Research and analysis

South Hams 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. South Hams received a UKSPF allocation of £1.06 million for the first three years of the programme.

South Hams is a rural, coastal district with a population of 88,600. There are market and coastal towns dispersed throughout the district and whilst there are pockets of affluence, the area faces challenges including poor transport infrastructure, a prevalence of low productivity, low waged sectors, and severe issues associated with housing affordability.

Key impact evaluation findings

The primary units of analysis for the impact evaluation were the main Communities and Place project (the development of a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)) and projects within the Supporting Local Businesses priority, particularly those that sought to encourage innovation or decarbonisation.

Active Travel

Development of the LCWIP was aimed at contributing to the approval and development of active travel routes. The LCWIP (along with a behaviour change strategy) for South Hams was commissioned to identify priority routes and encourage a modal shift towards walking and cycling. These plans were shaped through extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. The LCWIP was delayed in its development, however promptly following its publication in February 2025, Devon County Council (the highways authority for the area) selected a proposed cycle route in South Hams, alongside ten other routes across the county as a strategic priority for development. While the LCWIP likely strengthened the case for this route, other contextual factors such as land acquisition and planning approvals also played a decisive role, making the contribution claim undetermined.

Business Support

Business support interventions were expected to support beneficiary businesses in developing new to the firm products, technology or adopting new to the firm processes.

Several projects sought to encourage innovation (including the agri-tech innovation project, regenerative farming support and the marine recycling pilot). Monitoring data shows the number of beneficiaries developing new to the firm products and processes surpassed targets by a considerable margin (43 achieved against a target of 14). Interviews with eight of the 20 beneficiaries targeted through the agri-innovation project identified self-reported innovation as a result of the support such as new technologies for energy efficiency and improved farming practices, a view reflected by project leads and local authority representatives. The marine recycling pilot tested a process for dismantling and recycling marine vessels, recovering fibreglass for reuse. The pilot attracted international attention and private sector interest for scaling up this innovative approach. Collectively, the strength of evidence obtained led to the contribution claim being supported.

Innovation

R&D and associated innovation support interventions were expected to lead to businesses being more confident to innovate.

Through the agri-innovation project beneficiaries received tailored guidance and exposure to the innovation process, supported by peer groups that encouraged knowledge exchange and built networks intended to last beyond the funding period. These mechanisms were designed to increase confidence among businesses to innovate. Stakeholders highlighted the programme’s emphasis on teaching rather than simply demonstrating, which was intended to enable businesses to continue innovating independently. While some beneficiaries reported improved confidence, this was based on self-reported scores and only two of four re-interviewed businesses noted an increase.

Overall, the contribution claim is undetermined. The limited number of interviews and reliance on self-reported data weaken the evidence base, and while there are indications of increased confidence, the findings are not robust enough to confirm a clear causal link.

Key economic evaluation findings

The UKSPF programme in South Hams demonstrated adequate value for money across the 4Es framework:

• Economy - Adequate: Around 80–90% of the £1.06m UKSPF budget was allocated through direct commissioning rather than open competition, due to time constraints, small contract sizes, and a limited supplier pool. Local providers were chosen for their understanding of South Hams’ needs, ensuring tailored delivery. Programme design mirrored West Devon Borough Council’s approach, enabling a streamlining of management and delivery requirements. Most projects were delivered on time and within budget, with delays mitigated by reallocating funds; only one project (LCWIP) required additional funding.
• Efficiency - Adequate: Eight of nine output indicators were achieved or exceeded, with most interventions delivered within budget. Targets were challenging but realistic, and flexible programme management enabled additional funding for successful projects and adjustments for underperforming ones. While no direct match funding was identified, strong alignment with the Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) supported priorities such as decarbonisation and agri-tech. However, the absence of granular cost data prevents a robust assessment of cost efficiency.
• Effectiveness - Adequate: Five of seven outcome targets were achieved, with most spending aligned to budgets. Carbon reduction proved challenging due to reporting time lags, though interventions were designed around local priorities such as clean growth and decarbonisation. Agricultural initiatives like agri-innovation and regenerative farming saw strong demand and are now being replicated elsewhere. Community input shaped the LCWIP, while construction sector support required redesign due to low uptake.
• Equity - Adequate: The UKSPF programme in South Hams targeted marine and agricultural sectors, distributing investment widely across rural areas in line with local priorities such as clean growth and decarbonisation. Commissioning local providers ensured area-specific delivery and addressed concerns about previous urban-focused programmes. While engagement with the construction sector was weaker than planned and LCWIP delays limited delivery of some priorities, strong public consultation informed its design.

Key learning

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

• Local programme design enabled South Hams to target sectors with clear needs and opportunities, showcasing strengths in agriculture and marine through innovative, decarbonisation-focused approaches.
• Leveraging DCC’s expertise and commissioning local suppliers improved efficiency and avoided the resource demands of open procurement.
• Tight timelines limited wider engagement; more design time would have allowed broader exploration of delivery options.
• A small number of partners and alignment with West Devon facilitated strong collaboration and created a lasting network of service provision as a legacy of the programme.
• Flexible, pragmatic management enabled adjustments critical to the successful delivery of key outcomes.
• Aligning UKSPF with REPF grants effectively boosted engagement and enabled implementation of decarbonisation plans.
• A sector-focused approach helped to maximise impact and built momentum in priority areas.
• More upfront research would have improved engagement in sectors like construction.