www.tenentrepreneurs.org/jobs

This survey will track how founders’ views are shifting as well as dig into new questions:

💡 How AI is reshaping business
💷 The impact of recent tax changes
📺 Media portrayal of entrepreneurs
🛫 Whether founders are thinking about leaving the UK
www.tenentrepreneurs.org/entrepreneur...

📰 If you were flipping through @thetimes.com yesterday, you might’ve spotted a preview.

We cover a lot more ground in the full report.
Read it here:
www.tenentrepreneurs.org/full-speed-a...

Why these reforms matter:

📈 Founders need clarity
💸 Funders need accountability
🛠️ Programmes need time and tools to improve

Done right, these changes would help ensure that public investment flows to programmes that deliver the most value for founders and the UK economy.

3️⃣ Fund outcomes, not just activity – move from one-off grants to 3-5 year outcome-linked support with rolling reviews, bridging finance and room to adapt.

4️⃣ Pilot founder vouchers to let entrepreneurs choose where to use public support, with quality assurance built in.

1️⃣ Create standards and accreditation – so founders and funders can identify high quality programmes at a glance.

2️⃣ Shift impact measurement to track long-term founder outcomes, not just short-term startup outputs.

When the strongest programmes can’t stand out and under-performers keep being funded, founders pay the price.

We propose four areas of reform to make startup support more consistent, impactful and founder-focused...

Short-term funding leads to short-termism in impact measurement.

Tracking only the immediate performance of startups overlooks long-term founder development. Failed startups can create stronger founders.

We’ve identified several limitations in standard impact measurement… ⤵️

Startup ecosystems are fragile, and stop-start funding can break trust and momentum.

For example, one accelerator ran a 15-month pilot. Then came a 6-month funding gap. That gap halted founder engagement, broke networks, and set the ecosystem back.

Programme quality, structure and longevity vary widely. One reason for this is short-term grants, which can:

🔁 Disrupt mentorship
🧱 Break community continuity
🤝 Undermine long-term trust with founders
📉 Make it harder for programmes to improve over time

Programme duration matters.

Most accelerators last under 3 months or between 3 and 6 months.

That may work for some founders. But those building in deep tech, health or other regulated sectors often need longer support to become investment-ready.

Some accelerators don’t align with founder needs.

Disconnects include:

⏱️ Too short-term for some sectors
🧰 Generic content, not sector-specific help
🧑‍🏫 Focus on training, not investor/customer intros

Founders can cycle through programmes and get little cumulative value.

Take accelerators. Well-designed programmes should not only offer advice but also connect founders to capital and provide a clear growth path.

But the features offered don’t always match what founders need. Mentoring and workshops are common; investor and capital access – less so.

Without clarity and shared standards, it’s hard for founders to choose the right support, and for funders to back what works.

As a result, founders are often left guessing:

👉 Will this programme help me raise?
👉 Does it work for my sector?
👉 Will it even exist in 6 months?

Not all startup support is created equal.

From incubators to accelerators to venture studios, the ecosystem is diverse – but definitions are fuzzy, and so are expectations.

This table from our report breaks it down… ⤵️