support compared favourably with similar national and European programmes, indicating efficient use of resources.
• Effectiveness - Adequate: Monitoring data shows that the majority of outcome targets were met or exceeded, although the short period between delivery and evaluation limited the ability to evidence longer‑term impacts, particularly for employment and skills outcomes.
• Equity - Adequate to high: The neighbourhood‑level focus on Broomgrove was appropriate given the concentration of deprivation and barriers faced by residents. While business and skills interventions attracted participants from across the borough and haven’t quite reached the targeted participation rates for Broomgrove-based beneficiaries, the overall programme design was well aligned with local needs and aimed to reach groups less likely to engage with traditional provision.

Key learning

The following key learning and lessons have been identified, which will support design and delivery of future local growth funds:

• Longer lead-in time can improve intervention design and delivery. It was challenging to plan and implement the UKSPF programme in Hastings within the timeline available. This led to a concentration of the funded activities in the last year of the programme and an increased focus on trusted partners, where more open tender processes might have been desirable in parts of the programme. Indeed, UKSPF follow-on funding has been allocated using a greater degree of open tendering.
• Clear guidance and consistency in the collection of monitoring data can improve the evidence base. Whereas HBC and stakeholders appreciated the less onerous approach to monitoring, as compared to previous EU funds, expectations to data input were not always clear and the IT system did not always allow desired inputs. As a result, the evaluation team uncovered some inconsistencies in the Monitoring Information data and we were less able to draw conclusions based thereon.
• Capturing synergies between interventions. Hastings adopted a neighbourhood-level approach to the UKSPF investments, thereby concentrating a number of different interventions in the same area with overlapping target beneficiary groups. Complex interactions between the programmes were expected, and indeed intended, but these are not well captured in an approach that features individual investments understood as stand-alone interventions. Evaluation questions and hypotheses should be defined in such a way as to be sensitive to the wider context and able to encompass factors that are shared across the wider programme area. In addition, administrative data was rarely available for the specific area in question and more deliberate, custom data collection is therefore likely to be needed, including at the baseline stage.