Guidance

UKSPF: evaluation strategy

Updated 16 October 2024

This strategy sets out further detail on evaluation plans for the UKSPF, alongside the updated additional information which contains associated guidance for local partners on how to participate in the UKSPF evaluation. Further support for Lead Local Authorities (LLAs) will be provided through a series of webinars in spring 2023, and for NI delivery partners through the NI partnership group.

Introduction and context

Purpose of the UKSPF

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) is a central pillar of the UK Government’s ambitious Levelling Up agenda and a significant component of its support for places across the UK. It provides £2.6 billion of new funding for local investment by March 2025 with the primary goal to build pride in place and increase life chances across the UK. Underlying this goal are three investment priorities:

• communities and place: investment in activities that enhance physical, cultural and social ties and access to amenities, such as community infrastructure, local green space, and innovative approaches to crime prevention.
• supporting local business: investment in business support and entrepreneurship programmes, local retail, hospitality and leisure facilities, and productivity-enhancing, energy efficient and low carbon technologies in collaboration with the private sector.
• people and skills: investment in measures to enable adults to join and progress within the labour market, boosting their core skills through support for qualifications, training and to overcome barriers to work.

The UKSPF prospectus sets out further detail on these investment priorities and their links to Levelling Up White Paper objectives.

The Fund’s interventions will be planned and delivered by lead local authorities (LLAs); comprising councils and mayoral authorities in England, councils and a regional grouping in Scotland, and four regional groupings in Wales. In Northern Ireland (NI), the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) is delivering the UKSPF - working with local partners including local authorities (LAs), the private and third sectors, and Northern Ireland Executive departments - to deliver interventions that best reflect the specific needs of Northern Ireland’s economy and society.

UKSPF funding includes additional targeted programmes:

• Multiply, a 3-year, UK-wide skills initiative worth up to £559 million aimed at increasing the level of functional numeracy in the adult population across the UK, to improve labour market outcomes and close skill gaps. Multiply’s evaluation will be delivered by the Department for Education (DfE) as distinct from the wider UKSPF evaluation delivered by DLUHC. Further details on Multiply’s investment priorities and delivery model can be found in the Multiply prospectus.
• the Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF), a £110 million top-up to the mainstream UKSPF providing support for rural businesses to diversify their income streams and strengthen local economies, alongside funding for rural-specific community and civic infrastructure in England. The REPF is a rural top-up to the UKSPF, and its objectives sit within the UKSPF’s communities and place and supporting local business investment priorities. REPF evaluation will be funded and designed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as an add-on to the place-based case studies portion of the core UKSPF evaluation, as well as factoring into intervention and programme-level evaluation where appropriate

Purpose of this strategy

The UKSPF evaluation aims to:

• evaluate impact and process, through understanding what the UKSPF has delivered; whether it has successfully achieved its own policy objectives and contributed to wider Levelling Up goals; how effectively it has been implemented in places (including whether this varies across and within different nations) and whether it has constituted good value for money
• build the evidence base on ‘what works’ for pride in place and life chances across the UK; developing DLUHC’s understanding of how success in these areas can be measured; and using this insight to inform future local growth programme design at both the programme and place level
• provide accountability that DLUHC has delivered funding in the most effective way to support realisation of the UKSPF’s outcomes

This document builds on the ‘evaluation’ section of the UKSPF additional information (for England, Scotland and Wales) and the NI additional information , providing further detail on:

• evaluation strategy: the aspects of the programme that are being evaluated, and why; the methods and data sources that will be used to enable evaluation; how the different components of the evaluation will work together to build a holistic picture of the UKSPF’s delivery and impact at the intervention, place and programme level.
• evaluation delivery: how the strategy will be implemented by DLUHC; what outputs will be produced; how LLAs should expect to support evaluation activity; what timelines the different components of the evaluation will operate to.

The additional information has been updated alongside the publication of this strategy to include further guidance to LLAs on how they should expect to be in involved in each of the evaluation components.

The delivery of UKSPF is carried out in devolved areas across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. For this reason, the approach to evaluation may need to be adapted to the specific context and delivery needs across Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Summary of evaluation approach

Core UKSPF and Multiply evaluation

Alongside the UKSPF prospectus DLUHC published a menu of Intervention Types for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the three investment priorities, with additional Multiply Intervention Types in SWNI. Wherever possible, the evaluation activity set out in this strategy will be consistent across all parts of the UK; however, in some cases a different approach may be necessary across nations in line with equivalent variance in the wider UKSPF delivery model (e.g. in the case of Multiply).

The UKSPF is a flexible fund that allows places to design and implement packages of interventions that best suit their particular local needs, as set out in the investment plans prepared by each LLA (or developed with local partners for Northern Ireland) and signed off by DLUHC.

This broad scope, combined with DLUHC’s multi-level, multi-component evaluation plan (as set out later in this section) means that constructing a single programme-level theory of change is impractical. Rather, LLAs and local partners will work together with DLUHC to construct theories of change on a per-intervention/per-place basis to fit the specific aims of each evaluation component.

Figure 1 below sets out a high-level logic model for the UKSPF, including the 7 Levelling Up White Paper missions it supports.

Figure 1: high-level UKSPF logic model

Plain text version

Figure 1 sets out the high level logic model for the UKSPF as a whole, illustrating the step-by-step process of how the Fund’s central and local inputs will support UKSPF interventions to generate outputs, outcomes and finally impacts.

Inputs include the £2.6 billion UKSPF funding itself, alongside guidance and support for places to spend it effectively. Place level inputs include local delivery capability, other funding streams, and places’ wider socioeconomic contexts.

These inputs will support various of the 41+ UKSPF Intervention Types across the UK, leading to outputs (e.g. places receiving funding to deliver projects) and then impacts (e.g. increases in local pride in place, higher levels of civic engagement, increased satisfaction with access to services and opportunities). The chart then illustrates the Levelling Up White Paper missions that the UKSPF impacts will support – 1,2,6,7,8,9 and 11.

As the UKSPF is a centrally designed fund with delegated delivery, evaluation activity will take place across three spatial tiers: programme level (focusing on the UKSPF as a whole), place level (focusing on the UKSPF within individual LLAs and in Northern Ireland as a whole) and intervention level (focusing on specific Intervention Types across a range of places).

Across these three tiers the evaluation will aim to ascertain:

• programme level: what is the overall impact of the UKSPF on pride in place, life chances and the other Levelling Up missions? How effectively was the Fund delivered as a whole?
• place level: how was the Fund delivered across different types of place and across different parts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? How did the Fund interact with other local growth funds and local interventions within these places? How effectively was the Fund delivered within places?
• intervention level: what was the impact of specific projects and Intervention Types? How did this compare to their original aims? How effectively were interventions delivered and did they achieve good value for money? Did this vary across different Intervention Types?

Table 1: UKSPF evaluation components by spatial tier

Spatial tier	Component	Aims
Intervention	Intervention level evaluation	To assess the impacts of 10-15 specific interventions across the UKSPF’s three investment priorities, and how well they have been delivered at the place level, using a quasi-experimental approach with treatment and control groups
Intervention	Randomized controlled trials	To gain a deeper understanding of the impacts of the subset of interventions that are appropriate for RCTs, above and beyond that made possible by the quasi-experimental approach of the wider intervention impact evaluations
Place	Place level case studies	To develop a detailed understanding of the UKSPF’s effectiveness across different types of place, considering their unique local characteristics and challenges, and focusing on interactions between stakeholders, local decision making, process efficiency and interactions with other local growth funds
Programme	Programme level impact evaluation	To assess the impact and value for money of the UKSPF overall, initially by trialling a regression-based approach to attempt to isolate the effects of the UKSPF from other local growth funds, places’ baseline economic contexts and wider confounding factors
Programme	Multiply evaluation	To assess the impact and value for money of Multiply, how effectively it has been delivered by places and the UK government, and to build the evidence base regarding best practice in delivery of local adult skills interventions

Across the five evaluation components in Table 1 DLUHC will carry out multiple types of evaluation:

• process evaluation: to understand how the UKSPF has been implemented in practice by places, and the aspects of its design that have helped or hindered said implementation.
• impact evaluation: to understand the extent to which economic, social and environmental outcomes relating to pride in place and life chances have changed as a result of the UKSPF – for both the Fund as a whole, as well as with respect to specific Intervention Types and places.
• value for money (VfM) evaluation: to understand, where impact has been evaluated, how the value of the impact achieved compares to its cost according to the Green Book principles of economy, effectiveness, and efficiency.

Figure 2 illustrates non-exhaustively the data types and data sources that will feed into the components in Table 1, and subsequently how these components will collectively build DLUHC’s understanding of what works at the intervention, place and programme level.

Figure 2: Summary of evaluation inputs and outputs

Plain text version

Figure 2 illustrates the different data types and data sources that will support the UKSPF evaluation, the components of the evaluation described in Table 1, and how each of these components feed into the evaluation’s core aims of understanding what works for intervention design, local process and delivery, and programme design.

Data sources shown in the chart include:

• monitoring data from projects
• data collected by evaluation contractors directly
• administrative data
• information about UKSPF beneficiaries
• survey data

Rural England Prosperity Fund evaluation

As the Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) is a rural top-up to the main UKSPF programme for eligible English LLAs, it will be evaluated as part of the core UKSPF programme of evaluation, rather than as a discrete component as for Multiply.

Defra and DLUHC will evaluate REPF through a number of additional rural-specific add-ons to the place-based case study components, to be funded by Defra. Further detail can be found in the place-based case studies section of this strategy. Evaluation of REPF will focus on process and delivery, with the aim of understanding how the REPF has been implemented and whether its delivery model could be improved to obtain better outcomes in future iterations.

In some cases, it is expected that places with a REPF and a UKSPF allocation may fund projects using a combination of both. This will be taken into account as part of the intervention level evaluation and place-based case studies where evident.

Evaluation outputs

For each of the components in Table 1 DLUHC will at minimum publish a comprehensive report following conclusion of the evaluation setting out lessons learned, evidence and recommendations applicable to the wider local growth space. The scope and scale of these reports (including plans to publish additional documents) will vary across the different components, and further detail can be found in the specific sections dedicated to each.

In addition to the main reports, LLAs and relevant Northern Ireland partners participating in the evaluation may also receive access to additional interim data and analysis ahead of wider publication. DLUHC will look to supplement any written reports with interactive data visualization tools and output dashboards where useful to allow for meaningful engagement by stakeholders with the evaluation’s underlying data and analysis.

The multi-strand nature of the UKSPF evaluation means that further feasibility and design work throughout 2023 will be necessary to develop the theoretical underpinnings of each evaluation component past the high-level logic model shown in Figure 1. DLUHC will publish an addendum to this strategy following the conclusion of each component’s feasibility phase, setting out further detail on:

• problem analyses, associated theories of change and outcomes of interest for specific Intervention Types and case study areas
• the methods and data sources that will be used for each evaluation component, including assessments of data availability
• any barriers to evaluation that have emerged through the feasibility stage, and how the evaluation has been adapted to address them; or, in cases where any aspects of the evaluation are not judged to be worth pursuing, the rationale for dropping them

Implications for lead local authorities

Lead local authority participation in evaluation activity

Participation in evaluation activity is not compulsory for LLAs to receive funding. However, as set out in the prospectus, LLAs are expected to assist DLUHC where necessary with the local level aspects of the UKSPF evaluation, drawing on the 4% or more of UKSPF allocations set aside for fund administration. This especially applies to places with larger (>£60 million) total allocations.

DLUHC believe that the benefits of the evaluation for both participant LLAs/local partners and for wider growth funding and levelling up policy will be substantial, through the gathering of evidence that will help both central and local government to deliver effective, well-targeted and high VfM interventions in the future.

The higher the overall level of LLA participation the greater these benefits will be for all LLAs in terms of the breadth and depth of evidence gathered and its ability to offer inform future local growth funding models. In addition, LLAs participating in the evaluation may receive access to additional tools and insights in return, such as additional place specific datasets and survey tools, and early access to interim findings reports.

The evaluation also represents a valuable opportunity for places to have their investment plans, interventions and local delivery structures assessed to a high standard without the need to set aside large amounts of funding and resource.

DLUHC recognises that some LLAs/local partners may struggle with the resource demands of evaluation participation, and in these cases DLUHC will work to make sure any burdens are manageable to allow as many LLAs as possible to participate.

The UKSPF evaluation is not intended as a means to hold LLAs to account for their selection or delivery of interventions funded using UKSPF allocations. It is intended to develop a UK-wide understanding of what works, in what context, and by what means in support of delivering Levelling Up outcomes, as well as what doesn’t work. The lessons learned from both successful and unsuccessful interventions will be an invaluable resource for both local and national government in the development of future local growth funding policy. LLAs will not be penalised or otherwise disadvantaged by the outcome of any part of the UKSPF evaluation.

Not all LLAs will be asked to participate in all components of the evaluation, and some may be asked to participate in multiple components depending on their institutional type, allocation size and chosen interventions. LLAs (and in NI, selected LAs and local delivery partners) participating in each evaluation component will be contacted later in 2023 to confirm their involvement.

DLUHC will coordinate the evaluation using contractors to help carry out fieldwork and analysis as appropriate, while retaining overall responsibility for design and delivery. DLUHC will work closely with contractors, LLAs and grant recipients (where relevant) throughout the design and delivery phases of the evaluation to minimise burdens, maintain clear and regular communication between all parties, and make sure progress is in line with the evaluation’s core aims.

This co-designing approach means that many of the specific details of how each evaluation component will be implemented – including the precise data sources and evaluation methods employed – will be finalised in the coming months as part of each component’s feasibility stage. LLA views will be sought at this stage where possible to make sure that the final evaluation approach is proportionate and deliverable.

Places invited to participate in evaluation will be informed ahead of time and DLUHC will clearly communicate participation requirements in terms of data collection and assisting with fieldwork at the point of invitation. DLUHC will not ask LLAs to gather data in advance of the evaluation but would ask that any information gathered proactively is shared with DLUHC to support the evaluation.

The distinct roles and responsibilities of NI partners are reflected in the UKSPF’s NI delivery model; DLUHC will manage delivery and has designed a single-Northern Ireland level investment plan in collaboration with a range of local partners (including LAs), which will deliver at a range of spatial scales.

Unless explicitly stated in this strategy this will not affect the scope of aims of the UKSPF evaluation in Northern Ireland. While LAs in Northern Ireland will not be expected to have the same level of involvement in UKSPF evaluation as LLAs in England, Scotland and Wales, LAs, key partners and grant recipients will still be expected to take part in certain aspects of the evaluation in terms of refinement of evaluation design at the feasibility stage, helping to identify of beneficiaries, and providing feedback and views on the delivery and impacts of the UKSPF in Northern Ireland to support, for example, the Northern Ireland place based case studies.

The ‘evaluation’ section of the UKSPF additional information has been updated with additional guidance for local areas covering each component, to complement this strategy.

Monitoring and reporting

The UKSPF is designed to empower every place across the UK to take the lead in design and delivery of interventions, with an emphasis on light-touch oversight and local autonomy. As per the prospectus, DLUHC will require formal reporting from LLAs (and grant recipients in Northern Ireland) on a six-monthly basis alongside briefer qualitative updates on a quarterly cycle. Both sets of updates will be delivered through a single template and process. Further details can be found in relevant sections of the UKSPF additional information.

All LLAs will be required to supply this reporting data to support UKSPF programme monitoring activity, regardless of whether they are participating in the evaluation. To minimise additional burdens, DLUHC will also draw on this same reporting data to support multiple evaluation components, including the intervention, place and programme level impact assessments.

To capture local intelligence on how the UKSPF is being implemented and achieving its desired results, LLAs in England, Scotland and Wales are encouraged, but not required, to conduct light-touch reflective “lessons learned” exercises rather than full local evaluations. These exercises will ensure LLAs are deploying proportionate capacity and capability towards building local intelligence. Proposed methods could include measuring outputs, contribution analysis, developing case studies, or conducting surveys and interviews with stakeholders and beneficiaries. As set out in the additional information DLUHC has asked to be informed when this is taking place through routine reporting.

Evaluation components

Intervention level evaluation

LLAs have flexibility within UKSPF’s three investment priorities (supporting local business, communities and place, people and skills) to invest across a range of Intervention Types, considering local challenges and opportunities. Menus of options listing potential Intervention Types for each nation together with associated outputs and outcomes have been published alongside the UKSPF prospectus, although LLAs are able to propose bespoke additions to those listed.

As part of their investment plans, LLAs are required to identify from this list the outcomes they wish to target and Intervention Types they wish to prioritise, alongside any additional bespoke place-specific Intervention Types LLAs opt to design themselves. One project can support multiple Intervention Types, and one Intervention Type can be supported by multiple projects. Projects can be delivered by LLAs themselves or by a local organisation or partner (e.g., a charity, local community group or contractor).

Similarly, DLUHC have published an investment plan developed with local partners to set out the Intervention Types that will be supported by the UKSPF in Northern Ireland.

Aims

The intervention level component of the UKSPF evaluation will combine impact, process and VfM evaluation – with an emphasis on the former - and aim to understand the extent to which individual UKSPF interventions have affected pride in place and life chances at the local level. This will in turn show DLUHC and places what works and what doesn’t within the UKSPF policy space, and support places to efficiently target their local growth spend over the longer-term.

This component of the evaluation will use a mix of quasi-experimental, survey and interview-based methods to:

• build an evidence base around the most effective UKSPF interventions across different types of place
• understand how to design and deliver these interventions in a way that achieves maximum impact and value for money, building an evidence base that places and UKG will be able to draw on when designing and delivering future local growth programmes

Structure

The intervention level evaluation will be split into two core phases – feasibility and main.

The feasibility phase will involve identifying from the published UKSPF Intervention Types 10-15 as priorities for evaluation, prioritising those where the wider evidence base is weakest, expenditure highest, and that are suitable for robust causal impact evaluation. DLUHC and contractors will then work with LLAs and (local partners in NI) to develop theories of change and evaluation methods for each priority Intervention Type.

DLUHC have pre-prioritised 21 Intervention Types (detailed in an annex to this strategy) based on an initial assessment of their suitability for evaluation. It is expected that the final shortlist for evaluation will be drawn from this group, though this will be subject to a more detailed analysis of places’ investment plans and the extent to which they have included bespoke interventions that may be suitable for evaluation.

The evaluation design draws a distinction here between Intervention Types, Study Groups and projects. Intervention Types are pre-determined and are intended to allow for a broad range of projects which are more specific and represent the reality of what places will spend their UKSPF allocations on. For example, Intervention Type S3 (‘improvements to green spaces’) could encompass projects such as a new park, or tree planting in a specific area.

To allow for theories of change to be developed that are sufficiently specific to be meaningful, the intervention level evaluation will operate across two groupings:

• Intervention Type, when the Intervention Type in question is sufficiently specific
• where the Intervention Type is too broad, Study Groups, made up of collections of similar projects within a given Intervention Type

This can be illustrated using two examples:

• Example A: Intervention Type E5 - Design and management of the built and landscaped environment to ‘design out crime’. This Intervention Type is relatively specific, with a narrower associated set of projects. Hence, evaluation would take place at the higher level of Intervention Type.
• Example B: Intervention Type E30 - Business support measures to drive employment growth, particularly in areas of higher unemployment. This Intervention Type is broader, less specific and could theoretically support a wide variety of projects. Here, evaluation would take place at the Study Group level, based on manually grouping the most similar projects within Intervention Type E30.

Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between Intervention Types, Study Groups and projects in the context of examples A and B above.

Figure 3: hierarchy of Intervention Type vs Study Group vs project

Plain text version

Figure 3 illustrates visually the examples A and B described above and the associated hierarchy of Intervention Types, Study Groups and projects. The diagram flows as follows from top to bottom:

• a single box is labelled ‘41+ Intervention Types’ with a separate label indicating that example A is evaluated at Intervention Type level
• on the next row, three boxes are labelled ‘100+ Study Groups’, with a separate label indicating that example B is evaluated at Study Group level
• on the third row, many boxes are labelled ‘500+ projects’. The increasing number of boxes on each row serves as a visual indicator of the increasing levels of specificity when moving down the hierarchy of Intervention -> Study Group -> project

Eligible UKSPF Intervention Types range from revenue-focused, individual-level business support and skills courses to capital-focused, area-level infrastructure and public realm improvements. This will be accounted for when selecting the final shortlist of Intervention Types, and when constructing the associated treatment and control groups of places for each. Some Intervention Types may feature a mix of core UKSPF and REPF funding; in these cases the overall impact of the Intervention Type will be evaluated rather than the individual UKSPF and REPF components.

Inclusion on the final shortlist of Intervention Types will also be subject to a sufficient number of places including them in investment plans. Proposals at the feasibility stage will be tested with LLAs and Northern Ireland partners (through the NI partnership group) to allow for their input and to identify and mitigate potential delivery risks.

The main phase will comprise delivery of a three-pronged evaluation (impact, process and value for money) of the 10-15 Intervention Types and/or Study Groups identified at the feasibility stage, throughout which DLUHC will work closely with participating LLAs to understand details of the projects grouped within each and to access and collect information and data.

DLUHC will consider place characteristics as part of the intervention level evaluation to better understand whether interventions are more or less impactful in different types of place – for example, between urban and rural areas (particularly in the case of projects part-funded by REPF) or between different types of local institution.

The impacts of UKSPF interventions are expected to be felt over the medium to long term (5-10 years based on scoping work for the LUF impact evaluation), beyond the initial December 2025 main phase end date, and as such DLUHC may decide to extend the intervention-level impact evaluation to better capture said impacts. A decision on this will be taken in due course.

Methodology and data collection

The precise methodology for the intervention level evaluation will be co-developed with LLAs and Northern Ireland local partners as part of the feasibility stage. Broadly, DLUHC plans to take a mixed approach, using a combination of:

• quasi experimental designs: using curated treatment and control groups to measure the effects of matched groups of places, businesses or individuals (depending on the Intervention Type) receiving a particular intervention with those not receiving it. This approach will complement the randomised controlled trial-based part of the evaluation, allowing for assessment of a broader range of Intervention Types without having to randomly allocate places to treatment and control groups
• stakeholder research: carrying out bespoke surveys, focus groups and interviews with intervention participants, beneficiaries, and local delivery stakeholders, to understand their experience of the interventions themselves as well as the efficacy of their delivery
• contextual analysis: using local administrative demographic and socio-economic data to understand the specific local challenges facing different LLAs, and how these may affect the delivery and impact of their chosen Intervention Types

For the quasi-experimental portion of the evaluation, treatment groups will be built using a mixture of grouping methods depending on the number and type of places planning to deliver the intervention in question and to support a range of analytical perspectives, including:

• pooled approaches: grouping places based on delivering the same project within a particular Intervention Type with comparable scope (including differentiation between institution types – for example, mayoral vs non-mayoral areas) and level of spend, delivering over comparable timelines.
• staggered approaches: grouping places based on delivering the same project within a particular Intervention Type with comparable scope and level of spend but that are delivering over different timescales (for example, in 2023-34 vs 2024-25).
• different-treatment approaches: grouping places based on delivering similar projects within an Intervention Type, but with different intended treatment effects (for example, within Intervention Type E3 – improvements to green spaces - one project might focus on planting trees, while another might focus on fostering community involvement in delivering said tree planting).

The precise data sources used to support the above methods will vary by Intervention Type. As well as contractor-led primary data collection, examples of data sources DLUHC expect to draw on include, but are not limited to:

• Monitoring data collected through wider UKSPF reporting procedures (including information on the Intervention Types each place is targeting, quantum of spend toward each project, and progress toward agreed outputs and outcomes)
• Survey data measuring pride in place and life chances, alongside associated national level surveys such as DCMS’ Community Life Survey.
• Administrative data held centrally, such as socioeconomic indicators and travel, labour market and crime statistic from the Office for National Statistics (ONS)
• Data identifying individuals and businesses who are taking part in or would otherwise benefit from UKSPF interventions. For a people and skills-type intervention (like a training course) this could include details of those attending. For an area-based or capital intervention (like a new park) this could include details of those in the park’s catchment area who might be expected to utilize it.

DLUHC will carry out data matching with information held by other government departments to support the intervention level evaluation. Details of UKSPF intervention beneficiaries (e.g., individuals and businesses) will be matched with DWP and HMRC-held tax-base and welfare datasets. This will allow tracking of the labour market progress of beneficiaries over intervention timescales and beyond at a granular level. DLUHC will notify participating LLAs of the additional personal data to be collected to enable the matching exercise, in line with GDPR guidelines.

Outputs

Key outputs will include, for each of the 10-15 evaluated Intervention Types:

• Process: a detailed summary report for each Intervention Type drawing out key specific findings, alongside an overarching process evaluation report setting out generalisable findings and recommendations, with summaries for each Intervention Type.
• Impact: a detailed summary report for each Intervention Type drawing out key specific findings, alongside an overarching impact evaluation report setting out generalisable findings and recommendations, with summaries for each Intervention Type.
• Value for money: short reports on the VfM assessment of each Intervention Type alongside a high-level overall summary.

Timeline

Note: The below timeline is indicative subject to procurement outcomes and further design work at the feasibility stage.

Milestone	Expected timeframe
Contractor appointed	February/March 2023
Feasibility phase begins	Spring 2023
Feasibility phase report submitted to DLUHC	End Spring 2023
Main phase begins	Summer 2023 - Summer 2025
Interim impact evaluation report submitted to DLUHC	Spring 2024
Final impact, process and value for money evaluation reports published	Summer - Autumn 2025
Possible longer-term extension	Autumn 2025 onward

Randomised controlled trials

Guidance and an associated expression of interest form for places interested in submitting proposals for randomised controlled trials has been published alongside this strategy. Interested places should submit their completed forms by 10 May 2023.

The randomised controlled trials (RCT) element of the UKSPF evaluation will assess the impact of the UKSPF at the level of individual projects in specific places. The RCTs will complement the wider intervention level impact evaluation by:

• operating at the more granular level of individual projects in specific LLAs, rather than looking at broader Intervention Types or Study Groups of similar projects across multiple LLAs
• using a fully experimental approach to measuring impact, with random allocation of treatment and control groups. This is not possible for the wider intervention level evaluation as most UKSPF projects are inherently unsuitable for a random allocation-type approach.

RCTs are regarded as the most robust form of policy evaluation. By randomly allocating sizeable groups of participants into a treatment group and control group it is possible to account more easily for the effects of other factors influencing outcomes of interest, and more precisely identify the causal effects of the project in question.

A random allocation approach is not suitable for all UKSPF projects. Partly, this is because some Intervention Types and projects do not neatly fit into an RCT design. For example, it is not clear how projects which focus on physical and infrastructure-type interventions can practically be randomly allocated across treatment and control groups, and their outcomes compared.

By contrast, UKSPF projects under the people and skills and supporting local business investment priorities more naturally facilitate an RCT-style approach because it is easier to delineate between participation and non-participation, and so to randomly allocate that participation as part of delivering the intervention itself. For example, it is reasonable to expect that several interventions offering skills training or business support programmes may be oversubscribed, allowing for the participation to be randomised and therefore the establishment of natural treatment and control groups.

Aims

The RCTs will aim to:

• build the evidence base on ‘what works’ for local interventions for pride in place, life chances and local growth in the most methodologically robust way possible
• help DLUHC, local authorities and other stakeholders to better understand how to best spend future funds and design local interventions to achieve maximum positive impact
• support LLAs in developing their local evidence base and evaluation capacity, alongside providing a DLUHC-funded opportunity to demonstrate the impact of their projects

Structure

LLAs will be invited to identify and submit UKSPF-funded projects for consideration as potential RCTs, with DLUHC aiming to support up to 10 trials in total across the UK – subject to the number and size of viable proposals submitted. This ‘bottom up’ approach of inviting proposal submissions from the local level will help make sure that only those projects that are a priori suitable for an RCT-based approach (that is, they allow for random allocation of participants) are selected. DLUHC and the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (WWG) will host webinars and optional surgeries during the call for proposals phase to guide places through the process of working up an RCT proposal and address feasibility questions.

Following the selection process the projects themselves will be delivered by the selected LLAs and delivery partners, as for any other UKSPF project. The RCTs will be led by DLUHC, working closely with the LLAs and their partners throughout. LLAs (or the relevant delivery agent in Northern Ireland) will fund the projects that are the RCT subjects through their allocations, with the RCTs themselves and associated fieldwork and trial evaluation funded separately by DLUHC. Alongside this, DLUHC are considering options with regards to the wider financial support offer for RCT participant places, further details on which will be set out alongside the launch of the call for proposals in spring 2023.

Methodology and data collection

Evaluation methods will vary for each trial depending on the specifics of the project itself and the LLA delivering it. Trial protocols will be published for each RCT setting out RCT designs and analysis plans following the call for proposals and selection phase.

The random allocation of participants to intervention and control groups is imperative for all RCTs – this will be carefully managed as part of trial design. Further, it is vital that the trials are sufficiently statistically powered for meaningful effect sizes to be detected. As such, DLUHC will strive where possible to achieve sample sizes in intervention groups which enable measurement of effect sizes at the 5% level.

Data sources used will vary for each trial – while there will be some use of existing outcome and impact data, and there will be some overlap with information gathered for other components (particularly the intervention level impact evaluation) DLUHC anticipates a requirement for some new data collection given the project-level nature of the RCTs and the need for random allocation. The nature of this additional data will vary across individual RCTs depending on the project being evaluated and will be collected directly by evaluators rather than by LLAs as much as possible.

Outputs

Key outputs will include:

• published trial protocols for each RCT, setting out the methods to be used
• summary final reports for each RCT, setting out impacts and methods

Timeline

Note: The below timeline is indicative subject to procurement outcomes and further design work at the feasibility stage.

Milestone	Expected timeframe
DLUHC call for RCT ideas opens	Spring 2023
RCT evaluation contractor appointed	Spring 2023
Evaluation contractor works with LLAs to develop RCT proposals	Spring - Summer 2023
Final decision by DLUHC on shortlist of RCTs	Mid-Summer 2023
Evaluation contractor develops and publishes full trial protocols for chosen RCTs	End-Summer 2023
RCT fieldwork	End-Summer 2023 - 2025
Interim findings submitted to DLUHC	Summer 2024
Publication of final RCT outputs	Summer 2025

Place level case studies

The UKSPF is delivering in the context of a complex local government landscape across multiple tiers of institution, each of which have their own set of powers and responsibilities with regards to the kind of projects the UKSPF is designed to deliver.

Within each type of institution, there exists additional variation in terms of size, capability, demography and socio-economic circumstances. The UKSPF is designed to empower local partners at all levels of geography to best deliver for the specific needs of their communities, and so it is crucial for the evaluation to understand how and to what extent UKSPF outcomes are moderated by the characteristics of different place types.

Aims

The case study portion of the evaluation will focus on a representative range of LLAs across the UK with the aim of building a detailed understanding of how the UKSPF has worked at the place level. Case studies will focus on the role of LLAs, DLUHC and local partners in implementation, interactions between stakeholders and between different tiers of local and national government (including relationships between upper and lower-tier LLAs where relevant), decision making, and synergy between UKSPF and other local growth and Levelling Up interventions.

Each case study will employ a variety of methods - including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and quasi-experimental approaches where appropriate – tailored to the place in question, with the aim of building the evidence base regarding:

• the impact of UKSPF when considered in the context of different local economic environments and alongside the existence of other Levelling Up initiatives, recognising that ‘what works’ for local pride and life chances will vary across the UK
• the relative effectiveness of different local delivery models and combinations of Intervention Types in building pride in place and increasing life chances, along with identifying any persistent barriers to delivery at the local and national level

The case studies component will include additional sub-components focused on the REPF, designed and funded by Defra, which will aim to understand how LLAs have prioritised REPF interventions and the extent to which they engaged with dispersed rural communities and businesses to promote the Fund.

Subject to the feasibility stage, the REPF-focused sub-component of the case studies may be delivered through either a series of additional REPF-only case studies in a separate set of places from the core UKSPF group, or as an add-on to a suitable subset of places within the main case study group.

Structure

Case studies will be designed and developed across two core phases – feasibility and main - with potential for an additional extension phase to measure longer-term impacts.

During the feasibility phase, a longlist of candidate case study LLAs will be identified and place-specific logic models developed for each. The longlist will then be narrowed down to a final shortlist in collaboration with LLAs. Defra will carry out an equivalent process for selection of the REPF-specific case studies.

The initial longlist of LLAs and places will be drawn up based on:

• place characteristics: to make sure case studies cover a representative range of places, covering the 12 International Territorial Level (ITL) 1 regions in the UK (9 in England, as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with at least 3 case study places in each), places with differing levels of deprivation, different types of local institution (upper- and lower-tier) and a mix of rural and urban areas. In Northern Ireland, candidate case study areas will be chosen with explicit reference to the wider NI investment plan and national-level UKSPF delivery model, as well as the need to include a balanced community composition across the final set of places
• UKSPF characteristics: to make sure that the shortlist of places contains a spread of Intervention Types across the three investment priorities, and that information is available on overlapping funding sources delivering alongside the UKSPF, the nature of places’ local delivery models, and whether UKSPF allocations are being used to support existing or new projects

LLAs and case study areas in Northern Ireland will be engaged during the feasibility phase to test and refine design questions and fieldwork proposals directly.

Following the feasibility phase, the main phase will cover delivery of the case studies. The case studies will employ a mix of methods and data sources, varying across places depending on the characteristics of both the interventions and the places themselves. This will include qualitative methods, pre- and post-surveys, quantitative analysis using LLA-specific data to establish local contexts, and additional intervention-level analysis in addition to that set out in the intervention level section of this strategy.

Methodology and data collection

Figure 4 gives examples of questions the case studies will look to address across both process and impact evaluation. These research questions are illustrative, not exhaustive; they will be refined further during the feasibility phase in a way that is sensitive to each case study place’s particular local circumstances, challenges and spatial tier.

Figure 4: case studies example research questions

Plain text version

Figure 4 gives examples of some of the research questions the case studies will aim to address, grouped by process evaluation and impact evaluation. Above these groupings, a box labelled ‘Local Context’ gives examples of the kind of contextual considerations that will need to be accounted for in assessing how the UKSPF has functioned within a given place.

Process evaluation example questions include:

• how did places prioritise and select their interventions and projects?
• what stakeholders were consulted when designing interventions?
• have there been any common blockers or enablers across different interventions?

Impact evaluation example questions include:

• what outcomes and impacts was the UKSPF specifically responsible for?
• how do these outcomes compare to previous similar interventions in the place through other local growth funds?

Local contextual factors include:

• what particular local social and economic challenges does the place face?
• what is the place’s baseline level of pride in place and life chances?

The precise set of data sources used for each case study will be developed during the feasibility phase and will vary across participating places depending on their characteristics – for example, in rural areas Rural Wellbeing statistics may be employed as an indicator of outcomes. In line with each case study’s goal of building up as detailed and holistic a picture of each place’s local context as possible, a wide range of data sources will be drawn on, overlapping with many of the other components.

The DWP and HMRC data matching work described in the intervention level evaluation section will also extend to case study participant LLAs. As for the intervention level evaluation, the nature of the additional personal data to be collected (if any) will be made clear to LLAs who choose to participate in line with GDPR guidelines.

Outputs

A detailed final report will be produced for each case study place, combining analysis, narrative, and both qualitative and quantitative evidence to assess:

• the extent to which places’ UKSPF interventions formed part of their overall local strategy and vision for Levelling Up, and how delivery of the UKSPF interacted with other UKG or local funding streams
• the full end-to-end implementation of places’ investment plans; what worked well, what didn’t, and the key enablers and blockers of effective delivery (both locally-specific and inherent to the design of the programme)
• given the above bullets, the impact of individual interventions (and combinations of interventions) on individual and collective pride and place and life chances given the specific context of each place

In addition, a summary report will be produced that will bring together all 36+ case studies so as to draw out overarching themes, patterns and narratives across different places, with the aim of identifying common good practice and lessons learned that may apply to a large number of the case studies, and to understand how delivery progress and outcomes may vary between different types of place, based on their size, demography or socioeconomic circumstances. This report will form a key component of the programme-level process evaluation.

Timeline

Note: The below timeline is indicative subject to procurement outcomes and further design work at the feasibility stage.

Milestone	Expected timeframe
Contractor appointed	Early Spring 2023
Feasibility phase	Spring 2023
Feasibility phase report submitted to DLUHC and Defra	End Spring - early Summer 2023
Final decisions on list of case study places	End Spring - early Summer 2023
Main phase	Summer 2023 - Autumn 2025
Interim case study reports (for each place and overall) submitted to DLUHC	Spring 2024
Final case study reports ready for publication	Autumn 2025

Programme level evaluation

The UKSPF is a nationally-delivered programme, and its evaluation will accordingly include a national, programme-level component in addition to the intervention- and place-level components covered in other sections of this strategy.

‘Programme level’ in this context refers to evaluation of the impact of the UKSPF and (as a rural top-up, the REPF); it does not include Multiply, programme-level evaluation of which is covered in the Multiply-specific section of this strategy.

DLUHC will also seek to carry out a programme level process evaluation. Rather than a standalone component, the programme level process evaluation will bring together the individual place-based case studies covered elsewhere in this strategy to understand how effectively the UKSPF has operated across different types of place. The rest of this chapter focuses solely on the programme level impact evaluation.

As noted in the UKSPF additional information, DLUHC has engaged with the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth (WWG) to address some of the challenges of assessing overall impacts that are inherent to a programme like the UKSPF. DLUHC will continue to draw on expert advice from WWG and internally as development of the programme level evaluation continues over early 2023.

Aims

The programme level component of the UKSPF evaluation will aim to understand the extent to which the UKSPF programme as a whole - rather than specific interventions, or specific places - has impacted the core aims of improving pride in place and life chances, and by extension whether the programme level theory of change as set out in Figure 1 has worked in practice. This will:

• assist DLUHC and UKG more widely in understanding what works when designing future iterations of the UKSPF and other broad-spectrum local growth programmes in terms of delivery models, local autonomy, and investment priorities
• in complement to the intervention level evaluation, help build the evidence base on the broad categories of intervention that deliver the highest levels of benefit for every £ spent
• hold DLUHC (rather than LLAs) accountable for the UKSPF making a positive contribution to people’s pride in place and life chances across the UK in support of wider UKG levelling up goals

Structure

The wider design characteristics of the UKSPF present multiple obstacles to effective programme-level impact evaluation. In particular:

• all parts of the UK will receive some UKSPF funding - no natural control groups therefore exist
• funding has been allocated using a mixed methodology based on a combination of past EU structural funding, population, and a need-based index. Some places have also received a top-up REPF allocation based on a different set of criteria.
• funding has been allocated across multiple tiers of LLAs, including combined and mayoral combined authorities, unitary authorities, and lower-tier districts and boroughs in different parts of the UK, and at regional scale in Northern Ireland
• the UKSPF has (initially) been allocated over only a three-year timescale, up to the end of 2024-25: this means most places will deliver interventions concurrently, particularly as UKSPF funding must be spent in-year and can’t be rolled over

Any impact evaluation requires an estimate of what would have happened if the intervention had not taken place – a counterfactual – for comparison purposes. The characteristics of the UKSPF as set out above mean that use of RCT or even quasi-experimental (QED) evaluation methods is not feasible at the programme level. Table 3 below sets out more detail on why this is the case for each approach considered:

Table 3: Alternative programme evaluation methods considered

Methodology	Description	Obstacles
RCT	Using a RCT to evaluate the overall impact of the UKSPF would require the random allocation of some places to receive funding, and others not, to allow comparison of ‘with vs without’ impacts	Not feasible under any circumstances; all places have been allocated a share of the UKSPF, as it replaces existing funding from EU programmes
QED: treatment vs control	Comparison of places which receive funding with ‘similar’ places which do not - similar to an RCT-based approach but without the random allocation of treatment and control groups. This approach will be used elsewhere on the UKSPF as part of the intervention level evaluation	Not feasible for the same reasons as RCTs; all places have been allocated (and must receive) funding
QED: relative intensity	Comparison of places according to the size of their UKSPF allocation - assessing whether places which received more funding experienced concomitantly larger positive impacts	Requires that the measures influencing places’ allocations (population size, index rank and prior EU funding) are independent of the outcomes being assessed (pride in place and life chances). Without a concrete, objective measure of these outcomes that is demonstratable independent in this way, this approach is unlikely to yield robust insight
QED: staggered delivery	Comparison of places delivering an intervention against those that have yet to do so, using the latter group as a counterfactual for the former	The UKSPF’s funding horizon and in-year spend requirements mean that places will largely draw on funding concurrently across the next three years. In addition, any evaluation-exploitable variations in delivery timing between places would have to be independent of the outcomes being assessed, as for the relatively intensity approach

In addition to the UKSPF-specific obstacles identified in Table 3, there exist challenges inherent to evaluating any local growth or Levelling Up-focused programme rooted in the difficulty of isolating the impact of the UKSPF from that of other funding sources that may contribute to delivering similar outcomes at the same time. These include (non-exhaustively):

• other centrally-delivered local growth programmes, like the Towns Fund, Levelling Up Fund or devolution deals
• baseline central government expenditure, such as funding for adult social care, crime prevention and education
• LLAs’ own locally funded initiatives, which may vary in their scope and overlap with UKSPF priorities across different places
• interventions funded by the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
• residual funding from the EU programmes replaced by the UKSPF – which may continue to support projects up to December 2023 – as well as areas successful in receiving pilot funding from the UKSPF’s predecessor, the UK Community Renewal Fund instances where UKSPF money only partially supports UKSPF projects: for example, where a project is a continuation from the LUF or Towns Fund, or if a project is receiving significant match funding from private sector partners or LLA internal.

Finally, the variance in baseline characteristics and capabilities across different LLAs – that is, the extent of their local challenges, and ability to deliver the UKSPF effectively in addressing them - must be accounted for. For example, a capital-focused intervention to build a new park in a place with very little green space (UKSPF Intervention Type E3) would be expected to have a greater relative impact than the same intervention in an already green place, for reasons unrelated to the intrinsic value-add of the intervention.

Similarly, a complex multi-modal project aimed at decarbonising local transport, housing and civic buildings (Intervention Type E29) could be far more impactful when delivered by a more capable LLA with the expertise, experience and resources than somewhere without these attributes. Characteristics such as rural-urban classification (which affects a place’s eligibility to receive the REPF) may also affect the UKSPF’s impacts across different types of place.

Methodology and data collection

Considering the barriers to alternative options as set out in Table 3, through consultation with WWG and other evaluation experts DLUHC has concluded that the best initial non-experimental option for quantitative programme level impact evaluation is to construct a multilevel regression model. The regression model will attempt to separate out the individual correlative contributions of the UKSPF and the confounding factors identified in the above bullets, to attempt to quantify at the programme level what proportion of benefits (if any) can be attributed to the UKSPF alone.

Use of a multilevel model is necessary to account for the range of spatial scales these factors are extant across, enabling the separation of residual components at each level in the UKSPF’s intervention-place-programme spatial delivery hierarchy.

This approach will also unlock opportunities for further quantitative analysis – to understand, for example, whether any model-identified impacts are statistically significant, and the extent to which the UKSPF’s impacts are strengthened or diluted across different geographies and local institutions.

Figure 5 summarises the broad principles upon which the multilevel regression model would be constructed:

Figure 5: UKSPF programme-level regression model inputs and outputs

Plain text version Figure 5 sets out at a high level the structure of the proposed UKSPF programme-level regression model in a flowchart format. In the middle, from left to right, the diagram shows the progression of UKSPF funding delivered to places, impacts, and subsequent outcomes supporting pride in place and life chances.

Above and below this progression are shown examples of the confounding factors that may affect it, grouped into:

• place-based factors: local socioeconomic context, local UKSPF delivery capability, LLA type and demographics
• funding-based factors: other Levelling Up funds, wider government spending, historic EU allocations locally sourced match funding

Some of the barriers to evaluation identified earlier in this section remain extant under a regression-based approach: a complex local growth landscape, short time horizons over which to measure impact, and a broad set of investment goals. Furthermore, as a non-experimental approach without a counterfactual, its standalone inferential power is limited: the model may be able to identify correlations and effects for further investigation via more robust methods, but it will not in isolation be able to confirm that these effects are causal due to the UKSPF

In addition, because the UKSPF is to a certain extent a continuation of EU structural funds – albeit with a different set of investment priorities and streamlined delivery model – it is harder to measure clear ‘before and after’ effects even when using a non-experimental pre/post-type approach, as all places will have been receiving a UKSPF-like ‘treatment’ prior to the programme’s inception.

However, even If the programme-level regression model doesn’t demonstrate significant impacts, it may still be the case that the UKSPF has had clearer benefits for particular types of place or intervention as opposed to the programme overall. The intention of the programme level impact evaluation is to complement and contextualize the more granular components in support of drawing holistic conclusions across the evaluation of the UKSPF as a whole. It is not intended alone to serve as the ‘pass/fail’ indicator for the programme’s success.

Subject to further feasibility work, DLUHC may choose to explore other non-experimental methods of assessing programme-level impacts to complement the regression model - including theory-based methods, such as contribution analysis – to further interrogate any potential causal relationships implied by the model itself, and to better understand how effective UKSPF has been across different types of place in a more holistic and less purely quantitative manner.

The regression model will necessarily draw on a very broad range of data sources at the individual, place, and programme level to capture and account for the many confounding variables that will need to be accounted for. This will therefore include, for all places, further detail on:

• Other interventions and/or government funding that could contribute to UKSPF objectives directly or indirectly.
• The individual projects making up places’ investment plans, including whether they are fully UKSPF-funded or ‘top-ups’ of other programmes, and the source of any match funding the project is relying on (if any).
• Progress toward investment plan outcomes and outputs over the course of delivery, including instances where interventions have been delayed, postponed or modified.
• Publicly available administrative data held centrally by ONS and equivalent bodies covering places’ economic, social and labour market resilience, including productivity, crime, education, skills and health outcomes.
• Survey data regarding pride in place, life chances and levelling up.

Much of this information is either publicly available or overlaps with that collected for other evaluation components as set out in Table 4 below:

Table 4: potential regression model data sources

Data source	Spatial scale	Availability
Information on individual UKSPF beneficiaries and their economic and labour market progress	Individual	Collected elsewhere as part of the intervention level impact evaluation
Survey responses from individuals regarding their views on pride in place and life chances	Individual	Collected elsewhere as part of the survey component of the evaluation
Project and intervention level progress and spend data for each LLA/across Northern Ireland	Intervention	Collected elsewhere through mainstream UKSPF monitoring and reporting processes
Detail of non-UKSPF funding sources for UKSPF interventions	Intervention	Collected elsewhere through mainstream UKSPF monitoring and reporting processes
Qualitative information concerning LLA capability and delivery ability	Place	Will be assessed for a subset of places as part of place level case studies
Detail of other UKG-led funding in each place (e.g. Towns Fund, LUF)	Place	To some extent already held by various central government departments (depending on the nature of the expenditure).
Administrative data on LLA characteristics (e.g. economic performance, education outcomes)	Place	Largely already held by ONS and equivalent bodies.

DLUHC will also look to draw on data collected to support the programme level evaluation of other local growth funds, such as the LUF and Towns Fund. As well as minimizing the risk of collecting the same datasets twice, this will help build a better understanding of areas of overlap and divergence between these funds and the UKSPF as part of trying to separate out their impacts in the regression model.

Outputs

The main output of the programme level impact evaluation will be a detailed report setting out:

• the methodology and underlying data behind the regression model alongside any identified impacts at both the programme level and with regards to specific Intervention Types
• accompanying analysis of how different aspects of the UKSPF design (investment priorities, delivery models, local structures) have supported or undermined said impacts, and how this may have varied across different types of place

DLUHC may choose to carry out further runs of the regression model after delivery is complete at the end of 2025 to allow for impacts to emerge gradually over the longer-term, as might be expected with a programme of the UKSPF’s size. Precedent from comparably complex programme level evaluations suggest it could take as many as 5-10 years for impacts to appear. Continuing to develop the regression model past 2025 will also allow it to support evaluation of future tranches of the UKSPF.

Timeline

Note: The below timeline is indicative subject to procurement outcomes and further design work at the feasibility stage.

Milestone	Expected timeframe
Development of conceptual model and testing with Technical Advisory Group	Spring 2023
Data collection begins	End Spring - early Summer 2023
Development and iteration of prototype model	Summer - End 2023
Development of full model	End 2023 - Summer 2025
Initial model results ready for publication	End 2025
Potential future model runs to capture long-term impacts	2026 onward

Multiply evaluation

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (SWNI), Multiply will be delivered by DLUHC as part of places’ core UKSPF investment plans. See further details on Multiply in SWNI. In England, DfE is responsible for delivery of Multiply to places, whereby Combined and Mayoral Combined Authorities (CA/MCAs) and other upper-tier LAs will draw down their allocated amounts via DfE-approved Multiply-specific investment plans that are distinct from places’ core UKSPF investment plans. See further details on the aims and funding model for Multiply in England.

Additional Multiply funding has also been allocated to DfE to run a ‘what works’ programme of evaluation activity, comprising a systematic review of the current evidence base on numeracy interventions, a programme level process, impact and value for money evaluation and a set of randomised controlled trials to build the evidence base on what works to improve adult numeracy. This section largely focuses on the programme level evaluation.

Some aspects of Multiply’s evaluation as outlined in this section will be UK-wide, with additional activity in England. This is in line with the devolved nature of adult skills policy and the fact that Multiply’s wider delivery model in SWNI is more aligned with the core UKSPF than in England. Specifically:

• a complete process evaluation and impact evaluation will be carried out in England only, with involvement of English LLAs only
• place level case studies (to include process evaluation where possible) will be carried out in all nations, with involvement from LLAs in Scotland and Wales and local partners in NI

Aims

The core objectives of Multiply’s programme level process, impact and VfM evaluation are to:

• understand how effectively Multiply is being implemented in places, in order to improve delivery in the latter years of the programme
• assess the impact and VfM of the Multiply programme, including whether it has achieved its aims and delivered against its success metrics using a mix of quasi-experimental, survey-based and qualitative methods
• summarise lessons learnt and identify best practice, especially at the local level, to feed into the evidence base around, and inform delivery of, future adult skills programmes.

Structure

The Multiply programme evaluation will be split into three phases – feasibility, main, and final reporting and dissemination, as summarised below in Figure 6:

Figure 6: Multiply evaluation structure

Plain text version Figure 6 sets out visually the evaluation structure of Multiply as described verbally in the rest of this section, split into the feasibility, main and final reporting phases.

Within the main phase, the diagram expands on the activities under the headings of impact, process and VfM assessment. Below these, the diagram lists the cross-cutting activities that will impact all three, including secondary data analysis, quantitative surveys, qualitative research, and use of interim reporting from places. Further details of how each of these will be used in the evaluation can be found in the remainder of this section.

The feasibility phase will comprise development and iteration of the overarching evaluation questions and the individual research questions nested within them. Through this, DfE will identify which questions are most important to answer and agree on data collection methods.

In England, this phase will also involve a preliminary descriptive analysis of data sources including Individual Learner Records (ILR), the National Pupil Dataset (NPD), large-scale representative panel data and places’ local Multiply investment plans, to understand:

• which groups are more or less likely to engage in Multiply
• equivalent changes in total learner numbers in relevant courses over time
• how best to measure impacts on numeracy and earnings to establish counterfactuals and outcome measures

The feasibility phase will also seek to draw on evidence gathered in support of wider work across government around evaluation of adult skills programmes and devolution of the Adult Education Budget (AEB). Likewise, the Multiply evaluation will help feed into this work in the opposite direction.

The evaluation activities phase will comprise the bulk of the fieldwork, split into three broad strands: impact evaluation, process evaluation and value for money assessment, with specific activities under each strand outlined in Figure 6 above.

The final reporting and dissemination phase will build on and tie together all research findings across the various workstreams in a series of detailed reports that will be shared with LLAs and published.

Methodology and data collection

The precise methods for the different components of the evaluation are still being worked through as part of the feasibility phase. The overarching methods and data sources as currently envisaged will include the following:

Counterfactual development (England only): to compare the progress of Multiply beneficiaries with a comparable set of those not involved in the programme, a counterfactual (control) group will be constructed comprising statistically matched non-Multiply learners drawn from data the DfE holds about all learners funded from the AEB in the ILR and NPD datasets. To enable this, DfE are undertaking a survey with a random sample of demographically and numeracy-level matched, non-Multiply AEB-sourced learners to inform the counterfactual. To further account for selection bias, DfE are in parallel exploring the value of an additional counterfactual group, comprising adults with low numeracy skills who are not engaged in basic skills (i.e., non-AEB learners) to further improve the robustness of any comparisons. Development of Multiply-specific counterfactuals will take account of parallel counterfactual work for the core UKSPF intervention-level evaluation set out elsewhere in this strategy.

Quantitative surveys (England only): A separate set of surveys will be conducted among a randomly selected range of Multiply participants to assess satisfaction with the programme, views on its effectiveness, its strengths and what could be improved. The surveys will also be used to gather extra information on the backgrounds, experiences and attitudes of those involved in the programme, in order to help DfE understand more about who Multiply is reaching, how it is being delivered and how views about Multiply differ amongst different groups. Surveys will include (non-exhaustively) learners, practitioners, providers, LLA staff, and local employers.

Qualitative research (UK-wide): will be used to explore in more detail themes and trends emerging from the quantitative survey work. This could include:

• in-depth interviews with Multiply learners who dropped out of their courses; research providers undertaking the Multiply RCTs, and central UKG staff involved in developing and delivering the programme across DfE, DLUHC and the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)
• case studies within specific local authorities to understand in detail how investment plans were developed, how they are spending Multiply funding, how they have assessed value for money of this spend (especially non-classroom approaches) at the local level, and how they are avoiding duplication with other local AEB spend. These will be distinct from the place-based case studies carried out for the core UKSPF evaluation

The Multiply evaluation will also rely heavily on secondary analysis of data, matching and linking data collected through surveys and other primary research methods using common identifiers to develop as complete a picture of learners as possible. This may include:

• in England, linking of NPD, ILR and Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data to track progression into further learning or the labour market
• quarterly and six-monthly reporting data, management information and data from local investment plans
• data collected as part of pre and post Multiply intervention learner diagnostic assessments, alongside follow up interviews with those who have made progress on the programme
• analysis of wider datasets collected to support the wider UKSPF impact evaluation, particularly where they relate to people and skills-type interventions that may overlap with Multiply’s aims

Outputs

Key outputs will include:

• a UK-wide systematic review of the evidence base around numeracy interventions, which will help provide context for the landscape Multiply will be delivering in, highlight historic good practice, and inform the refinement of evaluation questions at the feasibility stage
• four interim reports, with at least one per year of delivery, which will present any emerging and cross-cutting findings from evaluation activity up until that point. The findings from these reports will be shared with LLAs and DfE may consider publishing them if appropriate
• standalone reports, grouped by similar research activities. For each group of activities, DfE and evaluation partners will deliver one report per year, which will cover the top line findings of each group of research activities
• a final written evaluation report providing comprehensive answers to all evaluation questions, organised by evaluation component (impact, process, and VfM). It will draw on the standalone reports to set out a narrative for the impacts, successes and pitfalls of Multiply across the UK, alongside clear recommendations for future programme design and implementation
• a practitioner facing report, which will be an accessible summary of key evaluation findings, lessons learned and recommended best practice aimed at local level stakeholders involved in delivery of Multiply interventions

Timeline

Note: The below timeline is indicative subject to procurement outcomes and further design work at the feasibility stage.

Milestone	Expected timeframe
Feasibility phase	End 2022 - Spring 2023
Fieldwork for learner surveys	Jan 2022 - Spring 2025
Fieldwork for most other research activities	Spring 2023 - Spring 2025
In-depth interviews with stakeholders (of which LLAs are included)	End 2023 - Early 2024 End 2024 - Early 2025
Interim report 1 disseminated to LLAs	Summer 2023
Interim report 2 disseminated to LLAs	Spring 2024
Interim report 3 disseminated to LLAs	Summer/Autumn 2024
Interim report 4 disseminated to LLAs	Spring 2025
Final reports published	Summer - Autumn 2025

Evaluation tools and data sources

Pride in place and life chances surveys

The UKSPF’s overarching aim of increasing pride in place and life chances (PiP and LC) across the UK (in line with Mission 9 in the Levelling Up White Paper) requires a more nuanced approach to measuring success compared to that taken for previous local growth funds.

PiP and LC are a matter of individual sentiment and opinion as well as of concrete outcomes: ‘pride in place’ is to an extent rooted in how people feel about their local area, and though ‘life chances’ can be and is quantified through various metrics - for example, rate of progression to higher education and skilled jobs – and through longitudinal cohort studies (such as the Life Study) it also includes a strong sentiment-based component in terms of how people feel about the opportunities available to them.

This requires an evaluation approach that goes beyond the examination of standard outcomes and outputs through new data collection methods that capture the views of individuals on PiP and LC directly. This is the goal of the PiP and LC surveys in the context of the UKSPF.

The surveys will facilitate other components of the UKSPF evaluation by providing a new and direct way to understand the impact of UKSPF activity - both in general and with reference to specific interventions - on people’s views on pride in place and life chances across the UK and in specific places.

In the context of the wider local growth landscape, the surveys will also provide a means to measure change in perceptions of levelling-up (of which boosting PiP and LC forms a key part) at national and local levels to help understand the impact of other programmes in the LU policy space.

Survey sub-components

Survey data on PiP and LC will be collected through four channels:

• Community Life Survey (CLS): the CLS has run annually as an online survey since 2012, gathering data from around 10,000 respondents per year in England only, aggregated to regional (ITL1) level. It includes questions on satisfaction with place, community engagement, civic pride and social cohesion and is already a key evidence source for policymakers across UKG. Delivery of the ‘core’ CLS is the responsibility of DCMS.
• CLS local level boost: to better serve UKSPF-specific evaluation needs, DLUHC and DCMS are developing an additional component to the next round of the CLS – the ‘local level boost’. The local level boost will use the same question set and methodology as the core CLS, but using boosted sample sizes to provide LLA level estimates. This will be essential for those parts of the evaluation – such as the intervention level impact assessment and place-level case studies – that require more granular data at LLA level.
• Local PiP and LC surveys: alongside expanding the scope of the CLS, DLUHC will in parallel run a series of UK-wide surveys that will focus on - within those LLAs/NI geographies participating in the interventional and place level components - building an understanding of local views on the UKSPF, the interventions it is supporting, its delivery in places and its specific impacts on PiP and LC. This will be achieved through two variants:
  • in case study areas: additional questions focusing on each area’s local context, people’s familiarity with the UKSPF as a whole alongside related local growth programmes (such as the LUF and Towns Fund), and baseline levels of wellbeing.
  • in intervention-level evaluation areas: additional questions focusing on people’s perception of the impact specific interventions or projects in a particular LLA/geography rather than the UKSPF as a whole – for this variant, survey participants would be selected based on their being identified as direct UKSPF beneficiaries – either through direct participation in an individual-level intervention (e.g. an employability skills course) or through residing in the impact geography of an area-based intervention (e.g. living near to a planned new green space).
• Local survey tool for LLAs: a flexible tool will be developed to enable LLAs and local stakeholders to run surveys and collect data on PiP and LC themselves, to support local evaluations where planned and to enable a comparison with other geographies. Use of the tool is optional; LLAs will not be expected to use it to collect data for the overall UKSPF evaluation.

The rest of this chapter will focus on the latter two bullets, for which DLUHC are responsible for delivering specifically in support of the UKSPF evaluation. See further information on the CLS.

Figure 7 illustrates how the different surveys described above will contribute to our understanding of PiP and LC across a range of spatial scales.

Figure 7: survey sub-components

Plain text version Figure 7 breaks down the survey sub-components as described earlier in this section, grouping them visually them on the basis of:

• whether they are delivered by DCMS (CLS and CLS local boost) or DLUHC (PiP and LC place and intervention-specific surveys, local survey tool)
• the spatial scale they will operate at: regional and above (CLS), LLA level (CLS local boost, PiP and LC place surveys) or intervention level (PiP and LC intervention surveys)

The diagram then shows that these sub components will all feed into the intervention, place and programme level components of the wider UKSPF evaluation.

Survey implementation

Work on the surveys will be split into two stages: the development phase and the implementation phase.

The development phase will involve:

• developing the core set of PiP and LC questions to be used in the surveys
• developing tools to be used for collection of survey data
• identifying broad sampling strategies for both the intervention and case study-focused variants of the PiP and LC survey
• developing the local survey tool for LLAs, in line with the principles in the above three bullets

The implementation phase will involve:

• refining the survey design for each intervention and place (including the inclusion of intervention/place specific questions)
• refining the individual sampling strategies identified during the development phase
• subsequently, delivery of the surveys themselves, carrying out (initially) two survey sweeps within each LLA involved in either of the intervention-level or case study parts of the evaluation

To allow for comparison between the different survey components set out in Figure 7, the base question set for the UKSPF PiP and LC surveys will build on, rather than replace, that used for the CLS - meaning that all surveys will share the same core content. Further UKSPF-specific questions will be added through the development phase relating to interventions and/or places as needed, attempting wherever possible to follow a similar tone and format to the core CLS. These questions will cover topics including, but not limited to:

• Places’ local context, including baseline levels of social capital, economic resilience and well-being.
• People’s familiarity with the UKSPF, in terms of both the programme as a whole and with respect to specific interventions.
• Subjective views as to the materiality of UKSPF impacts, from both direct beneficiaries and the general population.

To measure pride in place, the surveys will include (non-exhaustively) questions assessing people’s desire to leave or stay in their local areas, access to cultural, sporting and civic facilities, access to green spaces, levels of perceived safety and security, and exposure to antisocial behaviour.

Work is ongoing to understand how best to leverage the surveys to assess life chances in combination with existing administrative and longitudinal datasets.

As part of question development and refinement for both the place and intervention-level surveys, cognitive testing will be used to make sure that all questions and contextual information are as clear, unambiguous and user-friendly as possible.

All surveys will run twice over the UKSPF funding cycle – with sweep 1 running in 2023/24 and Sweep 2 2024/25. Based on examination of previous iterations of the CLS, DLUHC estimates that to effectively measure the long-term impacts of the UKSPF further regular sweeps will be necessary for all after the current programme period comes to an end in March 2025.

Methodology and data collection

General sampling frames and sample geographies across both surveys will be developed and tested during the survey development phase, working with LLAs and local partners in NI to establish appropriate groups of beneficiaries or targeted populations as appropriate.

For the intervention-level PiP and LC surveys, sample populations will be determined with reference to the treatment and control groups constructed as part of the intervention level impact evaluation covered earlier in this strategy.

For the place-level surveys, DLUHC would expect samples to be drawn from across the case study LLA (or LA area in NI) in question, though depending on the size of the LLA and the spread of interventions within its boundaries it may be necessary to draw samples from a more narrowly defined geographic area within the LLA.

In all cases, sampling frames will be designed to achieve statistically significant results. For the intervention-level surveys, DLUHC estimates this would require samples of 500 to 1000 adult respondents aged 18 and over per sweep per intervention. Unless interventions are large scale, to achieve a sufficiently large sample size it may be necessary to pool beneficiaries across multiple similar interventions in different LLAs/places. This will be considered further during the development phase and in concert with equivalent work on the intervention-level impact evaluation to construct treatment and control groups across LLAs.

For the place-level surveys a larger sample of around 1,500 respondents per sweep would be targeted, given the aim of the case studies to cover a broad range of population groups and interventions within each LLA/place.

Survey data for both the core PiP and LC questions and the intervention and place-level variants will be collected directly from participants using an online survey platform. The platform will be designed to be accessible and easy to use for all participants and will be user-tested throughout the development phase to ensure as such.

Alongside the DLUHC-led PiP and LC surveys, a survey tool will be developed to allow LLAs to capture their own PiP and LC data from respondents in support of optional local level evaluation and their own policy development. The tool will be produced and released to LLA early in the development phase to provide LLAs an opportunity to incorporate it into local evaluation planning alongside the DLUHC-led PiP and LC surveys.

The local survey tool will mirror the questions developed for the DLUHC-led PiP and LC surveys, with scope for LLAs to add additional bespoke questions where appropriate. 

Detailed guidance will be provided to LLAs alongside the survey tool setting out how to develop a sampling strategy at both place and intervention levels, and subsequently how to collect and process the data, in a manner consistent with the strategy followed by the wider PiP and LC surveys. Development of the survey tool itself will be funded by DLUHC.

Survey outputs

The UKSPF-specific PiP and LC surveys will not serve as outputs in their own right; rather, they will help facilitate other parts of the evaluation. For this reason, DLUHC doesn’t currently plan to publish a separate report covering the survey results in isolation, though may choose to make selected outputs and aggregated results available through inclusion in reports covering other evaluation components or separately as appropriate.

The CLS results and methodology will be published in full as with previous iterations. This will include the additional information collected as part of the local level boost. See previous years’ CLS publications.

The PiP and LC surveys will form a crucial component of the intervention and place-level evaluations covered elsewhere in this strategy.

The local survey tool, alongside guidance on how to use it, will be provided to places in 2023. The tool will help LLAs establish the impact of their own interventions on PiP and LC, and LLAs are encouraged to publish their own survey outputs where applicable.

Timeline

Note: The below timeline is indicative subject to procurement outcomes, DCMS delivery timelines and further design work at the feasibility stage.

Milestone	Expected timeframe
Community Life Survey and local level boost
Appointment of contractor	Early Spring 2023
Development of survey questions and sampling strategy	Spring - Summer 2023
First survey sweep	Summer - Autumn 2023
Second survey sweep	Start - Spring 2025
PiP and LC surveys
Appointment of contractor	Early Spring 2023
Development of survey questions and sampling strategies	Spring - Summer 2023
Surveys in field as required - timing to align to intervention and place level evaluations	Ongoing across 2023 to 2025
**Local survey tool **
Development of survey questions and guidance on use	Spring - Summer 2023
Use by LLAs	Ongoing from Spring - Summer 2023 onward

Overview of data sources

UKSPF evaluation will draw on a broad range of data sources, both UKSPF- and place-specific. Some data sources – for example, ONS-held administrative data on subregional productivity, economic activity and demography – will feed into multiple components, while others will be specific to a particular component.

The precise selection of data sources used for each component will depend on further design work as part of each component’s feasibility stage. Table 5 sets out a broad, non-exhaustive taxonomy of the different types of data that DLUHC expect to see used across the evaluation as a whole.

Table 5: high-level taxonomy of UKSPF data sources

Data type	UKSPF-specific?	Spatial scale	Description
Beneficiary	Yes	Individual	Identifiable information (NINOs and CRNs) concerning individuals and businesses who stand to theoretically benefit from a given UKSPF intervention. Will be used alongside matching data to track the impact of UKSPF interventions at a granular level
Matching	No	Individual	Universal Credit, earnings and tax records of individuals held by HMRC and DWP, to be combined with UKSPF-specific beneficiary data in order to track the impact of UKSPF interventions.
Survey-based	Mixed	Individual	Survey responses from individuals participating in the DCMS-run Community Life Survey and additional UKSPF-specific pride in place and life chances surveys at both intervention and place level.
Monitoring	Yes	Intervention	Detailed information collected from every LLA through the 6-monthly UKSPF reporting cycle covering progress and spend by project and intervention toward the outputs and outcomes agreed in places’ investment plans, alongside details of other local growth programmes being ‘topped up’ by the UKSPF.
Administrative	Mixed	LLA	ONS, UKG and LLA-held contextual data covering local demography, economic activity, labour markets and detail of other funding (current and historic) received by places that may overlap with the UKSPF. Also may include UKSPF-specific information around project delivery structures, private and third sector partners, and local stakeholders.

To minimise burdens on LLAs/local partners in Northern Ireland across all parts of the evaluation, DLUHC will try to use existing data wherever possible, but in some cases, it will be necessary for LLAs/local partners or grant recipients (depending on which parts of the evaluation they participate in) to assist in gathering additional information. data will be collected via:

• regular UKSPF reporting: as set out in the additional information, the UKSPF’s light-touch reporting structures will require all LLAs to report 6 monthly on project and intervention-level spend and progress toward agreed outputs and outcomes, alongside quarterly qualitative progress updates. To minimize the number of additional data collection channels LLAs need to service, the reporting template will also incorporate several evaluation-specific fields requesting information on other local growth funds the UKSPF will complement in each place, and the source of any match funding used to top-up UKSPF allocations (or vice versa). This information will be important for both the intervention- and programme-level impact evaluations
• by contractors directly: as well as the monitoring data collected by all LLAs, contractors for each of the components will collect additional data as needed to support evaluation delivery. The specific information and data required by each contractor will be subject to further design work during each component’s feasibility phase and will be tested with participating LLAs at this stage to make sure any requests are actionable and proportionate. Contractors across different components will also be required to collaborate and share data where possible to minimize the number of discrete data requests for LLAs involved in multiple parts of the evaluation. The individual sections for each component contain more detail on the types of data they will draw on.

Outside of regular UKSPF reporting, LLAs are not expected to start collecting data for any part of the evaluation until contacted and asked to do so by DLUHC or their evaluation partners and will not be expected to collate data in advance of this point.

Where appropriate and in line with data protection guidelines, DLUHC will seek to publish the aggregated data and analysis underpinning the main evaluation reports to allow for additional examination and investigation by external experts and stakeholders.

All data sources to support the UKSPF evaluation - including personal data where appropriate - will be collected and processed in full compliance with data protection guidelines as set out in the Data Protection Act and the GDPR. DLUHC will carry out a full data protection impact assessment for the evaluation as a whole, and will be responsible for establishing data protection agreements with LLAs and other relevant local stakeholders where needed to facilitate the collection, sharing and processing of data with DLUHC, other government departments and contractors.

Summary of indicative timelines

Please note: the below pictoral timeline summary shows high-level milestones for each component only. More detailed timelines for each component can be found in tabular format in the relevant sections of this strategy corresponding to each.

Annex: table of priority Intervention Types

The below table sets out the 21 Intervention Types chosen by DLUHC across each of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland as a priority for impact evaluation based on a combination of factors, including their level of specificity and the estimated ease with which control and treatment groups can be constructed to measure their impacts. They will be further narrowed down to a final list of 10-15 during the feasibility phase of the intervention level evaluation. See a full list of Intervention Types. The below table does not include REPF-specific Intervention Types.

England

E1: Funding for improvements to town centres and high streets, including better accessibility for disabled people, including capital spend and running costs.

E2: Funding for new, or improvements to existing, community and neighbourhood infrastructure projects including those that increase communities’ resilience to natural hazards, such as flooding. This could cover capital spend and running costs.

E4: Enhanced support for existing cultural, historic and heritage institutions that make up the local cultural heritage offer.

E6: Support for local arts, cultural, heritage and creative activities.

E10: Funding for local sports facilities, tournaments, teams and leagues; to bring people together.

E5: Design and management of the built and landscaped environment to ‘design out crime’.

E8: Funding for the development and promotion of wider campaigns which encourage people to visit and explore the local area.

E9: Funding for impactful volunteering and/or social action projects to develop social and human capital in local places.

E13: Community measures to reduce the cost of living, including through measures to improve energy efficiency, and combat fuel poverty and climate change.

E3: Creation of and improvements to local green spaces, community gardens, watercourses and embankments, along with incorporating natural features into wider public spaces.

E17: Funding for the development and promotion (both trade and consumer) of the visitor economy, such as local attractions, trails, tours and tourism products more generally.

E24: Funding for new and improvements to existing training hubs, business support offers, ‘incubators’ and ‘accelerators’ for local enterprise (including social enterprise) which can support entrepreneurs and start-ups through the early stages of development and growth by offering a combination of services including account management, advice, resources, training, coaching, mentorship and access to workspace.

E30: Business support measures to drive employment growth, particularly in areas of higher unemployment.

E18: Supporting Made Smarter Adoption: Providing tailored expert advice, matched grants and leadership training to enable manufacturing SMEs to adopt industrial digital technology solutions including artificial intelligence; robotics and autonomous systems; additive manufacturing; industrial internet of things; virtual reality; data analytics.

E34: Courses including basic skills (digital, English, maths (via Multiply) and ESOL), and life skills and career skills** provision for people who are unable to access training through the adult education budget or wrap around support detailed above. Supplemented by financial support for learners to enrol onto courses and complete qualifications.

E35: Activities such as enrichment and volunteering to improve opportunities and promote wellbeing.

E36: Intervention to increase levels of digital inclusion, with a focus on essential digital skills, communicating the benefits of getting (safely) online, and in-community support to provide users with the confidence and trust to stay online.

E38: Support for local areas to fund local skills needs. This includes technical and vocational qualifications and courses up to level 2 and training for vocational licences relevant to local area needs and high-value qualifications where there is a need for additional skills capacity that are not being met through other provision.

E39: Green skills courses targeted around ensuring we have the skilled workforce to achieve the government’s net zero and wider environmental ambitions.

E41: Funding to support local digital skills.

E40: Retraining support for those in high carbon sectors.

Scotland

S1: Place based investments for regeneration and town centre improvements, which could include better accessibility for disabled people, including capital spend and running costs.

S2: Support and improvement of community assets and infrastructure projects, including those that increase communities’ resilience to natural hazards, such as flooding, and support for decarbonisation of facilities, energy efficiency audits, and installation of energy efficiency and renewable measures in community buildings (including capital spend and running costs).

S5: Support for sport, arts, cultural, heritage and creative activities, projects and facilities and institutions.

S5: Support for sport, arts, cultural, heritage and creative activities, projects and facilities and institutions.

S5: Support for sport, arts, cultural, heritage and creative activities, projects and facilities and institutions.

S4: Design and management of the built and landscaped environment.

S7: Funding for the development and promotion of wider campaigns which encourage people to visit and explore the local area.

S8: Funding for impactful volunteering and/or social action projects to develop social and human capital in local places.

S10: Community measures to reduce the cost of living, including through measures to improve energy efficiency, and combat fuel poverty and climate change.

S3: Improvements to the natural environment and green and open space which could include community gardens, watercourses and embankments, along with incorporating natural features into wider public spaces.

S14: Funding for the development and promotion (both trade and consumer) of the visitor economy, such as local attractions, trails, tours and tourism products more generally.

S20: Support for expert business advice and support programmes at the local and regional level, including support for decarbonisation, climate adaptation and circular economy advice. This could include funding for new and improvements to existing training hubs, business support offers, ‘incubators’, ‘accelerators’ and other forms of developmental environments for local enterprise (including social enterprise.

S26: Business support measures to drive employment growth, particularly in areas of higher unemployment.

S15: SME development grants and support, aligned with local and regional sectoral priorities and growth potential. This could include, providing tailored expert advice, matched grants and leadership training to enable manufacturing SMEs to adopt industrial digital technology solutions including AI; robotics and autonomous systems; additive manufacturing; industrial internet of things; virtual reality; data analytics.

S32:  Courses including basic skills (digital, English, maths (via Multiply) and ESOL), and life skills and career skills** provision for people who are not economically inactive and who are unable to access other training or wrap around support detailed above. This could be supplemented by financial support for learners to enrol onto courses and complete qualifications.

S33: Activities such as enrichment and volunteering to improve opportunities and promote wellbeing.

S34: Intervention to increase levels of digital inclusion, with a focus on essential digital skills, communicating the benefits of getting (safely) online, and in-community support to provide users with the confidence and trust to stay online.

S36: Support for local areas to fund local skills needs. This includes technical and vocational qualifications and courses up to level 2 and training for vocational licences relevant to local area needs and high-value qualifications where there is a need for additional skills capacity that are not being met through other provision.

S37: Green skills courses to ensure we have the skilled workforce to support the Just Transition to a net zero economy and climate resilience, with a particular focus on vulnerable or low-income groups who will be disproportionately affected by climate change. Retraining support for those in high carbon sectors, providing career guidance and supporting people to seek employment in other sectors.

S38: Funding to support local digital skills.

S35: Support for employability programmes and advice including alignment with the No One Left Behind agenda, the Young Person’s Guarantee, Fair Start Scotland and Scottish employability pipeline.  This could include tailored support to help people in employment, who are not supported by mainstream provision to address barriers to accessing education and training courses.

Wales

W1: Funding for improvements to town centres and high streets, including better accessibility for disabled people, including capital spend and running costs.

W2:  Funding for new, or improvements to existing, community and neighbourhood infrastructure projects including those that increase communities’ resilience to natural hazards, such as flooding, and investment in locally owned renewable energy generation and waste management to improve the transition to low carbon living This could cover capital spend and running costs.

W4: Enhanced support for existing cultural, historic and heritage institutions that make up the local cultural and heritage offer, including improvements to access to sites to counter the effects of isolation, particularly for older people and disabled people.

W6: Support for local arts, cultural, heritage and creative activities.

W10: Funding for local sports facilities, tournaments, teams and leagues; to bring people together.

W5: Design and management of the built and landscaped environment to ‘design out crime’.

W8: Funding for the development and promotion of wider campaigns and year-round experiences which encourage people to visit and explore the local area.

W9: Funding for impactful volunteering and/or social action projects to develop social and human capital in local places.

W13: Community measures to reduce the cost of living, including through measures to improve energy efficiency, and combat fuel poverty and climate change.

W3: Creation of and improvements to local green spaces, community gardens, watercourses and embankments, along with incorporating natural features and biodiversity improvements into wider public space.

W17: Funding for the development and promotion (both trade and consumer) of the visitor economy, such as local attractions, trails, tours and tourism products more generally.

W24: Funding for new and improvements to existing training hubs, business support offers, ‘incubators’ and ‘accelerators’ for local enterprise (including social enterprise) which can support entrepreneurs and start-ups through the early stages of development and growth by offering a combination of services including account management, advice, resources, training, coaching, mentorship and access to workspace.

W30: Business support measures to drive employment growth, particularly in areas of higher unemployment.

W18: Supporting Made Smarter Adoption: Providing tailored expert advice, matched grants and leadership training to enable manufacturing SMEs to adopt industrial digital technology solutions including artificial intelligence; robotics and autonomous systems; additive manufacturing; industrial internet of things; virtual reality; data analytics.

W35:  Courses including basic skills (digital, English, maths (via Multiply) and ESOL), and life skills and career skills** provision for people who are not economically inactive and who are unable to access other training or wrap around support detailed above. Supplemented by financial support for learners to enrol onto courses and complete qualifications.

W36: Activities such as enrichment and volunteering to improve opportunities and promote wellbeing.

W37: Interventions to increase levels of digital inclusion, with a focus on essential digital skills, communicating the benefits of getting (safely) online, and in-community support to provide users with the confidence and trust to stay online.

W39: Support for local areas to fund local skills needs. This includes technical and vocational qualifications and courses up to level 2 and training for vocational licences relevant to local area needs and high-value qualifications where there is a need for additional skills capacity that are not being met through other provision.

W40: Green skills courses targeted around ensuring we have the skilled workforce to achieve the government’s net zero and wider environmental ambitions.

W42: Funding to support local digital skills.

W41: Retraining and upskilling support for those in high carbon sectors, with a particular focus on transitioning to green, and Industry 4.0 and 5.0 jobs.

Northern Ireland

NI1: Funding for improvements to town centres and high streets, including better accessibility for disabled people, including capital spend and running costs.

NI2: Funding for new, or improvements to existing, community and neighbourhood infrastructure projects, including those that increase communities’ resilience to natural hazards, such as flooding. This could cover capital spend and running costs.

NI4: Enhanced support for existing cultural, historic and heritage institutions that make up the local cultural and heritage offer.

NI6: Support for local arts, cultural, heritage and creative activities.

NI10: Funding for local sports facilities, tournaments, teams and leagues; to bring people together, including the preparation of strategies promoting sport and physical activity at the local level.

NI5: Design and management of the built and landscaped environment to ‘design out crime’.

NI8: Funding for the development and promotion of wider campaigns which encourage people to visit and explore the local area.

NI9: Funding for impactful volunteering and/or social action projects to develop social and human capital in local places, for example addressing climate change.

NI13: Community measures to reduce the cost of living, including through measures to improve energy efficiency, and combat fuel poverty and climate change.

NI3: Creation of and improvements to local green spaces, community gardens, watercourses and embankments, along with incorporating natural features into wider public spaces.

NI17: Funding for the development and promotion (both trade and consumer) of the visitor economy, such as local attractions, trails, tours and tourism products more generally.

NI24: Funding for new and improvements to existing training hubs, business support offers, ‘incubators’ and ‘accelerators’ for local enterprise (including social enterprise) which can support entrepreneurs and start-ups/high growth potential firms through the early stages of development and growth by offering a combination of services including: eg account management, advice, resources, training, mentorship, coaching and access to workspace.

NI30: Business support measures to drive employment growth, particularly in areas of higher unemployment.

NI18: Supporting Made Smarter Adoption: Providing tailored expert advice, matched grants and leadership training to enable manufacturing SMEs to adopt industrial digital technology solutions including artificial intelligence; robotics and autonomous systems; additive manufacturing; industrial internet of things; virtual reality; data analytics.

NI34:  Courses including basic skills (digital, English, maths (via Multiply) and ESOL), and life skills and career skills provision for people who are not economically inactive, including the most vulnerable in society and who are unable to access other training or wrap around support detailed above. Supplemented by financial support for learners to enrol onto courses and complete qualifications.

NI35:  Funding for work experience, including internships, and activities such as enrichment and volunteering to improve opportunities and promote wellbeing.

NI36: Interventions to increase levels of digital inclusion, with a focus on essential digital skills, communicating the benefits of getting (safely) online, and in-community support to provide users with the confidence and trust to stay online.

NI38: Support for local areas to address local skills needs. This includes technical and vocational qualifications and courses up to level 2 and training for vocational licences relevant to local area needs and high-value qualifications where there is a need for additional skills capacity that Are not being met through other provision.

NI39: Green skills courses targeted around ensuring we have the skilled workforce to achieve the government’s net zero and wider environmental ambitions, with a particular focus on vulnerable or low-income groups who will be disproportionately affected by climate change.

NI41: Funding to support local digital skills.

NI40: Retraining support to those in employment to address skills shortages, including those in high carbon sectors.