Research and analysis

Liverpool City Region 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.

Liverpool City Region (LCR) is a large urban combined authority area in Northwest England with 1.6 million residents. The region faces significant socio-economic challenges, including high neighbourhood deprivation, low business density, lower-than-average employment rates and elevated economic inactivity. LCR was allocated a total of £44.4 million from UKSPF and spent £43.2 million, with 166 interventions delivered across the city region.

Key impact evaluation findings

Communities and Place

UKSPF Communities & Place activity in LCR focused on improving public realm and community assets, delivered primarily through local authorities and the Voluntary and Community Sector. Investment included creating or refurbishing parks and open spaces, installing safety infrastructure (CCTV, lighting, ANPR cameras), expanding volunteering platforms and delivering digital inclusion through connectivity grants, hardware, broadband upgrades and secure Wi-Fi extensions in community hubs.

Improved perception of place

Stakeholders reported that visible upgrades (bench installation, park pathways, lighting, tree planting and landscaped design to discourage crime) made local spaces feel greener, safer and more welcoming. However, overall survey evidence on improved perceptions of place remains mixed.

Delivery by trusted local authority teams and direct awards coordinated by the Combined Authority, enabled rapid implementation and effective delivery of these outcomes.

Local feedback and social media analysis linked increases in positive sentiment to improvements to public spaces such as Jubilee Park and Sefton Park, although short evaluation windows and other investment make it difficult to attribute these changes to any single intervention.

Increased community capacity

Investment in digital neighbourhood access points, combining secure site-wide Wi-Fi and device provision, delivered by community partners, provided improved digital access and extended connectivity into adjacent public spaces. This enabled residents to independently manage Universal Credit claims, access online health and other services and stay connected to family.

Reduction in crime

New CCTV networks, improved lighting, and the ‘Safer Parks’ model combining dedicated patrols and a public reporting line delivered early evidence of reduced neighbourhood crime, with a fall of 38% in recorded public order offences between March 2022 and March 2025.

Following highly visible safety measures, such as ANPR cameras installed across key routes by Merseyside Police, stakeholders reported that there was a feeling of being “looked out for” amongst the public. While recorded crime reductions are notable, improvements in perception of safety were smaller.

Supporting Local Business

The Town Centres intervention was selected for evaluation but was delivered alongside several other interventions under this priority. This intervention combined diagnostic-led, one-to-one business consultancy with targeted upgrades to infrastructure for open-air markets to support local businesses. Delivery included commissioned non-financial support, proactive trader outreach, tailored marketing assistance (photography, social media training, website and planning advice), financial and energy-efficiency guidance, and investment in market and retail facilities.

Business growth

The programme generated clear early evidence of business growth through targeted Town Centre support. Management information recorded 13 new business starts in the period evaluated. Stakeholders attributed these gains to tailored diagnostic sessions, one-to-one strategy and marketing advice, and practical cost-saving actions such as renegotiated energy contracts. UKSPF investment developed infrastructure across 22 local markets, doubling stalls at Stanley Park from around 40 to 100. New gazebos, chalets and seating enabled start‑ups to trade, build their customer base and generate income through affordable, low‑risk market space.

Social media and digital trading guidance supported many retail and hospitality businesses to build an online presence for the first time, supporting increased sales, repeat orders and access to customers beyond in-person high street trade.

Improved perception of place

Stakeholders reported that new market infrastructure (gazebos, chalets and shared seating), festive decorations, Christmas markets and shopfront improvements helped re‑activate underused spaces, making town centres feel more welcoming, vibrant and community‑focused. While evidence is currently qualitative, delivery partners and grant recipients consistently linked these physical and activity‑based changes to improved local perceptions and increased use of town‑centre spaces.

Key economic evaluation findings

The UKSPF programme in Liverpool demonstrated adequate value for money across the 4Es framework.

• Economy - Adequate: Delivery relied heavily on in-house teams and incumbent providers, meaning most funding was awarded directly rather than through open competition. While this enabled rapid mobilisation and near-complete budget spend, it limited supplier market testing and evidence on whether competition levels were sufficient for optimal value.
• Efficiency - Adequate: A majority of physical and marketplace outputs were delivered successfully, including significant overachievement on green space creation and tree planting, supported by the primary role of local authorities in delivery. However, outcomes were uneven across smaller, fragmented outputs and the sporadic, not systematic, combination of UKSPF with other public funds reduced the efficiency gains seen under previous EU-matched funding models.
• Effectiveness - Adequate: The programme generated several clear early outcomes, including increased town-centre market usage, reductions in neighbourhood crime, and improved digital access capacity through connectivity grants. Yet outcome targets were met less frequently than output targets, reflecting structural time-lags, ambitious local projections, and a difficult conversion path from physical outputs into softer community impacts such as perceived safety.
• Equity - Adequate: Interventions reached many intended beneficiary groups, with business engagement driven by proactive outreach to firms that had not previously accessed support. However, intervention within town-centres was an area with scope for more local public consultation.

Key learning

Evidence from the impact evaluation highlights six clear lessons to shape future local growth funds:

• Allow sufficient time for intervention design, commissioning and planning so stakeholders can be meaningfully engaged. Existing local strategies and experience of previous interventions can help speed up design and improve quality.
• Effective delivery requires adequate resource for central planning and programme management, particularly for complex funding programmes.
• Flexibility in resource allocation is essential to respond effectively to changing needs and cost pressures and to ensure funds are directed to interventions which demonstrate the strongest impact.
• Ensuring there are well-defined guidelines and procedures for data collection and outcome measurement in place to ensure comprehensive reporting of impacts and close monitoring of progress, particularly when addressing complex outcomes such as shifts in community perceptions.
• Longer timescales between the end of the intervention and the evaluation would allow time for further outcomes and impacts to materialise and be included in the evaluation.
• The ability to mobilise quickly, use existing suppliers and coordinate management across the city region reduced costs by removing procurement costs and duplication.