Shared Prosperity Fund: lessons learned survey report

This summary shares insights from a Welsh Government (WG) survey on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF), which replaced European Union (EU) Structural Funds. The survey findings, along with findings from our Local Growth Fund in Wales consultation (November to December 2025), experiences from previous funding programmes and international best practice on regional investment, will inform the design of Wales’s Local Growth Fund to launch from April 2026.

The EU Structural Funds were financial instruments designed to reduce regional disparities across the EU by supporting economic development, infrastructure, employment, and social inclusion. In Wales, these funds were administered by the WG and played a significant role in supporting regeneration and skills programmes, particularly in areas facing economic challenges.

Following the United Kingdom’s (UK) departure from the EU, successive UK Governments (2019 to 2024) developed the SPF as a domestic replacement for the EU Structural Funds. The SPF’s aim was to level up communities across the UK by investing in local priorities such as communities and place, supporting local businesses, and improving people’s skills. 

The SPF was worth £585 million to Wales between 2022 and 2025. The UK Government allocated this funding directly to local authorities (LAs), which are responsible for managing delivery at both local and regional levels. This marked a shift in governance from the preceding EU Structural Funds, which were administered in Wales by the Welsh Government.

The SPF was extended for a transition year by the current UK Government, ahead of a planned new regional investment programme scheduled to launch in April 2026.

This project forms part of a broader policy learning exercise designed to inform a new Local Growth Fund in Wales. 

The primary objective of the project was to conduct an engagement exercise to gather feedback on the SPF from stakeholders. Feedback was collected through an online survey hosted on the SmartSurvey platform, which was open from 10 April 2025 to 9 May 2025. The survey was initially shared with members of the Regional Investment in Wales Steering Group, who then distributed it to the sectors and networks they represent.

The survey invited respondents to reflect on:

• the benefits and strengths of the SPF
• areas where the SPF could be improved
• priority areas and types of activity respondents would like to see supported through any future regional investment programme
• how well the SPF is aligned with the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act (WBFG Act)

In total, 155 responses were received. Respondents included: 

• representatives from LAs
• organisations which had received SPF funding
• organisations which had unsuccessfully applied for SPF funding

This summary presents the main insights from the feedback received.  

Benefits and positive features of the SPF identified by respondents included:

Access to funding

Many respondents valued the availability of funding in general, and the range of activities it made possible, such as financial support for local businesses, the delivery of leisure, cultural and education activities, and the recruitment and retention of staff.

Strengthened local relationships 

Some noted improved relationships between LAs administering the fund and the community groups and businesses that benefitted from it.

Locally driven decision-making

Some respondents felt that allocating funding at the local authority level helped ensure that delivery was better aligned with local needs.

Flexibility in delivery

The SPF was noted by some as adaptable, enabling spending to be tailored according to project needs.

Capital and revenue funding

The availability of both capital and revenue funding was highlighted by some as a strength, allowing for a mix of projects to be supported.

Support for partnership working

Some respondents noted the scope the SPF created for working together collaboratively, within and across LAs, and between LAs, funded organisations, and other stakeholders.

Application process and support

Some respondents described the application process as clear and straightforward; particularly, for a few respondents, when compared to previous EU funding schemes. Some respondents appreciated the support provided by fund officers throughout the process.

Respondents identified several aspects of the SPF that could be improved:

Administrative burden

Many felt the SPF involved too much administration which could be reduced, such as in the areas of monitoring, reporting, and audit. Other suggestions included simplifying the application process.

Reporting processes

Some described the reporting processes as rigid and too time-constrained, with limited scope to capture qualitative impacts and outcomes.

Funding timescales

Delays in funding announcements and decision-making were seen to shorten delivery periods significantly. This uncertainty was linked by some to challenges in recruiting and retaining staff.

Communication and guidance

Some respondents identified communication as an area which could be improved, and highlighted issues with delayed or unclear communication, infrequent updates, and constant changes to guidance. Some also noted limited detail in the guidance provided.

Governance and accountability

Some respondents felt governance arrangements were unclear or weak, with inconsistencies across different LAs.

Local management of funding

Some respondents felt local management of funding led to inconsistencies in management approaches across LAs, made regional or national collaboration on projects more difficult, resulted in duplication of activities, and created perceptions that funding was used to pursue LA priorities.

Payment processes

Some suggested quicker or upfront payments could have helped address the cashflow challenges faced by some beneficiary organisations.

Short-term funding cycles 

The limited duration of funding cycles was seen as a barrier to longer-term planning.

Engagement with County Voluntary Councils (CVCs)

Some felt closer cooperation with CVCs could have avoided duplication in grant awarding and helped facilitate improved delivery to third sector organisations at the local level.

Access to funding

Some respondents felt the opportunities to apply for funding were limited, with a lack of information about the application process, such as in relation to feedback on unsuccessful bids.

Transition planning

Concerns were raised about the transition from the SPF to a successor fund, which was identified as an area of uncertainty and risk, with calls for clearer and more timely transition plans.

Impact on delivery

In some cases, respondents identified issues with processes as having a negative effect on the quality of delivery and the ultimate impact of SPF-funded interventions. For example, tight delivery timescales could result in quality being sacrificed to meet deadlines, and administrative burden could reduce the capacity available for delivery.

Under the SPF, funding eligibility is based on three priority areas: ‘Communities and Place’, ‘Supporting Local Business’, and ‘People and Skills’. Respondents were asked whether there were other priority areas they would like to see considered in any future regional investment programme, to determine eligibility for funding. Suggestions included:

Youth and children

Support for children and youth work, home-educated children, and safe social spaces for young people.

Health and well-being 

Scope for funding preventative health initiatives, mental health support such as counselling, and trauma-informed training.

Transport and accessibility 

Supporting the development of community-led and youth-centred transport solutions.

Environment and sustainability

Support for waste reduction, recycling and circular economy initiatives, and environmental improvements within businesses.

Social enterprise

Supporting initiatives focussed on developing the social enterprise sector.

Public safety 

Funding for prevention services and community safety wardens.

Research and innovation 

Including research and development, and service delivery innovation.

Respondents were invited to comment on how well the SPF aligns with the WBFG Act.

Areas of alignment identified included: 

• a shared focus on mental and physical well-being
• support for inclusive economic growth and sustainable development
• strengthening community resilience

Suggestions for improving alignment included:

• embedding the WBFG Act’s five ways of working (long-term, integration, involvement, collaboration, prevention) into SPF design, delivery and reporting, for example, some respondents noted the short-term nature of SPF funding may conflict with the WBFG Act’s focus on long-term thinking
• ensuring SPF funding works well with other funding streams to avoid duplication and enhance its impact in achieving the WBFG Act’s objectives
• including ring-fenced funding for youth organisations to provide consistent, long-term support for young people