Research and analysis

Northern Ireland UKSPF evaluation: interim findings

Updated 3 December 2025

Applies to Northern Ireland

Executive summary: Northern Ireland interim findings

Introduction

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) provides a total of £3.5 billion of funding for local investment over 4 years (2022 to 2026), with all places 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 process evaluation of UKSPF in Northern Ireland, based on research conducted between December 2024 and March 2025. It outlines the progress made to date and presents interim evaluation findings.

Key process evaluation findings

Fund design and governance

• Findings about the design and governance of UKSPF in Northern Ireland were broadly positive.
• The Partnership Group was welcomed by stakeholders and seen as successful in incorporating 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.

Balancing continuity and innovation

• A recurring theme was that UKSPF has predominantly funded existing interventions or previously identified priorities. This has helped ensure continuity of support for some beneficiaries. Taking this approach has also enabled UKSPF to leverage existing expertise within the investment priority areas.
• However, the emphasis on continuity may have limited opportunities for new and innovative approaches, particularly in addressing economic inactivity.

Timing

• 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.
• The resulting sense of urgency may have contributed to the reliance on existing interventions, potentially limiting the exploration of more innovative solutions.

Absence of the Northern Ireland Executive

• 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.

Short term funding

• Some delivery partners, specifically within the People and Skills interventions, highlighted that the funding period was shorter than previous 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 spread

• Some stakeholders were concerned that there was too much focus on interventions in or near Belfast, particularly those under the People and Skills investment priority.
• However, there was also acknowledgment that some steps were being taken in the latest funding round to encourage delivery in new areas, particularly rural communities.
• This will be further explored in later stages of the evaluation.

Monitoring and reporting

• Early analysis suggests that delivery partners generally found the reporting to be straight-forward, proportionate and reasonable.
• An initial lack of clarity and guidance around reporting requirements was also highlighted.

Progress to date and next steps

A full assessment of performance against planned outputs was not available for these interim findings given reporting timelines for delivery partners. However, based on interviews conducted so far there was a broad expectation that projects would generally be delivered on time and to budget. This will be explored further with delivery partners and contract managers as fieldwork continues.

The next phase of the process evaluation will focus on the following data collection and analysis:

• Interviews with MHCLG staff to gather more detailed insights on supplier engagement, procurements processes and performance management.
• Further interviews with delivery partners, including a ‘deep dive’ focus on five interventions to provide richer insights on the processes being applied from the perspective of those involved in delivering the projects.
• Local data and MI submitted to MHCLG will be used to provide information on the implementation and delivery of UKSPF (including spend, progress against timescales and achievement of outputs).