Research and analysis

UK Shared Prosperity Fund intervention-level evaluation: early update report

Published 16 October 2024

Progress update and early process evaluation insights

Executive summary

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) aims to provide £2.6 billion of local funding by March 2025, and focuses on local interventions which support local growth through improvements to community pride and life chances^{[footnote 1]}. To generate robust evidence on what interventions work, or do not work, for whom and why, this intervention-level evaluation has been commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) as one part of its UKSPF evaluation strategy.

A Feasibility Report for this evaluation was published in March 2024 by the evaluators, Frontier Economics and BMG Research. This described the proposed methods, including the groups of projects (study groups) that will be evaluated across the three UKSPF pillars: Business Support; People & Skills; and Communities & Place. 

This update report provides early insights on the process of design, planning, and delivery of UKSPF projects across each of the nine evaluation study groups, drawing on ten interviews with local authorities and delivery partners conducted between February and March 2024^{[footnote 2]}. Some of the project teams interviewed represented multiple local authorities and delivery partners. A full process and impact evaluation, alongside a value for money assessment, will be delivered in 2025, covering all 26 projects anticipated to be in the evaluation.

Summary of early insights on the process of project design and planning:

• the design and planning of UKSPF interventions generally worked well and there was consensus among interviewees that their interventions would not have been possible without UKSPF funding.
• local authorities typically led the development of UKSPF investment plans, with delivery partners focusing on project plans. Local authorities and delivery partners worked well together, often building on pre-existing relationships. Some local authorities chose to handle the design and delivery of interventions independently, without external partners.
• project teams within local authorities and delivery partners engaged with local stakeholders through formal and informal channels, and worked with other teams within their local authority to align UKSPF interventions with broader local plans.
• some project teams mentioned that MHCLG guidance could have been clearer or more timely, including in relation to outputs, outcomes, and indicators they were asked to report to MHCLG for project monitoring. As well as the eligibility criteria for providing UKSPF funding for different support groups.

Summary of early process insights on project selection:

• when selecting projects, some local authorities initiated calls for bids from prospective delivery partners seeking UKSPF funding for People & Skills and Business Support projects. Communities & Place interventions were selected by local authorities and were described as ‘shovel-ready’ infrastructure projects designed internally by local authorities.
• for delivery partners who bid for funding, there was some uncertainty regarding the amount of funding that would ultimately be allocated to each project by the local authority. Some teams had to scale down their delivery plans because the UKSPF allocation they received was less than what they had originally bid for.

Summary of early process insights on project delivery:

• for the projects interviewed, delivery has generally adhered to initial timelines and projects are on track to achieve their desired outputs and outcomes, in part due to planned delivery towards the end of the UKSPF three-year period. Beneficiary engagement has been effective so far, though it is still too early to fully assess its ultimate impact.
• all interviewees stated that relevant delivery partners have been appointed (where this was intended) and are performing well, contributing to the projects with a high standard of commitment and skill.
• the short delivery timeframe for UKSPF projects, ending in March 2025, was highlighted as a challenge by most project teams. Project teams would prefer longer funding delivery periods to better accommodate the various stages of project before delivery (such as local consultation and planning approvals).
• planning and delivery timelines were reported as often negatively impacted by external factors beyond the control of local authorities and delivery partners. Examples provided include recruitment challenges and increased costs for building materials, which have affected the implementation of projects.

The intervention-level evaluation will cover the period to March 2025. Methods will draw on primary and secondary data, alongside data reported by projects. Innovative approaches are proposed for the People & Skills study groups where feasible, to generate evidence on the impact of projects on supporting participants on their journey from economic inactivity into employment. The intervention-level evaluation is intended to complete in 2025. The feasibility of extending the evaluation beyond 2025, to enable long term impacts to be collected, is currently being explored.

1. Introduction

The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) aims to provide £2.6 billion of local funding by March 2025, and focuses on local interventions which support local growth through improvements to community pride and to life chances^{[footnote 3]}. To generate robust evidence on what interventions work, or do not work, for whom and why, this intervention-level evaluation has been commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) as one part of its UKSPF evaluation strategy.

A Feasibility Report for this evaluation was published in March 2024 by the evaluators, Frontier Economics and BMG Research. This described the proposed methods, including the groups of projects (study groups) that will be evaluated across the three UKSPF pillars: Business Support; People & Skills; and Communities & Place. 

This update report provides early insights on the process of design, planning, and delivery of UKSPF projects across each of the nine evaluation study groups, drawing on ten interviews with local authorities and delivery partners conducted between February and March 2024. Some of the project teams interviewed represented multiple local authorities and delivery partners. A full process and impact evaluation, alongside a value for money assessment, will be delivered in 2025, covering all 26 projects anticipated to be in the evaluation.

1.1   Study groups in the intervention-level evaluation

The Feasibility Report (Frontier Economics and BMG Research, March 2024) set out the proposed methods, including the groups of projects (study groups) that will be evaluated across the three UKSPF pillars: Business Support; People & Skills; and Communities & Place. Study groups and respective projects were selected from across the UK based on the extent to which sufficient data and evidence would be available in a timely way to develop robust evidence on their impacts, and therefore contribute to the evidence base on ‘what works’ locally.

The study groups and respective projects aim to reflect the types of UKSPF interventions being delivered locally, recognising the importance of local context variation which makes a representative sample of the whole UKSPF programme not feasible. The diagram below illustrates the 9 study groups by UKSPF pillar:

Evaluation study groups

Alt text: a hexagon split into three sections, representing the UKSPF pillars: People & Skills, Business Support, and Communities & Place. Across the sections, there are nine text boxes, representing the nine evaluation study groups. These cover:

• Study Group 1: Helping improve the employability of economically inactive people (People & Skills)
• Study Group 2/3: Helping improve the employability of economically inactive young people (People & Skills)
• Study Group 4: Involving local businesses in helping improve the employability of economically inactive people (People & Skills)
• Study Group 5: Supporting the digital development of local businesses (Business Support)
• Study Group 6: Providing grants to local businesses (Business Support)
• Study Group 7: Helping businesses decarbonise through audits and grants (Business Support)
• Study Group 8: Major refurbishments of community buildings (Communities & Place)
• Study Group 9: Large investments in sports pavilions or pitches (Communities & Place)
• Study Group 10: Investments in new or improved playground equipment (Communities & Place)

The Feasibility Report (Frontier Economics and BMG Research, 2024) provides more detail on the Study Groups.

Chapter 3 provides a methodological update that would enable more innovative evaluation of employment-related interventions. Appendix 1 provides the list of anticipated projects for evaluation in 2025.

2. Early process insights

The early insights on the process of design, planning, and delivery summarised in this section reflect the views of nine project teams across the study groups, interviewed between February and March 2024^{[footnote 4]}. This section therefore intends to offer early insights only, based on this small number of views, and reflect the experience of the UKSPF as of February 2024. A full process evaluation will be undertaken and reported on in 2025.

2.1 The UKSPF funding process

UKSPF funding allocations were determined by a formula which ensured every Lead Local Authority^{[footnote 5]} received at least a minimum amount of funding of £1 million over the Spending Review period (2022/23 to 2024/25). Allocations were made to Mayoral Combined Authorities and the Greater London Authority; unitary authorities; lower-tier authorities; some upper-tier authorities; Regional Economic Partnerships and individual local authorities in Scotland; City and Growth Deal geographies in Wales; and Northern Ireland (delivered centrally by MHCLG).

In England, Wales, and Scotland, lead local authorities are responsible for the delivery of their UKSPF allocation. Lead local authorities had the flexibility to design investment plans they felt would best meet their local needs and address local objectives, and these were subsequently shared with MHCLG for approval. In Northern Ireland, local delivery partners are responsible for project delivery, and MHCLG has worked directly with key stakeholders to design a UKSPF investment plan that reflects the needs and opportunities for Northern Ireland’s people, businesses, and communities. Once the investment plan was approved, local delivery partners (including local authorities, Northern Ireland government departments, or the community and voluntary sector) were asked to submit projects that would meet the UKSPF priorities and outcomes outlined in the investment plan for consideration. This was done either by a competition or commissioning approach.

2.2 Early insights across the study groups

Early insights on enablers of project design and planning

Overall, the design and planning process of UKSPF interventions was seen to work relatively well, according to the project teams.

Project teams who had previously delivered their projects using European Social Fund (ESF) allocations were able to draw on that experience when designing and planning projects to deliver with UKSPF allocations. There was broad agreement among interviewees that the interventions being delivered across the study groups would not have gone ahead without UKSPF funding, especially given their previous reliance on ESF funding.

To inform the design and planning of interventions, most project teams undertook a process of consultation with local stakeholders. Some consultation was through formal channels (e.g., local authorities scheduling specific sessions to be run by themselves or consultants) and some was through informal channels (e.g., council officials having conversations with residents or community representatives). The typical stakeholders involved in the consultations varied across study groups but tended to include both subject matter experts and project beneficiaries.

Project teams took into account wider plans for their local area by seeking input from other teams in their local authority when designing and planning interventions for delivery under UKSPF funding. For example, some project teams worked with other local authority teams to ensure there was co-ordination between UKSPF interventions and other relevant strategies. This included local economic development and employment targets, net zero agendas, and public realm regeneration master plans.

Project teams described how local authorities and delivery partners worked well together when preparing their respective plans. Project teams reported that local authorities were typically in charge of developing investment plans, with delivery partners usually in charge of developing project plans. Some local authorities and delivery partners had pre-existing relationships which they could build on, having previously delivered similar interventions together. In some instances, interviewees reported that local authorities may choose not to use delivery partners and would lead on the design, planning, and delivery of interventions, themselves.

Early insights on project design and planning challenges

Challenges were encountered by some project teams when designing and planning interventions across the study groups, notably in relation to some of the guidance provided by MHCLG which could have been clearer or more timely. This related specifically to a lack of clarity in the MHCLG guidance listing outputs, outcomes, and which indicators should be selected for required monitoring, as well as guidance on which groups may be eligible for support in each pillar.

Some of the local authorities had got in touch with MHCLG directly to clarify the guidance. They found the one-to-one support they received helpful. While valuing this support, local authorities expressed a preference to have a single named contact within MHCLG with whom they could speak as necessary, as opposed to an email inbox or different MHCLG contacts over time.

Early insights on enablers of project selection

Some project teams explained that in their areas, local authorities conducted calls for prospective delivery partners to submit applications or bids to obtain UKSPF funding for their projects. Once bids were submitted by delivery partners, the local authorities interviewed those who had bid and decided which projects should be funded through UKSPF, taking into consideration the priorities set out in the investment plans and how prospective projects would fit with those.

Project teams suggested that calls for bids were typically conducted in relation to People & Skills and Business Support projects, rather than Communities & Place interventions. For the latter, interventions were typically ‘shovel-ready’ infrastructural development projects designed by local authorities. As such, the standard process of internal decision-making between council officials and elected representatives was followed. Community involvement in the design of projects took place at an earlier stage, before delivery under UKSPF.

Early insights on project selection challenges

Project teams also reported uncertainty as to how much funding would eventually be allocated to each project. This affected project teams and delivery partners involved in Business Support and People & Skills projects, who submitted bids for funding approval. Some project teams and delivery partners found themselves having to scale down delivery plans as the UKSPF allocation they were granted after having submitted their bids locally was lower than the amount they had bid for. This reportedly made planning more protracted and some teams felt they had to spend time planning for various delivery scenarios according to the level of allocation they may receive, as there would be insufficient time to redevelop plans once final allocations were notified. Some LLAs asked for scaled bids, whereas in other cases the project teams and delivery partners made the decision to plan for multiple scenarios.

Early insights on enablers of project delivery

Experiences of delivery across the project teams were limited at the time of interview, in February 2024. Delivery is underway for all People & Skills and Business Support projects, though is typically still in the early stages. For most of these projects, more concentrated periods of implementation are expected over the coming year to March 2025. One of the three interviewed Communities & Place project teams reported that redevelopment work using UKSPF capital investment has been fully delivered.

Where delivery of projects has started, interviewees reported that this was going well to date: delivery is taking place according to the initial timelines and projects are seen to be on track to meet their desired outputs and outcomes. Beneficiary engagement with projects was also tentatively seen as effective among interviewees across the study groups, although it was too early to tell what beneficiary engagement will ultimately look like for different groups, given the early stages of delivery.

Delivery partners had been appointed for all project teams interviewed, where partners were planned for. These included business advisors for Business Support projects, employment advisors and youth workers for People & Skills interventions, and contractors for the Communities & Place projects. There was agreement among interviewees across the study groups that the appointed delivery partners were skilled and committed and were delivering projects to a high standard.

Local authorities and delivery partners across the study groups reported having regular meetings to discuss project progress against outputs and outcomes, as well as any delivery challenges that may have emerged. These meetings were regarded as helpful by interviewees to keep delivery timelines and outcomes on track.

Some of the project teams observed that ease of delivery is facilitated by the flexibility in UKSPF procurement rules. Compared to the European Social Fund, which was seen as rather prescriptive, it was perceived that UKSPF allows local authorities to use their own contract award procedures which were seen as less bureaucratic.

Early insights on project delivery challenges

The relatively short delivery time for UKSPF projects, which covers three years to March 2025, was cited as a challenge among project teams. The actual delivery period for projects was thought to be even shorter, when time for design and planning was factored in. Local authorities and delivery partners expressed a preference for longer delivery periods for funding streams, e.g., seven years. This would allow sufficient time for initial calls for bids or proposed projects and local consultations as part of the funding allocation at the local level, as well as designing, planning, and delivery.

A longer overall delivery period was considered important by interviewees given that planning and delivery timelines may be negatively affected by external factors outside the control of local authorities and delivery partners. For example, some interviewees across different study groups explained that they had experienced difficulties recruiting staff to deliver projects, while increased costs for building materials impacted other interventions.

Interviewees involved in delivering Business Support and People & Skills interventions also mentioned that MHCLG made changes to monitoring guidance even once some projects were being delivered^{[footnote 6]}. This reportedly created additional work for the local authorities and delivery partners as they had to start collecting new data during delivery.

2.3 Early insights specific to each UKSPF pillar

Early insights from the limited set of process interviews conducted between February and March 2024 have also been grouped according to UKSPF pillar. For the list of projects anticipated for inclusion in the full evaluation in 2025, please see table 1.

People and skills

Early process evaluation insights from a small sample of three interviewees across People & Skills projects suggest the following findings:

• project teams mentioned that the guidance issued by MHCLG during the design and planning stage was unclear about which groups they could support. For example, one interviewee explained that the guidance was unclear from the outset whether asylum seekers would be eligible for support in their programme.
• some project teams interviewed mentioned that they added welfare support to their support packages due to an increase in mental health problems following the external impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This example reflects the flexibility of UKSPF funding, mentioned by various project teams, which gave them the capacity to pivot and adapt their offer to the needs of beneficiaries.
• an external factor which negatively impacted delivery was the cost-of-living crisis. This made the recruitment of advisors to deliver projects harder due to staff turnover and competition with other job opportunities.

Business Support

Early process evaluation insights from a small sample of four interviewees across Business Support interventions suggest the following findings:

• with regards to MHCLG guidance issued during the design and planning stages, one Business Support project team mentioned that the guidance was vague in defining ‘social enterprises’ which caused confusion about the types of businesses eligible for support.
• most interviewed project teams mentioned that the timescale for delivering their UKSPF funded projects was so short that it would negatively impact their capacity to build relationships with the businesses they were supporting. Having sufficient time to establish relationships with businesses and fully understand their needs was seen by project teams as crucial to delivering the right support effectively.
• most interviewed project teams also referred to the challenge they faced in recruiting business advisors with expertise in energy and digital skills, with the high demand for such roles. Due to the limited timescales for delivering UKSPF projects, teams were limited to offering fixed-term contracts which may have deterred potential candidates.

Communities and Place

Early process evaluation insights from a small sample of 3 interviewees across Communities and Place interventions suggest the following findings.

• interventions delivered under the Communities and Place pillar were typically selected on the premise that the projects were ‘shovel-ready’ and could be implemented quickly once UKSPF funding was allocated.
• key challenges to delivering Communities and Place interventions mentioned by some project teams include delays in receiving materials for building due to supply chain problems and increased construction costs linked to inflation.

3. Evaluation methodologies

Details of the methodologies are set out in the Feasibility Report (Frontier Economics and BMG Research, March 2024). The intervention-level evaluation will include a process evaluation, an impact evaluation, and a value for money evaluation.

3.1 Revision to impact methodology for People and Skills study group

The intention for the People and Skills study groups at the Feasibility Report stage was to evaluate projects in each study group. Having learned more about the projects, an opportunity has been identified to deliver more robust and innovative evaluation analysis by pooling projects across study group 1 and study group 2/3 together and focusing on the concept of the ‘distance travelled towards employment’. This means the participants’ journey towards employment can be tracked at an earlier stage, therefore delivering learning on the projects’ effectiveness, without having to wait potentially years to observe employment outcomes.

This is possible because most of the data needed for this analysis is already being collected by the delivery bodies and could be shared with the evaluation team^{[footnote 7]}. This means it is likely that the evaluation team can build a large, participant-level dataset across the programmes which could be used to robustly explore quasi-experimental evidence on what (activities) works (outputs and outcomes) and for whom (characteristics)^{[footnote 8]}. The control group for the quasi-experimental difference-in-difference analysis would be a comparative group drawn from within the large dataset: for instance, individuals with similar characteristics receiving different combinations of treatment. Other aspects of the integrative evaluation approach remain unchanged.

The concept of distance travelled

This innovative analysis will focus on supporting people into employment by observing their ‘distance travelled’:

“The concept of ‘distance travelled’ has developed as a way to measure the progress clients are making in achieving ‘soft outcomes’ that may lead to sustained employment or other associated ‘hard outcomes’ in the future” Barens, S-A., Wright, S. (2019)^{[footnote 9]}  

There is a range of literature which considers soft outcomes but with no settled definition. For the purposes of this evaluation soft outcomes have been grouped into 4 broad groups^{[footnote 10]},^{[footnote 11]}:

• confidence
• employability skills, such as teamwork and communication
• job search skills, such as CV writing
• being motivated to set and achieve goals

The hard outcomes referred to above typically include moves into employment, full-time education or training, or the attainment of a qualification. While some movement into employment may occur in the timeframe for this intervention-level evaluation and hence be captured as a hard outcome, the selected projects are predominantly seeking to overcome individual barriers to employment to increase the employability or “soft outcomes” of individuals. If the evaluation was to only focus on whether or not hard outcomes were achieved in the timeframe for the evaluation, this would likely miss a large portion of valuable work undertaken by the projects. Measuring the “distance travelled” in employability terms across these soft outcomes by selected projects offers an innovative opportunity to compare alternative interventions to learn about what works on people’s journeys towards employment^{[footnote 12]}.

4. Evaluation next steps

This update report has set out the early process evaluation insights which form the first phase of findings. The majority of process evaluation interviews will be conducted in the evaluation’s second phase in 2025, to capture the full period of UKSPF delivery. Interviews and focus groups in 2025 will also allow for qualitative findings for impact and value for money evaluations.

The full evaluation is intended to complete by the end of 2025. The feasibility of extending the evaluation beyond 2025, to enable long term impacts to be collected, is currently being explored. The Feasibility Report (Frontier Economics and BMG Research, 2024) offered suggested approaches for how the evaluation activity could be extended, including methodologies that could be used and the evidence that could be generated, for an illustrative three-year extension. This could include evidence on what has worked for employment outcomes (including longer term employment outcomes) for the People & Skills programmes, Business Support outcomes such as survival, turnover and employment, and a longer term understanding of pride in place outcomes for Communities and Place. 

Table 1: anticipated projects in the evaluation

The evaluation team is grateful for the participation of all projects engaged with over the course of the evaluation. The following table sets out the list of projects in each study group which are anticipated to be included in the evaluation through 2025.

Table 1 anticipated projects in the evaluation

Study Group	Project name and location	Total project funding[footnote 13]
1: Projects which aim to facilitate the movement towards employment of local adults who are economically inactive through improving employability.	Ways to Work, Liverpool City Region (England)	£7.5m
	Households into Work, Liverpool City Region (England)	£1.6m
	Into Work Services, Cardiff (Wales)	£3.8m
	Employ Me, Newry, Mourne & Down and Armagh City, Banbridge & Craigavon Councils, delivery led by Southern Regional College (Northern Ireland)	£3.0m
2/3: Projects which aim to facilitate the movement towards employment of local young people who are economically inactive through improving employability.	Youth Start – Youth Action consortium Northern Ireland-wide	£6.0m
	Youth Start Springvale, Belfast (Northern Ireland)	£1.3m
4: Projects which aim to facilitate the movement towards employment of local adults and young people who are economically inactive through involving local businesses.	Quickstart, Blaenau Gwent (Wales)	£1.1m
	Employment Support, County Durham (England)	£4.9m
	No One Left Behind, Fife (Scotland)	£0.9m
5: Projects that support local businesses in enhancing their digital skills and implementing digital technologies with the aim of increasing productivity and overall business performance.	London E-business support, Greater London (England)	£2.9m
	Go digital, Norfolk (England)	£0.07m
	Technology and Local Knowledge Monmouthshire (Wales)	£0.22m
6: Projects which provide access to grants to help local businesses finance: capital investments, research and development (R&D), initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, and investments related to trade.	Business Energy Saving Team, North of Tyne (England)	£1.3m
	Accelerators: decarbonisation strand, D2N2: Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire (England)	£0.5m for decarbonisation (£1.7m for whole project)
7: Projects that support local businesses in enhancing their digital skills and implementing digital technologies with the aim of increasing productivity and overall business performance.	Business Support Scheme, North Lanarkshire (Scotland)	£1.3m
	Cornwall Growth Hub, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (England)	£12m
	Go Succeed, Northern Ireland-wide	£5.9m for grants (£17m for whole project)
8: Projects that provide capital funding to deliver major refurbishments of community buildings, including community centres, libraries, village halls, and other community buildings.	Refurbishment of Trinity Chapel, Blaenau Gwent (Wales)	£1.9m
	The Ladder, Redruth’s New Creative Hub, Cornwall (England)	£1.9m
	Transforming Libraries into Community Places, Gateshead (England)	£1.2m
9: Projects which provide substantive capital funding for sports facilities such as sports centres, pavilions and sports pitches.	Castle Donington 3G Sports Fields, North West Leicestershire (England)	£0.40m
	Cottam Hall Playing Fields development, Wyre (England)	£0.55m
	A Park for All, Merstham Recreation Ground, Reigate and Banstead (England)	£0.50m for sports facilities (£2.9m for whole project)
10: Projects that provide capital funding for significant improvements to, or the provision of, new playground equipment (some playgrounds sit within parks/ green spaces).	Kingsway Park Regeneration, Luton (England)	£0.66m
	Clough Hall Park Enhancements, Newcastle Under Lyme (England)	£0.25m
	Crossfell Walk Play Area, Fareham (England)	£0.10m

1. See Levelling Up White Paper (HMG, 2022). ↩

2. One project required two interviews to cover both design and delivery. Projects further along delivery were prioritised where possible to facilitate greater learnings on delivery at this stage. ↩

3. See Levelling Up White Paper (HMG, 2022). ↩

4. One project required two interviews to cover both design and delivery. Projects further along delivery were prioritised where possible to facilitate greater learnings on delivery at this stage. ↩

5. This is the delivery geography for the UKSPF. ↩

6. Guidance changes include greater flexibility in how local authorities can spend their allocation, as well as clarifications to make the reporting and delivery process more streamlined. ↩

7. Study group 4 methodology remains unchanged to the Feasibility Report. ↩

8. The ability to do this will depend on facilitating appropriate data sharing agreements, with sufficient data then shared by the programmes in a consistent and timely manner. ↩

9. Barnes, S-A., Wright, S. (2019). The feasibility of developing a methodology for measuring the distance travelled and soft outcomes for long-term unemployed people participating in Active Labour Market Programmes, Warwick Institute for Employment Research, European Commission. ↩

10. These make up the basis of the additional questions in the baseline, established in the enrolment process. ↩

11. See for instance Barnes, S-A., Wright, S. (2019). The feasibility of developing a methodology for measuring the distance travelled and soft outcomes for long-term unemployed people participating in Active Labour Market Programmes, Warwick Institute for Employment Research, European Commission; DWP (2013), The Jobcentre Plus Offer: Final evaluation report. ↩

12. IBID. ↩

13. Frontier Economics’ assessment based on information shared by projects. ↩