Research and analysis

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

Updated 28 August 2026

Applies to Northern Ireland

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.

Northern Ireland (NI), a constituent country of the United Kingdom (UK), occupying approximately one-sixth of the island of Ireland with a population of 1,903,173 - 3% of the UK’s total population - as of the 2021 census. Northern Ireland faces a unique set of challenges and opportunities. High levels of economic inactivity, a legacy of social deprivation, and the complexities of a post-Brexit environment all contribute to the need for targeted investment and support.

Northern Ireland received £104 million of UKSPF funding up to March 2025, reduced from £126 million due to the repurposing of the NI budget to support the establishment of the NI executive in February 2024. This was used across the three investment priorities and Multiply: Communities and Place (£11.18 million), Supporting Local Businesses (£28.63 million), People and Skills (£54.72 million) and Multiply (£8.75 million), plus administrative costs.

Evaluation approach

Northern Ireland was selected as a place level case study as it offered an opportunity to examine the implementation of UKSPF in a devolved administration characterised by a distinct political landscape, a history of EU funding, and a high level of economic inactivity. The distinctive implementation and governance, including the role of the Partnership Group and the use of a competitive bidding process for the People and Skills investment priority, contribute to learning.

The place level evaluation covered all NI, considering both NI-wide interventions and those targeting specific council areas. The evaluation focused on activity up to March 2025, however it should be noted that some projects were delivering under an extension at the time of fieldwork (June-July 2025). The evaluation covered all three investment priorities, with a particular emphasis on the People and Skills priority due to its strategic importance in addressing economic inactivity.

The Northern Ireland case study focused on carrying out a process evaluation, reflecting the process questions agreed for UKSPF overall, with some tailoring for the local context. Impact evaluation, including analysis of whether outcomes have been achieved, was not undertaken as part of the evaluation. This was due to the local prioritisation for process level evidence.

Process evaluation findings

The following aspects of the design and delivery of UKSPF in Northern Ireland were felt to have worked well:

• Fund design and governance: Findings about the design and governance of UKSPF in Northern Ireland were broadly positive. Although suggestions were made to improve representativeness, the Partnership Group was welcomed by stakeholders and seen as successful in incorporating relevant and diverse perspectives, fostering local ownership, and pragmatically navigating programme parameters. Focusing funding on the People and Skills priority was generally deemed appropriate, recognising the significant challenges posed by economic inactivity in Northern Ireland.
• Continuity: A recurring theme was that UKSPF has predominantly built on existing interventions or previously identified priorities. This helped ensure continuity of support for some beneficiaries. This approach has also enabled UKSPF to leverage existing expertise within the investment priority areas.
• Positive working relationships and streamlined processes: A recurring theme was the positive relationship between delivery partners and MHCLG contract managers, who were described as flexible, responsive, and supportive. The application and reporting processes were generally considered more streamlined, less bureaucratic, and more proportionate compared to previous EU funding schemes.
• Flexibility: Delivery partners valued the autonomy provided by UKSPF, this allowed them to apply their local knowledge in tailoring interventions to communities. The flexibility around match funding was also highlighted; delivery partners were not required to do so which was a welcome change from previous European funding. However, the ability to do so at the local level where desired was also valued, for instance with councils combining UKSPF grants with their own funds. This openness fostered a sense of trust in organisations to use funding in a way that best met local needs.
• Collaborative working: The encouragement of consortium bids for the People and Skills investment priority was felt to have helped reduce duplication and increase effectiveness. Some partners described the “power of the collective,” where organisations that previously competed for funding could now work together.

The following were highlighted as challenges and suggestions for improvement:

• Timing issues: The tight timeline was a significant issue for delivering UKSPF in Northern Ireland, with impacts on both the programme’s design and delivery. This pressure was exacerbated by challenges in reaching initial funding decisions, which created uncertainty for delivery partners and further compressed the already tight delivery timelines. This urgency may have contributed to the reliance on existing interventions, potentially limiting the exploration of more innovative solutions.
• Restrictive eligibility criteria: Delivery partners delivering People and Skills projects expressed frustration with the “very prohibitive” eligibility criteria for beneficiaries. This represented a shift from previous funding (which focused on the unemployed, not just the economically inactive) and meant projects could not engage groups that could have also benefitted from the projects.
• Short-term funding model: Some delivery partners, specifically within the People and Skills interventions, highlighted that the funding period was shorter than previous European funding and that this had led them to prioritise beneficiaries who were further along their journey in terms of support. This made it more likely that they would achieve reportable outcomes. They felt that those in need of the most support, and furthest from the labour market, were not prioritised due to them needing more time to achieve outcomes.
• Geographical imbalance: Some stakeholders were concerned that there was too much focus on interventions in or near Belfast, particularly those under the People and Skills investment. However, there was also acknowledgment that steps were being taken to encourage delivery in new areas, particularly rural communities, with the extension period.
• Competitive bidding: Interviewees suggested that this approach limited scope for dialogue between delivery partners and MHCLG to refine approaches at the initial bidding stages. This may have contributed to the initial confusion around eligibility and monitoring requirements.
• Devolved context: The lack of a functioning Executive during the initial stages of the programme may have impacted the ability to leverage match funding and ensure strategic alignment with wider policy objectives. However, some stakeholders felt that a fresh approach via the Partnership Group working directly with MHCLG may have improved the process. Balancing the flexibility of UKSPF funding with the stricter requirements of other funding sources from devolved departments was also identified as a difficulty, underscoring the need for better alignment between UK and devolved departments for more effective delivery.