Research and analysis

South East Wales UKSPF evaluation: interim findings

Updated 3 December 2025

Applies to Wales

Executive summary: South East Wales 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 in the UK 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 evaluation for the South East (SE) Wales UKSPF programme, based on research conducted between November 2024 and February 2025. It outlines the progress made to date and presents interim evaluation findings.

Key process evaluation findings

The SE Wales region encompasses 10 of 22 local authorities in Wales. Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) County Borough Council serves as the Lead Local Authority with responsibility for managing regional-level reporting, financial oversight, and compliance. Delivery is predominantly undertaken at a local level with each local authority determining their own priority areas. A small proportion of funding (circa £3.3 million or 1.4%) was allocated to Cardiff Capital Region (who act as an eleventh delivery partner) to deliver activity on a regional basis under the Supporting Local Business investment priority.

Intervention design

• Local authorities generally undertook structured needs assessments and strategic planning where they mapped service gaps, aligned interventions with local priorities, and used pre-existing strategic plans to identify interventions and guide decision-making.
• Engagement with external stakeholders was fairly limited and, where undertaken, was largely secondary to the internal process of identifying needs and priorities.
• Pre-existing interventions had an important role in shaping UKSPF delivery in SE Wales and many were carried over, particularly in business and employability support.
• Local authorities valued the greater local autonomy provided by UKSPF, noting that it ensures better alignment with local needs and strategic objectives and facilitated better coordinated support provision.
• Overall, the approaches deployed by local authorities have been appropriate and effective given the time constraints. The main limitations have been the reliance on priorities identified internally (including significant input from political members) rather than through wider community engagement, and ad-hoc decision-making in some areas.

Portfolio implementation

• A blended project delivery approach was used, utilising mainly internal delivery routes, but also open calls and direct commissioning.
• Management teams appreciated the diversity of approaches that could be used which allowed rapid implementation and maintained strategic alignment. However, this led to varied provisions in each area, creating a degree of a ‘postcode lottery’ for recipients across the region. The approach adopted was consistent with the ethos of the UKSPF, which is to deliver against locally determined priorities.
• Project leads generally felt that their experience with the application process was positive.
• UKSPF has been effectively integrated into the suite of funds that local authorities use to deliver against their strategic objectives, with UKSPF used to augment existing interventions and fill gaps where appropriate.
• Regional collaboration has been limited, albeit with some good examples. Locally focused delivery has been prioritised, but some local authorities reported missed opportunities for greater regional delivery in specific support areas.

Intervention delivery

• UKSPF was successful in engaging a broad range of people, especially hard-to-reach groups, businesses, and local organisations. Local delivery models, trusted spaces, and cross-sector collaboration played a crucial role in maximising engagement.
• There have been several challenges to delivery, including tight timelines and late programme setup, inconsistent guidance, staffing, and intensive administrative and reporting requirements.

Data collection and monitoring

• Overall, the monitoring processes have ensured compliance, informed decision-making, facilitated effective internal risk monitoring, and helped to track progress (although the latter has been more challenging).
• Challenges included changes in reporting expectations and difficulties in capturing qualitative impacts. Local authorities generally reported that the resource requirements had exceeded their expectations and therefore the resource allocated to the management and administration at a local level was often insufficient.

Programme oversight

• Stakeholders viewed the regional and local governance frameworks as robust, well-structured, and fit for purpose, providing clear accountability, structured decision-making, and strong coordination mechanisms.
• At the local level, there was strong interdepartmental oversight and collaboration alongside input at the cabinet-level. Most local authorities followed multi-tier governance structures, with decisions escalating from operational teams to cabinet-level approval. Senior leadership teams, finance directors, and Cabinet members played key roles in final decision-making. Many used pre-panel reviews before formal approvals, ensuring feasibility checks before escalating decisions.
• The regional structures provided effective oversight of financial delivery and reporting quality. Equally, most local authorities reported that regional coordination and collaboration was limited, noting that discussions and decision-making at the regional level was almost entirely focused on financial and administrative oversight. There was little focus on coordination of practical delivery or strategic collaboration.

Progress to date: expenditure, outputs and outcomes

The UKSPF in SE Wales was allocated a total budget of £278.5 million. As of September 2024, the region reported a total of £140.6 million in UKSPF expenditure which is around half the budget. Around £82.5 million was spent in the first two years of delivery (2022-23 and 2023-24) which represents 72% of the profiled spend to that point. More than half the budget (59% was profiled to be spent in Year 3 (2024-25), primarily in the final six months. Some local authorities believe that this is a weakness in programme delivery as it creates “a last-minute rush to spend funds”. While we can expect the final spend figures to be much higher, spending continues to be a challenge for local authorities, with several leads reporting they were uncertain whether they would be able to spend their full allocations. Multiply is particularly at risk of underspending with just 32% of the budget spent up to September 2024.

UKSPF progress, reported to MHCLG in September 2024, shows mixed results in terms of outputs across four impact themes.

• Revitalising town centres saw limited progress, particularly regarding green/blue space improvements, likely due to the focus on longer-lead capital works.
• Support for community organisations showed good progress, reaching over 171,000 people and supporting nearly 5,000 volunteering opportunities.
• Business grant support saw roughly half of targets met for grants, market engagement, and entrepreneurial assistance.
• Support for those furthest from the labour market significantly exceeded targets, particularly for those economically inactive or socially excluded, and those gaining life skills and employment support.

Outcome data mirrors output progress, suggesting potentially conservative outcome targets.

• Town centre revitalisation led to increased visitor numbers (over 21,000) and improved perceptions of facilities, but there was limited progress on filling vacant units.
• Community support outcomes showed strong engagement and footfall increases, but volunteering opportunities have been less forthcoming than expected.
• Business support performed well in product/service adoption and productivity improvements, but job creation lagged.
• Supporting those furthest from the labour market yielded good results across various outcomes, including job searching, basic skills attainment, and reduced barriers to employment, but less so for education/training entry.

Early impact findings

Many of the impacts of UKSPF in SE Wales will take time to fully emerge, with most interventions still in delivery or nearing completion. The final evaluation will explore these and other areas of impact in greater detail, once full project delivery and reporting has concluded. Evidence from monitoring data and survey feedback suggests early signs of impact across several priority areas.

• Early benefits of town centre revitalisation include improved perceptions of infrastructure and amenities, increased community pride, and higher footfall/visitor numbers. However, to date, there has been limited progress on public realm improvements and community asset investments, with full impact expected beyond the end of the programme.
• Support for community organisations shows early indications of increased capacity, but limited evidence yet on community engagement and social outcomes.
• Business grant support shows positive early impacts on access to new markets, jobs, and enterprise creation.
• Support for those furthest from the labour market demonstrates strong progress on employment and skills, particularly regarding reduced barriers, NEET prevention, and basic/life skills development.