Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Community Renewal Fund 2021/22: questions and answers

Published 13 December 2023

1. Introduction

1. The Community Renewal Fund was launched in March 2021 to provide £220 million of additional funding to help local areas move smoothly away from the EU structural funds programme and prepare over 2021-22 for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF). The fund contributed to the levelling up agenda by investing in skills, local businesses, communities and place, and supporting people into employment across the UK.

2. The CRF bidding round was open from 3 March 2021 to 18 June 2021. The role of the lead authority in Great Britain was to invite bids from a range of project applicants, and then to appraise and prioritise projects. Following the appraisal and prioritisation exercise lead authorities submitted a shortlist to DLUHC. DLUHC then selected projects based on the published assessment criteria.

3. In Great Britain submissions were received from 110 lead authorities totalling 993 bids; 83 bids were submitted from organisations in Northern Ireland. In total 1,073 bids were received. A total of 477 successful bids (totalling £203.1 million) were announced on 3 November 2021.

4. Ministers approved a 6-month extension to fund activity, from 30 June 2022 until December 2022, due to the impact of COVID-19 on delivery organisations. The CRF ceased all activity on 31 December 2022 with final claims paid by the end of March 2023.

2. CRF achievements

5. The programme spent £186 million (93 per cent) of the £199 million contracted across 466 projects. This is a great achievement for a revenue-based programme, especially when delivering to a short delivery timescale (about 12 months) and with a range of external factors impacting delivery. This was a new way of working between DLUHC and places.

6. The programme supported the following output achievements:

• more than 390,000 individuals
• over 50,000 businesses
• more than 23,000 organisations.

7. Overall, the programme met (or achieved over 95 per cent of) outcome targets. Due to the limited timescales for CRF project evaluation, some outcomes and impacts will continue to accrue post completion of the evaluation. In many cases, programme performance was affected by the ongoing impact of COVID-19 with respect to national regulations, as well as impacts on business and individual behaviours.

3. Programme evaluation

8. The CRF prospectus set out UK Government would undertake a national evaluation to include: a comprehensive process evaluation to understand how efficient the delivery structures and business processes are including the impact of capacity funding; and consider both the impact of funding on place and investment themes.

9. Contractors Wavehill Ltd were appointed in December 2022 to produce the evaluation report in line with an Evaluation Frameworks agreed by the DLUHC Research Gateway.

10. The findings from the CRF programme evaluation highlight a range of lessons that can be applied to the design and delivery of future national programmes to support local growth. These have been shared with colleagues in the Department working on the UKSPF and with the Department for Work and Pensions as CRF is a joint programme.

4. Questions and answers

4.1 Q1 – Have you published the whole report?

A1 – Yes. The department’s policy states any research that it is commissioned externally should be published. In conducting the evaluation study, consultants Wavehill consulted with 101 Lead Authorities through feedback surveys, interviews, and completion of project evaluation reports.

The Executive Summary is in accessible format, with the main report and Annexes in PDF format due to their length and the level of detail covered.

The main evaluation report and Annexes provide DLUHC and our stakeholders (Lead Authorities and delivery organisations) with a level of detail for analysis of local growth delivery. The CRF evaluation can help inform UKSPF delivery through transferable learning or opportunity to scale up for local partners.

This approach provides greater transparency in the evidence being used to inform DLUHC decisions; develops understanding of different types of intervention; stimulates innovation and collaboration between UK Government, lead authorities and delivery organisations.

4.2 Q2 - Why was no robust impact evaluation undertaken?

A2 - A robust impact evaluation was not deemed feasible or proportionate for the CRF programme due to the short-term nature of the scheme, the devolved evaluation approach, the diverse range of investment and beneficiary types and the devolved nature of the evaluation to analyse whether outcomes could be directly attributed to the intervention.

4.3 Q3 - The total CRF allocation was £220 million however, you announced successful bids totalling £203.1 million and contracted £199 million?

A3 – The £220 million fund breakdown included £14 million for capacity funding to help local areas prepare for UKSPF. Due to delays in announcing UKSPF this £3 million capacity funding was not funded from the CRF allocation. We announced £203.1 million supporting 477 projects, however due to the delays in announcing successful bids 11 successful projects subsequently withdrew, totalling £4.1 million. We provided total £2 million capacity funding to the 100 priority places (£20,000 each) to help them invite bids locally and appraise these bids. Gibraltar was also awarded £500,000 of investment from the CRF.

4.4 Q4. How have the lessons learned from CRF been applied to the UKSPF?

A4 – Throughout the life of the fund we have continuously identified and applied the lessons learned for the development and roll-out of the UKSPF. Further, the CRF evaluation should help inform UKSPF delivery through transferable learning or opportunity to scale up for local partners.

Through CRF delivery:

• 53% of Lead Authorities reported that their structures and processes had been refined and improved ahead of the delivery of UKSPF.
• 53% of Lead Authorities identified that the CRF projects had helped their understanding of local needs and challenges.
• 54% of Lead Authorities advised the CRF provided learning to inform their UKSPF investment plans.