Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Youth Investment Fund Phase 2: executive summary

Published 28 August 2025

Applies to England

The Youth Investment Fund Phase 2 (YIF2) aims to provide more equal access to high -quality youth facilities and a broad range of activities to improve outcomes for young people. YIF2 aims to create, expand, and improve up to 300 youth facilities providing more safe spaces for young people through which youth organisations can reach and deliver more programmes. These new and upgraded facilities are expected to result in around 45,000 more young people per year regularly taking part in positive activities in the targeted areas.

YIF2 was open to organisations in geographic areas with high levels of need and gaps in youth provision, covering 45 upper tier local authorities and 674 wards in England. Eligible applicants needed to either be delivering or intending to deliver open access youth activities outside of school hours and have an eligible organisation status, such as being a registered charity, or local authority.

YIF2 will be delivered over three financial years from 2022/23 to 2024/25 and all grant funds are required to be spent by the end of March 2025. The total funds available after the costs of distributing and evaluating the fund is £220 million in capital grant funding for creating or enhancing buildings and £39.9 million for revenue grant funding to support activities in those facilities.

An intermediary grant maker (IGM) was appointed by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) in August 2022. The IGM comprises a consortium led by the Social Investment Business (SIB) and incorporates the National Youth Agency (NYA), Key Fund and Resonance.

The evaluation

This is the first interim report from the evaluation of YIF2. The evaluation has three inter-related strands:

1. A process evaluation to understand how the assessment, distribution of funding and implementation of the capital investment programme worked.
2. An impact evaluation to assess the difference YIF2 made to youth organisations, and to young people.
3. A value for money evaluation to assess the value to the public purse of the funding. This report forms part of the process evaluation and is focused on the promotion, assessment of applications, and early distribution of the fund. It synthesises findings from:

• Analysis of programme monitoring data collected by the IGM: The data in this report covers the period from 1 August 2022 to 1 June 2024.
• Qualitative interviews undertaken at two time points: Seven interviews with DCMS staff, twenty-seven interviews with staff from the IGM consortium, fifteen interviews with ineligible applicants, fifteen interviews with unsuccessful applicants, and fifty interviews with grant holders.
• A survey of applicants: All eligible fund applicants, both successful and unsuccessful, were contacted by email and invited to take part in an online survey (N=392). There was a response rate of 70% from successful applicants and 49% from unsuccessful applicants.

Funding awarded and interim report fund status

The timeframes for distribution of the funding and completion of funded projects have been a considerable challenge. They have resulted in the IGM having to undertake aspects of the design, development and delivery of the fund in parallel when ideally, they would have been undertaken in sequence. They have also resulted in a leaning towards applications for projects that were perceived to be more ready and could be implemented within the fund timeframes. Stakeholders, staff, and grantees felt that the annual funding profile did not sufficiently reflect the complexity of capital investment and led to timing risks that were difficult to mitigate.

The IGM processed over 1,000 applications to the fund, of which 270 were approved. All eligible local authority areas have facilities that were awarded funding. The total capital funding awarded was £246 million. There were 16 large scale construction projects (6% of the portfolio), which combined accounted for over a quarter (26%) of the investment. Refurbishments accounted for the highest number of projects (more than half of the total), but just 22% of the overall investment.

Organisations awarded capital funding could also apply for revenue funding. Around £17.5 million of revenue funding was applied for by grantees. One in five (19%) grantees did not initially apply for revenue funding, in part because they were not clear what could be applied for under this part of the fund. In some cases, applicants were encouraged by the IGM to apply for more revenue funding and for different categories of revenue support. By 1st June 2024, the total amount of revenue funding awarded to grantees was £27.5 million – almost £10 million more than initially applied for.

Pre-construction grants were introduced in January 2023 to provide financial support to youth organisations for the development of high-quality applications. £2.5 million was provided in preconstruction grant funding. These grants were deemed invaluable to supporting grantees’ technical drawings, surveyors, and legal work.

Marketing and fund promotion and application

To raise awareness of the fund DCMS staff sought to prepare organisations for the fund by engaging with Local Authorities prior to the official launch, even though there was minimal detail. Once appointed the IGM worked proactively to promote the fund, reaching out to youth providers with whom they had existing relationships, using social media and sector newsletters to market the fund. Following the announcement of the first funded projects in May 2023, the IGM incorporated ‘success stories’ into their promotion of the fund on their website and in external facing communications.

The fund received over 1,000 applications, totalling over one billion pounds, more than three times the amount of funding available. Applicants welcomed YIF2 and expressed that it was the first capital investment opportunity for the youth sector in many years.

Over a third of applications (37%) were recorded as ineligible in the programme data typically at the first stage of the assessment process. The geographic eligibility criteria were well understood by applicants, but they would have benefited from greater clarity on how open access youth work was defined to establish their fund eligibility. Not owning the building or site at which the project was planned was a common reason for applications being unsuccessful. Stakeholders reflected that it could have been beneficial for building ownership or lease status to be included in the fund eligibility criteria.

Programme guidance that set out what revenue and capital funding could be used for, and the importance of environmental sustainability for investments, would have been helpful for applicants in the development of bids. Applicants were not sure about the weight given to the environmental sustainability of investments in the assessment process and were keen for the costs of their projects to appear reasonable. Clarifying how environmental sustainability would be assessed would have given applicants greater certainty about whether and how to integrate sustainable capital features into their projects.

Applicant assessment and contracting

The application process entailed an online EOI, followed by tailored support from an assigned Relationship Manager as a point of contact for those accepted at the EOI stage. During the application process, Relationship Managers sought further information from applicants on aspects such as governance, details of the capital project, and the team in place to support delivery. Applicants who received support from a Relationship Manager during the application process found it helpful (86%). Applicants described a collaborative process in which their Relationship Manager suggested they reconsider aspects of their application to improve it.

Once deemed ready by the Relationship Manager, each application was reviewed by the Assessment Panel, which was an expert group sitting independently. The Assessment Panel met monthly to review the applications against the three fund ‘pillars’ of organisational resilience, construction (the viability of the capital project), and the youth offer. IGM staff were felt to be responsive to feedback and requests from the Panel, which made the process productive and collaborative. Applications passing this stage, were then referred to the Grants Committee for approval. The Assessment Panel and Grants Committee process was seen by stakeholders as an effective and streamlined way to assess and approve the applications, particularly in the context of the volume of applications to the fund.

The assessment process was adapted during implementation to account for the timeframes and the awarded project portfolio, with the Grants Committee considering the balance of allocated funding between eligible areas over time. The IGM prioritised assessing applications for the largest funding amounts at the outset given that the timescales for completion of the funded projects was a challenge. Larger viable applications were generally expected to have planning permission in place. The requirement for planning permission to be in place varied between applications and over time, causing confusion among some applicants.

The IGM also aimed to select grant holders that were resilient and well-placed to deliver capital projects within the timescales of YIF2. The applicant survey suggests that this has been the case in practice, as successful applicants were more likely than unsuccessful applicants to have key aspects of good organisational management in place such as business plans, and volunteer management strategies.

Applicant understanding of the Assessment Panel process was limited. Applicants described having little information about what the process consisted of and how applications were assessed. Unsuccessful applicants were often unclear about why their application was rejected, and which part of their application could have been improved. Half of unsuccessful applicants (50%) were dissatisfied with the feedback provided. A lack of feedback fuelled views among some unsuccessful applicants that the assessment process lacked transparency, with some feeling they had been unfairly rejected.

Applicants’ experiences of applying to the fund were influenced by their prior experience in applying to large capital funds and the level of resource and capacity they had available to work on a bid. Applicants without prior experience frequently underestimated the time and costs associated with applying. Applicants said that a clear roadmap outlining the grant making milestones and stages would have been useful. Without this, applicants felt it was difficult to understand progress and plan accordingly.

Staffing of applicant organisations became a central concern of the Assessment Panel, particularly when assessing the youth offer. The Panel continually identified applications where staffing was unclear or insufficient. The IGM responded by reviewing revenue requests to ensure that staffing reflected the proposed levels of expansion and providing support on this theme via the Central Support Offer.

The due diligence process took longer than grantees had anticipated. They did not have a clear understanding of the process and felt this had not been well-communicated to them. This stage commonly led to delays for grantees and their projects, which in some cases led to expired contractor quotes and rising capital project costs due to inflation, forcing some grantees to use contingency funds.

Creating new and improved facilities

Once grant agreements were signed, grantees appreciated the flexibility with which funding was distributed with payments amended to accommodate build progress. This was deemed appropriate given the volatility in the construction industry. Grants were made upfront rather than in arrears, which meant monitoring was critical but complex as payments went out and evidence was requested afterwards.

The fund timescales represented a significant challenge and the IGM sought to maintain the momentum of the portfolio by engaging a construction company (Turner and Townsend) part way through fund distribution. Stakeholders felt that Turner and Towsend had made a valued contribution to keeping construction projects on time. They felt that having a construction company involved from the outset would have been beneficial to support the IGM on the more technical aspects of monitoring grantees.

All grantees worked with a Relationship Manager who was responsible for providing support. Relationship Managers had a portfolio of around nine to 15 grantees and had at least one monthly update with each, with contact increased to weekly or fortnightly if there were challenges with the project. Overall, grantees found the support from Relationship Manager to be invaluable and welcomed advice about financial management, youth engagement and other topics. However, grantees noted that this was not as effective with challenges related to construction, and stakeholders also felt that the support may have been more effective if the Relationship Managers had more construction experience or a higher level of understanding of the construction process.

By June 2024, there were 151 approved packages of the Central Support Offer, totalling £732k. Main Fund grantees (44%) were more likely than Refurbishment Fund grantees (6%) to have an approved Central Support Offer package. The variety of support offered is notable, with grantees accessing 14 different types of support. Grantees that had attended Central Support Offer networking events and webinars found them useful and said they enabled them to build networks, share knowledge and learn from peers. However, stakeholders generally felt that the Central Support Offer became available too late, especially for grantees who had received funding in the first phases and were nearing completion.

Lessons learned

Several of the lessons identified in this report result from the fund timeframes. The IGM has worked at pace and demonstrated a willingness to pause, reflect and iterate to continuously improve. The volume of applicants processed by the IGM is notable and they have put in place a diverse Central Support Offer to strengthen grantees’ delivery. The evaluation has identified the following overarching lessons to inform future funds:

• Consider setting indicative or minimum levels of funding per region to help ensure funding contributes to increasing access to youth facilities across all eligible areas.
• Have pre-construction grants available from the outset to build capacity and capability for the development of applications from organisations across the youth sector, broadening funds beyond those ready and able to apply when the fund was launched.
• Use unambiguous eligibility criteria and detailed programme guidance to enable the most effective use of applicant and IGM staff time and resources.
• Create and communicate a map of the application and grant process outlining what is required at each stage, with indicative timelines to help applicants to plan for and manage their resources, the due diligence process, and grant management.
• Outline and communicate to applicants how applications will be assessed, including the relative importance of environmental sustainability where funds have environmental aims.
• Allocate sufficient resource to providing feedback to applicants against assessment criteria to ensure opportunity for constructive feedback and greater learning to support future applications.
• Given the much-valued role of Relationship Managers, improve processes to ensure effective handover arrangements in instances where Relationship Managers change. Ensure access to technical knowledge, skills and advice for Relationship Managers to enable them to give advice and signpost technical support to grantees.