Research and analysis

Richmond upon Thames 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.

Richmond upon Thames received £1 million in UKSPF funding for 2022/23 to 2024/25, allocated across the three investment priorities: Communities and Place: £0.6 million; Supporting Local Businesses: £0.2 million; and People and Skills: £0.2 million. Communities and Place and Supporting Local Businesses funding were administered via the Greater London Authority (GLA); People and Skills was commissioned by the South London Partnership (SLP) through Ingeus and integrated locally with Richmond Work Match.

Richmond upon Thames is an affluent London borough with high life satisfaction but pockets of relative deprivation and dispersed need. The population reached 195,300 in 2021, with a gradual rise in economic inactivity over the past decade. Local priorities included enhancing inclusive access to cultural/community assets, strengthening SME resilience and growth, and reducing economic inactivity.

Key impact evaluation findings

Communities and Place

Investment in the Communities and Place priority aimed to safeguard and modernise community assets and provide cost‑of‑living/energy advice.

Improved accessibility

UKSPF funded works delivered step‑free entry, wider doors and accessible toilets at Grove Gardens and a resurfaced hall with retractable seating at the Landmark. Contracted accessibility outcomes were reported as achieved, with user feedback at Grove Gardens confirming practical benefits.

Improved perception of place

Changes in public perception and sustained footfall were undetermined by the research. No baseline or follow‑up perception/usage data had been collected at key sites, and Landmark evidence was limited, so the scale and persistence of any shifts cannot be verified.

Supporting Local Businesses

Investment in Supporting Local Businesses aimed to strengthen Small and Medium sized Enterprise (SME) resilience and growth, stimulate enterprise and accelerate greener practices.

Business births and growth

Expanded SME support strengthened enterprise creation and business capability. Monitoring recorded 365 enterprises supported (target 200), 88 entrepreneurs enterprise‑ready (60) and 32 new enterprises (18). Surveys and case studies reported stronger planning, pricing and digital presence, helping firms stabilise and, in some cases, grow.

Job creation

Job creation and greener practices showed early signs but were not consistently evidenced. Jobs created or safeguarded were reported (36 for a target of 26), yet provider data showed no immediate FTE gains in some cohorts and green changes were mostly “quick wins” without quantified energy/carbon baselines.

People and Skills

Investment in People and Skills aimed to reduce economic inactivity and improve employability through targeted outreach, rapid upskilling and employer brokerage.

Employment

Targeted outreach and rapid activation moved residents into work. UKSPF capacity enabled engagement of 67 economically inactive residents (target 25), with 24 entering employment including self‑employment (20) and nine “good work” jobs (5), via the use of the Richmond Work Match, the South London Partnership barrier triage, short, accredited training (CSCS/SIA/TA) and employer brokerage.

Increase in confidence

Confidence‑building and practical support increased job‑search activity. Job‑search engagement reached 42 people (22) through high‑quality CV/interview support, same‑day referrals and regular digital touchpoints, complemented by specialist partners (e.g. Smart Works, Belina GROW, BEAM).

Employability

Short, job‑relevant upskilling improved near‑term career prospects. Keyworkers routed residents quickly into accredited, demand‑aligned courses linked to vacancies. While qualification counts and sustainment were not tracked, case evidence shows credentials and enhanced employability translating into first jobs and early progression.

Key economic evaluation findings

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

• Economy - Adequate: Allocation via the GLA and SLP enabled swift mobilisation and local tailoring, and competitive commissioning with clear award criteria was used where appropriate. However, delays in guidance from central government and funding flows compressed procurement windows, limited supplier competition, and required the Council to pre‑finance activity, which may have constrained optimisation of VfM.

• Efficiency - Adequate: The programme was efficient in converting inputs to outputs, with most output targets across all three priorities met or exceeded. Indicative unit costs for business support sat at the lower end of ERDF‑style benchmarks, while the People & Skills cost per job was higher than large national schemes (as expected given smaller scale, shorter delivery window and harder‑to‑reach cohorts). Internal council funds complemented UKSPF in places. Some financial and MI gaps limit fuller benchmarking.

• Effectiveness - High: The programme was effective in turning outputs into intended outcomes, with most contracted outcomes achieved or exceeded across priorities. Business capability and enterprise creation improved; economically inactive residents were activated into job search and employment; and community assets were made more accessible. Longer‑term outcomes (sustained employment, SME turnover and survival, quantified carbon savings, asset footfall and perceptions) were not tracked within the evaluation window.

• Equity - Adequate: Targeting was appropriate, focusing on economically inactive residents, SMEs and micro‑enterprises and accessibility improvements to local assets, including in or near areas of relative disadvantage. Some diversity targets (e.g. younger residents and some minority ethnic groups) proved challenging given Richmond’s dispersed deprivation and demographic profile.

Key learning

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

• Fund flexibility was a key enabler of local tailoring, but compressed timelines and late guidance reduced competition, constrained innovation, and created administrative burden. Earlier mobilisation, stable requirements, and multi‑year certainty would strengthen delivery and staff retention.

• Sub‑regional commissioning should allow stronger borough‑level calibration of targets and eligibility. Aligning pan‑London or SLP frameworks to local demographics and labour markets would improve reach and relevance, particularly for People & Skills.

• Monitoring foundations need to be locked in at the outset. Simple, proportionate indicators; early agreement on business identifiers/EDI; and built‑in baselines for capital projects (footfall, user perceptions, energy/carbon) would avoid under‑recording and reduce burden.

• Evidence of sustained outcomes should be planned and resourced. Light‑touch longitudinal follow‑up on job sustainment and earnings, SME turnover and survival, and community asset usage and perceptions would demonstrate longer‑term impact and VfM.

• Greener business support should pair diagnostics and accreditation with finance or incentives for capital investment, enable multi‑site eligibility where feasible, and engage landlords and co‑working providers to access building‑level data and upgrades.

• Proactive, data‑led outreach (e.g. using LIFT) plus embedded specialist partners (e.g. neurodiversity/SEND, mothers/ESOL) improves engagement and progression. Simplifying evidence requirements for vulnerable cohorts can further reduce barriers.