Research and analysis

UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) interim evaluation synthesis report​

Published 3 December 2025

Executive summary: key findings

This UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) interim evaluation synthesis report identifies the following key successes, challenges and lessons by different types of place. Qualitative findings from the 34 UKSPF place-level evaluations were used as the data source. A thematic analysis was undertaken, structured by the process evaluation research questions, to provide these findings.

Successes

• Local flexibility and autonomy: The most consistently valued aspect of UKSPF was the devolution of decision-making, allowing Lead Local Authorities (LLAs) to design interventions that addressed specific, evidence-based local needs. This autonomy was welcomed across all LLAs in contrast to the perceived rigidity of some previous EU funds.
• The value of a dedicated local management hub: Across all delivery models, the presence of a skilled, stable, and supportive local UKSPF management team (e.g. a UKSPF Programme Manager or team embedded within the LLA) was a critical enabler. They were valued by delivery partners for providing clarity, facilitating partnerships, and navigating challenges.
• Leveraging existing partnerships and infrastructure: Successful delivery was almost always built on pre-existing, and established foundations. This included strong partnerships with the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector, established governance boards, and experienced delivery partners.
• Continuity of provision: A common and effective strategy employed by most LLAs was using UKSPF to continue successful and valued services previously funded by the Community Renewal Fund (CRF) or European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) preventing gaps in provision for vulnerable groups and businesses^{[footnote 1]}.
• Combining funding streams: UKSPF was frequently used in combination with other funds, including to: complement other major capital funds, fill gaps other funds could not provide for, leverage further investment, create a coherent pathway between different services and to add scale to projects.

Challenges

• Constraining central government timelines: This was the most commonly identified challenge. Each of the 34 case studies highlighted that the timelines for planning and delivery resulted in a combination of limited consultations, procurement delays, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff as a result of the short-term nature of employment contracts.
• Central guidance and reporting systems: Reporting was generally considered proportionate and not overly burdensome by most LLAs. However, LLAs reported initial challenges including delays in the provision of clear definitions for outputs and outcomes (Edinburgh, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly^{[footnote 2]}, Redbridge) and a reporting portal that was difficult to use before later improvements were made (Highland, Maidstone).
• Challenges with measuring outcomes: LLAs perceived the quantitative outputs required for central government reporting as too rigid and not able to capture the value, often qualitative, of the interventions. Stakeholders consistently reported that these failed to capture long-term impacts, preventative outcomes, and positive outcomes such as increased confidence or community cohesion (Adur, Tamworth, Gateshead). However, LLAs were often able to capture this data through case studies; outcomes such as this are the also focus of the current evaluation.
• Spending capital allocations: The split between capital and revenue funding was frequently cited as misaligned with local demand. Many areas had high demand for revenue-based projects (e.g., for staffing and support services) but reported variation in their ability to allocate their required capital spend. Whilst 87% of LLAs (between 2022-2025) requested more than their capital minimum allocation, 37% of those did not manage to spend the additional capital requested. This indicates variation in the success of capital spend – 63% of LLAs did spend additional capital, converted from revenue.

Lessons by type of place

The case study selection matrix applied during the design phase of this evaluation sought to group a range of different LLA types. Below are some process observations relative to each of these groupings.

• Mayoral combined authorities (West Midlands Combined Authority, South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, Liverpool City Region, North of Tyne Combined Authority): These areas benefited from a structure that could facilitate a strategic regional overview. However, this also created some tension between the regional strategy set by the combined authority and the specific priorities of the constituent local authorities. For example, a decision to allocate a large portion of funding to business support by the Combined Authority may not have been given priority locally (WMCA).
• Rural areas (Blaby, Highland, Mid-Wales, South Hams, Torridge, Uttlesford): These areas faced a common set of challenges, including higher costs for service delivery due to geography, difficulties in engaging dispersed populations, and the critical barrier of poor public transport, which hindered participation in projects (e.g., Blaby’s Blue Prescribing project).
• Sub-regional partnerships (Richmond and Redbridge, within the South London Partnership): These structures could create efficiencies but also resulted in misaligned priorities. The clearest example was Richmond, where sub-regionally set diversity targets proved unrealistic as they were not aligned to the borough’s specific demographics.
• Adjacent district/borough councils: Some geographically neighbouring councils run a range of services together. For UKSPF, there were examples of this close collaboration, such as Adur working closely with neighbouring Worthing, running nearly identical programmes to create efficiencies by sharing management, delivery partners and best practice.

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this report

This report provides a synthesis of process evaluation findings from the 34 UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) place level case study evaluations. The report identifies common learning points and successes and challenges in designing, implementing and delivering UKSPF interventions. While each Lead Local Authority (LLA) has taken a different, localised approach, there are commonalities which are important to identify and learn lessons from, including between the different investment priorities: Communities and Place, Supporting Local Businesses, and People and Skills.

This report will be of interest to policymakers in government who are seeking to use learning from UKSPF to design future local growth and communities’ interventions. This includes overall structure and policy direction of new funds, learning whether different kinds of interventions were delivered more or less successfully, as well as how delivery can best be undertaken within a new fund.

1.2 UKSPF programme overview

The UKSPF was launched by the UK Government in April 2022. It provided £2.6 billion of funding for local investment by March 2025, with an additional £900 million made available for 2025-26. Local decision-makers work with their local communities and partners to deliver interventions under the three investment priorities. Places are empowered to identify and build on their own strengths and address needs at a local level, focused on enhancing community pride and increasing life chances.

1.3 UKSPF place level evaluation

Conducting place level evaluation of UKSPF design, implementation and activities enables us to take a holistic approach to understanding how combinations of interventions are working together, aligned with local strategies and delivered alongside other local growth funds.

Evaluation activity for UKSPF includes 34 case study evaluations within specific places across the UK to understand local delivery and impacts, and to generate robust evidence on how combinations of UKSPF-supported interventions (and other publicly funded projects) within a locality work together to enhance community pride, life chances and kickstart local economic growth.

The detailed methodology underpinning the case study evaluation is available here.

1.4 Synthesis approach

The process evaluation framework set out in ‘UKSPF place-level evaluation: methodology report’ (2025) was used to collect data for the process evaluation of the 34 place-level case studies. This synthesis report analyses those qualitative findings using a thematic method, structured by the process evaluation framework (below). These were analysed with the assistance of Ipsos’ in-house ‘Ipsos Facto’ generative artificial intelligence tool and reviewed against the framework manually for fidelity.

The process evaluation framework included 23 process questions common to all LLAs grouped under the themes:

• Fund design
• Fund implementation
• Delivery of interventions
• Data collection and monitoring

This report uses the same structure to present synthesised findings from the thematic analysis across the 34 place-level case studies. Where specific example LLAs have been named, further information about the identified success, challenge or process can be found in the relevant interim report.

2. Process evaluation

This report sets out a synthesis of process evaluation findings from the 34 UKSPF place level case study evaluations. It is important to note that this synthesis report provides a snapshot of process evaluation up to April 2025 and that fieldwork in all case study areas is ongoing. As such the findings presented below may be subject to change following the completion of all case study fieldwork. Updated findings will be revised and included in the final synthesis report for the 34 UKSPF place level case studies.

2.1 Fund design

LLA lead officers provided insight into their experiences of the fund design and how this may have shaped delivery at the local level.

2.1.1 Investment planning

This section presents the processes used by LLAs to develop investment plans and intervention design, including people involved, timescales, evidence used, processes to select final interventions, and how this reflected the local context, needs and priorities.

• Process: Across LLAs the process typically began with an internal review led by LLA officers (predominantly from either economic development or community development teams or a combination of both), drawing heavily on existing evidence such as Corporate Plans, Economic Strategies, and local needs assessments. This was usually followed by a form of stakeholder consultation, which ranged from targeted workshops with key partners (Southend, Maidstone) to broader surveys (NE Derbyshire). Final interventions were then typically approved by a partnership board and/or the LLA’s cabinet.
• Stakeholders: Stakeholders commonly included other public sector bodies (e.g., police, health), local MPs, and representatives from the business and VCSE sectors. In many cases, these stakeholders were brought together in a formal UKSPF partnership board.
• Timescales: The timescale for UKSPF delivery was widely reported as a constraint. The “rushed” and “compressed” nature of the process limited the depth and breadth of stakeholder consultation that could be undertaken by LLAs (Edinburgh, Highland, Mid-Wales).
• Evidence: Most areas used a solid evidence base of existing local strategies and socio-economic data. Feasibility studies were also commissioned in some areas (Durham, Mid-Wales) to inform later-year investments.
• Continuation of previous interventions: This was a very common and pragmatic strategy employed by LLAs. Its primary purpose was to ensure continuity of services identified as essential and avoid uncertainty for projects and beneficiaries previously supported by ESIF or CRF. This was particularly prevalent for business support and employability services (Chesterfield, North Ayrshire, NE Lincs). Providing support for existing projects also benefited LLAs by enabling rapid mobilisation within the UKSPF timelines, as the delivery models, partnerships, and staff were already in place. Continuation of previous interventions occurred throughout the delivery of UKSPF, not only in the initial year.

• Development of new interventions: Several reasons were given where new interventions had been developed under UKSPF:

  • To fill identified gaps in local provision that were not covered by previously available funding (Blaby, Maidstone).
  • To pilot innovative approaches that the flexibility of UKSPF allowed for (Watford, South Hams).
  • To respond to new challenges, such as the cost-of-living crisis, which had not been a priority under the older EU programmes (Gateshead, SYMCA).
• Lessons learned: The most significant lesson came from the experience of managing previous ESIF programmes. LLAs with this previous experience were able to apply established processes for contracting, monitoring, and partnership management to the UKSPF, which was crucial given the perception of limited initial guidance from central government. Lessons have already begun to be embedded in the development of new and future funds.
• Partnership boards: Most case study areas established a UKSPF partnership board or repurposed a pre-existing strategic board to oversee the fund. Boards typically comprised a mix of senior LLA officers, elected members, and representatives from key external organisations, including the VCSE sector, business support organisations (e.g., Chambers of Commerce), and other public bodies like Jobcentre Plus (Chesterfield, NE Lincs). The role of the boards was primarily to provide strategic oversight, scrutinise proposals, and approve the final selection of funded projects. Their effectiveness was largely seen as positive. In Tamworth, for example, the partnership board was praised for its collaborative and effective operation, bringing diverse perspectives to decision-making. In many LLAs the use of a pre-existing grant assessment panel with deep local knowledge was seen as highly valuable. The main challenge was ensuring their input could be meaningful within the limited decision-making timelines.
• Cross-place partnerships: Some LLAs that already jointly designed and delivered services continued this model (through shared service agreements). Core delivery teams across places shared management, delivery bodies, and best practice to leverage efficiencies. The approach in the main worked well, although the duplication of administrative aspects of reporting was a frustration (Adur, South Hams).

What Worked Well:

• The flexibility and local autonomy of the fund, which empowered LLAs to design portfolios that genuinely reflected local needs.
• Building on existing strategies and evidence, which ensured interventions were well-grounded.
• The use of partnership boards to bring in diverse expertise and ensure stakeholder buy-in.

What Worked Less Well:

• The compressed timelines of the initial funding period were consistently identified as the single biggest challenge, limiting opportunities for consultation and strategic planning.
• The lack of clear, upfront monitoring guidance from central government resulted in some uncertainty.
• Administrative duplication in reporting for LLAs where services were shared but outputs/outcomes were required to be reported separately.

2.1.2 Composition of funding

UKSPF was frequently used in combination with other funds. This was a strategic choice to maximise impact of all available funds. UKSPF was often used to complement other major capital funds. In Tamworth, UKSPF funded landscaping and heritage boards to enhance a larger Future High Streets Fund project. In NE Lincs, it provided revenue funding for community organisations to participate in Towns Fund activities. It was also used to fill funding gaps which other funds could not (due to more restrictions than UKSPF).

Some further reasons identified for combining funds include:

• To add value and scale: UKSPF was used by some LLAs to add a revenue or community engagement element to large capital projects funded by schemes like the Future High Streets Fund.
• To provide match funding: In most LLAs, UKSPF was used as match funding to unlock or supplement other grants.
• To create a coherent pathway: In employability, UKSPF was often used in combination with other funds such as No One Left Behind (in Scotland) or core DWP provision to create a seamless support journey for individuals (North Ayrshire).
• To leverage further investment: The Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) was designed to work in tandem with UKSPF. In South Hams, UKSPF funded the creation of decarbonisation plans for businesses, which was a prerequisite for them to apply for a REPF capital grant to implement the plan.

Some LLAs reported challenges associated with combining funding and how this has been overcome.

• Challenge: It was reported (by all Welsh regions, but most commonly SE Wales) that there was an initial reluctance from the Welsh Government to allow UKSPF to be used as match funding for their programmes. This created delays and uncertainty.
• Overcoming the challenge: This was typically overcome through persistent negotiation and collaboration between the different funding bodies at a local and regional level. As working relationships developed, a more pragmatic approach was often found, but this took time and effort.

What Worked Well:

• The ability to combine UKSPF with other funds like REPF, Towns Fund, and local LLA budgets to create a more holistic and impactful local investment package.
• Using UKSPF became recognised as an enabler to provide the “missing piece” of funding (often revenue) that other, more restrictive capital-focused funds could not.

What Worked Less Well:

• Initial difficulties and some lack of clarity from other funders on whether UKSPF could be used as match funding for other government programmes.
• The inherent complexity of managing multiple funding streams, each with its own rules, targets, and reporting requirements.

2.2 Fund implementation

This section presents initial findings from the process evaluation of UKSPF implementation and identifies supplier engagement and delivery models as key areas for policy learning.

2.2.1 Supplier Engagement

• Engagement strategies: Engagement was primarily conducted through established LLA channels, including procurement portals, websites, and newsletters. Crucially, LLAs also leveraged their existing networks, such as partnerships with local VCSE support bodies (Wyre, Mid-Wales) to disseminate opportunities to grassroots organisations.
• Availability and quality of suppliers: In most urban or larger areas, engagement was highly effective, leading to oversubscribed funding calls and a high number of strong applications. However, in some more rural or specialised contexts, the supplier market was thinner. Blaby reported limited interest for some focussed contracts, and NE Derbyshire noted challenges in procuring a specialist training provider due to high demand across the region. The quality of applications was generally high, though some LLAs noted that smaller organisations with less bid-writing experience sometimes struggled with their formal application process (SE Wales).

What Worked Well:

• Leveraging existing, trusted relationships and networks was the most effective and efficient way to engage high-quality, relevant suppliers.
• Providing clear guidance and support during the application process, including workshops and Q&A sessions, was highly valued by potential suppliers (Southend).

What Worked Less Well:

• The tight timelines for procurement limited the ability to cultivate new supplier relationships and may have discouraged some from applying (Richmond).
• In some specialist fields (e.g., green skills), there was a limited pool of qualified suppliers, and multiple local authorities were often competing for the same providers, creating a bottleneck.

2.2.2 Project selection and procurement

A variety of processes were used to select and procure projects, tailored to the local context and the nature of the intervention.

• Open calls / competitive tendering: This was a common approach across LLAs, especially for grant schemes, to ensure transparency and equality of opportunity. These involved publishing a specification and inviting bids, which were then assessed by a scoring panel.
• Direct commissioning: Many LLAs directly commissioned existing, trusted partners, particularly for the continuation of ESIF/CRF-funded services. This was justified on the basis of the provider’s unique expertise, proven track record, and efficient mobilisation.
• Internal commissioning: Where projects were delivered in-house, a formal process was also often followed, with internal departments submitting proposals that were assessed against the same criteria as external bids (Chesterfield).
• Scoring systems: Robust, multi-stage assessment processes for project selection and commissioning were common, often involving an initial eligibility check, a detailed scoring against weighted criteria by a panel, and final approval by a partnership board or cabinet (Southend, Maidstone).

What Worked Well:

• The use of independent and diverse assessment panels was widely seen as a robust and transparent way to select high-quality projects and provide defensible justifications for funding decisions.
• The flexibility to directly commission trusted partners was highly efficient and ensured continuity of quality services, avoiding the time and expense of a full open procurement process.
• Edinburgh’s model of a post-selection negotiation process with successful bidders was an innovative way to refine outputs and ensure value for money across the portfolio.
• Adopting a flexible and inclusive approach to grant funding and providing bespoke support to develop the capability and confidence of smaller community organisations resulted in successful bids from organisations new to this type of funding (East Riding of Yorkshire).

What Worked Less Well:

• Time pressure was the biggest barrier to effective project selection, sometimes resulting in LLAs prioritising speed over a more extensive market-testing process.
• Some smaller, grassroots organisations found the formal project selection and contracting processes burdensome and difficult to navigate.
• Assessing value for money was sometimes challenging, especially for innovative projects with no direct comparators. It was often based on projected outputs, which were not always reliable (Mid-Wales).

2.3 Delivery of interventions

2.3.1 Delivery, governance and management models

A hybrid model of internal and external delivery was used almost universally with patterns emerging around intervention types, below.

• Internal delivery: LLAs delivered projects in-house when the activity was a core LLA function (e.g., town centre management, parks), when there was a need for rapid mobilisation, or when they possessed unique internal expertise. Chesterfield and SE Wales had a high proportion of internal delivery.
• External delivery: External suppliers were commissioned to bring in specialist expertise that the LLA lacked (e.g., specific types of business support or skills training), and to tap into the deep community trust and reach of VCSE organisations. This was seen as essential for engaging hard-to-reach groups.

Several governance models were observed:

• Lead local authority model (most common): A dedicated UKSPF team or officer within the LLA managed the programme day-to-day, with strategic oversight from a Local partnership board and final accountability resting with the LLA’s cabinet and Section 151 Officer (Tamworth, Blaby, Maidstone).
• Combined authority model (WMCA, SYMCA, LCR): The Combined Authority held the ultimate accountability and managed some regional business support interventions but delegated the delivery of most Communities and Place and People and Skills funding to the constituent Local Authorities, who had their own local governance structures.
• Regional lead authority model (all four regions in Wales): One Local Authority acted as the lead for the entire region, managing reporting to central government, while individual LLAs managed their own local delivery.
• External grant manager model (outlier): Edinburgh appointed an external organisation (Capital City Partnership) to manage the grants, which was seen as highly effective in providing expert, consistent support to providers.

What Worked Well:

• Across all LLAs, the key to success was a clear governance structure with defined roles and responsibilities.
• The Lead Local Authority model was effective at ensuring interventions were grounded in local knowledge and integrated with other LLA services.
• The External Grant Manager model in Edinburgh provided structure, streamlined reporting, and dedicated support^{[footnote 3]}.

What Worked Less Well:

• The Combined Authority and regional models saw some tensions between prioritising regional and local needs. Decisions made at the regional level did not always align with the specific positions of individual LLAs.
• These multi-layered models could also create administrative inefficiencies, such as providers having to apply to multiple LLAs within the same region for similar projects. Some LLAs, in particular smaller borough/ districts, reported feeling constrained by insufficient administrative funding and the challenges of recruiting and retaining staff for short-term, funded posts^{[footnote 4]}.

2.3.2 Delivery process

Delivery enablers included:

• Strong, collaborative partnerships: This was widely identified as an important enabler by all LLAs. Success was driven by close working relationships between the LLA, delivery partners, and other local stakeholders, enabling referrals, knowledge sharing, and coordinated support (Redbridge, Southend).
• Experienced and skilled delivery staff: The presence of experienced staff, both within the LLA and delivery organisations, who had deep local knowledge and understood the needs of their communities, was critical (North Ayrshire, Tamworth).
• Supportive and flexible programme management: Delivery partners consistently praised LLA UKSPF leads who were accessible, flexible, and acted as problem-solvers rather than just compliance monitors (Southend, South Hams).
• Building on existing, trusted service providers: Using UKSPF to expand or enhance services that were already known and trusted by the community allowed for quicker engagement and uptake.

Delivery challenges and solutions included:

• Short-term funding cycle: This was a major challenge, making it difficult to plan long-term, recruitment, retain experienced staff on fixed-term contracts, and build sustainable momentum. This was a challenge to many LLAs with no easy local solution, though some areas, like Edinburgh, noted the three-year allocation provided greater stability than annual funding cycles.
• Recruitment difficulties: A direct consequence of the above, many projects experienced delays due to challenges in recruiting suitably qualified staff.
• Practical local barriers: These varied by LLA some examples were: a lack of suitable venues (Hastings), poor public transport links hindering access to services (Blaby), and higher-than-expected delivery costs in rural areas (Highland). These were often overcome through creative problem-solving, such as finding alternative venues or adapting delivery models.

2.3.2 Engagement with participants

Engagement with participants was crucial to effective delivery of UKSPF interventions. Some of the most commonly cited approaches are set out below.

• Referrals from partner organisations: Leveraging networks was key. Referrals came from Jobcentre Plus, housing associations, schools, and other VCSE organisations.
• Direct and personalised outreach: This was crucial for hard-to-reach groups. It included door-to-door flyer distribution, attending community events, and building trust through face-to-face contact.
• Cross-referrals between UKSPF projects: In areas with good coordination, projects referred participants to each other to provide a more holistic support package.
• Digital marketing: Social media, newsletters, and websites were used for broader promotion, though this was often less effective for older residents or those with low digital skills.

What Worked Well:

• “Stealth learning”: This worked well for Multiply. Instead of advertising “numeracy courses,” providers embedded skills development into more appealing activities like cooking or family craft sessions (Welsh regions). This worked because it removed the stigma or anxiety sometimes associated with formal education.
• Creating a welcoming, low-pressure environment: This was vital for engaging vulnerable or socially isolated individuals. Hastings used a “generous giving” approach with minimal data collection upfront, which built trust and reduced barriers to participation.
• Taking services to the community: Mobile services, like the Uttlesford Buffy Bus, were effective in reaching isolated rural communities by removing the transport barrier.

What worked less well: Challenges to engagement

• Reaching the most economically inactive: This was a challenge across all LLAs. These groups often face multiple complex barriers (health, debt, housing) and require intensive, long-term support to build trust. Overcoming this required persistent, personalised outreach from trusted community-based organisations.
• Sustaining engagement: While initial engagement could be strong, keeping participants involved was difficult, especially those with chaotic lives or anxiety. This was overcome by offering flexible support and maintaining regular, supportive contact.
• Overcoming stigma: In some more affluent areas residents were often reluctant to ask for help. Overcoming this required sensitive outreach that didn’t “label” people and focused on building community rather than simply delivering a service.

2.3.4 Quality of provision

• The quality of interventions was generally reported to be high. This was largely attributed to the fact that delivery was overwhelmingly carried out by experienced, locally-embedded organisations (both internal LLA teams and external partners) who had a deep understanding of their communities’ needs and a strong track record. The flexibility of the fund also allowed providers to tailor their support, which enhanced quality.

Lessons learnt: Staff, skills and experience

• For management: Experienced programme managers with skills in financial oversight, contract management, stakeholder engagement, and navigating complex government reporting were essential.
• For delivery: Frontline staff needed strong local knowledge, empathy, and the ability to build trust with beneficiaries. Specialist skills were also required for specific interventions (e.g., business advice, mental health support, green skills training).

Lessons learnt: Resource challenges

The primary resource challenge was staff capacity and retention. The relatively short-term nature of UKSPF funding made it difficult to recruit and retain skilled staff, who often preferred the security of permanent roles. This was a recurring theme in Highland, SE Wales, and SYMCA.

In some cases, there was a shortage of specialist skills in the local market, such as qualified green skills trainers (NE Derbyshire) or Multiply tutors (all regions in Wales), leading to competition between neighbouring authorities.

2.4 Data collection and monitoring

2.4.1 Collecting data from suppliers

The following section reports on approaches used to collect data from suppliers including quality assurance processes and frequency.

• Approach: The standard approach was quarterly progress reporting from delivery partners to the LLA. This was typically done using a standardised template (e.g., a Word or Excel document).
• Quality assurance (QA): QA was managed through regular (often monthly or quarterly) meetings between the LLA’s UKSPF manager and the delivery partner to review progress, discuss data, and resolve issues. Some LLAs also conducted site visits and observations.
• Frequency: Data was collected quarterly to align with the LLA’s own reporting deadlines to central government.

LLAs reported some concerns or challenges with data collection and how these have been overcome.

• Challenges measuring outcomes: The biggest concern was that the required quantitative data did not capture the full story. Providers and LLAs alike felt the focus on outputs missed crucial qualitative outcomes and long-term impacts (Adur, SE Wales, Tamworth).
• Burden on small organisations: For smaller VCSEs with limited administrative capacity, the reporting requirements were often seen as burdensome and disproportionate to the level of funding received.
• Uncertainty: In the early stages, there was significant uncertainty reported about exactly what data and evidence were required, due to changes in official guidance from central government.^{[footnote 5]} This was overcome by LLAs creating their own templates based on previous experience (e.g. from ESIF), which risked inconsistency in data collection and reporting, potentially creating more administrative burden when collating data for MHCLG returns.

What Worked Well:

• A collaborative and supportive approach from the LLA’s UKSPF team. Regular meetings and a problem-solving attitude were highly valued by delivery partners across LLAs.
• The process was generally seen as less rigid and bureaucratic than previous EU funding streams.

What Worked Less Well:

• The inability of the quantitative metrics to capture the social value and nuance of the interventions.
• The administrative burden, especially for smaller organisations.
• The initial confusion and minor changes to indicator definitions from central government^{[footnote 6]}.

2.4.2 Reporting data to central government

Reporting was generally considered proportionate and not overly burdensome by most LLAs. However, many LLAs reported difficult experiences early on in the programme. Research synthesised for this report highlighted several common criticisms regarding reporting data to central government. Initial guidance was perceived by interviewees across most case study places to be late, unclear, and subject to change. Some LLAs reported that some key definitions for outputs and outcomes were not finalised until a year into the programme, after contracts with providers had already been signed.^{[footnote 7]} This made it difficult, or not possible, to meet a small number of those targets which were linked to the updated outputs and outcomes.

There were differences between the data required for MHCLG and the additional types of data collected by LLAs.

• MHCLG data: Focused on a standardised set of quantitative outputs (e.g., number of businesses supported, number of people engaged).
• Local authority data: In addition to collecting the required MHCLG data, LLAs also gathered a wider range of qualitative evidence to understand the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind the numbers. This included locally commissioned case studies, evaluations, testimonials, and feedback surveys that captured the wider, qualitative impact of the projects, which sought to provide further insight than the official reporting. This was found to be useful in making the case for project impact beyond the broad quantitative measures.

The following data sharing processes and challenges were identified:

• Process: The process involved the lead UKSPF officer in each LLA collating the data from all their delivery partners and manually inputting it into the central government’s online reporting portal (the “PowerApp”). This app was changed and updated to improve reporting during the programme.
• Resources: Reporting data was considered a significant administrative task. Smaller LLAs reported that the 4% management and administration fee was insufficient to cover the staff time required for this collation, quality assurance, and data entry. Some LLAs reported needing to subsidise this activity from core budgets, however, UKSPF guidance set out that all LLAs could look to allocate additional budget from their allocation in the investment plans to support management and administration^{[footnote 8]}.

What Worked Well:

• The process was seen by most LLAs as a necessary administrative requirement. Reporting was considered as proportionate and not overly burdensome by most LLAs.

What Worked Less Well:

• Initial guidance was perceived as unclear, delayed, and inconsistent.
• The focus on quantitative metrics was overly emphasised and failed to capture wider impact.
• The initial data submission portal was perceived as not being user-friendly and lacking basic functionality (though this was later improved by MHCLG).
• Geographically larger lead LLAs, including combined authorities, found reporting more challenging as monitoring data requested by MHCLG needed to be collated from the multiple partner LLAs, due to the devolved nature of their delivery model.

3. Next steps

This report has synthesised evidence from the interim, process evaluation for the UKSPF place-level evaluation. Learning from this evidence has already been built into the development of future MHCLG policy programmes, for example simplifying output and outcome indicators for the 2025-26 extension year.

Following submission of final place-level case study reports, the central Ipsos evaluation team will produce a further synthesis report to analyse key findings and insights from the impact and economic evaluations.

A systematic approach will be adopted in synthesising the case study evidence to identify broader insights into what works in different contexts. The results of each case study will be coded to provide summary analysis in relation to:

• the success of the local programme in delivering against UKSPF objectives;
• the success of the programme in delivering against local aims (e.g. capability of the LLA in bringing forward economic development programmes).

Geographic and socio-demographic characteristics of the place and key features of the delivery model will also be defined for use in the analysis.

This will be used to support Qualitative Comparative Analysis to identify key ‘causal conditions’ associated with success. The overarching evaluation framework will be used to structure analysis and systematic coding of case study research.

---

1. ESIF refences include both European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund ↩

2. Referred to as CIOS from this point on ↩

3. This came at a financial cost to Edinburgh Council. Comparison of different governance models and the impact on outcomes will be explored in a future report. ↩

4. As described above, there could have been additional admin funding allocated through initial investment planning. ↩

5. Outputs and outcomes for UKSPF were published in April 2022, but were refined in March 2023 – see footnote 7. ↩

6. Subsequent guidance and support from MHCLG, working with LLAs improved data collection. ↩

7. While outputs and outcomes for UKSPF were published in April 2022, refinement and changes in March 2023 led to: 2 unit of measurement changes, 4 discontinued measures and 8 measures changed from percentage increase to absolute increase. There was also some confusion reported about differences in output and outcome measures between different UK nations – some England LLAs believed they could report on measures that were not actually available to them. ↩

8. UK Shared Prosperity Fund: prospectus – Section 4.5: Supporting lead local authorities to deliver UK Shared Prosperity Fund place-level evaluation. ↩